June 14, 2022 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community and Capital Improvements Financing Authority

Video

Transcript

[00:00:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our study session of June 14, 2022. 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 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 location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.legistar.com. youtube.com forward slash Mountain View Gov 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, enter the zoom meeting, or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today or received directly by the city council. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:01:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Koga?

[00:01:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:01:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member labor. Leaper?

[00:01:47] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[00:01:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek?

[00:01:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:01:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show welter.

[00:01:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:01:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Nice Mayor Hicks.

[00:01:56] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:01:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor, Mayors.

[00:01:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:01:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a car?

[00:02:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, we'll now proceed to the 1st item, uh, Draft 2023 to 2031 housing element. Translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreters. , ,

[00:02:18] Unknown Speaker: uh, [non-English speech not transcribed] yuan, , yuan, , and juso, race hand annual, , in the , she, she, she. [non-English speech not transcribed]

[00:03:05] Unknown Speaker: Gracias.

[00:03:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The purpose of the study session is to provide the city council, the opportunity to review and provide input on the draft 2023 to 31 housing element. Um, We will, after the staff presentation, we'll go to public comment and then we'll return to the council for questions and deliberation. Senior planner, Ellen Yao, an advanced planning manager, Eric Anderson will present the memo.

[00:03:40] Eric Anderson: Thank you very much, mayor. Um, I'm just waiting on Senior planner, yeah.

[00:04:01] Unknown Speaker: Thank you so much. joining in as a panelist.

[00:04:08] Eric Anderson: Okay.

[00:04:21] Ellen Yao: Are you able to see my screen?

[00:04:25] Eric Anderson: Yeah.

[00:04:27] Ellen Yao: All right. Thank you. Good evening. So thank you very much. Mayor and council members. I just want to let you know, this is our final study session. We've gone through, um, the last 2 in 2022, 2021 and 2022. So tonight we are seeking input on the draft housing element. Well, my name is Ellen Yao, the project planner, and I'm joined by Eric Anderson, advanced planning manager, and our consultant team, Stephanie Haker from BAE Urban Economics, and Evan Wasserman from ESA. Tonight's presentation will go over feedback from the EPC and council from previous study sessions. We'll go over public comments, brief discussion on the inputs, such as the housing needs assessment, and constraints analysis, and the outputs, um, the majority of the council discussion that we'll have will cover the housing programs and the site's inventory to address Rina. And then lastly, we'll go over recommended rezonings and general plan amendments that we recommend concurrent with the housing element update. Um, overall, we have a total of 4 questions for the council tonight. So here is a list of council direction from the last meeting in March. Council directed staff to include the general plan village centers where general plan allows for residential, and then to study additional areas, such as shopping centers where the general plan does not allow for residential, the soft drive area, the non-historic churches in our districts, and non-historic underutilized government sites. We're also told to proactively contact all property owners with sites or potential sites that were included in the site's inventory or in the back pocket list. We excluded the target site, and we also kept the transit center and El Camino Real Village centers in Moffat Boulevard in the back pocket site list. We were also recommended to amend wording to the draft goals and policies to ensure that they are concrete, specific changes, um, for gold one, policy one. 7 and policy 2.7. Lastly, uh, the draft housing element, um, it includes some of the programs that council recommended, including, such as reducing parking requirements for 100% affordable housing. This is identified in program one. one. Explore funding for efficiency studios in program 2.one and explore innovative housing solutions such as community land trust, CLTs, in program 2.one. And again, in 2.one to also evaluate affordable housing overlay on churches. And lastly, update the nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance to preserve units in R1 and R2 zones. That's identified in program one. 3. So with the input from the community, from community meetings, looking at HTD required analyses and getting council direction from the last 2 study sessions, the draft housing element was completed and we published it on our project website on May 6th of this year. So the public review period was made available, is required to be available for 30 days, and uh, we extended that from May 6, um, and accepted comments on the draft up until today, June 14th. At the May 18th EPC study session, the EPC provided their recommendations on the draft housing element document. On the 4 bullet points you see here, the EPC recommended modifications to programs, which I will talk about later in detail. The EPC also supported the draft housing overall housing draft pro, the draft housing program, the draft sites inventory, and also the recommended current rezonings. Um, the general plan, um, and El Camino Real Village Centers plus the 87 East Evelyn Avenue site. The EPC also recommended staff to add narrative to the document about the city's efforts to address the job housing imbalance. Specifically, the job's housing linkage programs that we see, um, was done for the East Wisman precise plan. The EPC also recommended a couple of discussion items that they wanted the council to look at, such a small business displacement in Charleston Plaza as an opportunity site, and we'll discuss that a little bit more in detail later. So far, the city has received public comments on a range of different topics. Some of them are highlighted here on this slide. These are summarized more in the staff report, and also includes staff analysis. of how the draft housing element responds to each of these comments. Furthermore, in the staff memo, we've also included attachment of all the income, the received comments we had. So as part of the draft housing element, there, um, are a couple of big notable changes from the 5th cycle to the 6th cycle. Uh, 2 of the main ones that we included are the assessment of fair housing, the AFFH, and the site's inventory, which evaluated, um, sites through the lens of AFFH. Right here on this slide are the 4 major components of the draft housing element that we will discuss this evening. The housing element document is organized into 4 sections and includes 7 appendices. It is organized based on lessons learned from previous cycles and HCD guidance, and has been developed for effective implementation, and to help us streamline the annual reporting process. So tonight, we'll go over the input, such as analyses done for the housing needs assessment and the constraints analysis. And they'll also cover the outputs, the site's inventory to accommodate the arena, and the programs to address identified housing needs as part of the goals, policies, and programs list. So 1st I'll talk up through a little bit about the housing needs assessment. Here are select findings from that assessment and identified. Um, again, this is just a small snippet of, um, the summary, but, um, more than one half of a mountain view household rent. So that means there is a need to help renters as they are more susceptible to cost fluctuations. Programs to provide services and resources to renters is included in program 2.3. And prioritization for anti-displacement efforts are important, and we've identified that in program 3.2. Households also have a very high housing cost burden. So this means, um, that housing costs affect more than 80% of lower income household, which means a lot of their income is dedicated towards towards housing costs. So this means there is a need for affordable housing. Um, In order to release some of that cost burden, specifically for our low income earners. So funding sources and partnerships to further advanced affordable housing development is identified in programs 4.2 through 4.5. And then lastly, identified here is overall, there are much higher home values in the city of Mountain View than in our county and across the Bay Area. So this means ownership, housing inventory is skewed towards the higher earners. Um, so we've identified and programmed 2.one developing affordable housing funding strategy to support things like home ownership programs, to address all the diverse housing needs in the city. Next, I'm going to go into the constraint analysis. I want to say that as part of the constraint analysis, one of it was doing a quantitative assessment, specifically on the impact of government factors on development costs. The constraint factors that the city can address is mainly divided into these 4 categories. And for each one. We have identified programs, and I'll cover that in the next slides. So you can see here in the list and in the diagram to the right. We have BMR requirements. They are identified as a significant portion of development costs, about 9.3%. But we also have to acknowledge that this is one of the major mechanisms the city has to meet its affordable housing goals. There's also fees and other payments that developers have to pay, and they include parkland dedication and loopy transportation impact fees, community and other impact fees like for East Wisman. water and sewer fees. Um, these fees together, uh, cost up to about 10% of development. Costs. And, um, as you can see in the diagram there to the right, that the parkland dedication fee, um, is the majority of these fees and other payments. Development standards include parking, development of parking costs, transportation demand, demand management, open space, and other requirements that we require as part of housing developments. This comes up to a total of about 6%. Um, but as you can see, some of these requirements are kind of necessary to address, um, certain concerns we have, like transportation demand management. Um, then we last, lastly, we've identified process and review times as a constraint. This is estimated about one% pretty reasonable. So now I'm going to go into the housing plan, the program specifically. So the programs included here. Um, they highlight and they are in direct response to each of the constraints that identified in the previous slide. So as you can see, uh, program .one. 11 is our program review for BMR. So BMR requirement is costly for developers, but again, a necessary tool to attain affordable housing. Nonetheless, uh, we'd have identified this program and it also includes a periodic review to ensure that the program, um, is, um, meeting our affordable housing needs and that there's program efficacy. So the 1st review is scheduled for 2022 and then the following one will be in about 5 years after that in 2027. Um, As stated before, the Parkland dedication. It's one of the most significant government constraints identified. So program one. 10 the parkland ordinance update is included here to ensure that we review the requirements to reduce constraints as much as possible, but also find solutions where we can uphold our community values in getting high quality open space, which was identified as a concern in our public outreach. For development revisions. Uh, you know, we, we did identify this as minor constraint, and uh, but we do want to make sure that we're addressing any constraints as much as possible. So, uh, nonetheless, we will be conducting individual standard reviews such as reduced parking to address these concerns. So this was, um, also directed by council at our March 8th study session. So we have a program for that to address reduced parking for mobile housing. And then for reducing inefficiencies, we have created a program um, 4.one for revising and streamlining our review process. The city has already completed a comprehensive development review assessment. It's also known as a matrix study. And this study identifies specific actions to ensure that we achieve, um, this goal of reducing inefficiencies and improving our development review process. So the last slide covered land use and development process programs, these following 4 programs is specifically to further affordable housing. So this is a major component to, um, developing affordable housing is ensuring that we Support our partnerships and we have adequate funding sources to actually get affordable housing built. Do the high costs of developing affordable housing. It's very important that we increase our local and external funding sources through these partnerships and collaborative efforts. So it's very vital to facilitating this type of needed housing. So these identified 4 programs, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Uh, covers the broad range of establishing, um, partnerships with the private sector and philanthropy, um, agencies and um, partnering with subsidized housing developers on city-owned properties, as well as, um, going above to the federal and state policy, um, to ensure that we can prioritize funding, and, um, um, using uh, the initiatives to uh, further, Support the housing development and to prevent displacement and removing barriers wherever possible. And then we have additional programs identified in goal 2 and 3, which is highlighted here. The main goal of these, the main purpose of these goals is to address affordable housing, publication process improvements and displacement prevention and mitigation. And these were also identified in our public outreach as well. Um, these programs do exist, um, but, uh, you know, we're hoping that these will improve such existing programs to make sure that, you know, we have these services. How can we get people um, to access them and be able to use them to the full extent possible. In addition to the handful of programs presented tonight, at this presentation, of course, there are more covered in the in our chapter 3 of the draft housing element, and I do want to state that the housing element is just one part of a multi-prong approach, where we have goals and policies and programs across multiple working documents, and they're all, um, there to achieve the city's goals. This includes a lot of the work done in our federal assessment of fair housing. We also have a city consolidated plan that was recently adopted in 2020. And then we also have our council strategic roadmap action plan that has a little more specific goals, and that's on a 2 year basis. Um, and it also includes some of the smaller, Studies that we have, such as the development review assessment, the matrix study that I mentioned earlier. So the city is working on many of these projects to address housing issues. And we have all these goals and programs, the further council goals in creating a community for all. Like I said, many of these actions are in other documents and they are in the early stages. So there's community outreach events and scheduled study sessions planned for later this year and through the next year. Um, these 3 programs here. talk a little bit about. But due to the timing of how the housing element needs to be submitted at certain times to HCD, specifics around how these specific programs will result in, um, very detailed workplanned tasks and deadlines, uh, are still in development, so they're yet to be developed, and, you know, staff is recommending not adding these 3 projects to the housing element, um, without adequate community and council input in determining the work plan for each item. So these programs are actively being worked on. But their exclusion from the housing element will provide the additional flexibility to the city. Um, so the displacement response strategy is a priority project on the council work plan, and we have 2 study sessions that are planned for later this year and next year. These study sessions will specifically discuss replacement of existing units for new development and the 1st right of return. Well, as part of our breakthrough grant, the city will have a dedicated fellow, funding and technical assistance to support work around advancing affordable housing and solutions to preventing displacement. So copas and topas, they are solutions, and they will be analyzed as potential options, um, among others like community land trust to addressing displacement issues. So this work will be evaluating all the options and combination of solutions that will directly address the community's needs. And by not including in the housing program, you know, it doesn't commit the city to the specific solutions before the evaluation. And then the R 3 zoning district update, is not included, specifically, council directed us not to include the R 3 update in the housing element. I do want to note that there is an action listed under program one. One to update the zoning ordinance where the city will complete a review of development standards in one or more zoning districts. So it is anticipating the work, but doesn't specify, and included, just as council directed us not to. So we're coming up on our 1st question. This covers the programs. EPC reviewed, um, the draft. Um, housing element. Like I said, I'll go over some of the specific recommendations of the programs we highlighted. Uh, so for program one. one, the EPC wanted to prioritize affordable housing specifically. And they recommended a separate action to review standards and fees, particularly for affordable housing, with specific deadlines. Um, staff leaves that, you know, development standards, they kind of apply regardless of whether the unit is market rate or affordable. But where it is appropriate, you know, we think that we can make sure that actions for affordable housing can be prioritized. So our recommendation in response to EPC's recommendation is that we can modify the objective to this program, to emphasize prioritization of affordable housing standards. So we can also revise the action with a separate, um, list under the description for reviewing parking standards for affordable housing, and then we can update the timeline to specify and commit us to reviewing this by December 31st of 2024. For program one. the Parkland dedication ordinance, the EPC had concerns that the action would be managed by another department, which is our community services division department. And they were concerned that the work would deviate from addressing the housing needs as identified in the housing element. However, um, you know, our department planning and community services staff are actively working together, and will ensure that constraints on housing development will be balanced. With, um, the communities, parks and open space needs as well as constraints. Um, Additionally, staff can add language to the action in the housing program, um, to identify those specific actions as part of the, um, Parkland dedication ordinance update, and then we'll also update the responsible divisions information for this program. For program 2.one. The EPC requested that specific actions and timelines, such as, um, including CLT, COPA, and Topa, be listed as specific outcomes for innovative programs. Um, like I said before, the work around innovative solutions to displacement is in progress, um, with our housing division, and we have the study session scheduled for later this year in early 2023. So we can't include those as, um, more detailed action items and we'll specify that those steps and updated timelines in the programs. And for program 4.one. Again, very similar to the recommendation, uh, for program one point, uh, For program 4.one, EPC had a similar notion, uh, for program one. one. And they wanted to prioritize actions for affordable housing, and they wanted specificity on actions to reduce review and processing times, specifically for affordable housing projects. So the planning and housing division staff, you know, we've already, um, initiated our internal coordinating meetings to identify some of those efficiencies specifically for affordable housing, like through our NOVA process. And, um, you know, we can update this program of additional details. So that kind of covers uh, the whole program, constraints and programs and recommendation from EPC. So our question for the city council is, does the city council support the post programs in the draft housing element? Are there other programs the city council would like to add from the list of projects that are currently not recommended. Um, such as displacement response strategy specifically the replacement requirements. We can do that. Um, so that covers, uh, My portion of the presentation and Eric can, um, unmeet himself and finish our presentation, we'll be going into the site's inventory.

[00:25:45] Eric Anderson: Thank you so much, Miss Yao. So based on feedback from the last study sessions. Council and EPC were supportive of the overall sites inventory methodology. So the site selection process generally means unchanged. It's based on existing residential capacity, constraints like historic or new buildings, and reflect the community visions for development and change areas and precise plants. The pipeline list does continue to be updated and will continue to be updated throughout the process. The pipeline rezoning list, now includes only 100% affordable projects. The inventory now includes rezone opportunity sites, which are based on general plan consistency and council direction. These are the general planned village centers the council directed us to include in the site's inventory. as well as the El Camino Real Village centers, which council wanted to include as a back pocket, but staff is recommending, including them in the site's inventory, because so that we can increase consistency with the general plan. Counsel did not, um, Let's see. This way, we can also get more units on sites that are currently constrained by a rezoning overlay process. Uh, uh, in these El Camino real village center sites. In addition, we've removed some sites, based on property owner outreach and council direction, specifically the target site for council direction. We've modified how to calculate the low and moderate income units. This was based on HCD guidance. We've also changed some of the density assumptions specifically for mixed use sites. Again, this is based on HCD guidance. Next slide. This results in an inventory that meets the 6 cycle allocations and it meets the HCD recommended buffers across all the income units. And again, as pipeline projects change or other information is discovered about sites, minor changes to the inventory and total are expected. This is slightly fewer overall units since the previous draft, but more affordable units. Slide. Rough housing element also includes a back pocket list, which provides options for future councils to consider rezonings to address no net loss. This is when if a site is part of a housing development and has fewer units in it than are identified in the site's inventory, we need to find other sites to accommodate those lost units. These areas generally require additional study and outreach to determine the residential viability and integrate integration into the community. These include some other shopping centers that do not allow for residential in the general plan, such as Bailey Park and the area along Lyon Drive. A few non-residential sites south of El Camino, such as offices across Cuesta and Miramonte from Blossom Valley. Um, the downtown transit center. This is obviously subject to analysis of feasibility to support its transit needs, and Moffatt Boulevard, which council intends to start working on a lease owning for in the, uh, coming, um, as part of the strategic roadmap. Staff is also identified areas that should not be in the back pocket or the site's inventory. These include the South Drive area near El Camino Hospital, non-historic churches in the R1 district. This is because staff has already identified this as a program, to rezone and does not need to be in the back pocket or site inventory. We don't have any churches or similar sites that have identified any interest in moving forward with this. So, uh, we feel it's not something that can be justified to HCD in the sites inventory, as well as non-historic government sites. We met with several other government agencies and found that these sites are constrained with existing uses for the foreseeable future. Next slide. The city council can consider alternatives that are not recommended, such as including sites from that pocket list or the not recommended list, such as removing sites from the site's inventory or the back pocket list, or adding other sites to the site's inventory. The EPC supported the staff recommendation. In addition, they recommended council discussed the Charleston Plaza site. This is the former location REI, as a housing opportunity site. So the 2nd question for council deliberation is, does the city council support the recommended sites inventory and good proposed General Plan Village centers, rezonings, and does the city council, um, prefer any of the alternatives to the sites inventory? So some sites that are included in the housing elements site inventory must be properly zoned in order to count as appropriate, uh, in the inventory. HCD requires these rezonings to be completed within one to 3 years, depending on when the final housing element is adopted. We recommend the following 3 rezonings and general plan amendment to concur to occur concurrently with the housing element, to streamline the process for these necessary actions. In addition, they would bring these sites more into consistency with state law and our general plan and to provide development standards to implement general plan policy. Specifically for the East Evelyn site, it would also streamline proposed affordable housing on city manners land. The 1st rezoning category is the John Plant Village Centers, as part of this rezoning. This would establish residential development standards in areas where residential was approved as part of the general plan. In addition, neighborhood serving retail would be required in addition to other character standards. Next line. The secondary zoning category is the El Camino Real Village Center. These areas are in the El Camino real precise plan require a legislative action to rezone the village center overlay to meet the highest densities allowed in the plan. Due to recent state laws and the inconsistency between the precise plan requirement and the general plan, staff recommends bending the zoning for these select ECR L Communarial Village centers. The amendment would remove the overlay requirement to reach 2.3 FAR, and the precise plan amendment would ensure these sites can contribute the most possible units to the site's inventory. Last one is the 87 East Evelyn Avenue site, which the city controls. The site would be rezoned to R4 and the general plan would be amended to identity residential. This would streamline future affordable housing applications. Again, we recommend the 3 rezonings in General Plan Amendment that to run concurrently with the housing element update. However, if the city council wishes to have more review, outreach, or options for the rezonings, we can delay the action. The housing element also includes a program to ensure that if these sites are not adopted with the housing element, It will be completed within HC deadlines for resounding of the housing element sites. The city council can consider alternatives that aren't recommended, such as concurrently rezoning other pipeline or back pocket sites, staff doesn't recommend this because of limited control the city has over these other pipeline sites. And because back pocket sites need more analysis and outreach. BBC supported the staff recommendations. In addition, They recommended language to maintain the existing amount of commercial in these village centers. They also recommended the council discuss the issue of key business tenants in general planned village centers and other areas, and whether new development may displace those, um, key businesses, especially as they might be important businesses for, uh, minority communities in the city. So the 3rd question is, does the city council support the draft strategy? Uh, for, Excuse me, support the draft strategy for rezoning the general plan at El Community Real Village Centers in 870 Stetland Avenue. Or would the city council prefer to delay the adoption of these reasonings to conduct more analysis? Does the city wish to adopt other general plan amendments and rezoning concurrent with the housing element update? So tonight is the best opportunity to provide feedback on the housing element update. We will finalize the sequo documentation, pair the final housing element in time for adoption by the end of the year. Draft housing element will be revised based on majority council direction tonight, before it is submitted to HCD. In addition, other minor changes to narrative sites inventory, other sections may also be made. HCD will have 3 months to review the draft and will provide comments in October. And while the draft is under review, staff will continue to make changes to the narrative. Uh, And tying, for example, constraints and needs to the programs, monitoring the pipeline projects, making updates and developing. Uh, In addition, staff will develop other options for EPC council to consider after HCD reviews. Final adoption is expected by the end of the year, after which we will have one more opportunity to revise the housing element before the final deadline in May. So in summary, here are the questions we're considering to consideration tonight, including one final question, does the city council have any other comments on the draft? This concludes our presentation. Thank you so much, and we are happy to answer any questions you might have.

[00:36:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Ellen and Eric, for the presentation. Before we go to council questions, we're going to 1st take public comment, so please raise your hands in the Zoom. You get a sense of how many public comments there will be. Um, there are a lot. Um, so, uh, uh, we'll have to limit, uh, the comment time to one minute and 30 seconds per speaker. Um, The 1st speaker is James Kusmal.

[00:36:43] James Kusmal: Good evening. Um, I'm James Kusmal. I'm live in Mountain View. I lived here my whole life. I just wanted to speak to a portion of Mountain View Yambi's letter regarding spatial segregation, Matthew. There are a bunch of very helpful diagrams and charts in the draft Helsing element that, um, lay bare, some of how historical segregation has led to Mount. You currently be in a state where one of our schools, Amy and my elementary, has 8% Hispanic students, and another, Mariano Castro has about 88%. Um, That's something that we should address morally and are required to address legally under the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements from HCD. The housing element as it stands does not do anything to either explicitly measure, um, ongoing spatial segregation in Mountain View, nor does it, um, enact any specific policies to plan to address that. And that's something we do need to address, um, and that needs to be both in terms of things like reducing the racial disparities in our schools, in where people live, in whether people live near, um, high pollution corridors or not. Uh, and we need to include appropriate metrics to track that, or we will not be in compliance with HD's requirements, and we will not be doing right by our housing elements. Thank you.

[00:38:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[00:38:20] Tim McKenzie: Hi, all, Tim Mackenzie, he and pronouns, resident of the Montaloma neighborhood. Um, and just with respect to displacement strategy, um, my understanding is that this housing element will exist, right now we're protected at the state level, uh, from a recent state bill, but that that will sunset while this housing element is still in effect. I would love to see a local ordinance past extending the protections that we currently have at the state level. Also, Copa, Topa, community land trust, that is an area that, again, as a resident, I think that it's hugely important. I think that there are models and things that we can look out in the local area and beyond, and this seems like a key part of housing strategy. Those are two pieces that I'd like to highlight and call for. Thank you.

[00:39:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Robert Cox.

[00:39:21] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[00:39:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[00:39:24] Robert Cox: Okay. Um, I'd like to raise some points on behalf of Louisville Mountain View on weather park land fees are constraint to residential development Mountain View. It's an important subject because it bears on the question of whether the park fees are set too high and impede development. Whether the fees are too high is a serious question, one that we considered many times while I was on the planning commission, and we were assured repeatedly by the staff that the fee levels were not designed to discourage development. In the previous arena cycle, Mountain View exceeded its state target for market rate housing many times. In this arena cycle, we have a 36% buffer to replace arena sites, and last year, one council member even raised a very serious question of whether all this market rate housing development will leave us little or no sites to develop for affordable housing in the future. Anyway, our general plan provides for Mountain View to grow 50% in the next 20 year time frame. Most of this will be with high density apartments or renters have no access to private green space. Having funding for new parks is a key to providing new and current mountain view residents with a livable environment. We, in mountain livable mind, you are looking for the council to maintain our ability to provide new green space as our population grows. We encourage the council to have a robust discussion on the issue of whether the fees are too high and where the money can come from. Tonight. Thank you for listening to our views.

[00:40:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Halla.

[00:41:01] Hala Alshahwany: Yes, good evening, council members and city staff. My name is Hala Al Shawani. I am a longtime resident of Mountain View. I am here to emphasize the importance of Parkland dedication in Lou Fi, and providing parks and green spaces to all Mountain View residents. In the staff, session memo that's attached to the agenda. It states on page 8 that more than one half of Mountain View households. Rent, and one fifth of the renter households are considered extremely low income. It is really important for that category in all categories, in our community, to have access to green spaces and parks. Um, park software, enormous social, environmental, and financial benefits to our community. The, um, The statement that was listed on page 17 of the housing element draft, it says that, um, The, um, Sorry that the, uh, Community uh, service department, we will try to accommodate uh, the parkland and maybe reduce the parkland fee, but that is a really contradictory statement because land costs money. And so I urge council to continue to keep the NLU fee in.

[00:42:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Halla. I'm sorry you run out of your time and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Tony Raff.

[00:42:43] Toni Rath: Hi there, I'm Tony. I'm a resident of Questa Park, and I just would like to ask you to consider 3 things. The 1st one is that, um, I would like to ask, please don't reduce the park fees. Um, construction is pervasive throughout Mountain View, and clearly the current park fees are no significant impediment to construction, and park fees are an investment in the future quality of life in Mountain View, so we should not reduce them. The 2nd thing I'd like to ask is to make sure that we do not lose the retail space in the village shopping centers. It is important that we have a walkable community, and in order to have a walkable community, we need to have close by services, restaurants, shopping, what have you. And the staff report has a very low bar of recommending a certain amount of retail space. I would like to ask that that requirement is changed to preserve at least the existing amount of retail space, so that we do not lose these vital services and keep our communities walkable. And then the 3rd thing I would like to ask is that you do not reduce the minimum parking requirements, because we already have areas of higher density where we experience fillover parking issues, like Litham Street or Vism Park area. All residents rely on cars for transportation at all income levels. Um, so please do not reduce the minimum partner requirements. Thank you.

[00:44:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Leslie Friedman.

[00:44:21] Leslie Friedman: Thank you very much for this opportunity to share my point of view with the staff and council. Please do not reduce requirements or fees for Parkland dedication. This is one of the most important aspects of new places to live. It's my understanding that developers buy up, possible housing sites, and make huge plans for huge developments. They're already doing it without any few reductions. As Mountain View grows very quickly, there is less and less private green space and pressure on park areas will be feet, fierce. The parks will be crowded. If a developer offers a dog park space or playground space, they're handy spaces, but they're not available for a real park area for walking, or for trees and shade, or even for quiet. I hope you will continue the parkland fees. It's necessary for our mental health, and also for healthy loans. I'd like to say also that I hope you will not reduce parking for affordable housing. People who live in affordable housing, also need to park their cars. There's no sign that the cars are going to disappear right away. And please do not reduce the retail in village centers. That will go broke really fast. Thank you.

[00:45:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Ilya Gurin.

[00:45:57] Ilya Gurin: Good evening, city council. My name is Ilya Gurin with Mountain View Yimby, and I want to speak to you about development constraints. The, The arena allocation for Mountain View, uh, in the 6th in the 6th cycle requires us to approximately double the rate of housing development that we've seen in recent years. Most residents agree that, that, that housing, if you will, is like broccoli. It may be unpalatable to sun, but it's necessary for a healthy city. In fact, we treat it more like another famous Bay Area vegetable, and I'm referring to cannabis. We tax it and regulate it half to death. And push people into illicit, uh... illicit, uh, markets. As far as development constraints go, the housing element calls for mostly business as usual. In fact, according to the city's own analysis, fees have nearly doubled since the fifth cycle, and so has development, permit time. We need to do something in the housing element to address these issues. Thank you.

[00:47:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mary and Ed.

[00:47:38] Mary Hodder: Can you hear me?

[00:47:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[00:47:42] Mary Hodder: Okay. Uh, I'm Mary Hodter. Thank you very much for having us speak. I want to support the livable Mountain View letter that Robert Cox talked about, but I also want to mention the issue of small bay retail and 10 minute neighborhoods. Um, I believe that this is a community benefit. To have small day retail with low margin businesses like small groceries, workout studios, credit unions, shoe repairs, personal care. The kinds of places that people need to walk to. If we're putting in density and people have to drive miles to get to these services, we have solved nothing. Um, developers tend to gloss over the details for retail and we do not want any more block or half blocks like the Wells Fargo on Castro Street, where one business that is not terribly helpful to the citizens um on a daily basis, except for those Wells Fargo customers, is taking half a block. Um, and developers like to dream of Apple computers coming in or the like, but it is the, the kinds of heritage restaurants, cafes, shoe repair places that help people day to day. Um, Alon did a great thing with Rose Market and we alterations in the other businesses at 801 El Camino, when they guaranteed 5 years of low rents. I would like to see this become a standard for all the small day retail that we should be putting in everywhere. And lastly, I would like to point out that Portland does this. Requiring all of their 30 neighborhoods to be 10 minutes to account.

[00:49:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mary. I'm sorry you exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Luis Katz.

[00:49:25] Louise Katz: Thank you very much, council members. Can you hear me?

[00:49:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[00:49:31] Louise Katz: Okay, thank you. Yeah, so, again, I wanted to reiterate, as others have said, the issue of parking. We have to be realistic. We don't have transit. It's been promised for decades, decades, and decades. We don't have the BART connection. We don't have a way to get to the airports efficiently. And low income people, all the studies indicate that they rely the most on their vehicles. Plumbers and carpenters are not gonna be taking the bus. Service workers, work odd hours, as cleaners, at restaurants, hotels. When the least amount of transit is running. Service jobs require cars. And for people with developmental disabilities, AIDS must be there to park. AIDS work many different clients, often during a work day. And if they can't find a place to park. They simply will not serve those clients. The message to the low income communities is that, basically, they're not really wanted if we do not accommodate their needs and their lifestyle. Also, I wanted to point out, again, as has pointed out before, that minimum token retail is not going to work for our city. The EPC saying maintain our retail is, as it exists now, is extremely important. We are a fully developed city of 100, approximately 170 years old, and we would be going backwards by taking away our retail. We would, in essence, become a bedroom suburb. Thank you.

[00:50:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Daniel Shane.

[00:51:07] Daniel Shane: Sorry, I had to unmute. Hi, I'm Dan Shane. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the city council. And you can't hear me, correct?

[00:51:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We can hear you. Yes.

[00:51:20] Daniel Shane: Thank you. Um, A lot of people have been talking about. Do not are asking you not to eliminate the Parkland fees. In fact, uh, city council member had, um, confided in me that, We should approve, but the city council should approve, the city should approve, fees from both commercial and housing developments in order to, um, finance and invest in parkland. We hear words like constraints to housing development. From park fees, environmental protections, and things like that. These, just, just using that word constraint is real problematic because it's not a constraint, is actually necessary for our living and, you know, with quality of living and, um, that sort of thing. So, it's important that we engage in public early on in the planning stages of the housing development. This would allow the developer to engage with the residents, and to get feedback from on the development from the neighborhood and from the community. In this way, early collaboration and cooperation, maybe even during the

[00:52:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, Dan, you've exhausted your time, and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is partis. Oops, I'm sorry. I needed the wrong person, Salim. Why don't you go ahead?

[00:52:55] Salim Damerdji: Hi, um, I'm Salim. I've co-authored research on housing element policy. I read HCD review letters in my free time. Um, and I guarantee you this draft will not be accepted by HCD. I assume staff knows this. 92% of LA area housing elements have been rejected, and we have not learned from their mistakes. There are more statutory violations in the site inventory than I can fit in a 92nd comment. For one, the city assumes that 100% of the pipeline units listed on page 242 and 243 of the draft housing element will be built within 8 years. The city does this without any analysis, even though HCD site inventory guidebook states that the city must actually demonstrate these units can be built within the remaining planning period. page 6 of HDD's citementory guidebook. HCD already enforced this guideline with Culver City that also made heroic assumptions about their pipeline. Um, in that letter to Culver City on April 21st. They uh, criticized Culper City for, quote, simply concluding all projects are expected to be permitted within the eight-year planning period, end quote. There's no explanation why this analysis is missing. HCD's guidance is also clear that to claim residential capacity for master plans. The city should describe necessary approvals or steps for entitlement for new development, and describe any development agreements, end quote. We can't do that for North Bay Shore because you haven't even approved a development agreement yet. We're missing a lot of analysis. We know HCD is going to require from this housing element draft. There's no way this is going to get proved. Thank you.

[00:54:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is partis.

[00:54:30] Pardis Beikzadeh: Hi, I'm part of stakes at a, um, 11 year resident, um, recent, uh, American citizen, uh, uh, 5 year homeowner. I live in Rex Manor. I, uh, wanted to give public comment on, um, and actually about what the staff just presented. I personally believe that including the R3 update in our housing element is more flexible, rather than less flexible, because it is, um, letting us put our eggs in multiple baskets, um, in order to ensure that we have different options for reaching our rena goals. Um, I think that, given, uh, the lack of staff capacity to accept more gatekeeper projects until 2024. Um, we need to have uh, more ways uh, to enable development by right and in streamlined ways. Um, and I believe that this would be beneficial for everyone involved. This staff will have more time to spend on more important things. And the people get to live there and more importantly for the city as a whole, which I think will thrive with more people here. Um, thank you.

[00:55:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kelsey Bane.

[00:55:54] Kelsey Banes: Hi, uh, good evening, counsel. My name is Kelsey Baines. I live in Rex Manor. I'm a member of Mountain View Yimby. Um, and I'll associate my comments with, um, with partis and, uh, with Salim. Um, and I won't repeat the things they said. I'll just say, I found this process to be a bit frustrating. I feel like we've brought up some major problems with this housing element and we haven't seen them addressed by staff yet. Um, what I hoped would really be a comprehensive plan. to meet the needs of everyone in the community. Um, instead kind of seems like business as usual. Um, and kind of making the plan as as small as we can to commit to as few programs, um, as we can. So I would like to see our 3 and anti-displacement be committed to as part of this housing element. Um, we're also mandated by law, um, by AB 686 to dismantle patterns of segregation, and we haven't even talked about those, what those patterns are. Um, and how to dismantle them as part of this conversation. Um, and then my final point is just that we have a growing need for homes that aren't car dependent. There's a lot of people talking about the need for parking, and I'll just say I got into housing, working with disabled homeless veterans, and it was very difficult to find housing, and they weren't looking for parking spots. They were looking for places to live. We also have seniors whose life expectancy is.

[00:57:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Chelsea. I'm sorry, you've exhausted your time, and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Peter Katz.

[00:57:41] Peter Katz: There we go. Found the un menu button. Thank you, Mayor Ramirez and the steam city council members. I'm Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. We recognize that the housing element is essentially a land use decision, an inventory exercise that maps out locations where housing could potentially go in order to meet our city's growing need, and to meet state requirements. But zoning is only the first question that needs to be answered. The units still need to be built. And that's where our letter, and many others, have placed their focus, as the current process for construction has significant government restraints. including permits, fees, estimates, and so much more. They make it too costly, both in terms of time and money. for the housing goals to be realistically met. The city understands this, which is why the matrix study is so important. The city also understands the urgency. Businesses are struggling, housing needs are acute, and our inability to provide suitable new units in a timely fashion will directly impact our economic health and vitality right now. As stated, there are plans in place, such as the matrix study, that together with the housing element, more fully address housing in general. To examine only one in isolation, but simply identifies areas for use, will not be accurate nor realistic. If the land cannot be developed. So we urge the council to direct staff to include the housing element direct linkage to other key documents noted, such as the matrix study, and other relevant points by stakeholders. With firm commitments, direction, and deadlines. Thank you.

[00:59:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is David Watson.

[00:59:21] David Watson: Hi, I'm David Watson, a member of Mountain View Yimby. Uh, I, uh, also wanted to, uh, say something short about, uh, affirmatively furthering through housing. Um, The fees we impose on the new development of multifamily residential are wildly inequitable. Vulnerable populations in Mountain View overwhelmingly live in the highest density residential units available. Mountain View's public fees are structured to target these exact types of developments, driving up the cost of their construction, and thereby raising events, the eventual residents will pay. These fees, then go back to the city to support amenities that are enjoyed by homeowners in our one zones, were exempt from many of these fees. Those who look at our fee structure and worry that we're not charging apartment, apartments enough for new parks, and therefore, those apartment dwellers will not get to live in parks, or will not get to experience parks, get the, uh, sequence events almost exactly backwards. Apartment dwellers are the ones who are paying for all the parks that longtime homeowners are getting the benefits of, and we'll continue to get the benefits of. And this is not in keeping with the goal of, uh, furthering fair housing. Thank you.

[01:00:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is ED Keating.

[01:00:52] Ed Keating: Thank you. Mountain View is an awesome city because the majority of residents want opportunities for people of all income levels. I am proud of this pro housing city council. Well, near future councils reflect our pro housing city. Until Mountain View adopts rank choice voting, our elections lack certainty of continuing to reflect the will of its residents. I encourage you to include your priorities in the housing element now. We should be relying on a local ordinance, similar to SB330 to stop displacement, not a state ordinance with an expiration date. Consider lowering parking requirements. Visit 280 Easy Street any day, or night, to see the wasted space of excess parking. Yes, do rezone for maximum housing. Thank you for being a pro housing pro Affordable Housing Council.

[01:01:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[01:02:05] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel, my name is Kevin Mom. I'll be representing the League of Women Voters, in La Salas Mountain View tonight, in our letter. We are a note that we are pleased with the recommendations made by environmental planning commission and staff. Incorporating some of our earlier suggestions in that letter we sent similarly to EPC at the time. And therefore recommend that council take up the recommendations, such as explicitly adding Copa, Topa, whatever, into the programs as well as commitment to reduced parking standards. Our general views have been already reviewed in the staff presentation on comments, that being that the programs are really big, that the timelines are not really there. The analysis for constraints seems a bit summary and lacks a lot of details, and one of our, the biggest flaws is that the, does not seem to be a reflection of any of the public input that has been provided in this process, the appendix, I believe H on the input is just the one workshop and the one form. Which does not include all of the short meetings, or shorter meetings with less people, of the stakeholders. And that the side analysis still seems to be predicated on very optimistic assumptions that may or may not pan out depending on complications that come up in the way. And we really want to see some emphasis that affordable housing does get encouraged rather than in the same issues with everyone else. Thank you.

[01:03:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Lee Zhang.

[01:03:44] Lee Zhang: Hi, uh, this is Lee Zen. I'm long time, uh, Mountain View residents. I've lived here over 20 years now. And I just attended Chinese Civic Academy, organized by City of Mountain View, and I really appreciate the opportunities and learning how CD runs. Um, I'm just, uh, this meeting is a little bit overwhelming for me because, um, like, I don't really know any of my Chinese friends, of Chinese residents, or even my neighbor, who blow some valley, anyone talk about this, uh, housing elements. And when I mentioned housing elements to people, they were, like, housing element, what? So I can't rhyme with the guy who I just talked. Uh, I'm not really sure how much you guys have already got, uh, the inputs from the, the people who actually, uh, live in Mountain View. Uh, when I moved here many, uh, 20, 20 more than 20 years ago, it, it was a very different city, and now it becomes more dense, uh, each day. I'm just wondering, uh, it's our city's responsibility to solve the whole housing issue, or this is the issue. We need to collaborate with the other cities, other counties, and with the state of California, and now, have, you know, make this to be our issue, make this to be, like, San Francisco. As I... A lot of residents, like...

[01:05:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, Lee. Um, I know there's not a lot of time to speak, and I have to be fair to everybody, but I'm very grateful for your participation and congratulations on, uh, your participation in the academy. And I hope that you will continue to participate in council meetings. The next speaker is Tim.

[01:05:38] Tim Larson: Thank you. This is Tim Larson with the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance. Uh, just wanted to thank the council and staff for the focus on providing, uh, affordable housing and increased housing options, uh, and wanted to encourage you to include the mobile home residents when you look at the uh, community opportunity to purchase, uh, and and make sure that we're not left out of any sort of, um, activity on that front. Thank you for your time.

[01:06:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Emily Ann Ramos.

[01:06:19] Emily Anne Ramos: Can you hear me?

[01:06:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[01:06:23] Emily Anne Ramos: Wonderful. Hi, my name is Emily Anne Ramos representing Silicon Valley at home. Um, the 6 housing element cycle, a housing cycle. Shoot. It's a unique opportunity to fully assess housing needs and mountain view and to identify new tools to address these needs and constraints to developing housing. It's also opportunity to engage deliberately with the full community, especially those who are represented for populations that have been historically excluded, and are at risk as displacement to share their housing needs. Um, we understand that this is actually a difficult process and we appreciate staff's work in the last 9 to 12 months. Um, But we do feel that there are some things missing as, um, basically, there's very little transparency about the structure, content of various stakeholder meetings and what needs were identified and what solutions were discussed. As a result, it's impossible to assess whether this process has met the standards outlined by HCD. There's little or no evidence that the current draft reflects the input received through this process. This lack of transparency, greatly limits substantive public engagement throughout the process. Under AB 686 and the changes to housing element law, the city must demonstrate how the input from these stakeholder meetings and public meetings shape the housing element draft, particularly to affirmatively further fair housing. The housing element must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community participation, consultation, and coordination through entire process and source the housing needs and possible solutions from the community. We hope that that changes as we get.

[01:07:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Emily. I'm sorry. You've exhausted your time, Matt, to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is Nazamine.

[01:08:03] Nazamine: Yeah, hi, um, I don't have too much to say. Um, but my, my concerns are, uh, I guess, reduction of retail, uh, and reduction of, of, um, parking and reasons for that is that, um, it kind of, um, reduces the sense of community. Um, especially since I've heard that people are, um, concerned about issues like segregation. And, um, and parking, you know, spillover has always been a concern. It spills over into other communities and, um, unfortunately builds resentment and also is unsafe for residents. Um, and um, just just walking the distance and not being able to park close to your community. Um, has been traditionally unsafe. Um, so please make that a consideration when, um, there's talks about reduction in parking. Um, when these, these, uh, these communities are designed.

[01:09:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Thank you. The next speaker is Avenidas, LGBTQ programs.

[01:09:30] Thomas Kingry: Hello, um, hi, my name is Thomas Kingry, I'm the, um, program manager for Avenidas Rainbow, uh, collective. And I apologize. I came from the car to my tabletop, and you guys started letting people talk, and I was wondering where we are on the agenda. Are we at 7. right now or are we not there?

[01:09:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, we are not close.

[01:09:49] Thomas Kingry: Okay, good point. All right. Well, I will raise my hand during 7.1, then. Thank you.

[01:09:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[01:10:02] Alex Brown: Hey, friends. Alex Brown from the Mountain View Mobile Home Lines here. The state session's been a long time coming, huh? I'll be quick. You all know from my occasional public comment that I am very supportive of housing production. I'm super pumped to have more neighbors up here in North Bay Shore, including retail, well-designed public green space, though I'm not as bullish about parking lots. I'm like, my request tonight, on behalf of both myself and my fellow Mountain View mobile home residents, is about housing preservation and displacement prevention. I would like to request the council and staff ensure that mobile home residents are dressed early and explicitly in the housing element. I envision this as a two part approach. First, a commitment to enact a community opportunity to purchase that explicitly includes mobile home park sales and conversions. In addition, I would ask our commitment to establish a funding model that would enable residents to have a chance to exercise their new right under such a policy. Thank you for all you've done to support a community so far, and we appreciate your continued focus and support.

[01:10:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Anna Marie.

[01:11:05] Anna Marie: Hi, thank you. Hi, I'm Anna Marie. I use she her pronouns. Um, I'm a Mountain View mobile home resident and I've lived in Mountain View for over 40 years now. Um, I'm gonna basically echo what Alex Brown just said. I'm asking the council address the housing preservation and displacement protections. Um, I'm especially asking that mobile home residents are immediately and explicitly included in the housing element. This must be quickly addressed in order to protect the vulnerable mobile home community. Affordable housing is desperately needed and must be protected. Um, in our community. I'm very thankful that the displacement response strategy is something that is at the forefront of counsel's attention. Thank you for that. Um, I'd also like to know, um, like, have counsel or have, um, it's shown in the presentation, like what, if anything, in this draft was actually added because of community input. I think that would be nice to see. And I'd also love if the council can address segregation within this city. Um, it exists. It's still there. Um, please address that and, you know, include that in this. Thank you so much.

[01:12:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. That concludes the public comment period. Uh, we'll return to the council and uh, if you have your agenda flow open. You'll see that we do have to segment this discussion. Um, so we'll do that portion 1st and then we'll return to the balance of, uh, the, uh, the questions. Council member Lieber, do you have an announcement to make?

[01:12:49] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, I will be recreasing myself from consideration of inclusion of non-historic church sites and of shopping centers, um, in the housing element, because my residence is located within close proximity to one church and one shopping plaza.

[01:13:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. So, uh, somebody will let you know when to return uh, to the meeting, um, but, uh, we'll say goodbye for now. We will 1st have council consider inclusion of non-historic church sites on our one sites or our one zone properties and program one. of the housing element to allow affordable housing on these sites. Uh, the staff and EPC recommendation is to include this program, program one. And the housing element, and to, and not to include it in the listed back pocket set. Does council support this recommendation or does council wish to include these sites as back pocket site? Uh, 1st does any member of the council have questions? Or actually, questions or comments, uh, we can entertain together on inclusion of non-historic church sites. I don't see any questions. Any comments? If not, so does council support this recommendation or does council wish to include these sites as back pocket sites? council member leader? Sorry, count the number show Walter. I brain dead.

[01:14:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's okay. Um, yeah, I, I'm interested in, in including them. I think it's a, it's a good idea. Uh, and so I would like to support the staff recommendation. Do we need a motion for that?

[01:14:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No, we'll do a straw pull. Um, and just to, uh, so the staff recommendation specifically is to include it as a program. Um, and not as back pocket site. Uh, council member Mattischeck.

[01:14:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I was just wondering if council member Shell Welter wanted to say anything else. She looked like she, uh...

[01:15:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, well, I'm interested to hear that it's, it's, people are talking very fast tonight. Is that just me feeling that way? Anyway. Um, the difference between it being a program and a back pocket, uh, on the back pocket list. Could you explain that a little bit? Steph?

[01:15:30] Eric Anderson: Uh, sure, yeah, I'll step in here. Um, Eric Anderson, advanced planning manager. Uh, so it's not in the back pocket because we don't have any sites that we can confidently say, uh, would have be have feasible development if this, uh, process went through. Um, the program is also more certain. If it's something that the council really wants to do in order to create these opportunities, you know, and then find these opportunities later on, then it's appropriate as a program. The back pocket is kind of kicking the can to future councils.

[01:16:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Now, I, I, um, that's what I thought you were talking about. Um, yes, I I concur with the staff recommendation.

[01:16:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, and my apologies, Council member. Council member, Amanda, check.

[01:16:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, I also agree with the staff recommendation that it's part of a program.

[01:16:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or shall we just proceed to the, uh, straw, uh, pull, so let's just raise hands to demonstrate support. Uh, of the staff recommendation. One, two, three, four, five. uh so that is unanimous. Thank you very much. And now we'll go to the next question. Um, we will next have council consider inclusion of other shopping centers. and the EPC recommendation is to include these sites in the back pocket site. Uh, does council wish to support the inclusion of other shopping centers in the back pocket list, or should they be included in the size inventory? Inclusion in this current site inventory, it would require rezoning within 3 years. Does any member of the council have questions or comments, comments or questions on inclusion of other shopping center sites? Vice smear head?

[01:17:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I believe I support the staff recommendation, but because there's a lot of, um, concern about, uh, the direction our shopping centers would go in as we add housing, um, and I share this concern. I think that the, you know, being able to, uh, go a short distance to retail, be, you know, various types is crucial to people, um, for quality of life and so forth. Can you just answer, or go into a little more detail on, um, why what you think would be the best outcome for developing these sites and why you made this particular recommendation.

[01:18:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's a question for Stack.

[01:18:22] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, sure, yeah, I'll jump in again on this, Eric Anderson, advanced planning manager. Um, so there are opportunity sites in these other shopping centers, other shopping areas. We've found, we heard from property owners that they're interested in developing with residential. They're interested in developing mixed use. Um, and some of these are fairly underutilized properties. So, um, This is something where staff thinks we can carry out a rezoning, a future rezoning that considers all of those issues that you brought up, um, maintaining access to retail, um, ensuring that development, uh, in addition, kind of studying what appropriate densities would be appropriate given each of these other shopping centers that, that exists throughout the city. and other considerations. But we would need more time to conduct that analysis and the outreach necessary for it. And so that's why we propose putting it on the back pocket. We don't want to commit to any particular densities. But certainly acknowledge that the general plan village center framework that we present, where we do some analysis about the existing amount of retail in these areas, and set that as a minimum requirement moving forward, could be a framework that we could use moving forward on these other shopping centers as well.

[01:19:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I guess my follow-up. Thank you. That answers most of my question, and I guess the, uh, some follow up questions are, would, putting them on as backup back pocket sites, allow us to, uh, also study whether we need, um, whether we're getting super blocks, and we might want to break them up, whether we're getting public space, whether we're getting, uh, some of the things that other speakers mention, small, call it small, bay, retail, or smaller retail, not just, uh, large chain retail, All of those kinds of considerations, would we have the capacity to look at those things?

[01:20:34] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Absolutely. Yeah, that could all be part of the work plan for studying these up zoneings.

[01:20:41] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So, I would make a motion to accept staff's recommendation in that case.

[01:20:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I don't think we'll need formal motions, but we'll go ahead and turn to council member.

[01:20:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I am supportive of um, the other shopping centers going on the back pocket list, but I guess I had a question. Um, just in shopping centers in general, including the lens, um, that are, the village centers. Um, there was, uh, mention or in the staff report about EPC, um, discussion about maintaining the retail. Um, so where is that exactly? I mean, because I do support that concept that we should, um, maintain it, you know, It might be going out. But, um, hopefully you can hear me. Yeah, so maintaining what we have there, and then on top of that, we could add housing, but I would not want to see retail displaced by housing. And where does that go?

[01:22:00] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I mean, I, this, uh, question may also come up later in the discussion, as we talk about the specific rezonings for the General Plan Village Centers. Um, so I, I, um, we may want to defer that answer to that point, but I can, I can say briefly that EPC's recommendation and and counsel, our staff agrees with this and and we'll carry this forward. Uh, is this the staff recommendation, if agreed by counsel, uh, that, um, the General Plan Village centers and these other shopping centers, we would do an analysis of how much retail there is today. And we would set that as a minimum. generally for these, um, for these areas. So if it's, you know, .3 FAR or something like that, then we would say that you have to have that. That way if they do redevelop, they would have to replace the floor area, the retail floor area that they demolish.

[01:23:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. So we'll talk about that later, you mentioned.

[01:23:08] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, well, I'm sure we'll talk about it specifically during the, um, rezoning framework for the general planned village centers. question number three.

[01:23:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:23:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Not? Let's uh, do a show of hands, uh, to see if there's support for the staff recommendation. 2, 3, 4, 5? So there is unanimous support. Thank you very much. Now, um, Council will, uh, 1st we'll have to invite council member Lieber back into the meeting. And then, uh, the council will now consider the remaining aspects of this item, which excludes program one. 2 non-historic church sites and other shopping centers. Uh, we'll go ahead and take questions 1st um, on all aspects of the item, and then once we've finished questions, then, uh, we'll start deliberation and we'll go question by question, um, as, uh, listed in the final slide in the presentation. Uh, welcome back, council member leaders. Are there any questions about any aspect of the housing element, excluding the 2 questions that we've just answered? Council member of Akoka.

[01:24:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, mayor. So I just want to thank staff for all of your hard work on this. Um, the question I have has to do with, um, some comments that have been made. Um, I think, you know, there's some, there's concern, and I know there's concern about our how, the how, our housing element being approved by HCD in light of what happened to many cities in Southern California. And I was just wondering if staff has had a chance to look at, like, what the some, or if you know of some of the reasons for why some of those housing elements have were not approved. Um, I was trying to look up articles to read and there are many different cities and they all seem to have, you know, different reasons. Um, but, and so I was wondering if you could just maybe provide a handful of reasons that you kind of seen. And then in light of that, um, that, you know, I feel confident. This is a pretty thorough, causing element, but do you, yeah, have other concerns.

[01:25:52] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, sure. Yeah, I mean, certainly we've reviewed a number of, uh, high profile letters from, um, Southern California cities. We've also gotten summaries, uh, you know, forwarded to us of kind of generally what's happening across the southern California cities. Um, and and those are provided by our collaborative organizations that we work with, the county and the Bay Area, and and all of that is, and in addition, our consultants are even working on some of these southern California cities that, um, are lagging and trying to follow up. Um, you know, I think the, uh, a number of issues are related to, uh, the site's inventory, are you assuming in your site's inventory, um, mixed use, uh, and are you down, um, you know, reducing your expectations based on that? Are you showing that you're, um, uh, are you providing the kind of connections that and we heard this from a lot of the public comment, providing the connections between the public comment. during the housing element process and the analysis and the programs and sites inventory that you have. I will admit that that is a piece of the narrative that I think our housing element can provide a little bit more detail on, and we are working on that right now. That's not to say that those all weren't inputs in what we provided the council and to the public. And so I think, you know, we're confident that the information is there. It just needs to be pulled out and made more clear in the housing element. Um, You know, I'll tee it over to our consultants, uh, for any other themes, I don't know if they've joined or if they have been promoted yet. Um, But perhaps, Ellen, if you can think of any other themes, uh, from the, um, uh, from the analysis uh, of other jurisdictions.

[01:28:11] Senior Planner Ellen Yau: Yeah, I think you covered most of them, Eric, um, you know, there are other specific comments that some of those other cities have, um, and they are very helpful from HCD to provide like specific page numbers, and so those weren't necessarily applicable. Some of the big topic items that Eric covered. you know, we are still reviewing some of those letters. And so as we see unique cases from other jurisdictions, we are making changes to our and tracking that. I'll also note that, um, Southern California cities were put in a very rough position, they needed to pivot on, um, some of this analysis, uh, very quickly. It's almost as though HCD coming out with new guidelines next month for us. you know, and then we have to figure out how to resolve those. So, um, that's that's one issue that they had. And then, um, I think it is also really, really important to recognize that Mountain View has spent the last 8 years up zoning parts of the city to, um, uh, to provide better access for new residents, for transit, better access for new residents, for jobs, um, creating new complete communities, you know, and considering parks and schools and all of these other things. And it really shows, in our pipeline projects, we have a significant number of pipeline projects, as a percentage of our overall arena, We have a lot of affordable units in the pipeline. We've been really proactive about getting affordable developers to invest in properties and get, you know, go through our process. So, I think, um, all of that is sets us apart from a lot of the Southern California cities, who really have been a lot of the kind of, uh, notorious bad offenders, in terms of not, um, contributing to growth in the region.

[01:30:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Are any more from consultants or?

[01:30:17] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, uh, Stephanie, if you have any other thoughts on kind of what some of the big themes are that are coming out of Southern California, um, that were, you know, anticipating in our review?

[01:30:30] Stephanie Hagar: Yeah, hi. Hi, everybody. Steffy Hager BA Urban economics. I think Eric really covered a lot of the major issues. One thing that he alluded to is the sort of late issuance of guidance relative to the due dates for the southern California jurisdictions. And particularly the guidance for the AFFH analysis. Um, you know, even in terms of the maps that HCD is looking for in the assessment of fair housing, um, some of the ways that the, um, community engagement is meant to be, um, conducted what they're looking for in terms of identifying contributing factors in fair housing issues, um, you know, how this all relates to the site's inventory, you know, the AFFH component really runs throughout the entire housing element, and it's a major factor that drives a lot of how the housing element is constructed and the type of analysis that we're doing. And so I think for a lot of southern California jurisdictions, um, getting that guidance so late in the process, um, was a major factor, sort of hampering them from being able to switch, um, you know, make that as what they would need to make in order to fully address that guidance in time. Um, and I think, you know, so I think that's sort of what Eric was living to with, you know, guidance as though it was coming out next month. Um, that would sort of be the position that they were in. Um, and then, you know, I think Eric, you know, makes good points about the work mountain, he was already done. Um, so I just would like to echo all of that, um, but not a whole lot else to really add.

[01:32:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then, in terms of the process, so we could, we'll eventually submit this, and then HCD will respond and make, recommendations, so then we'd have a chance to make those changes and we submit is that, right?

[01:32:19] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's correct. Within certain timelines that they set. Uh, so, uh, if we submit our draft, which we are planning to do in early July, they will get back to us in early October. We are planning to bring this back before council for EPC in November and before council in December. So that will give us an opportunity to respond to their comments. In addition, we'll have even more, one more bite at the apple because they've given a grace period after the previous deadline of July 31st to May 31st. So they'll have 2 months to review and then we'll have enough time to readopt then after their review if there are any issues. Now, again, our intent is not to lowball this. Our intent is to provide a housing element that complies with HCD requirements, and, you know, the reality is, HCD is very unpredictable right now.

[01:33:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[01:33:24] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And so we are not going into it with our eyes closed. We anticipate comments based on this, but we are not trying to lowball it. We are trying to meet HCD requirements.

[01:33:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I agree with you. I think the key here is that HCD seems to be very unpredictable, as you mentioned, and, um, yeah, it's given that you mentioned that they sent out requirements. So, like, heat for Southern California that, you know, just gives me some pause as to the process and whether it's, um, reasonable, what they're asking, but, so thank you.

[01:34:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Bye, snare.

[01:34:10] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I have a process question as well. First, I did want to start out by thanking staff because this is, uh, you know, a difficult subject and and very complex and, um, if this is the site at the Apple, I, I think staff has done a great job. Um, the my question is that, um, when I had my staff briefing, I, we talked about the site inventory and programs, and I believe that, which are two components of the housing. And I believe that, uh, staff told me that, uh, we should really aim at finalizing the site inventory tonight, but that in the November and we should talk about programs, but in the November, December, uh, time frame, we would be able to have a second pass programs. And I want to confirm that that's true, and also, I'm asking, just because, frankly, that was, to me, a really important piece of information that members of the public and other council members might want to know as well. So is that, in fact, true?

[01:35:21] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that is true. Um, it really is imperative that we get some kind of finality on things like, what are we rezoning with the housing element? What, um, you know, what are, uh, what is our site inventory overall capacity? We really need final direction on that tonight in order to ensure that our environmental impact report is consistent with the project the council wants to adopt. You're also absolutely right. That we will have another bite at the apple on the programs, the adoption hearings will provide, we will prepare options for counsel. This is something that we mentioned we would do during the presentation, that over the next 6 months, We will prepare options for council to streamline that discussion in November and December. And so, um, you can look forward to another bite at the Apple on the programs discussion.

[01:36:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Then my other question, process question, this actually relates to something that Ms. Yao, you said, during your presentation, but I wanted to clarify it, that there are multiple housing programs, and some end up being appropriate for the housing element, and some can lie elsewhere in other documents and policies. So if it's not in the housing element, it doesn't mean that we're not going to do it. I want to, it's just where it would, where is the most appropriate place for that particular program? I want to make sure that I have that right, and that, that, um, you know, that other people understand that as well.

[01:36:55] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Vice Mayor Hicks, uh, our teacher Vastva, assistant, um, city manager, community development director. You're right. We have a number of documents, including our housing documents that are prepared for HUD, the council strategic work plan, and the housing element, and they work in tandem with each other to create a holistic program for housing. Council asked us to look at all the programs and recommend the ones that would, um, be appropriate for a housing element, and we have recommended that list. Um, the other ones that are not being recommended. We feel are not necessary for ACD guidance, but the council has the option of including them. Um, in the housing element if they wish.

[01:37:42] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And my, um, maybe my last question here is on the subject of affirmatively furthering fair housing, I had thought when we discussed it earlier that our, um, site inventory, that that was one of the places where we did that, because we, um, made sure, uh, during our last meeting, to, for example, include more site of the, you know. Um, and that also our anti displacement programming, uh, was, in large part, to do that. But I'm wondering about staff's perspective on that, what aspects of our housing element discussion, affirmatively for their fair housing.

[01:38:28] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Um, I let Eric, um, tackle most of the housing sites discussion, and, um, how we have, um, looked at site south of El Camino, and recommended them either in programs or in our other list.

[01:38:45] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, sure, I, you know, the, um, church sites, which council, uh, just discussed, you know, that was specifically intended to provide opportunities for affordable housing south of El Camino and areas of the highest, um, opportunity. We also have really scoured the area looking for every, uh, um, looking for possible opportunity sites south of El Camino, uh, including some, you know, underutilized office sites and underutilized medical sites uh, that we've put on the back pocket. Um, And, uh, we have also, um, you know, the general plan village centers, I think, are also part of that strategy of trying to get more opportunity sites, more sites for housing and affordable housing south of El Camino. In addition, I think it's important to recognize that Mountain View is a broadly, an affluent city with great access to jobs, great access to schools, great access to a lot of valuable amenities, and the provision of thousands of additional affordable units, which is something that we have in the pipeline, and something that we are addressing through our overall sites inventory in Mount does address um, those issues on a regional level.

[01:40:18] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I had thought we'd made some attempts at that, and, uh, but maybe if it wasn't clear to members of the public, we need to make those more explicit in the text, um, but this is time for questions, not comments. And then the last, my last question, this one's embarrassing, I should know. Um, is the uh, police site on the site inventory? I can't remember that.

[01:40:42] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Uh, the one on Villa?

[01:40:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:40:44] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: No, it's not.

[01:40:46] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it's not.

[01:40:46] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[01:40:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[01:40:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, um, when Vice Mayor Hicks was uh, mentioning what she had learned in her, um, her, uh, briefing. I wanted to bring up one thing that I thought was interesting that, um, uh, I learned during my briefing. And that was about how moderate income housing is treated. You know, when you look back at several cycles of arenas, The category we've really done the worst at is moderate income housing. I mean, I think we all, many of us agree that that what we need the most, that's the hardest to get, is the low income, the higher income seems to sort of, you know, come along. But the moderate income, we have had a great deal of trouble producing. And I was worried about how that's going to play out in the evaluation that the state gives our housing element. And, um, uh, staff suggested that that, that the, um, the, uh, the state pays much more attention to lower income, uh, an affordable housing production than it does, moderate and hiring. So I just wanted to sort of confirm that, that I got that right for my briefing, and, um, uh, and have, you know, that shared with everybody else.

[01:42:17] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, there are a couple of ways in which the state focuses a lot more on lower income housing than moderate income housing. One way is through, um, you know, one of the few ramifications of not meeting your arena, um, that, uh, is SB 35, uh, where you have to do, uh, have to improve ministerial, uh, Approve ministerially, uh, projects with a certain amount of affordable units, and that number is dependent on whether you've met your arena for above moderate units or whether you've met your arena for lower income units. Modern income units don't enter into it at all. Another way in which the state has really prioritized looking at lower income units is really, there's, there are so many complex and nuanced requirements for what you are allowed to count as lower income sites in your site's inventory. It has to meet a certain minimum density. You have to have certain minimum and maximum parcel sizes. They don't want to see project sizes more than 150 units or fewer than 50 units. And on and on and on. And, um, not to mention that if you are, you know, you, I mean, it's very, very complicated. There are a lot of rules, and most of those rules simply apply to the lower income sites. So, um, uh, I think that covers your question.

[01:43:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, it does. Thank you.

[01:43:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions? I have a few. I'll try and go through these as quickly as I can. Uh, 1st um, we've gotten, uh, Scott had responsive, responded to this question and the written remarks, but, um, I, I want to make sure I understand it, uh, and uh, the public has an opportunity to, to digest this, uh, can staff, provide whatever precise definition of constraint. Uh we are required to use in our analysis.

[01:44:35] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, okay, yeah, thank you for the question. I'll start, but then, um, I'll probably kick it over to Stephanie with BAE to kind of cover any anything that I miss. You know, a constraint is a very general term and can apply to very small thing. Um, it's not necessarily something that limits, that that makes all development impossible or even makes most development possible. The, um, The analysis is really focused on constraints generally, and looking for ways to reduce constraints, whatever form that they may take. So we are focusing in our housing element on both the things that are easy, constraints that are easy to reduce, and significant constraints, large cost factors, where we get a lot of bang for the buck. Um, in the end, we are showing that, and, you know, we intend to further show that, um, by carrying out the programs that we have, we are reducing constraints, um, you know, in a, uh, comprehensive way or reducing constraints. And we're doing it in the way that is, um, kind of most effective for housing production. Um, so Stephanie, I don't know if you want to add on to that anymore.

[01:46:18] Stephanie Haker: Again, I think you mostly covered it, but thanks, Eric. So, you know, HCD does have a list of specific items that we are meant to look at as constraints to housing production. So those include things like these processing times. There are specific items that are called out that the housing element is required to analyze as a constraint. Um, that doesn't mean that you're limited to those items, but it does mean that you have to include those. Um, in terms of what, you know, whether there's a threshold at which something from HCD's perspective counts as a constraint or not, Um, there isn't anything that, that they've said, you know, if it has this or that impact specifically, then it counts as a constraint. It's more of, you know, looking at, um, the various factors that affect development and coming to a conclusion about whether or not they pose a constraint, um, particularly, you know, to meeting your reno requirements and other requirements related to special needs, housing, um, the various goals that, you know, under state law, the housing element is meant to achieve. Um, so I would say there's not a, a, you know, hard and fast. Here's what you need to call a constraint, and here's what is not a constraint, in terms of, you know, some sort of objective metric. It's more of, um, looking at the items that HCD wants you to look at, whether there's anything else that may not be called out through HCD's list of items that you need to look at and determining whether something else is a constraint and coming to a conclusion.

[01:47:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Um, and I take a development fees are probably required in the analysis. Okay, and even though park fees, uh, have not stopped all developments, um, because it's a significant impact on financial feasibility. We must analyze it and include it in the housing element.

[01:48:17] Stephanie Haker: Yes.

[01:48:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then that would also apply, for instance, to, um, points of discretion, right? So does, uh, a conditional use permit for multifamily housing in the commercial residential arterial zoning district. uh in any way impede the construction of houses. That would be something we would have to analyze as well. Is that right?

[01:48:44] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, and we've done that as a matter of, um, processing time analysis as well as, um, you know, um, the, um, you know, analysis of, of past projects that have gone through that process.

[01:49:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. The staff report, and I think, um, in response to questions from planning commissioners, staff, uh, did not recommend including 901 North Rainstorf and Castro Common, because there are points of discretion involved in the review and approval of those projects. Is that a fair, um, summary?

[01:49:28] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, and I would put those points of discretion. Uh, they're more than a conditional use permits point of discretion, right? They are legislative points of discretion, points where that, uh, we would expect the city council to, uh, want to preserve some flexibility in, uh, um, over the projects themselves. For the Castro Commons specifically, it's really, you know, the technical analysis around vacating streets and whether that is something that we want to presuppose the council's decision on.

[01:50:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, Are development agreements, points of discretion?

[01:50:21] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes.

[01:50:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: For my benefit, then if we include the Google Master Plan sites in the site inventory, are we presupposing approval of the development agreements?

[01:50:34] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, uh, we are, um, showing that there is development interest that can proceed without a development agreement. Um, but the mechanism through which they're choosing to use it, the development agreement is is, you know, in their in their power. Uh, This isn't community uh, assistant city manager, did you want to add something?

[01:51:02] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, yes, in fact, I was gonna state exactly that it is a proposal by the applicant, that, um, they're proposing with or without the development agreement, and, um, intent is one of the strongest things we can show ATD, because without intent, oh, we have the sites. Um, and intent adds that additional, um, uh, you know, viability when we have actual applications.

[01:51:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: If elected not to approve the development agreements, would those projects get built?

[01:51:41] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: We don't know for sure. They might get built in a phase or two, um, uh, you know, so a development agreement is a contract between an applicant, um, and the city, and it's an entirely, um, you know, discretionary action. Um, so the question you're asking is, um, is it right to include, for example, the affordable housing sites that are being recommended, uh, being proposed? Um, and what we're saying is, Um, the application includes them. And so instead of looking at other sites, where affordable sites could be built and saying, here are where affordable, here is where affordable housing is built. We were identifying the sites that were part of a phased plan in the application. If we didn't include them, and Eric, you can correct me here. We would identify other existing sites that were zoned for that particular use. Um, but granted, they wouldn't have an application on the site. That would be our other option.

[01:52:49] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I would also add that there is some trade off in choosing to include sites or not. Certainly, we've included sites along Terabella and Linda Vista, where, um, a rezoning is required, uh, for the, uh, uh, for the project. And in those cases, it really is a tradeoff of how many affordable units are we getting from the project? Do we need those affordable units in order to support our overall housing element strategy? Uh, and the, um, uh, the, uh, development agreements that you're talking about are, uh, again, part of that trade-off, are we getting affordable units uh, that are part of our overall housing element strategy.

[01:53:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. The Google North Beach Shore Master Plan includes the use of city controlled property, Shoreline Lot C. for the use of a parking structure. If we include the Google North Bay sure master plan in the site inventory, are we presupposing approval of their proposal to allow the construction of a parking structure on shoreline lawsuit.

[01:54:19] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I will try to answer that. We have told Google that they should not presuppose it, and they have to have an alternative plan for district parking. Should that not move forward? Um, and they've got, um, one already that was, um, proposed as part of the landings project, um, and then the, there are other alternative, is to, is to build something, um, uh, to the west on the west side of the North Bay or precise plan. They would prefer not to do that if they could, um, um, if they could come to agreement with the city, but there is an alternate.

[01:54:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Aside from the development agreements and the use of shoreline lot fee, are there any other points of discretion involved with either of the Google Master plans?

[01:55:13] Eric Anderson: Um, I would say, um, relatively no, but, um, you know, I don't we have, I don't have an exhaustive understanding of every single issue or exception, but, um, essentially, the majority of the master plan, um, is compliant with the North Bay Shore precise plan. And to that extent, we, um, we would say that if a project is compliant, um, you know, the city has less discretion to deny, um, they may choose to deny legislative action, such as DAs, but, um, It's it's based on the best information we have at this time in state law.

[01:55:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. A few other questions. So, um, when was the 5th cycle housing element adopted?

[01:56:15] Unknown Speaker: I'm looking that up just one second. That it was adopted in October of 2014.

[01:56:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Over. 2014. And when was the El Camino Real precise plan adopted?

[01:56:49] Unknown Speaker: Uh, November 2014?

[01:56:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, for 2014. Okay. So, um, One of the justifications for including the El Camino Real and Phyllis property is that it was up zoned in the time, that, between the adoption of the 5th cycle housing element, and, uh, and now, so we can credibly include it in the 6th cycle housing element. Um, but that was, uh, the up zoning occurred one month after the tip cycle housing element was approved, um, so in the 8 years, uh, that have passed by, has there ever been a housing proposal for that property?

[01:57:39] Eric Anderson: Uh, you're asking about the Phyllis El Camino property, the El Camino hospital one?

[01:57:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:57:47] Eric Anderson: Uh, no, there hasn't. Um,

[01:57:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And One last set of questions. So, um, we, although we're not including the R3 zoning, uh, or the R3 zones in the housing element, we did do an analysis of the development standards, uh, in the current R3 zoning district. Um, And staff provide a quick summary of what that analysis fact.

[01:58:25] Eric Anderson: Uh, the major, uh, issues identified in the R3 zone are were, um, open area requirements, setback requirements in parking requirements.

[01:58:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so it's fair to say that there are these strengths within the current are 3 zoning development standards that impede the production of housing. Did that analysis in any way inform the constraints analysis in the housing element?

[01:58:53] Eric Anderson: Uh, yes, uh, although we, we forwarded it to our, um, uh, the economic consultant that we used, and and I can't be entirely sure about how, how that information was integrated.

[01:59:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: There are constraints within the development standards for our 3 that have been identified.

[01:59:17] Eric Anderson: Yes, although we are speaking generally about, um, uh, uh, standards, uh, we speak more generally about standards in the analysis and in the, um, programs.

[01:59:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and the last question on page 10 of the staff report. Um, Staff indicates that prior to the adoption of the final housing element staff proposes to provide additional analysis of the cumulative impact of all fees, standards and governmental constraints, including more detail, related to process timelines, and trends since the last cycle. Um, so, I, it wasn't clear to me. We're doing that work after we submit the draft to HCD in July.

[02:00:07] Eric Anderson: We are pushing real hard to get as much work done as we can before we submit to HCD in July. So our goal is to, um, provide more more analysis, provide it before submitting to HCD in July. There may need to be additional analysis that we need to include after.

[02:00:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, and then can staff really quickly summarize, um, what types of, so I guess this is very high level, accumulative impact of all fee standards and governmental constraints, what exactly does that include or what could it look like?

[02:00:48] Stephanie Haker: Uh, well, it could look like uh, trends over time, how it's changed. Um, we could look at, um, uh, for example, um, you know, how process time has changed over time and look at different aspects of that, whether it's the entitlement process or the building permit process. Um, we can look at, um, uh, so, you know, that that kind of quantification of overall percentage of development costs. We can look at, um, you know, how that's changed over time and how different development projects have been subject to that. Um, although that level of analysis may need, you know, comparing it to overall development costs may need to wait. Um, So those are just some kind of options for how that analysis could look.

[02:01:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Before we go to deliberation, are there any other questions? From the council. Thank you very much, staff, or uh responding to my questions and to the questions of my colleagues. Um, so let's now, uh, begin deliberating each of the questions, um, and I'll do exactly what I did with the last study session, we'll go question by question. I will, um, write down all of the changes that are suggested by each council member, and then we'll do a straw poll at the end of, uh, the, the, comments. and provide direction accordingly. So we'll start with question one, does the city council support the proposed programs in the draft housing element, accept program one. 2.2. Are there other other programs, the city council would like to add from the list of projects that are not currently recommended to be on the housing programs. Uh, and for example, the displacement response strategy replacement requirements. Nice Mayor Hicks.

[02:03:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I do support the programs that, um, that staff has mentioned. And, um, the reason I asked for one of the reasons I asked about the procedures regarding programs and fact that we'll have another bite at the Apple in November or December, uh, is that I have some other programs that I will name that we can either put on, put on, consider, take off, if they're inappropri if they're better for other, you know, other documents and so forth. So, I'll go through several of them. One is, um, a Copachopa program, which you can tell me if I'm wrong. I think that was not explicitly named under the housing element, but, um, you know, multiple, uh, multiple members of the public have mentioned it. My understanding was that we needed to do a little more analysis, but possibly by November or December will have done that, or if not, we can take it off. And I've also had requests... to explicitly, um, include mobile homes as one possible, um, uh, recipient of Copa Topa programming benefits, although there would be other possible recipients as well. So that's one program idea. Another, my second program idea is that, um, I am actually concerned about the number of fees that are levied on housing, and there's been a little bit of discussion of that tonight. And I think that, uh, it's more appropriate that those fees would be levied on offices. I understand that there has in the past been a problem establishing nexus between offices and, say, things like perkland fees. But now that, um, now that, uh, A bag, uh, now that there's really some teeth in the, the, um, housing element and, uh, producing our arena housing requirements, I believe we may be able to lobby Sacramento, to, um, to allow us to put those, um, fees on office development, because I really believe that when we bring more jobs into town, when we make that decision, that's when we know that we're gonna bring housing into town, and then we're gonna have to produce perks, and, et cetera. So we do have a lobbying firm, and I would like to, you know, explore that. Another program idea would be an SB9 design and funding program that could, I suppose, also apply to ADUs and J, ADUs, um, that would, um, allow, you know, help people to, um, produce second, uh, units, uh, using SB9 and some, uh, assistance. I've heard that Santa Cruz may have a model for that. And I have also heard it referred to as an anti monster home program. So, you know, preferring backyard cottages to monster homes. So that's something I would be into exploring. Uh, I believe that the League of Winland Voters has brought up a program to rezone offices to housing in some areas, so there's an idea. And another one that I heard, another program idea would be on streets that are planned for ground floor retail, and restaurant and so forth to allow live work in key places, that would both provide, you know, that ground floor activation on the street, along with housing at the same time. And I've heard that that's been done in various places. For example, Lawrence Station in Santa Clara, which is a Toll Brothers project. So, um... that's another program. There's a lot of programs, but, um, like I said, you can put them on your list and, um, take them off if... by November, if we don't like them anymore. And then, uh, also, the EPC had said to put, look at, uh, the Charleston Plaza site, sometimes referred to as the former REI site. Um, I know there's some, um, there's been some discussion about whether we should include that or not. I'm wondering about including it more as a program, uh, because I know that the, um, there's some developer interest in putting, um, in putting a biolab there. But I'm wondering, I have seen at the Google Bay Shore site, for example, short term new employee housing, and I'm wondering whether we couldn't, as a program explorer offices, putting that kind of housing in. I know it would not, often, those places would not be places with complete communities, but frankly, when I've talked to people who are just moving into town. Often, um, you know, they kind of want their foot in the door, and to get to know the city before they move into a regular community, and it seems like the Google Bay Shore property has some of those short term housing. And, uh, well, if I have any others, I'll bring them up later.

[02:09:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other... ideas or comments from the council, council member leader?

[02:09:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I also very much support the, uh, options that, uh, for programs that are in the staff report. And, um, I would also like to see the displacement response strategy and a one-to-one replacement requirement, um, be in the, uh, the element. Um, Also, uh, explicit inclusion of mobile homes in, uh, Copen, TOPA strategies. Uh, I'm not sure if the, uh, the element would be the right place to do this or if it would be a separate policy, but, um, I'm very much interested in increased, uh, impact fees on, uh, office development. And on, uh, requiring large employers, uh, particularly public agency employers to present to the city a housing plan for their workforce. So I know that we, um, took, uh, the El Camino hospital lands, um, partly out of, uh, the plan, but given that they're, they are a, uh, a public and private, uh, I think if they can be required to present us with a housing plan, Uh, for their, um, community members and uh, then that would be a beneficial thing. I'd like to see it applied to all large employers. But I think particularly where a public agency is involved in their, uh, located, uh, here in town, they have a large presence here. Um, and I think that's uh, all that I have for right now.

[02:11:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[02:11:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, uh. I'd like to, I haven't had a chance to thank everybody yet. I didn't do that in the in the question section, but really, this is a tremendous amount of work. And, um, uh, it is appreciated and you're not done yet. It's the truth. There's still a lot left to do. But in addition to recognizing the staff that have worked on this. I've also liked to really recognize our community, um, organizations who have stepped up to, um, analyze this. I mean, we've gotten really long detailed and thoughtful letters from the League of Women voters, from Mountain View, Yembe, and from the Chamber of Commerce, and from livable Mountain View. And there are undoubtedly others. And, um, uh, it takes, it takes a lot of effort to, um, to, uh, put that information together and a lot of care. So, um, I, you know, I really applaud people and these organizations for helping us with that. One of the things that I've heard, again and again, in these comments, is concern about the constraints analysis. And it seems to me when we're talking about the programs, you know, that's, of course, where we're talking about the constraints analysis. This is, you know, the housing element is on the one hand, it's a wonderful opportunity to evaluate our, um, you know, how our building and development process goes. And it's also, and it's, and to figure out what we can do to fix it at the same time, um, we have to be careful, um, including everything we come up with as a possibility that what needs to be fixed, because it's a commitment. And so, it's a, you know, it's a, um, it's a balancing act, as, as most things, that policy things that come before us are. But anyway, um, I really think that the evaluation of the constraints, um, is is something that, uh, is really significant. And I thought the Chamber of Commerce Letter did a really good job with their recommendations of putting them forward. Um, a couple of the things that they suggested we are in the process of doing. I mean, for instance, the first one is a commitment to specific process, improvements, um, contained in the matrix study. That is an ongoing effort, and, um, I think that that's really, uh, can't be emphasized enough. We have implemented a permanent navigator position. I mean, we're recruiting for that, so we're going forward with that. We're, um, we're going to be reviewing and revising our development fees. That is included as a program now, is it not? I mean, that's one of the recommendations, right?

[02:14:37] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: So we have a program to uh, address our uh, park my dedication fee. Uh, it doesn't apply to uh, other development fees that we've developed, which are small. But that is one of the major ones.

[02:14:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And then another, another thing that we hear questions about a lot is, is the analysis of, um, how important the, the time that our, um, process takes, how expensive it is, how much of a deterrent is really, is that to housing development. And, um, I'm not understanding how that's really included in our program, or isn't included in our program. I want it to be improved somehow in program.

[02:15:30] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Yes, yes, we do have a program that addresses process improvements. I don't have the number right in front of me, but. It's program 4.one development streamlining and processing revisions.

[02:15:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And is there some specificity about when that would occur, Ms. Yao?

[02:15:51] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Um, right now we don't have any specifics listed in our housing draft. If council wishes for a little bit more detail. We can look. Um, it's kind of all part of our matrix study. So some of it is still ongoing in determining what the specific action items and timelines are for.

[02:16:10] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Council member show, Walter, um, we're once we get the permit navigator on board. going to be working on a number of items and there'll be, I would say, a melding of some of the issues brought up by the housing element. And also by the Matrix study, and we're going to start looking at. So the patchwork of approval processes we have in the various precise plan and zoning documents to see if you can streamline certain things. Internally, we're gonna be reviewing our development procedures. We already started that. and we've actually approved some of our processing times in terms of turnaround. Um, you know, looking at ways to use this permit navigation team, to move issues forward when there is a problem and that can't be resolved. So some of these are internal, some of these are related to the zoning code, um, and so all those are planned to be done as part of the matrix study.

[02:17:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, it, I'm interested in some sort of a, um, a metric where we track how the time of our, our, um, permitting, um, stream changes, both and what is it conceptually supposed to be, and what, in fact, are we finding that it functions as. I think that that would be, you know, very important for us to be tracking, moving forward. And I would like that some program along those lines to be included. if it's not already there. So, so the constraints analysis, I really think, um, are the, you know, the big topic that we need to put a tremendous amount of effort on, and, um, the specifics are very much policy decisions. And, um, it's not that I'm against the, the recommendations that are in the, um, in the, uh, in the staff report. But I don't think some of them go quite far enough. Um, and I would really be interested in hearing my, uh, from some of the other council members about what sort of specificity, um, is valuable for and appropriate for us to to include. Thank you. That's up for right now.

[02:18:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council number show, Walter, I just want to make sure I've captured your input. Um, I think the, the general concern is understood, but it wasn't clear if there was a recommendation you would like us to vote on specifically. Was there, was there a particular program modification or a new program that you wanted us to do a straw pole on?

[02:18:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I want to make sure that there is a metric included that, um, uh, compares the expected timeline with the timeline that we're observing. Something that we can keep track of over time and say, you know, our methods are working or they're not, and we can look at why.

[02:19:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, you know, Sorry, we are planning to do that as part of the development review study. So, um, whether or not it needs to be in the housing element is something the council can tell us. But we are planning on that. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

[02:19:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, that's okay. Thank you very much.

[02:19:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Abi Coca.

[02:19:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you here. Um, so I am uh, pretty much in supportive of what staff, um, is proposing here. Um, I think that, you know, there has been extensive um, analysis review. Um, you know, frankly, I trust staff. We've worked with them for a long time and, and as mentioned, I think, you know, we are, the difference with us and maybe other cities that haven't been approved is that we have, um, done our due diligence, we are, um, you know, pro, we want to, um, allowed for more housing development. We've shown that. Um, so, um, you know, I would hope that's, that would be clear, um, in our, in our causing element, um, submission. Um, I think, you know, these other ideas are great ideas to explore. But my concern is that at this point in time, um, there's a lot that needs to be fleshed out. And so I don't feel comfortable putting it into the housing element because I don't want to risk having to commit to something, just because it's in the housing element. And if we find out later that it doesn't work. then we, you know, our hands are tied. And so that's really my concern about this is, um, being able to maintain the flexibility to do what we think is best for our community, um, and for what will work in our city and what works in Mountain View, you know, may not work in Oxnard. And so I think that's really important for, you know, us to maintain that, that flexibility. And, um, So that's, that's my feeling right now. Um, since we have another bite at the apple, if other, some of these other initiatives or programs get fleshed out by then, and they turn out that they can be, um, you know, as foolproof as possible, then I would be open to including them at a later time, but I just don't think we have enough information. You know, so I don't know. I can't remember which council member mentioned the displacement, the one for one replacement requirement. Frankly, I remember doing when we did the initial affordable housing strategies and talked about displacement. I, I think I'm, I remember, I'm pretty sure staff said that a one for one would make it, um, make a lot of housing development infeasible. So that's why we have to come up with something different. So I just would not want to put anything in to the housing element that would fire hands to doing something that could end up being detrimental. Like, I don't see what the difference, frankly, of requiring one to one, you know, replacement as with like a BMR requirement that we have. And if we're being told our BOMR requirement is a constraint, then why wouldn't a one to one replacement requirement be it not be a restraint? So I think we really need to be, um, yeah, like, look at these things more closely. Um, you know, the other constraints is SP330. Like I was told by developers that that's going to stop development until it sunsets because of that replacement requirement. So I think we really just need to be careful about, um, you know, what we're talking about and how the implications and a lot of this is unintended consequences that could come about, some of these, um, you know, well-intentioned initiatives. Um, so until we really see some of this play out more, I just, I don't, I just don't think we should be putting it into the element. Um, same with the, and then the other thing to keep in mind is that, you know, we, there are other programs and I guess now that I'm on the Bay Area housing finance Authority. I'm actually more involved with the, some of these other ideas and initiatives, um, like the Copa Topa CLT idea, actually came to Bafa. Um, they were, uh, San Jose is leading an initiative and, you know, they actually asked for funding, but there were some folks who were questioning the, the, the, um, efficacy of CLTs. So, um, for me, like I would like to see these other cities that have already taken these initiatives, see how far they go. Um, you know, we can definitely join in with if it looks like it's, um, probable, but, um, I don't feel like one, we need to be, you know, doing our own thing if there's already a movement happening. And let's see where that goes. The other point, I wanted to mention, if I, I think we just talked about this at off, actually, but the issue with ADUs is that they actually don't count in the, um, being in numbers, I believe, or if that's what, um, the Oakland Mayor mentions. And we talked about potentially trying to advocate to change that. So, um, you know, I just want to make sure that whatever programs we do look at, um, actually result in us being able to achieve our arena numbers. Um, so, and there's other programs, we we actually just passed the other, um, off of this welfare tax credit program that would allow, um, mostly affordable developers to take over existing, um, uh, developments, housing developments and if they offer and guarantee um, below market, I think it's 10% below market rate, they can, we, we, or a city would, or would their property tax would be waived. So there's other programs in the works elsewhere. So I just want us to be mindful of all of that and make sure that, you know, we don't replicate or, um, yeah, or overlap, or frankly, just, you know, do work that we don't need to do if it's already happening, let's take advantage of what's out there. Um, but in terms of what we're offering, you know, I think what staff has put together is pretty comprehensive and realistic. And, um, so I, I, I, I'm supportive of what staff recommends. Thanks.

[02:26:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. And for the record, we need no disrespect to Oxenhard, California. Council member Mattachek.

[02:26:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I didn't have any questions when we were in that section, so I didn't get to make some general comments, so I want to make a few now. Um, I want to thank staff and recognize them for the outstanding work that uh, staff is done on this housing element. This is a big change from previous cycles. And I also want to acknowledge the consultants that have been working on this. I think we, um, your knowledge, your expertise, the, uh, information, the experience that you bring to bear, uh, to put together a great housing element for us. So I really want to thank all of you for this. Um, I, um, agree that it's important to meet the requirements, and, um, I, I personally think that we are actually exceeding the requirements. And I think that's a good thing. I appreciate us taking that position. Um, I also appreciate a lot of the comments that council member Abi Koka just said. Um, I am concerned about, um, I guess I'd characterize it as maybe overcommitting or locking us into things that maybe we want to change during the course of the next 8 years. So, um, You know, we can't predict what's gonna happen in the future. And things change, new ideas come about. And I want to be able to respond to those. But if we're overcommitting ourselves, then we won't have that opportunity. Um, so I don't want to put everything in the housing element, um, because that's more difficult to change than putting it in, say, the council work plan. Um, so I would say we should, you know, every 2 years, like we do, talk about programs we want to add to the council work plan, um, and I'm actually pretty good with the staff recommendation for the housing element, with the programs you've put in there. I do have some specific comments about some of the programs, but, If I'm hearing this right, it sounds like I should hold off on those until we dive into the programs, is that correct?

[02:28:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I think just procedurally, um, any, uh, comments about any of the programs right now are fair game, because the next 2 questions are about, um, the sites inventory and the rezoning strategy. So if you do have comments about the programs, feel free to make them here.

[02:29:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, I, uh, do have a few comments about um, program one dot one 0, which is the Parkland Ordinance. You know, we have made some changes that, to that recently to provide more certainty, um, and, um, also expand the options for how you can satisfy that with Popa. And, um, I'm not sure if all the developers are aware of that change, um, but those, I think, are significant changes that we've made. Um, I understand the true definition of a constraint and that, or is defined by HCD, and that we have to look at it. But I also look at it in terms of, you know, we are exceeding our above moderate housing allocation, um, in the 5th cycle and odds are, we'll do the same thing in the 6th cycle. So I personally don't think parkland fees are a constraint, based upon my definition of a constraint. So, I can't say I'm really open to changing it. Although I appreciate that we're doing the strategic plan. And if there are additional ways that we can get parkland. You know, I'd say they're in addition as opposed to a replacement of what we're already doing. Um, we know we need more parkland in the community. And, uh, we need to be creative and come up with more ways in order to get that, um, but I'm concerned about reducing any of the requirements we have right now without completely understanding, you know, what, if anything, could replace it and also enhance it, because we need more. Um, I also have comments about program one dot one, which is the zoning ordinance update uh, regarding parking that includes parking requirements. Um, You know, specifically on concerned about potentially reducing the parking for low and moderate income residents. Um, If we spent as much time talking about public transit and improving it as we do talking about parking, maybe we would have great public transit in the city. Um, but we have Caltrain, which is great. Our community shuttle, which is great. But I can't really think of any others that are really great. And so, I think it's unfair, especially to our lower income residents, who often have two jobs. Um, they need to be very efficient, getting between jobs, if they're in construction, they're carrying their tools with them. And you really can't do that. Walking, biking or riding a bus. Um, I also, um, am very sympathetic to folks who have children, they are taking them to daycare. They're racing there before they get to their job. They're picking them up on time and potentially taking them to, um, an after school program or an after daycare program. Um, and parents are running around like crazy, um, taking their kids to lots of different things, and, It's just not efficient to do that on the public transit we have. So to say to folks, Now, great, we've got a place for you to live, but it's gonna be hard for you to park your car. And I just, I don't think that's fair. And so I really think we need to be cautious about reducing any of our parking requirements, because I think that disproportionately affects our lowest income residents. Um. So let's see. I guess as I said, I'm good with the programs. that staff propose and I don't really think we need to add anymore. Thanks.

[02:33:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Well, it looks like we're coming back for a 2nd round of Vice Mayor Hicks.

[02:33:09] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I was just gonna, uh, circle back and very quickly answer, council member, show Walter, head at, had made a statement about putting metrics in, streamlining metrics, and uh, wondered what other council members thought about that. I'm, I'm assuming that, that, you know, 'cause that's part of a program, and we will have a second take on that in November and December, that the way that would work out is that the, um, the Matrix study would go on, and if there are any metrics, uh, that come out of that, it would be put in and explained to us at that time. Um, that that's the way we would handle that. And if I'm, uh, wrong, then I would like to, to hear that, uh, or, or if we need to, you know, add that statement, that it would come back to us with a metric, uh, after further study, you know, that's the way I would handle that particular question. Thank you.

[02:34:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Show Walter.

[02:34:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just gonna say that, um, it seems like we have sort of three categories here. We have things that we want to include in the housing element that we want to suggest tonight. We have things that we wanted to get more information about and consider in November. And then we have things that, um, we, um, want to perhaps consider as part of our work plans in the future. And I was just going to, um, request that somebody, uh, either on the staff, or maybe this is happening, or, or, um, the mayor keep track of what these, what's falling into these three categories, because there's, there's quite a bit of it. So, um, that's my comment for now.

[02:35:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'll do my best, and I'm counting on staff support. I'll be accountable. Council member Lieber.

[02:35:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Um, I just have a question for staff. Um, do we have any indication that, um, a one-to-one, um, replacement would cause all housing development to stop in the city?

[02:35:35] Eric Anderson: I'll start, but then I may need to rely on the assistant, uh, assistant city manager to to help. Um, So arena sites don't have any existing units on them. So a one-to-one replacement wouldn't affect our current housing element sites or our current sites inventory. So to the extent that, um, the constraints analysis and the housing element overall is kind of telling a complete story of here are our sites that can accommodate, um, uh, housing and, um, we aren't adding any new constraints to to those sites where we can accommodate housing. Um, I think, you know, we, we kind of have to look and see if, if that runs afoul of any, um, uh, any HCD requirements. Um, It would certainly add constraints to sites that are replacing CSFRA units. I mean, that there's no question about that. Most sites that currently have CSFRA units are built out fairly close to what's currently allowed on the site. Uh, and one of the analyses that we did as part of the R3 update is that, you know, you'd have to multiply existing densities by a factor of 7 or 8 or something like that in order for that replacement, that one-to-one replacement as BMR to really be feasible.

[02:37:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:37:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Captain member Lieber. Quick question, follow-up question for staff. Um, I'm looking at the site inventory. 870 East El Camino Real is a housing element site. Doesn't that have apartments on it now?

[02:37:42] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, uh, it is a pipeline site. We are seeing um, uh, projects coming through that are doing some replacement, but in general, those are cases where the replacement is in that factor of, you know, over 7 times or over 10 times. So that we, so that they are able to integrate those, uh, into the project. 870 El Camino, good example, they had a lot of additional capacity available on there. site, so they could do the, the, the replacement using all of that excess capacity allowed on the Belle Camino precise.

[02:38:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: But that, just to be clear, that project does include the demolition of existing and occupied department.

[02:38:27] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It does, yes. But it is also proposing to replace them.

[02:38:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and 570 South Rank Store also is on the site inventory. Um, you know, those apartments are no longer occupied, they exist, and those are not being replaced.

[02:38:45] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, again, these are approved sites. So this is one um, minor change that we're going to have to do between now and when we submit to the, um, submit to the, uh, HCD. So we got, finally got clear guidance from HCD on this, but approved projects are actually not supposed to be on the inventory. We're supposed to remove them from the inventory, have them in a separate list that actually reduces our inventory obligation by those units. So, it's not exactly on the inventory, it won't be on the inventory, but it will still contribute to reducing our rena by those net new units. So it's going to have the same effect.

[02:39:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It'll reduce the above moderate obligation by 15.

[02:39:37] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Exactly. with their summary.

[02:39:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Got it. Thank you. And I know folks are getting anxious. We're an hour beyond schedule, but this is an important item and we'll do our best to get through it expeditiously. Council member, Abi Koga.

[02:39:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, and I know you have to speak to, but, um, I, I guess big, I, because council member Manachek brought up some of the, um, items and I was looking at the questions and it's not, I don't think it's asked anywhere else, I thought I would just add my, um, my ¢2 to the, um, issue of Parkland fees and, um, parking reduction for affordable. So, I don't think it's a big, uh, you know, surprise to hear that, um, I, I, I, I would support, um, looking at parkland requirements as long as it doesn't, um, reduce the amount of parkland that we expect to receive. So, um, you know, I'm not interested in reducing fees, um, just to reduce fees because the reality is, is we need those fees to buy land, to create more parks. But if there are other ways to get to this equivalent amount of parkland or open spaceland, um, you know, I'm, I'm okay. Oh, fine, to look at that. But I don't want to just reduce the fees just to reduce fees because that's just gonna put it, leave us in the hole. And then with the parking, I agree with Councilman Madachek, I shared my experience when we went to the opening of the El Camino affordable housing project, and I know I think the mayor was also confronted by this gentleman who lives there saying that, you know, he doesn't have a parking space and it's a problem. And I just, I do want us to be mindful of that, and to me, it's an equity issue, frankly, like, I don't think we should necessarily assume that if, because folks live in an affordable housing project, that they don't need a car, I think we really just, you know, should do more analysis of that and try to figure out what is really equitable and reasonable and realistic on that. Thanks.

[02:41:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I'll take a quick turn and um, similarly, use the opportunity to share some, uh, high level remarks. Um, I've been thinking a lot about, um, the process and I've come to conclude that, uh, I know it can be frustrating and it can be opaque. But there's an elegance in the housing element process in so far as it really is a requirement, uh, for that, jurisdiction to take the time to be introspective and to thoroughly analyze the housing needs of our community. We get to do that. There are some, there's some guidance. There are some parameters, but it's really a time for us to reflect and to do a deep dive into, you know, what our community looks like, you know, how it's evolved, and then to really understand, um, what, how, how, the housing production and housing affordability in our community, um, meets or does not meet the need of our residence. Um, and correspondingly. Through that assessment, we then have to identify solutions to any problems that we find. So the constraints analysis is, you know, you have to study a bunch of stuff, but we do the analysis. Ultimately, we determine what the constraints are, and then we have to come up with some potential solutions, and the state isn't descriptive on exactly how those solutions solve the problem. It's just, you know, you've identified some constraints that make it difficult to get affordable housing in your community. Um, Now you have to figure out how to improve the financial feasibility of housing or how to make it a little bit easier to deliver housing that meets the needs in our community. Um, and similarly with the site inventory. There are some parameters and guidelines, affirmatively furthering fair housing, but fundamentally, we get to decide where that housing growth occurs, and we have to provide some analysis, to demonstrate that we're doing this in good faith, and that we're identifying sites for housing has some probability of getting built as the densities and the affordability that we're claiming, but we get to decide. It's a man, the only real hard mandate is the arena obligation itself, 11,135. Um, But I think that helps answer the question that often comes up. What are other communities doing to help address the regional housing prices? The state, the state says you get to figure out your methodology. You have to work it out. You get to apportion that number, but it says, fundamentally, we we're responsible for our fair share of addressing a regional problem. Um, so I, I, I do, I do have an appreciation for what the state is having this process that the state is having us go through, um, and it, for, it affords us a lot of creativity. Um, it really does require thoughtful engagement with the public. Public comment has to thoroughly and completely inform the document, um, and I appreciate staff, uh, acknowledging that maybe there's more we can do with the narrative to, uh, show to the state that we really have done that, that we've listened to the public, and that what the public has had to say, what, the housing needs assessment has shown us, uh, really is reflected in the constraints analysis and the, the programs and. how we intend to address uh, our communities, how he needs. Um, so that's, I think high level thoughts. I really actually appreciate this, um, and I know it's hard, and everybody has a different idea of how best to address these problems, but, um, I think I think there is an elegance that that is worthy of respect and is different from something like an SB 50, which says, in these areas, you must allow housing by right, you know, at this density, it's not that prescriptive. Um, So I appreciate everyone's uh, contributions to this discussion, and I appreciate staff's work in producing the dress. Although I, I would agree that what we're seeing with other jurisdictions is, we should probably expect a fairly robust comment letter from HCD and be prepared to respond um, with revisions as appropriate. Um, so I did want to share some programs that I think we ought to include, um, one that is pretty simple. We're already doing it and it solves a lot of problems is just including as a program. Um, the implementation of the matrix uh, development review study. Um, that includes concrete milestones and metrics. It's, uh, it's very clear and it, there's already analysis that's been done about constraints, and it includes recommendations that our staff have, uh, reviewed, um, and that we're already implementing. It seems like an easy thing to include in the housing elements because we're already doing it, and if we do include it, then it provides some very concrete actionable items for addressing what we've identified in the constraints analysis. Uh so that's one thing I hope we can include. Um, this one we've talked about a little bit. Um, earlier. Um, you know, one of the best solutions to the challenge of, uh, you know, a community that is impacted with rent burden, uh, where, you know, almost a super majority of our residents rent is to create pathways to entry level ownership housing. Um, and I still think one of the greatest opportunities, uh, to do that is allowing condo mapping, uh, with the, the duos that are, that can be created under SB 9. Um, right now, we're saying, you know, you cannot condo math, you can't sell off each of the units and the duplex, and what that means, the facto is, we're creating more rental housing, which is fine. I like rental housing, but more importantly, I want to see entry level ownership opportunities, and I think that's a very strong and compelling program that can produce more ownership opportunities in, uh, high resource, uh, neighborhoods. And then last two, um, we allude to this, uh, briefly in one of the programs, but I do think we need to at least begin, uh, a more concrete discussion about an ongoing source of revenue, both for the subsidization of the construction of affordable housing and also, uh, for any acquisition or rehabilitation program, um, that the council decides to pursue. Um, and I personally think it would be good to have a discussion about some kind of ballot measure, um, that can provide that that source of revenue. So, I know there's, there's already kind of a reference to it, but I'd like to see it made a little bit more concrete, um, and it doesn't have to be done within the next 2 years, as long as it's done within the next 8 year period, I think we'll be okay. And then the last is, um, you know, I, I, I've been thinking about what would, what should we include in the narrative that would help, uh, meet the community input, uh, obligation and the housing element process, and some of the things that I think we ought to include are, um, uh, not only just the list of all of the community meetings that we've had with each stakeholder group or, uh, impacted community, but, the agenda and content of the specific meetings. The input that we've solicited and collected on the needs and constraints, and the policy ideas that came out of those meetings, um, and then the process that staff use to aggregate and assess the input, um, and how that input has been incorporated into every and all aspect of the housing element draft. Um, right now, there's an appendix with a summary of, uh, I think, you know, a virtual meeting held a long time ago and survey results. But they're, in the narrative, there's no connection between how that, that work informed any part of the analysis that was done for the programs, uh, that we've included to address specific housing needs in our community. Um, so those are some of the things that I think we ought to include explicitly in the, uh, in, in a revision to the draft, and I think we'll go a long way in helping us, uh, get closer to a compliant housing element of documents. Um, So, um, if there are no other recommendations or ideas. I'm gonna go through each of these items that we've shared. And we'll do a straw poll. Um, and if there's majority support for members, then we will that will be direction to staff to include in the revision. Um, and if there are not, then, uh, the presumption is the staff recommendation is okay. Bye snare Hicks.

[02:51:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I may be complicating things. But I, I, I assume that what we're voting yes or no and, um... that we're voting to, to possibly put some programs in, but if staff looks at them and says they're not fleshed out enough by November, we can take them back out and put them in some other document or decide they're not worth it. I assume that's what we're doing. Am I correct?

[02:51:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I would say yes. And I think, um, it would be substantially similar to the input we provided in the last step, study sessions, where staffed in evaluations, and some things were incorporated, and other things were not, and staff provided some justification for why the direction we provided was not included in the housing element. So, um, it, it, it's not, you know, a concrete obligation that must be, in some, in some cases, some of these might need a little bit more thought or tweaking or fleshing out, um, and so we're allowing staff, uh, some opportunities to say, you know, totally understand where council's coming from. But for these reasons, it isn't feasible. Or to propose an alternative.

[02:52:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, any other comments, questions, uh, community development, director, or teacher, doctor?

[02:52:30] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Just as a clarification, we might end up with a list of programs. Um, we have a very short window to either decide to include them in this most recent draft. And the other opportunity we will have is to bring it back and develop it um, and bring it back when we come to council. So there might be some that we could say, yes, we can include, as part of this draft, the others, we'll probably bring back with a more fleshed out summary. Um, because we don't want to put something into ACD and then take it out because they provided comments on it. Um, it could affect the, the, the next goal around. So I just wanted to clarify that that might be the best way to address it. Many of these might just come back later, and some of them might just be easy ads, um, now.

[02:53:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Understood. So I think, um, the direction we're providing would be to have staff, um, do their due diligence and conduct a good faith evaluation of some of these recommendations. Council member Robbie Koka.

[02:53:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, I, I guess I, that's what I was kind of trying to, with the tennis say, is that just because it's not in the housing element doesn't mean we can't do it, and I, I, you know, I want to make that clear too, because I think there's going to be opportunity to do more outside of the housing element, and I mean, that's what we've been doing, frankly. So, um, again, I want to allow the flexibility. And then specifically to your, um, item about a, a ballot measure, um, you know, I want to, I was going to report out, and I under item 8 that, um, that, you know, the Bay Area housing finance Authority. We're moving forward on this. And, um, actually, Ms. Shavastaba could probably speak to it more closely than me, um, because I've learned that our staff is working closely with the Buffa new director on language for the ballot measure, um, and then, it sounds like it's gonna be a sizable bond measure that could bring to our county over $2 billion. And so, I, I just really shy away from doing anything that could potentially, and be, become a, you know, conflict, um, because I just don't really think that the voters are gonna, you know, repeat, um, voting for the same thing. And, um, you know, I think that if this buffer passes, um, there'll be question as to why we need our own, or the other way around if we have our own. why should we support the regional measure. So, I, I, I just think we're, it's just right now, um, I don't feel comfortable saying anything about, uh, going out for a ballot measure. So, you know, I would ask that you don't include that. Thank you.

[02:55:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye, Smur Hicks.

[02:55:44] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I have a, I think that's a good comment, and I agree with it, but my additional thoughts on that. are that if we do put it in the housing element, we don't have to do it. You know, that that measure would come out, um, shortly, and we have, like, 8 years to do, so we could do it later. Or, um, a second thought I have is, if it's not, oh, and then also, I think we might be looking for money to fund a copetopa program, and I don't know whether the ballot measure, the regional one would allow that or not. I'm just not familiar enough. Maybe you know that. And then the, my third thought is that if we look at a ballot measure, that money could be put towards parkland fees in order to reduce their burden on housing, but still have the same amount of money. So all of those, so I have all of those thoughts floating around in my head, I would imagine if we did that, put it on as a program, staff could tell us whether, you know, they could analyze it and say, No, they think it conflicts too much with the regional measure or whatever else they had to say. So, yeah, those are my thoughts on that particular subject.

[02:57:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek.

[02:57:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, I guess this discussion has made me wonder, if we put something in the housing element, and as we investigate it, um, or something changes, and we really determine that it's not a good idea to go forward with it. Can we take it out? And what are the implications of doing that?

[02:57:38] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I'll start, and then I'll let Eric and the consultant um, uh, kind of respond to it. I personally have not worked on a housing element program where we've had to take it out. Um, But maybe there are some experiences. So when we're not exactly sure where we're going to end up. We do put words like explore that, you know, the possibility of doing a bond measure, and it could be to address X, Y, Z within this 8 year period. Um, so we do put in some caveats. and talk about that. Recent comments from ATD have become a little more strict, and so maybe Eric and the consultant can add, information about, at what point, does it not make sense to put in the housing element if it's very iffy, or is the council really comfortable sort of binding themselves to certain solutions? Um, so, Eric, maybe you could start and let Stephanie provide information.

[02:58:40] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, in general, um, I can speak to, um, kind of our considerations for how to provide flexibility in programs, um, within the very narrow frameworks that the state has, uh, published. Um, I also have not dealt with the situation of having to amend a housing element, to address a change in program or a program that we think is infeasible, but I can, uh, I'll kind of, uh, tee that over to, to, uh, one of our consultants to see if they have anything to, to add on that. As far as, um, kind of the way that I think about, uh, flexibility within programs is that, I think HCD would be supportive of, for example, a menu, in order to achieve a certain objective. So, if we have in our housing element that we know we're going to do something to increase, um, revenue for affordable units, right, and, um, there could be, you know, 5 or 6 different things that we explore in order to do that, and we have, we are going to hold our feet to the fire, that we're going to increase revenue for affordable units. So that's kind of how I think about it. And I think that that HCD, um, it would, you know, this is a high level policy document. You know, we don't have to have figured out absolutely everything in the, you know, year or so that we're trying to figure out these programs. But we do have to commit to solutions. Uh, Stephanie, I'm not sure if you have any any thoughts on, you know, future change.

[03:00:29] BAE Consultant Stephanie Hagar: Yeah, thanks, Eric. Um, so, you know, to the extent that we would be making changes to programs after HCD's review, um, I would recommend that we try to focus on, um, making those changes be changes that help to, um, strengthen policies to support affordable housing, to support the various schools that HCD is looking for the housing element to achieve, rather than, um, changes that might take out programs that would, you know, potentially weaken the city's case that you're doing whatever you can to affordable housing. Um, that's not to say that you can't at that stage, um, what we would probably do if we do end up in a scenario where we think we're making changes that, um, detract from the city's ability to support affordable housing, preserve affordable housing, prevent displacement, the various types of goals that we're trying to achieve, um, is that we would want to go back to HCD and tell, and you have to try to have an informal conversation with them and ask them, you know, this is a change that we're thinking about making. Is this something that you see as being, um, a change that would get in the way of achieving certification when we resubmit, um, with whatever other changes we're making at that point in time. So we can try to approach it that way, but it can get a little messy and we do sort of open ourselves up to the risk that once they see the changes in their totality, they would say, you know, we sort of agreed to this change when we talked about it without seeing the whole housing element, but now that we're seeing what, you know, everything that you're doing, we kind of think we still want that program in there. So, you know, it can get a little bit messy. If you are doing changes that, you know, sort of further affordable housing goals. I think that's fine if we need to have programs at a later date. But if you're sort of going the other way, it's sort of a risky, a risky move. Um, And there are some cases where a program can kind of be seen to do both of those things simultaneously. So for something like inclusionary housing, you know, you can see that as a constraint to market rate development. It's also something that helps you get the affordable unit. So, we sort of want to tread carefully in how we think about programs that we might take out at a later date.

[03:02:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I just want to clarify what you said. So we could actually, throughout the next 8 years, add more programs to this.

[03:02:57] BAE Consultant Stephanie Hagar: There is a process for amending your housing element. Um, it's, it's burdensome and most jurisdictions don't choose to go through it. Um, I, I was meaning to say that when we come back to you, so when we get the comments from HCD and we're making the edits to respond to their comments and then we're coming back to you, um, for adoption, if there were other programs that you wanted us to add at that point, um, then that, that would sort of, that's the November opportunity that we're talking about. After that, once you adopt it, we send the draft back to HCD and say, here's the adopted housing element. Um, and so, you sort of don't want to go through the process of readopting the housing element if you don't have to, and amending it, you know, say 4 years from now, um, if you can help it. That's, you know, it's not a fun process from what I've heard.

[03:03:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, yeah, I was talking about, um, not just the initial certification of it, but throughout the course of the eight years, so thanks for the clarification.

[03:03:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And then, um, thank you, Captain, remember, and then a quick, uh, follow-up question, maybe for Eric. I like the menu idea. Could we have a program, program that says, for instance, um, you know, participate in regional discussions to, uh, increase funding for affordable housing, and should that fail, if the measure doesn't get added to a regional ballot, or if the voters turn it down, then pursue a local source. Would that be a feasible way of approaching this?

[03:04:29] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I mean, on the face of it, that certainly sounds, uh, um, feasible and like we're really showing our work there with, with clear, um, uh, you know, clear process. Uh, Stephanie, you have any initial thoughts on that?

[03:04:45] BAE Consultant Stephanie Hagar: Um, no, I think, like you said, on space, it sounds like a reasonable approach.

[03:04:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member leader.

[03:04:54] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I hit, uh, I guess their comments, um, that I, I do have concerns about putting the implementation of the matrix study, objectives into something that we're submitting to the state when it's concerns, internal performance, and, uh, My understanding of things is that we don't yet have the staffing in place. to really, um, fully flesh that out. And I know that some of the objectives are, are, in what's, what's been presented to us, um, But, uh, for me, that's a little bit, um, scary in terms of the performance measures for, uh, people that we don't have. right now, staffing us, and, um, so I'm, I'm kind of concerned more about that than about the programs, although I could definitely go along with the menu approach. Um, so that we're not, you know, tied to a stone. Um, But, I think that, um, to the extent that we could get staffing and budget on board and, and be able to have a reasonable shot at executing. The matrix objectives, it might be better. Thank you.

[03:06:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye, snare.

[03:06:48] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Sorry, one last question. I will just say in response to council member Libor's comment that I do think that our lack of staff, particularly in community development, is the major constraint to producing housing. Um, and producing it, you know, on a quicker timeline. Um, but that was not my question. My question is this thing about putting projects on and taking them off, my understanding, and maybe I have not followed this right, but my understanding is, if we're naming projects now, for example, a revenue project, which could be a menu of options, that staff would flesh that out a little and come back to what EPC, and then counsel in November and December. Does HCD? Are you saying so that we wouldn't take it on and off? We could take it off in November or December. Does HCG do some review before that? Or is it after that that you're submitting it? I may have gotten confused on the process during this discussion.

[03:07:58] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, HCD will only review during the, uh, 3 months from July to October before we adopt. Um, Stephanie was saying we may have an opportunity to have a conversation with them after they provide our comments, uh, to clarify like, here's what we submitted. Here's something that we're taking back, but here's something that we're putting in in place. How does that? You know, how is that consistent with your comments or whatever? Um, and so I think that's an informal conversation that we would have to have prior to adoption in December. Um, then the HCD is going to be reviewing to make sure that we've done everything that they asked us to do during our 3 month review. And so if they don't approve it at that time, we will have one more bite at the apple in May. Does that answer your question?

[03:08:57] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, so anything, any programs we put on now, they would be looking at, and if you want, and we wanted to pull them off in December, then we would have pulled them off after they looked at them is what they're going to have.

[03:09:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay Assistant city manager, where you gonna assist me?

[03:09:20] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: If I may add, because of the level of risk, pulling programs off, we want to make sure that we are layering on more strengthening programs down the line rather than pulling them off. So if there's even a question that we're not sure about the efficacy or wanting to put this on, we would hold that off until the November time frame. Because they would prefer to see strengthening programs added than ones taken away, because there's a level of risk that we don't want to take on given the very, very short timelines we have.

[03:10:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions? Recommendations before we start the straw polls? Being none. I'm going to go ahead and read through the list and similarly we'll just raise hands to indicate support. For adding uh, programs or tweaking um, existing ones. So the 1st one is adding a COPA or Topa program that would in- apply to mobile home parks as well. Is there support for that? One, two, three, four. So yes, there is support for that. The next one is, uh, and if whoever recommended the recommendation, uh, disagrees with my summary, please feel free to, uh, to let me know. The 2nd one is, uh, lobbying for a change in state law to allow residential fees to be shifted to office development. So I think that would be a change to the next, uh, the mitigation fee act or the next study process. Is there support for that recommendation? One, 2, 3. Yes, there is support for that. And again, this is all with the caveat that staff will have an opportunity to flesh these out and appropriately review them and if there's, um, any concern about feasibility or, uh, some other impact than staff may recommend later that we do not pursue these options. Um, the next one is an SV9 design or funding program that would also apply to ADUs and junior ADUs. their support for that concept. One to. Three. 4. So yes, there is support for that concept. Um, the next one is, um, rezoning offices to allow live work opportunities. Uh, as a program. Is there support for that concept? One, two. Uh, uh, RT, if you want to chime in about this one.

[03:12:27] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, my notes say, um, to look at short term stay. Is that the same, uh, review office development like the Google Bayview, as opposed to live work, there is a difference.

[03:12:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think you recommended this one.

[03:12:44] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, that's a separate one. Um, I think that was ground floor retail to live work as opposed to, Yeah, what they have at Bayview is, uh, some short term housing for new employees, and then the live work is, uh, it's a separate thing. It allows housing opportunities in on streets where you wanted to have some street activation, so it would be long term housing.

[03:13:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So just to confirm where offices are, the recommendation was to look at short term employee housing. in the same location as office development.

[03:13:28] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:13:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, okay. Okay. With that clarification, is there support for a program to evaluate um, employee housing, short-term employee housing, um, on sites zone for offices? One, two, three, 4. So yes, there is, and I'll go ahead, staff and read these at the ends just to make sure we're on the same page. Um. Okay. And so yes, I I confuse these 2 so the next one is allowing live work. Uh in areas with ground floor retail. Is that the correct summary?

[03:14:09] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, Mary.

[03:14:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. Yeah, I mean, it wouldn't be all areas with mound floor retail, but, um, possibly somewhere.

[03:14:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so it's a program to evaluate the concept. A council member Abby Koka?

[03:14:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Don't we allow that? And we have that in downtown. We have, um, I remember we did something on, uh, Middlefield and the Wisman neighborhood. The project never happened, but I thought we allowed, we already allowed that.

[03:14:43] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, there are some, um, challenges with live work. One of them is that what often ends up happening is that the storefront people would just rather use it as a living room, and so they just kind of close it off from the street, and it's not doesn't end up being truly live work in a lot of cases where it's actually implemented. So we do need to have it be a conditional use in most locations, and we would, um, in some cases, you know, and we haven't actually gone through this process in Mountain View. So this is just something that we, um, we have kind of as an awareness of how it might happen as a conditional use. Uh, but, you know, we do allow it conditionally in some areas, and we would be on the lookout for situations where it's really important to be activated to have the commercial use, to have the business, and there's a strong incentive for them to just use it as a unit.

[03:15:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, so are we we're talking about ground floor retail now? I'm sorry, I misunderstood that. Is that what you're asking for, vice mayor?

[03:16:03] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, that's what they have at the brothers project. It's ground floor retail, certain areas, they have put in live work units. So you, if there's a street that you want to activate, but you don't think you're, but there's an apartment, and you don't think you're gonna put in other kinds of retail, you might put in live work.

[03:16:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Is that is that direction clear or are there any additional parameters or guidance you would see?

[03:16:40] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Eric, I don't know, um, I can think of a couple things. Um, I, I think we get the idea. The idea is to look at areas where we might be able to replace, um, to to allow live work, um, to activate, um, spaces as opposed to retail. Um, and and that could be sort of a, um, that could be a, a program where we look at where best to do it. We may not want to do it on Castro Street, for example, but there might be some side streets off of El Camino where they might work better than on El Camino. So I'm just giving you examples. And if I think we, if you give staff a little bit of leeway to shape that program a little bit. I think, We can do it in a way that doesn't A tie our hands, but is a feasible way to look at it. But I think we get the, we get the spirit of the concept.

[03:17:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice mayor is that accurate and true to your recommendation.

[03:17:47] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I think she very much gets the spirit of the concept.

[03:17:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Now, with that clarified, is there support for having that evaluate that and potentially including it in the programs? Your hand. One, two, three, four. Okay, yes, there is support. Thank you. Um. And then there was a, there was one about Charleston Plaza, and I think that one is addressed with the employee housing, um, program. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no need to vote on that. Um, okay. Uh, the next recommendation is to include the displacement response strategy and specifically replacement requirements when, um, when the existing and occupied apartments are demolished, CSFRA, uh, controlled departments, is their support for including that as a program. One, 2, 3. There is not support. Okay. Uh, the next one is increasing, um, and then I want to take a clarification. I wrote increasing uh impact fees on office development. I think that's specifically the housing impact fee. Is that?

[03:19:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Correct.

[03:19:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think council member lever you had suggested that.

[03:19:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: The housing impact.

[03:19:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Is there support for increasing the housing impact fee on office development? Raise your hand. One, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay, there is support. Thank you. And then the next one is, um, a program, um, that would require major employers to produce, uh, workforce housing plan, and particularly when the public agency is involved. So in other words, working with, like El Camino Hospital, for instance, um, to, uh, have them participate in the housing of their workforce. That a fair summary of the program.

[03:19:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, thank you.

[03:20:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, um, assistant, uh, city manager.

[03:20:06] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: There might be instances where the city doesn't have the ability to add requirements like this, and I'll give you the example where, um, El Camino updated, um, the master plan, they actually had to work under state constraints to, uh, build a new hospital that met earthquake requirements. I'm not sure there was a way for the city to come in and say, we won't let you do this until you create a plan to put employee housing. So, this could be a fairly challenging, the word requirement could be challenging, but we could convert it to find ways to either collaborate and or put in a framework, because there might be places where we could require it, and there might be places where we couldn't. So I want to make sure that this captures the gamut of options and doesn't tie the city into a situation that we can't resolve. So again, if giving staff a little bit of leeway to reword that program would be helpful.

[03:21:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: member Libra?

[03:21:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: That sounds great. And, um, my thought is that I don't want the city to have to create a new program where we chase them around for information, but I'd like to see them, um, take on a responsibility for having some kind of narrative about where their workforce will go other than just... to the housing that, that, we've planned for at large.

[03:21:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, with the caveat provided by staff, is there support for a program related to collaborating with major employers to, uh, find or create workforce housing? One, two, three, four. There is support. Thank you. Um. Then, the next one is, including the matrix development review study actions, uh, as a program to address, uh, the constraints, um, that were identified in the constraints analysis, is their support for that program. There is not support for that program. That's too bad. Um, is there some, oh, the council member show, Walter?

[03:22:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I would just like to say that, you know, I think some of these things where they're not necessarily support for putting it in the housing element right now. There's very much support for having it done. So, I think the Matrix one is a prime example of that. There are so many components to that, that, um, like, I would be interested in putting the things in that we are already doing. We want to get, like, we're already hiring a permit navigator. That could be something I could see, we could, you know, we could, we could put in there. But, but it's a very long list and comprehensive list of actions. So, um, I don't feel comfortable, uh, putting it in the housing element, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should do it. And I think that's something that needs to be on our parking lot. So, so that's why I brought that up.

[03:23:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, maybe a quick question for Steph. Is there something in the list of recommendations for Matrix that we do not intend to do?

[03:23:45] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor and council members. So, I think in the recommendations in general, we are supportive of the recommendations, there are some nuances to where they might have made a recommendation, but we believe another solution or another path forward would be better. So, a prime example is in the recommended budget. There's a new position for an assistant community development director that's going to oversee the entire development review process. So, we have already taken existing staff, and if you will, this permit navigator title. It's not an actual position, but it's really someone that can help navigate through the challenges or the complaints or the issues that we're having in building, planning, and engineering. So these are staff in 3 different divisions, 2 different departments. So one person does not will not basically make that all smooth because there has to be collaboration between the divisions and the 2 departments. So adding this assistant director at a higher level is going to help navigate through that and work with the staff and the 2 directors. That's just one example of them giving a specific recommendation. And we're sticking to the spirit of it, but we believe we have a better path forward. So I think there are some examples like that where it may not be exactly as they're recommending, but we are certainly moving forward with the recommendations. Um, I'll also note that with this new, um, assistant director position, we will be much better able to provide, uh, status updates on where we're at. We are just buried, underwater right now, with staff. And we've been alluding to it in this report. Um, I'll talk about it in a little bit, um, with the budget, but CDD has a 30% vacancy rate right now. And that's just the reality of the situation between the retirements and staff leaving, due to workload, stress, burnout, other positions. So, we've got to really try and right size this, and there's phasing of the recommendations, but, uh, we need time to do it, and I need someone that's gonna be at the helm, as does RT, to help get us through this process. So, yes, we're gonna do the recommendations, but we may be tweaking them in some ways so that they actually work for our organization. and our operations.

[03:26:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So then maybe as a, as an adjustment, it would be include the actions recommended by staff to address the spirit of the concerns in the matrix study with the time frame proposed by staff. Council member show alter, does that respond to the concern?

[03:26:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I mean, I think that that's better, but I guess, uh, what I would say is that this is an integral part of our, um, our work plan development for February. And I see this as a huge part of that, not necessarily needing to be in the housing element as well. But, Um, There are a lot of different ways to do things.

[03:27:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It sounded like a note to me.

[03:27:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, because it's a no no.

[03:27:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fair enough. Um, I think that's unfortunate. Um, the next one is uh, allowing condo mapping of SB9 uh, duplexes to allow entry level um, ownership opportunities. Does there support for that? One, two, three, four. Yes, there is. Thank you. Um, 2 more. Um, the menu option proposed by staff, where if the regional afford- affordable housing funding source does not happen, then we will pursue a local ongoing revenue source. Is there support for that program? One to three. Um, I'm not seen 4 vote, or votes for that. Um, of four. Right. Thank you for the last minute support. Um, and then the last one is, um, the, well, this actually might be. I'll save this one for later. Are there any recommendations I missed? Not hearing any, so I'll just really quickly go through the list. This is what I got, a Copa Topa program that also applies to mobile home parks. Um, seeking changes to state law to allow the shifting of fees from residentials to office development, an SB 9 design and funding program that would also apply to ADUs and JEDUs, um, allowing, um, uh, short term or employee housing on property zone for office development. Um, and then this is what the, the caveat expressed by staff allowing live work in areas with ground floor retail. Again, as proposed by staff, council member Mattachek. Okay. Um, Increasing the housing impact fee on office development. Um, working with major employers to house their their workforce. allowing condo mapping for SB9 duos, and the menu where we will seek some ongoing source of revenue, prioritizing the regional approach, and should that fail. having a local option. Is that a fair inaccurate summary? Does anyone object to that summary? Okay, great. Council member Mediche.

[03:29:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I just want to clarify that some of these programs, I think, um, our good programs, I just, fundamentally, don't think they should be in the housing element, because what this is doing, from my perspective, is filling up the CDD group with their work for the next, I don't know how many years, which means, um, We don't have the opportunity to talk about other projects when it comes around for the work plan. I'm not sure they're gonna have time to do any other projects. And so I'm really concerned that, um, we're adding things to the housing element that are gonna tie our hands for other projects. I would much rather have all of these discussed as part of the work plan development for the next 2 years. But again, some of them I'm very supportive of, but in a different venue. Thanks.

[03:30:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, city manager.

[03:30:48] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, Mayor. So, essentially, council member Mattachek, um, just detailed just what I was going to say, which is that, um, making sure that we're on the same page, and then I would ask our teacher to reiterate what the path forward is going to be. But just making it clear that this means that we will have in the council work plan discretionary projects and non-discretionary projects. So the nondiscretionary projects will be all of those projects that are in the council. Um, housing or in the housing element, that will have to add to the council work plan. So I just want to make that clear that, um, this means that we will be doing them, which will leave less space to add other things. Now, we do have eight years. So that's at least 4 different workplan cycles. Um, but we'll also not be able to start all of this in the next cycle. So we'll have to figure out the phasing of the projects, everything that's included in the housing element would be on council's work plan. So just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page with that. And then, um, RT, if you could just outline the path forward now, that we have, um, the projects that we're including, and then what that means for what we would include with HCD and then what we would bring back at the end of the year.

[03:32:16] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, so, uh, we will A, um, respect the spirit of the direction of each of these, uh, but, um, and rewarding some of those to directly tie them to some of the analysis and what we found. Um, we will quickly take a look and decide and see if there's anything we can include in this current draft. And to tell you, frankly, the one week we have, I think we're gonna be really challenged, adding any programs to ATD. So most of these will likely come back in November. Um, I think ATD is going to see most of these are strengthening. Um, the ability to provide housing, which actually might put us in a better position. Um, and it'll give us a little time to flesh out the actual program, when we can do it. Um, and um, and part of when we could do it will be what the city manager talked about, which is how many things are we doing now? How many things can we do in the next 2 year work plan? How many things will be part of future work plans spanning the housing element cycle? Um, and so I think we're going to need a little more time to flesh a lot of this out.

[03:33:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City manager, did you want to speak further to this?

[03:33:41] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: No, sorry, forgot to lower my hand.

[03:33:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worry. Um, I think so, the most important thing, I think, to reflect on is, we're not obligating the city to complete this in the next 2 years. We've got 8 years and staff can recommend. Well, 1st recommend not to include it at all after further evaluation. And then, you know, if it is included, we can say this will occur in year six. The housing element cycle. So staff will retain that flexibility. Council member Robbie Koka.

[03:34:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So, um, I agree with Councilman Metachek, and a lot of these programs, a lot of them sound fine, but I think it is, they should be in our council work plan, not in the housing element, and the reason why I say that is exactly. There are other projects that I think we should be looking at, and I know some of them, you, some of you support. Like, what about a general plan update? And if we're going to just fill up our staff capacity with housing almond items, I don't see how we're going to be able to do much at all elsewhere. So, um, you know, I just want folks to, yeah, be mindful of that and, um, you know, we, uh, we, this ties into the budget. Um, where we have a strong budget, but you just never know there's a recession that's um, maybe coming in the next couple years. So that's really my concern is that we're tying our hands and we're not giving ourselves the flexibility to to adjust accordingly to what changes may happen in the next 8 years. I've been, and I wanted to say that if you are going to do this, what I'd like to see is, um, you know, realistically how many units each of these programs are expected to produce because I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on a project, program that's only going to get us like 10 extra unit. So, um, I don't think we can do all of these programs, um, given our staff capacity. So I think we need to really prioritize which one's going to be the most effective and useful in us being able to meet our requirements.

[03:36:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye Snare Hicks.

[03:36:04] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I basically agree with that. What I was hoping, and with what, um, immediately proceeding, speakers have said, um, what I am hoping is that staff can look at these, and not add them immediately, add them, if at all, later, as strengthening programs, and also kind of say, no, this won't produce much, or this is not feasible, and maybe suggest to us not to act on them at all, but to have these as a menu of additional, programs that the radio council wanted some look at. Thank you.

[03:36:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments, thoughts on question one, not seen any? Um, I think the balance of the questions can probably be taken together. I don't think there will be as many recommendations, but we'll see. I could be wrong. So why don't we, um, try and go through the remaining 3 questions, so that's the draft site inventory. The strategy for rezoning, and then any other comments on the draft housing element. I'll capture the ideas and then we'll do a final round of straw holes, we'll take a break and then we'll proceed with the regular session. Um. Any member of the council like to provide thoughts on the balance of the question. Not, oh, council membership, Walter.

[03:37:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure. Um, I would like to suggest that we add, um, the Amber property. I think that's 901 Ringsdorf, and Castro Commons. I mean, they are. They've been, um, We have people who want to develop them for housing and we know that. So it seems to me that it's logical that we include them. Um, and then the other thing, um, was the idea of zoning to support, um, the 3rd question, I think that that is just a brilliant idea. It's very important to do that. So that's my, my comments now.

[03:38:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I think I'm anticipating your comment, RT, if we do Castro Commons, we will have to segment that separately because some members of the council are conflicted out. So, um, let's collect the, the totality of the input. Well, excuse the members of the council who are conflicted out and then will invite them to return for the rest of the suggestions. Are there any other recommendations? Um, really quickly, staff. I think you addressed this in the question or the responses to counsel. The CSA property is being removed based on the letter that we got or does the council need to take action?

[03:39:12] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, we are recommending removal of the CSA property. If the council says nothing about it, we will take it out.

[03:39:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Um, I do have 3 Um, the 1st is, I think we need to remove the El Camino Real and Phyllis Ave property for several reasons. Um, While on a technicality, it may have been up zoned. Um, it was up zoned one month. After it was added to the 5th of the 5th cycle housing element. And so for 8 years, there's been the benefit of that up zoning and 0 interest in housing development. And I'm not anticipating that's a change. And that's also supplemented by the letter we received from the director of the El Camino Health, uh, board. Uh, uh, the president of the board who said that for reiterated that medical services is their priority and there is no intention to build housing there. So I do not think it's a responsive site. And I think if we do leave it, then six, 7 years down the road when nothing happens. We're going to have to go through the no net loss process and find a corresponding site somewhere else. So I would recommend removal of that site. Um, and then, um, I would recommend that these were alternative options proposed by staff, including 57 and 67 East Evelyn Avenue. That's the charities, uh, housing site adjacent to the safe parking site on Evelyn, and 1010 Linda Vista Avenue, which is the Ulta Housing, uh, controlled site. Uh both proposed for affordable housing. I would, uh, recommend that we include, uh, both of those sites and the rezoning strategy. And then for question for other comments in the draft, uh, housing element. We've already done a lot of analysis on constraints. Um, some of those were included in the, um, opticos work on R3, and then some of those were identified in the Matrix development review study. And I think since that work has been done, we should explicitly refer to it in the constraints analysis, in the housing element. It doesn't make sense to do a constraints analysis and then to admit existing work done on constraints. Um, are there any other recommendations before we go through the straw, whole, Council member labor.

[03:41:54] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, there was a mention in here somewhere about, um, the convalescent center on Grant Road. is a possible site, and I just like to urge that, um, we exercise caution, um, when it's, uh, very restricted services for the community. So the availability of subacute care in the community is... almost nothing. And, um, and that is really impacts regionally, and, um, so I, I just like us to be very mindful when there are, are unduplicated services that, that, uh, could go down if we, um, urge them to go down.

[03:42:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Just to clarify, is your recommendation, um, to remove that from consideration.

[03:43:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think that the back pocket site, is that right, Steph?

[03:43:03] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's cool. At the back pocket site?

[03:43:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, yeah, it is a backpocket site. Um, but I just wanted to exercise due diligence on behalf of the community and saying that, um, there are sensitivities when it's uh, uh, a very scarce resource for the community.

[03:43:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, that's that's helpful. Thank you. Are there any other recommendations for us to consider? Um, I forgot the other one I was going to recommend that has to do with the community input at the very beginning. So there was, um, including within the narrative, more explicit references to community input, um, that was received and how that, uh, was evaluated and incorporated into the housing element. Um, so we'll 1st do Castro Commons, which means the members of the council who are conflicted out will have to temporarily leave the meeting. By snare Hicks?

[03:44:10] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I will be recusing myself because my property is near the Castro Commons.

[03:44:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and council member, I'll be.

[03:44:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: The same conflict.

[03:44:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, thank you. Okay, um, is there a, uh, assistant, uh, city manager?

[03:44:33] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I just wanted to clarification, was it to include these sites, um, uh, as, uh, in the opportunity sites inventory or pipeline projects? It wasn't it wasn't clear.

[03:44:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member show, Walter. Do you want to specify?

[03:44:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Opportunity.

[03:44:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Opportunity. I count the number, Matt a check. Oh, sorry. No, no, no further comment. Okay, capital number met a check.

[03:45:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so, um, I'm not sure, what would we assume for, like, the Castro Common site in terms of what could be built there? Given that I don't believe they filed an application? And I think I've seen lots of different scenarios for what they might do. I'm not sure what we would pick to include.

[03:45:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Just an city manager.

[03:45:34] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: If the council wish to include this, um, we, the current project. Um, is based on whatever the zoning allows on, on, on the 2 sites that straddle Fairmont and includes Fairmont Avenue. That encompasses their current application. So just to clarify, the presumption is a code compliant project. But including Fairmont Avenue, that's what their current project includes. Yes, um, it's, I believe they're looking at density bonus, but that that wouldn't be relevant in the opportunity site discussion. I'm member of Matichuck you sold before.

[03:46:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so that implies that we would be obligated to vacate Fairmont. Is that correct?

[03:46:31] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, if we included Fairmont. Alternatively, you could include just the 2 sites. There's different ways of looking at it.

[03:46:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. And then the, um, property on Ringsdorf. Um, how would we approach including that?

[03:46:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. I forgot. Sorry. Any, any, okay, no further questions. Council member League.

[03:47:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, So, I have concerns about, including, um, the Castro Commons, I think it's sort of a, a target that's in flux right now, and I know that there are community sensitivities around the opportunity to give input, and if we include it, And, uh, were then, are we bestowing a fast tracked approval? on the proposed developer, without, does that take away steps of community input? I think that was the question for staff.

[03:47:53] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: If I may just clarify, um, our recommendation, because council hasn't done the street vacation, we haven't gone through the entire process, is to include the 2 sites that the property owner owns, at the same density, the presumption would be that it would have market rate housing on it, and it would have the same protection as any other site, that was, um, as a code and compliant project. Um, So it wouldn't, Eric and Stephanie, you can add any information about whether bestow any special consideration. I guess being a housing element site just adds that a little bit of enhancement, but state law has provided ample protections for code compliant projects. Um, and that do restrict, uh, city's ability to deny, um, a housing project. So I don't see a huge difference. We have made the point that this wouldn't significantly contribute to low income or modern income housing. It would just reflect, um, above market rate housing.

[03:49:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So, uh, a follow-on question, and for me, um, mayor, what would be, is it, is it currently included in what we're going to put in our, our housing element?

[03:49:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It's not currently in the list of pipeline projects. It's not in, it's not currently in the list of what we the draft of what we would submit to HCB.

[03:49:35] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, just to reiterate what the assistant city manager was recommending, uh, you know, if we do add it. Um, and again, you know, staff was recommending to not add it because of the uncertainty. Um, you know, in, um, there may not be a path forward for the project, if they, um, don't get vacation of one of the streets, but if we do add it, and we do say, you know, here's what's allowed on each of these, uh, portions of the property, you know, portions of the project area that they do actually control, uh, with some assumptions of uh, BMR units, uh, then that could be a path forward for including it, even though it would be, um, you know, very, uh, presumptive and may not actually reflect the actual project that's approved.

[03:50:30] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And, and again, mayor, if I may, um, and so, do we have enough housing in the plan without putting it into the plan?

[03:50:44] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, you know, according to, yeah, based based on our plan right now, yes, we do have enough plus a buffer. Um, you know, it could provide some additional buffer if, you know, and we don't expect this, but if HCD comes back and says, um, that we need to modify our site's inventory or if over the course of, um, implementing the housing element, we need additional buffer for no net loss.

[03:51:13] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: I'll add one bit of information. Um, we, uh, would recommend, um, assuming what the developer is proposing, which is mostly market rate units, um, above market rate units, um, with about 15% BMR, because what we don't want to do is assume it's low income. And then right after a project's approved, we would have to do a no net loss and find other sites too. Take the, the loss of of what was proposed. So, it would mostly be market rate with, which we don't need, um, but with some BMR and the 15% BMR could provide a little bit of cushion.

[03:51:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Yeah, I'm just concerned about, I know it's a sensitivity for the community right now and, um, and, and vacating a street and, and, uh, you know, closure of other streets, it's, it's sort of a, uh, a little bit of a quagmire. Thank you.

[03:52:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Count the member shovel.

[03:52:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think the suggestion that, um, uh, the, the community, um, development director made of, you know, just using the, um, uh, the numbers from the, the, um, the area that is not streets, excluding the streets from the numbers, I think that makes perfect sense. Um, because this project might not go forward, but that, but it could be within the 8 years that are, um, here, that another project, um, on those sites could be proposed. So, um, I know several projects, while I've been on council have been proposed and have not gone forward. So that I, I, but I do think that there is an honest desire on the part of the, uh, of the owners for this to be a housing site, and that's really what we should be reflecting, um, in our housing development, as well as sites that, um, uh, we would like to encourage. Thank you.

[03:53:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other questions or comments? For my part, I think it is prudent to include sites where we know there is active or at least historic, uh, housing development interest. I fear that a lot of the sites that we have in the site inventory, have not historically had, um, interest in housing development. And so, while we might get away with it for a few years, down the road, a different council's going to have to make some tough decisions to address the no net loss requirements. Because some of these sites are not going to develop, some of them are going to develop something other than housing, some of them are going to develop that. Uh, affordability, affordability that's different from what's included in the site inventory. Um, and so we can make a hard decision now, or we can make a hard decision later. But at some point, I think we're going to have to contend that the site inventory that I personally think is is a bit optimistic. Um, so council members show Walter, just to be clear, is your recommendation amended to include the staff recommended approach.

[03:54:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's correct.

[03:54:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and then staff to reiterate, that's excluding the vacation of the public right away. That's just including the sites where we know there's, uh, or parcels where there's development interest. Um,

[03:54:55] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: and assuming uh, majority above market with the 15% BMR requirement, because that's what the proposal is.

[03:55:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Any, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Not raise your hand doing it if you want to include that. One, two, that fail. Um, so now we will invite our colleagues to come back. the remaining questions. Welcome. Um, we're not going to proceed with the balance of the recommendations. Um, the next recommendation was to add 901 North Ringstorf to the site inventory. Are there any questions or comments about that? Council member of Matachek? I think you had a question.

[03:56:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I was wondering what the assumption would be about um, what would be produced there? Do we have a formal application?

[03:56:41] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We had one. Uh, it was closed out, um, and the applicants, uh, had said that they were intending to apply with a different project that included density bonus. The previous project, um, proposed to resign the site to R4. It's currently an art 3 site. And so that allows 80 units um to the acre. Um, if this is added to the site's inventory, um, it will be the city's, um, burden to, um, update the zoning and we'll have to create a funding plan to do that.

[03:57:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[03:57:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions? Did have a couple. Oh, counselor deliver.

[03:57:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sorry, mayor. Uh, I have a similar question to my last one. If, um, if, if there isn't actually an application in and we, um, are we bestowing a benefit? forward to say, um, in some sense, an application is, is approved by virtue of being in our, uh, Our housing element.

[03:58:01] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In this case, yes, because the city, um, will have to commit to rezoning this thing. Within the 3 year time frame that HCD gives. So it's a little bit different than Castro Commons and that that site was not proposed to be resounded.

[03:58:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other questions? Um, I did have a couple, um, How long? Oh, 1st was the application submitted subject to the gatekeeper requirement.

[03:58:41] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, yes, but I believe the site was small enough that it didn't have to go through the gatekeeper authorization process. It met the exemption requirement, but it did require a legislative change of updating the general plan and the zoning.

[03:58:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, but it didn't require council authorization for staff to evaluate an application. Okay. And then how many years was that project under review before it was closed up?

[03:59:07] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I wish I had the time frame, um, of when they, I'm probably gonna have to get back to you. But I can tell you the bulk of the reason. stalled was because the applicant did not respond to the changes that staff was requesting. So there were long periods of time. They would resubmit with the exact same project and they'd get the exact same comments back. So, this doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Um, Okay. I can answer that question, they did apply on February 2020.

[03:59:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Glad in February 2020. Okay, and it was closed out, I think a couple of months ago, right?

[03:59:54] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I believe it was as, as, um, recent as last month, but I have to come product.

[04:00:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And in the, 2 years, plus that it was in review, did it ever go before the planning commission or the city council?

[04:00:11] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, it it never went past staff review because there were many issues that had to be looked at. This wasn't as much related to the rezoning as much as it was to the project itself and the funding because we had. Received bids from the um, sequel consultant, but the applicant wasn't prepared to move forward with it. Um, so they didn't provide the funding. So there were many reasons why the project didn't move forward. We couldn't have brought it to the planning commissioner of council without the review sequel.

[04:00:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Alrighty. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Um, If not, then is there support to add this site 901 North Ranksdorf to the site inventory? 12 there is not. Um, the next recommendation was to remove the El Camino real in Phyllis as property, um, primarily in light of the letter we received earlier today from the El Camino health, uh, stating that it was, reserved for medical services. Um, is there support to removing that site from the site inventory? 1234. Okay, thank you. There is support for that. Um, and then these are the 2 alternative, um, proposals, including the staff report, is there some, and these are the 100% affordable housing projects? Is there support to, um, proactively rezone 57 and 67 East Evelyn Avenue, which is the charities housing controlled site? One, two, three, four, five. Thank you. There is support, and then similarly 1010 Linda Vista Ab, which is the Ulta housing controlled site. For affordable housing, is there support to include that as well? One, two, three, four, five, six. Thank you. I was very late putting my hand up on the previous one. Okay, no worries. Thank you very much for, um, for confirming. Yes, for both. And then, uh, directions for staff to include, uh, the constraints analysis already done as part of, um, the matrix development review study in the constraints analysis and the housing element. Is there support for that? One, two, there is not. Um, and I mean, HCD may require this anyway, but just for the sake sake of completion. The R3 constraints analysis that was done as part of the optical work. There's support to, uh, explicitly reference that work as part of the constraints analysis in the housing element. One, two, there is not support for that either. Alrighty. Well, hopefully our constraints analysis flies. Um, and then the last one, um, firing staff to, uh, um, more, uh, comprehensively, list the community outreach meetings, um, including, uh, the input solicited, in each of those meetings, um, policy recommendations proposed. Uh, the process staff used to aggregate and assess the input, and then how that input was incorporated into the housing element. So that's, that's sort of a, more robust inclusion of the public input work in the creating of the housing element draft. Council member labor.

[04:04:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Um, I'm very interested in this, but I would want to know from staff, um, was there information retained about what all people said, and, um, things or was the intention that there would just be kind of a compilation? So it wasn't... It's not still there somewhere.

[04:04:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Go ahead, Ellen.

[04:04:45] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Yeah, we have, um, the base information. So it is available.

[04:04:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, I'd be interested in more of a narrative approach from that.

[04:04:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Any other comments or questions? Council member, Matt, check.

[04:05:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I thought Steph said earlier that they recognized that they needed to go back and include more about that. Wasn't that? Did Steph say that?

[04:05:19] Stephanie Haker: Yes, we did, but this provides a little more specific direction. We're happy to take it.

[04:05:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks.

[04:05:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, um, so we're providing specificity to something that Seth had already proposed to do, is there support for, uh, the public input, uh, work 123456. Thank you. Um, did I miss anything? Were there other recommendations that we need to vote on? Council number show vulture.

[04:05:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I believe that, uh, we haven't voted on the quest of convalescence home. being taken out.

[04:06:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I, well, so I, I wasn't clear. I, I, Council member Liebert, I, I can't recall. Did you explicitly want that removed from the back pocket site?

[04:06:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I, I think it's okay to, um, stay in the back pocket sites, um, But I think, uh, Staff is understanding the concern that, that we have about it around the, the lack of those, um, subacute services. So I'm, I'm confident that that'll be. Good.

[04:06:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: For the clarification. Um, then the summary is that we're, um, For removing El Camino Phyllis, we're um, adding 57 and 67 east Evelyn and 1010 Linda Vista Avenue as, um, included in the alternative, uh, site in the staff report, and then we're adding some detail to the community input, aggregation and incorporation into the housing element draft. Is there anything else? That you need clarification on or direction on? Council membership, Walter.

[04:07:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Have we done the next question or do we have we have one more question, right?

[04:07:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I have intended to take the remaining 3 together. Um, But if you have more, so, uh, RT, did you want to speak?

[04:07:43] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Sorry, I just wanted to confirm that we could remove the El Camita hospital site immediately. Uh, the other two, the charity site on Evelyn and Tenton Linda Vista, we understand the council's interested in rezoning it. We will look and see if we have the ability to accommodate it concurrently with the housing element. But if we don't, we will certainly include it on the plan to do it within the 3 year period. So that is yet to be determined. Um, and then finally, the comprehensive list. Um, the last one, I think most likely that will be prepared um, in the 2nd go around because it'll take a little bit of time to catalog.

[04:08:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the clarification and the summary. Council member show alter, was there additional feedback that you that you wanted us to consider? Okay. Well then, we are on time. It is 630 p.m. when our regular session begins. Well done. We did not overrun the schedule. Um, why don't we take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back at 920 um, for the regular session. Is everyone okay with that? Okay, fantastic. Thank you very much, staff and consultants. Um well done. Thank you for bearing with us on this marathon session and we'll be back at 920. Yeah. Yeah, my phone has all kinds of issues. I will start over. Thank you for catching that. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the city council. Shoreline Regional Park Community, and the city of Mountain View Capital Improvements Financing Authority of June 14, 2022. I will now read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E 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 location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.com, youtube.com forward slash mountain view gov and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda. Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountainview.gov forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom webinar or by phone by dialing 669900 9128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. City clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[04:10:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Koka,

[04:10:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: here,

[04:10:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber.

[04:10:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here?

[04:10:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek,

[04:10:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here.

[04:10:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, show Wilter?

[04:10:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[04:10:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[04:11:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[04:11:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Here, here Ramirez. Here. Yeah, the core.

[04:11:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I will now proceed to item 3 presentations. Please note these are presentations only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. First is 3.one Pride Month proclamation. On June 1st, I was joined by many of my city council colleagues and former mayor and council member, Chris Clark, to raise the prize flag in celebration of Pride Month. Former Sanatara County supervisor and Baymek Community Foundation executive director, Ken Yeager, also joined us, joined us, and was given the 2022 proclamation forest activism on behalf of the LGBTQ IA plus community. Let's view the video of the flag racing ceremony. Is anyone else not seen the video? Oh, I think it's loading.

[04:12:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: I apologize, mayor, I'm having some technical difficulties. Would you like to move on to the next presentation, we can come back to this one?

[04:13:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you.

[04:13:04] Unknown Speaker: No problem.

[04:13:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, we'll proceed to 3.2 Life moves presentation on Life moves Mountain View interim housing community, a project home key site. Um, can somebody assist with moving um, the presenters to the panel? Um, We are happy to be joined this evening by Life Moves representative, Dr. Brian Greenberg, PhD, and vice president of programs and services, and Heather Griffin, MSW Director of Shelter and Services in Santa Clara County. Hopefully they are still present. Other's Heather. Is Dr. Greenberg available?

[04:14:07] Heather Griffin: He's joining right now.

[04:14:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh fantastic. Thank you.

[04:14:13] Dr. Brian Greenberg: Uh, again, I'm Brian Greenberg. Can we, Heather, you want to share the presentation? Uh, this is gonna be very brief. We only have about a dozen slides. Um, I'm Brian Greenberg. I'm over programs and services, a life moves. Uh, the Mountain View, uh, life moves initiative. The interim housing program has been open a year. Um, we, of course, want to thank council, um, especially mountain view staff, as well as the county. Um, the, the interim housing program has really become part of the community. We've liaisoned with other nonprofits, the city, the county, law enforcement, local businesses, and Heather is going to take the next slide.

[04:15:00] Heather Griffin: So what you see in front of you is our model for home key. We're calling it one. which is our Mountain View location. Um, this data that we're going to cover is from May 12th of 2021 to May 19th of 2022. So it's our 1st full year of operations. One of the things that we want to highlight for you all is that our planned impact in this 1st year was to serve around 300 clients. Our actual impact exceeded that. And this was due, like, entirely during the pandemic. So I really want to stress that from start to finish, from planning to demo of the, uh, buildings that were on the property ahead of this construction, the construction itself, moving people into the building, all of that took place within this kind of like 1st year and a half and we still were able to exceed, um, our impact in terms of clients that we served. This wasn't due in large part to the many partnerships that we had from city staff. So, the city manager's office, the community development office, especially Wayne Chin. Our building department led by Nina, and then definitely public works, transportation, waste and planning, all were integral and getting this launched within this really short time span. One of the big things about this project that we wanted to stress was that we wanted to serve clients of Mountain View with dignity and privacy. And so we really did focus on security and wellness of the location. Um, when you are on site, it is fully um, protected by fencing. There's a gate control system. And each client has their own unit, each unit has its own private, um, keypad entry, meaning that they can come and go freely, but it is secure for them and their belongings, which we thought was hugely impactful and important in making sure that our folks in the community felt that this was a place that they would be willing to go and receive services. Um, it is a dignified transitional property. And what we mean by that is this is just one step on someone's journey towards stable housing. It is not meant to be forever. And so a lot of the work that we do on site. is geared toward matching the needs of the clients and moving them through that process towards housing. Again, our timeline for this, um, was very short, so we did open just a year ago in May, and we were fully operational with folks in the doors by August of that year. So, um, this is uh, life moves, uh, data writ large. We operate 27 sites. Um, and that hexagon you see are the services provided will go into them in a little more depth. In a bit, but just so you know, um, clients come in, they get a comprehensive assessment, and then a case plan, which is their kind of Google map to permanent housing. Um, and yeah, yeah, it's self-explanatory. And in this slide, um, this is kind of our path to housing. So we don't decide who comes into the shelter. They hear for you hotline, operated by Bill Wilson, obviously, um, prioritizes, um, people, uh, individuals, couples and families, experiencing homelessness from Mountain View. Um, they get, uh, at orientation, they get an intake, an assessment. They get an explanation of program guidelines. Um, and then, um, we have all kinds of services, behavioral health services, the therapy, case management services, um, housing specialists, vocational specialists, and whatnot. Um, and then the plan is to move people onto stable housing. Next slide, please. So, as Brian mentioned, the requirements for our program, um, I want to highlight those a little bit so that we can answer any questions that folks may have. In order to receive, um, a bed, you have to utilize the here for you hotline. Um, that is the countywide system, and we are prioritizing in terms of requirements folks who are coming from the mountain view region. Um, so they're really coming from the community. They're not coming from other points in the county. In addition, we also screen to make sure that individuals are able to safely navigate the program. And what that means is that they're independent of their bodily functions, because we don't have skilled nursing and we want to make sure that we're setting folks up for success. Um, once that intake or referral has been made, we bring folks in. I do want to highlight one of the partnerships that we've had with the city of Mountain View is with Officer McPherson. And so she has a direct line to refer folks that she's encountering within the city, um, going through the hotline directly. And so that's been hugely successful for us and targeting some of those key, um, community members that we're trying to work with through the police department. When folks are brought in, they're provided an intake and a warm welcome by our staff, in that it's a lot of information that they receive. So, um, it is all of our program guidelines, which outlines kind of what they can expect of the program, including the length of stay. Our length of stay varies and it's based on individual need. We do a program case plan, which is what Brian was describing. So each client is assigned a case manager who meets with them at least once a week. And they work through a case plan to identify based on the assessment. What needs they may have in order to move towards more stable housing and something that is long term? Since again, our program is an interim solution. Um, with that, what we use are tools that we call program completions and extensions. So we use that as a frame to help maintain engagement from clients that they're working on their goals towards that stable housing option instead of getting stuck. It is very easy for folks to feel comfortable, especially coming from trauma or other situations, to finally take that 1st deep breath. And so we really utilize our staff and the tools we have to encourage them towards those other resources. Everything that we use that as a tool is an appealable thing. We want to give clients a voice back in their stay. And so nothing, um, that we provide isn't something that they can't, um, be heard and appeal. And so a little bit more about the staff who helped deliver those services. Mountain View, um, is staffed by a program director and associate director who kind of oversee all of the operations and facility needs, and will be our touchpoints for any grievances or community concerns, or client concerns. We also staff the facility 247 with residential services coordinators. So there is always a life moves touchpoint for any individual. We know that our folks come and they work late or odd hours or there's other emergencies and things they're doing. They are on site at all times to make sure that the community stays safe, and the clients get services that they need. Our children's services coordinator act sort of like case managers for our children. So with this program, there are 12 family units and children that are enrolled in various childcare or school activities, and the goal is to keep them as stably engaged with what they had before coming to our program. So our CSCs, um, work to connect them to all those resources, including transportation, the McKenny Vento liaisons in the schools to ensure that they have that enriching experience. As I mentioned earlier, each of our households, our clients are assigned a case manager, that is someone who connects them with other resources in the community, including housing specialist, benefit specialist, employment specialist that you see below, both within life moves, and then, again, community at large. Our housing, employment, and benefits specialists are there and available for folks to be referred to when they have a specialized need and have different components in order to make progress towards that goal of stable housing. This specific facility also has a full-time LVN or a licensed vocational nurse. Um, she meets with each individual the day that they arrive. She's part of our COVID protocol. We make sure that everyone is safe and on site, but we also have a lot of individuals coming with delayed medical needs or complex challenges around their health just because they have been experiencing, uh, unsheltered life and homelessness. And so she will really work to help educate them around how to care for their own needs, to make sure that they can independently manage those when they find their permanent housing. In addition, we also are supported by a dietitian who works for life moves at large. And helps us make sure that all of the food provided to the site is, um, of great nutritious quality. And again, we'll meet some of the specific needs of our clients. We also have available clinical staff. And what we mean by this are, um, Therapy students, doctoral students who are providing therapy services, and we do this as the clients need and request, so it is not required. But it is a service that they can be referred to where they can do individual family therapy, group therapy and different modalities to work through some of those other barriers that may prevent them from being successful and stable housing.

[04:24:42] Dr. Brian Greenberg: So, um, 1st of all, let me say that the families with minor children tend to be younger and our single adults, the average age is over 50. So the single adult, homeless population, is an aging population. Um, you can see two thirds of the adults are over the age of uh, 45. Um, they, it's a, it's a poor population, obviously, uh, with 135 people, uh, coming in, uh, with income under 10,000 a year, um, they largely came from places not meant for human habitation, largely the streets, um, and 2nd to that, would be, um, shelters, uh, and then, uh, vehicles, um, and 80% of the families exited the stable housing, and 37% of singles and couples exited the stable housing, our goal next year is to get that over 50%. It's a challenge for us, especially single adults with more behavioral health challenges, either addiction disorders or serious mental illness, as well as limited income. So we try to balance that throughput, turning over the beds a couple times a year if we can, while making every effort not to exit people to homelessness. Um, that, we tend to average just over 50% in our single adults, it has been more challenging um, with COVID restrictions. Next slide, please. Um, there was some interest in where people are exiting, as you can see, um, most people, um, exit, uh, within the county, uh, to Santa Clara County. Next slide. Um, some of you are familiar. We have the governor there, um, we're an urban land institute, finalist. Um, we've toured every county, every city council, every philanthropic organization, every foundation. We generally do multiple tours upon request a week, and we really believe it's a model for best practice. One of the silver linings of the pandemic is we'll probably never develop another congregate shelter. Um, it's been able to serve people who, for years, were reticent to enter shelter because of the, um, congregate uh, congregate living settings. And I success stories, you know, um, it's what makes our jobs worthwhile. It's why we at life boobs have the coolest jobs in the world. Um, you know, we're uh, graduating people to uh, permanent housing every week. Um, it's um, it's just really super. Um, to have individuals, couples, and families, um, exit the street. Um, Yeah. And that is our presentation. Um, anyone who has not been there. We'd love to give you a tour. Um, Yeah. Questions, comments.

[04:28:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you both for the presentation and for your patience, uh, with us as we worked through the previous item, would any member of the council like to say a few words? Not seeing any hands up. I did have a, oh, count by snare Hicks.

[04:28:28] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I have a question, not a, a comment. Is it time for questions or just comments?

[04:28:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Both questions and comments are fine.

[04:28:40] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, first, my comment is, thank you very much for what you're doing. It's not easiest of businesses to be in. So, um, I am extremely grateful. My question, and I actually don't expect you to, or that it's even possible to do your work perfectly, because it's that difficult. Maybe most jobs are that way. But, um, but my question is whether the, uh, transitional goal of three months, whether that's really hard to... I imagine there may not be an abundance of affordable units to move people, too. So, I'm wondering whether that's, uh, been very difficult, whether you ever think of... just, like, a little more description of that, whether you ever think of tweaking that in any way, or...

[04:29:34] Dr. Brian Greenberg: That's a... that's a great question. So, um, when people come in, we say it's a three month program, we grant two weeks extensions, as long as people are progressing on their housing plan in any way, shape, or form, um, and they complete a one page extension application, uh, then those are granted. So we have people living in other places, 14, 18, 22 months. Um, as long as they are progressing. As soon as you say, this, you know, I got free laundry, I got free utilities, free food, um, as long, as soon as you say, this is where I want to live forever, that's when, and I'm not filling out the appeal forms. That's when we ask people to move on. How do you wanna say anything else about that?

[04:30:22] Heather Griffin: Just that our extension process, and we sort of touched on it, but I'll go into debt. We really strongly encourage folks in our programs to apply for and appeal everything to ask for the extensions. Our goal is to give them as much time as they need. We're using it again as tools for that engagement to help keep them moving forward. Uh, we will work with folks through all of those different barriers that they're coming with. To your point. 90 days is a short turnaround, but we do see that that's a great motivating point to keep them moving forward in some of those other goals. Our average success is over 150 days now. So the 90 days is just kind of a guideline where we start asking people to complete this form and ask for another 2 weeks, to kind of keep our case managers on us, to keep the clients on us, to keep make certain people are working together.

[04:31:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I could ask a lot more, but I will thank you, and I will let other council members ask questions. as well.

[04:31:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, show Walter.

[04:31:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I'd like to echo my thanks. I think the, the, the whole community is, is really pleased that this is happening, and um, that there's, you know, homelessness has been such a, uh, intractable problem. We've tried so many things, and, of course, I think that's what we need to do, is try many things. But this is one we feel is, um, really, uh, valuable, and, and, um, makes a huge difference. So thank you. But I did have a question about the people who, um, exit the program that don't go to stable housing. I mean, do they go back into what you would consider an unsheltered, um, uh, homeless situation? Is that what happens?

[04:32:19] Dr. Brian Greenberg: So, we always make a referral to another program. Um, some people are deemed kind of unsafe for a shelter environment, because of either, um, aggressive behavior or drug behavior, um, but, uh, everyone is referred, um, that's not on some kind of a do not admit list. And let me say that we have many staff at life moves that had to go through our program 3 or 4 times. Not everyone, living on the street torments people. It is, it's really challenging for the human condition. And not everyone gets it the first time. Um, people some people need to get into recovery services. Some people need to get into psychiatric services. Every time someone exits the homelessness, it's a failure. It's a failure for them, and it's a failure for our program. Some people go and live in vehicles, some people go and live in other shelters. Some people go and pay for motels. They have money saved, we have a savings program. But yeah, sometimes they exit to places unfit for human habitation.

[04:33:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thanks again.

[04:33:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I did have one question, um, or one idea, I supposed to float. Um, periodically, the council will receive outreach from, um, clients, from unhoused people who have been through the program or from advocates, uh, working with, um, with clients, current and former, um, and oftentimes it's in the form of constituent case work, right? We need assistance with, um, addressing this concern or we're not being heard, uh, on, um, on some specific issue. Uh, and I've been wondering if it makes sense to consider creating, uh, some kind of internal, uh, committee or task force with current and maybe former clients, who can help provide some feedback on some of this because I personally don't feel terribly well equipped to address concerns about operations or, uh, on-site needs. Um, but I'm wondering, have you done anything like that in, in, um, other uh, shelters that you operate? Is that something that you would consider doing just to give folks another opportunity to provide input on operations and um, and concerns?

[04:35:04] Heather Griffin: You want to take or do you want me to have there?

[04:35:06] Dr. Brian Greenberg: So let me say 1st of all, we have a stakeholder meeting, um, that's broad. Let me say 2nd of all, Heather and I return all emails, within a business day, and we convene meetings, with clients, and their advocates, upon requests, 5 days a week. Um, it's a little hard, because of confidentiality issues, to address client issues with a broader community. So, we operate, even though we're not a HIPA entity. We operate under HIPAA and confidentiality rules. So it's hard to... clients can tell us anything. Um, stakeholders can tell us anything. We can't share things about clients. So it just gets touchy with confidentiality issues. But we will convene a meeting with a client or a client and their advocate, or just the advocate, anytime, and we're eager to do that and address concerns. Um, it's, it's easier with the client, um, if, because uh, all too frequently, there's not a release of information. So we can't speak openly, but anyone at any time can speak openly to us about their concerns. Um, and the stakeholder meetings have been helpful. with government entities, with law enforcement, with others. Heather, is there anything I'm missing?

[04:36:39] Heather Griffin: Yeah. Thank you covering it.

[04:36:43] Dr. Brian Greenberg: Thank you. And I... And I also urge you, when you get those emails, to email Heather and I, and wait for us a response. You, um, we're the ones that can impact these people's lives that make a difference. We're on site 247. So we'll let you know that we are dealing with this concern. Um, it is not a black box. We can share clinical information about a client or any personal information, but we can let you know that we're on it, and we will let you know when a disposition has been arrived at. I mean, we don't want to be secretive. We just must protect clients' confidentiality, but we'll let you know in no uncertain terms that we're on it, that we're meeting with this person, um, and that we're working to resolve their concerns. Only barrier is confidentiality.

[04:37:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Staff, it may be helpful to forward if you're amenable to the your contact information to the council in case we do get questions or concerns. Um, any other questions or comments? Or we conclude 3.2?

[04:37:59] Dr. Brian Greenberg: I would just invite any council member to also email us for an on-site visit and talk to some residents. It's an hour that you won't forget. Um, and it's if you haven't seen it, since it's really complete, it is something to see.

[04:38:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, city manager.

[04:38:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. So, I just wanted to note that, uh, we do have staff liaison through the city manager's office, Kimberly Thomas, our assistant to the city manager, and also Parnate Denza, who is our new human services manager, and they, um, lays very, very frequently with life move staff, um, including making sure that any of those complaints, um, or emails that come in, are immediately taken care of and routed to either Dr. Greenberg or the life moves Mountain View staff that are on site. Um, so I just wanted to make sure that, um, the public and and council is reminded of that. Um, we're very committed to making sure that this is successful and that we can address any of those issues that come to council.

[04:39:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, and thank you, Dr. Greenberg and Heather, for joining us. I know we have some public comment. related specifically to this item. Uh, I want to check with the city clerk 1st uh, before we go to public comment, were you able to get the video up and running for 3.one?

[04:39:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yeah, we should be good.

[04:39:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. So thank you again. We're gonna return to 3.one. Um, and then we'll take public comment on the presentations. Welcome, everyone, to the June 2022 Pride Flag Raising over the Mountain View Civic Center Plaza. It is a sincere honor to join you, along with my colleagues on the city council, Vice Mayor Alison Hicks, Council member Margaret Abecoga, Council member Lisa Matachek, Council member Pat Schoalter, former mayor and Council member Chris Clark, and Baymek Community Foundation, Executive Director, and former Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager. By raising this flag, we are celebrating and supporting our LGBTQ plus community. We raise it in June to commemorate the June 1969 Stonewall uprisings in New York City, a significant turning point for the gay rights movement. Today, we raised the rainbow flag over Mountain View City Hall to demonstrate our community's ongoing commitment to inclusivity and our shared humanity. Regrettably, despite decades of activism and progress, hard won civil liberties and human rights are threatened by regressive ideologies and hateful rhetoric. But here, in Mountain View, We embrace and take great pride in our diverse community, and we are proud to stand in solidarity with our LGBTQ+ relatives, friends, and neighbors. Now, I would like to present the city's Proclamation for Pride Month to Supervisor Ken Yeager. Thank you again.

[04:41:13] Ken Yeager: Thank you, Mayor. Well, thank you for this great proclamation, and it's an honor to receive it on behalf of the LGBT community in Santa Clara County. It is so important that we demonstrate our support of diversity with all of our citizens in Mountain View and in Santa Clara County. And that's why it's so important that we do raise the flag in honor of the Stonewall riots that happened in 1969, and to really sort of reconfirm our commitment to everyone in our community. I just am very proud of the city of Mountain View. We will be having the exhibit, Queer Silicon Valley, in the rotunda of City Hall starting September 1st. And also, I know that our documentary, on the Queer Silicon Valley history, is showing on your public access television. So, Mary, I just want you to know that every time we've needed something from the city has been no problem in being able to get it done, and everyone has just been very cooperative, and we really thank you for all of your work.

[04:42:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, thank you very much. Thank you.

[04:42:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We will now raise the flag. Thank you very much. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Council member Lieber.

[04:43:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. I wasn't able to be there for the flag raising, but I very much appreciate the gesture on behalf of the city and appreciate everything that we're doing towards inclusion of the community and everything that we have going on with the city in terms of families and seniors and all the services that we're providing. And I just wanted to recognize that it was 20 years ago this month, that the 1st same gender wedding was held in Mountain View City Hall. And that couple is still together. So we must be doing something right. Thank you.

[04:43:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other comments? Not seeing any. I'll just add very briefly, um, reiterating, um, what was said in the video, we have observed, uh, a disturbing increase in, uh, hate crimes and targeting, uh, LGBT, uh, Q people. Um, and I want to make clear, uh, to everyone participating in the meeting, um, and those who watch it later, that hate, hatred of any kind is not welcome in Mountain View, uh, that Mountain View is a community for all and inclusive, uh, and diverse, uh, place. Um, and, uh, while we hope that, um, no targeting or, or, uh, hate crime occurs here. Um, we have, uh, a phenomenal, uh, uh, police chief who I know recognizes, uh, the importance of working with, uh, vulnerable and and discriminate, communities that have been discriminated against. We've, uh, seen similar rises in, in, uh, in hate speech and rhetoric against, uh, other communities, um, that's why we've had the Black Lives Matter movement and the South Asian hate movements. Um, and uh, it's, it's just important to, to recognize that this is happening nationwide. Um, and we've had some distorting incidents even within the past week. Um, and I think it's, it's important to recognize that this is a council that stands with the LGBTQ community and is proud to do so. Thank you for, um, joining me for the pride month proclamation, uh, and the video. Um, we will now uh, turn to public comment. 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 in Zoom, and press or press star 9 on your phone. Time will be displayed on the screen, um, and, uh, Looks like there's only one speaker, so we'll allocate 3 minutes. Um, the 1st speaker is uh, life moves need to improve. Whenever you're ready.

[04:46:01] Public Speaker: Want to ask what I want to talk about? Um, I was, I wanted to cover several issues. Um, and there's also somebody else who wants to talk, so they should have their hand raised, so I'm confused. Um, Uh, so to cover security and wellness. Uh, when you, uh, Pat, show alter asked about people in cars, or, uh, what happens when people leave, where do they go? There are several camps outside of the, uh, place where people are now living in their cars. And these are people that were exited from the program. And there are many people who, when they're told, well, you know, you can only be here 90 days. They, like, leave. They're afraid to ask for appeals and things like that, because unhoused people are scared to death of other people. They don't know that they can appeal, that they can fight back, that they can speak up. And these tools, they reference tools, as they, you know, in checking in by doing these appeals, that's, like, me coming in and hitting you on the toe with a hammer and being like, just wanted to make sure you were getting that toe checked out. Um, asking people to file these appeals every two weeks or these extensions every two weeks is not helpful. It is traumatizing. The dietician. They serve cold, sugary breakfast cereals in the mornings. And there was curdled milk, actually chunky milk, um, about three weeks ago. I have tried to talk to Brian. I have tried to talk to Heather. Brian literally raises his hands and waves them. Like, you know, ah, you know, just, you know, just literally waves me off and makes it sound like they're listening, but really just waves me off. I tried to go to the city to talk about this. And they sent my emails straight to life moves. If I wanted to continue negotiating with life moves, I wouldn't be sending it to the city. Also about security and wellness, there was somebody who left there. Because they were being sexually harassed and stalked at a place that has a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. They were living in their car now. This is not okay. Um, 30% people go to stable housing. That tells you something. There isn't stable housing, and the majority, and that's two thirds of these people are over 45. These are our seniors. We are failing them. We cannot exit people from this program when they have nowhere to go, and we know that they don't. There's a case manager, Mary Ground. Seems like every few days there's a new case manager, and these people aren't needing them. Brian told me in a conversation where Kimberly was at, that people who just do meth there and stay there, as long as they're, like, checking in. Well, let's make sure that people can, more or less, that they're not exiting people who are doing the plan and stop traumatizing people who are doing the plan. They shouldn't have to check in every two weeks and file and beg for appeals. If you know somebody who just started a job and they're working the plan, stop traumatizing them and making them file appeals. There's so much more I have to say. Why don't you come with us and meet people and go for a tour.

[04:49:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[04:49:11] Tim McKenzie: I just wanted to speak about the the Pride Month proclamation. Um, one way that we can, in a concrete way, as the city of Mountain View, and be more inclusive to the trans community is to put period products in men's bathrooms. I know that we've done that at the city level in women's bathrooms. To be honest, I haven't been in a municipal, and I haven't gone to the library bathroom in a while, so maybe it's something that's already happened, but I know that we in Mountain View have been a leader on this. And this is some concrete step that we could take if we haven't done so already. And with regards to life moves, it's great to be getting people off the streets. But even if the majority of people are going to Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County is really big. Um, is, are we, where, where are we actually sending people, uh, because as we just spent, and we're about to vote. You're about to vote to extend the meeting past 10 PM, 10 PM, I'm sure, because the housing element went so long because there is not enough housing. Um, and we're, what, with this transitional housing by design, it's not keeping people in our community, even if we are uh, prioritizing prioritizing people from Mountain View. If the stated goal is to move people to more stable housing, and we know that there isn't stable housing here, it really seems to me like we're just pushing people out. Um, it's great that we're getting people off the streets that, uh, it's great that there is some sort of, uh, motion towards that, but, um, I just want to mention that and seems like we're pushing people out.

[04:50:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I did get to notice that there's a member who would like to speak and is having technical difficulties. If you're on your phone, press star 9. Or raise your hand. Um, but I will have to close public comment if I don't see a hand up because I'm not sure what the Zoom handle is. And not seeing, um, a hands up, if you want to speak to this. Um, there's a non-agenda public comment period, and we can try again later. Um, but we'll go ahead and close public comments, so you know, um, hands up. And then we'll proceed. Uh, 1st um, I'll move to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock. You have a, lengthy, set of consent items I want to get. Thank you. Um, do a roll called those.

[04:51:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Miramirez?

[04:51:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:51:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Is that cancel member shelter that mean their 2nd?

[04:52:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:52:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. Perfect. Council member Abby Coca?

[04:52:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I

[04:52:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[04:52:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:52:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek?

[04:52:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[04:52:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:52:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:52:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 51.

[04:52:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. Oh, we'll now proceed to, uh, item 4 consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Um, 1st um, Vice Mayor Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

[04:52:46] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh my gosh, I may not have read the agenda blue carefully enough. I suppose I do have fun today. Just a moment. Um. Okay. Yes. I'm recusing myself from item 4.2 due to my financial interest in a business entity located within the precise plan area.

[04:53:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council member, uh, Abecoga.

[04:53:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, I'd like to pull item 4.4 for discussion. Um,

[04:53:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and that is, uh, oh, okay, the, uh, A B, uh, 361. Uh, and then, uh, any other Council members wishing to call an item. I'm not seeing any. Um, so now, um, we will take public comment on every, on the, the balance of the consent calendar will do 4.4 separately. 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 button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, due to the lateness of the hour. Let's allocate 2 minutes. Um, Kevin Ma is the 1st speaker.

[04:54:24] Kevin Ma: Evening counsel. Um, I'm, Kevin, I'm speaking on myself. I would like to thank counsel for extending the safe parking program under 4.8. I do recognize that, oh, that a lot of the programs we are using for that are projects that will likely be developed within the next 8 years, hopefully, which means we would need to find a place to find new state parking spots. I recognize the staff reporters noted that it's very hard to do that for various reasons. But I really think that we should still try the last homeless count to show that we're not really reducing the population right now, and that's so true for most of the county. So there would be need to be a place for the people who are going to be in vehicles. Um, I guess there might be need for greater incentives to encourage more things, but, Yeah, because kind of asking for it's a little hard to do now. Like, I understand the earlier discussion was talking about parking as a place for, like, basically necessity, but this is kind of like the one exception where that does actually make sense. Um, I also like to thank the council for continuing support for Crestview under 417 and continuing further efforts to find places to find future affordable housing. Thank you.

[04:55:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You know, other members of the public wishing to speak, uh, will return to the council for deliberation. Um, uh, so a motion is in order for every item except 4.4. Uh, and uh, the agenda flow includes the resolutions that will need to be read. Council member Abekoka.

[04:56:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I don't see any hands for discussion, so I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to, um, approve the consent calendar, uh, that includes, um, please bear with me a number of readings. Item 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, adding chapter 47 to the Mountain View City code regarding precise plan development impact fees and the East Wisman precise plan development impact fee to be read entitled only for the reading waived. 4.3, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 19, article 8, division 3, section 19.71 of the Mountain View city code relating to prohibited parking between 2 AM to 6 AM to be read entitled only for the reading waived. I'm going to skip item 4.4 since I pulled that and go to 4.5, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving the annual engineers report for the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment District, number 2 for fiscal year 2022 to 2023 and authorizing its delivery to Santa Clara County to be read entitled only for the reading waived. 4.6 adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, approving the final map of track number 10583, one at 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard, accepting dedications and making findings as required by the city code to be read entitled only for the reading waived. 4.8, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of mountain view amending resolution number 18301, as amended by resolution 18462, declaring a shelter crisis, extending the duration of the declaration until June 30, 2024, to be read in title only for the reading waived. 4.15, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, calling a general municipal election for the purpose of electing 3 members of the city council, requesting the board of supervisors to authorize the registrar voters to contract for election services, authorizing the city clerk to contract with the county of Santa Clara pertaining to services to be performed by the county in connection with the general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 8th, 2022, and related actions to be read entitled only for the reading waived. And adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, adopting a 200 word maximum for a candidate statement of qualifications, and charging each candidate for a fixed share of costs for the printing, handling, translating, and mailing for the general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[04:58:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for reading through all of that. Council member show Walter.

[04:58:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'd like to 2nd that and also make a comment about 4.9. Um, that is, uh, the item to accept a, um, a grant from this Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and I would just to like to, um, say thank you to the Community Foundation for that grant, and also, congratulations to, um, the Mountain View staff for, um, getting us that grant. This is the first time I can remember that we've gotten a grant from Silicon Valley community foundation, particularly in this magnitude, and, um, it's, uh, that's a very good thing. So thank you so much, staff, for organizing that.

[04:59:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I completely agree. Any other questions or comments? If not, we'll begin the role called.

[04:59:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abby Coco?

[04:59:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye.

[04:59:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, Sher Walter?

[04:59:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes?

[04:59:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[04:59:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[04:59:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Matachek.

[04:59:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:59:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:59:56] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:59:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[04:59:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:59:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[05:00:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great, thank you. And now we'll proceed to 4.4 Council member Abi Coca.

[05:00:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, so 4.4 has to do with our, um, the resolution to continue remote meetings and your AB 361. We been doing this monthly, I believe. Um, and this is my, um, my topic is not quite, um, to, uh, it's somewhat related to this, and I was, um, advise that this would probably be the best, uh, place to bring up the issue, but, um, I know that we decided at our council retreat back in April to, um, come back to in-person meetings for our last meeting before summer break on June 28th to our next meeting. And, um, you know, I very much would, you know, would like to do that. Um, but as you, many of you know, um, I contracted COVID. Um, until, uh, this past weekend, I was quarantined for 10 days. Um, I, um, have been masking. Um, I got a notification as to when, when I might have, um, uh, been in contact with someone. Um, I've, you know, been to events, um, outdoor events, and, um, mask even outdoors when it's a large event and yet I still contacted COVID. And, um, you know, in light of my, the fact that I've gotten COVID, it's probably less of a concern for me personally, um, but it just gave me some pause as to whether it is prudent for us to return in person. Um, you know, it was mild for me, but, um, I have had friends. Actually, quite a few folks I know are contracting COVID, and some have had some major symptoms that they've had to go to the ER and whatnot. And I just, um, you know, looking, I look at our COVID numbers, um, daily, our county numbers, and there's been an uptick. I heard we're plateauing, but we're still in the 1100 plus case range. Um, so there has been a big increase. And so I just wanted to bring it up, I guess, to ask all of you if, um, there's, uh, any, um, 2nd thought to whether we should be returning, um, in light of it being just the final meeting before summer. Um, you know, my feeling now is that perhaps we should just wait through the summer and come back in the fall. And hopefully by then, the numbers will, um, you know, have have, um, leveled off and been coming down. Um, I still think about um, folks who have young children who are not able to get vaccinated. Um, and just want to be, you know, be cautious, be extra cautious. I just don't think we're quite out of the woods yet. So I just wanted to bring it up. I'm okay either way given my personal situation, but I just want to be mindful of other folks and be safe with them. Thank you.

[05:03:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Question for staff. So if the council wanted to provide directions, uh, to, uh, have the June 28th meeting entirely, virtually and no longer, uh, have a hybrid meeting, um, should, should that direction be included as part of this motion? The staff have a preference to do that as part of item 8. What is your recommendation?

[05:03:35] Unknown Speaker: Mayor. So in passing this resolution, it allows you to continue to meet remotely on June 28th, so you wouldn't have to do anything else. It's just a decision of the council, whether you will meet remotely and continue to do that versus coming back for the hybrid meeting. So you do not need a formal motion to have the June 28th meeting be virtual. I believe so. Yeah, I think that's fine, just to continue to pass this item 4.4 which allows you to continue to meet remotely.

[05:04:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you, Council member leader.

[05:04:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Totally concur a 1000% with council member Abbe Koga's sentiments about this. Um, it, uh, we wish that we were in control of the situation, but the reality is that the virus is in control. And just in the past couple days, there's been news about 2 new variants that are highly communicable among people who have been vaccinated and boosted. Um, so I think out of an abundance of caution. It's, um, better not to, uh, have, have the public coming down to the building and have staff, um, spending extra hours in the building and, um, maybe we'll, you know, see where we are after the summer break and hopefully we're in a much better situation in terms of the public health.

[05:05:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments before I go to public comment? Not seen any, so we'll turn to the public. Um, and uh, we'll allocate, um, 2 minutes. The 1st speaker is Tim Mackenzie.

[05:05:27] Tim McKenzie: Uh, I think being prudent about the plague is probably a good idea. I've managed to avoid it myself, but also know several people who are who have recently got it and just our test positivity rate is above 10% in Santa Clara County. We remember, I think it was like 5% above 5% was when we were in the purple. Remember the colors back in the early days. So it, we're very much still in the midst of COVID. But also, I just like to, hopefully maybe in the fall, we'll be able to come back towards person, but I would like to make a plug for maintaining hybrid, and giving people an option of being able to be civically engaged without necessarily having to be present, so it doesn't necessarily have to feel like having a full-time job just to be an engaged resident of the city. So I'm sure there will be bumps that will happen in a hybrid format, but I think that is very well worth doing. And I just wanna, I'm glad to see that we're still allowing the virtual meetings, but even when we do come back in person, I really wanna put out an idea of keeping a virtual option as a possibility. Thanks.

[05:06:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Heidi Peterson.

[05:06:54] Heidi Peterson: Sorry, it was on mute. Can you hear me?

[05:06:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[05:06:58] Heidi Peterson: Okay, yeah. So, um, well, kudos to you guys for being, uh, meeting for so long. I've been waiting for 5 hours for this public session, and I am, um, just wanted to request that at a future meeting, you take on gun safety as an issue. Um, I think, you know, we had the March for our lives, um, in Mountain View on Saturday, and nationally. I went up to the city.

[05:07:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. I'm sorry to interrupt. This item is 4.4, that...

[05:07:35] Heidi Peterson: Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought it was five. Oh, God, do I have to wait longer? Okay, I'll go back. And I'll wait. I'm so sorry. You should have stopped me right away. Thank you.

[05:07:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worries. And my apologies for not being...

[05:07:49] Heidi Peterson: No, no, no. I'm so sorry. I'll be even briefer. Bye.

[05:07:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, uh, see no other members of the public wishing to speak on item 4.4, which is the AB 361 resolution to continue public uh, remote public meetings. Um, so I think what we'll do is we'll 1st vote on, uh, the resolution, and if it passes, we'll do a quick straw poll to see, uh, if we should continue with the hybrid meeting or do a virtual meeting instead. Council member all because.

[05:08:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Mayor, then I'll go ahead and make a motion to adopt item 4.4, a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain 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 rating waived.

[05:08:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member, Council member, Show Walter.

[05:08:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[05:08:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? If not, uh, let's start the

[05:08:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koga?

[05:08:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Right,

[05:08:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, show Walter?

[05:09:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:09:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[05:09:04] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:09:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek?

[05:09:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:09:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Nice Mayor Hicks.

[05:09:09] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:09:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[05:09:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[05:09:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[05:09:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much, and let's do a straw pole, kind of like we did with the housing element. Just raise your hands if you would prefer for the meeting on the 28th to be an all virtual meeting. One, two, three, so I'll raise my hand too. Uh, uh, I guess it's uh, 6 of one.5 a dozen of the others for for some of us. but it looks like there's a majority for a virtual meeting. Um, so uh, staff, is there any further direction that you will need? For the 28th. No? Okay. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Uh, we will now proceed 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. Um, for up to, hopefully, we won't need this uh, 3 minutes during the section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. First speaker is Heidi Peterson.

[05:10:32] Heidi Peterson: I gotta unmute. I've never done one of these remotely for, for the council, so apologies. Anyway, I would like gun safety to be on an agenda item for a future council meeting. I would like to see that the cities in our region unite more. I think, um, having gone to that march and having heard some of the speakers, I think, other cities are doing some very interesting, very important things. Congress is doing the bare minimum at best. It's an epidemic, it's a public health problem. Our kids shouldn't have to be the ones to fight for this. I think the public. I think it has to start from the ground up. I think it has to start with the public. is the reason I've been waiting. I have not listened to all your items. Obviously, I would have been a little bit better at joining when I needed to join, but, um, I just think Mountain View has to align. I was also up in San Francisco and astounded at what San Francisco's achieved in terms of gun merchants, and they don't have gun stores anymore. Cal Palace no longer has the gun shows. And this isn't political. It's not to stop all gun sales, but because of the rampant use of them, the easy access to them, the lack of regulation of any kind. It has to start there. It has to start with our cities, acting. And I know there's wonderful, wonderful organizations, moms demand, but, I mean, to just have, like, you know, safe storage is is a success. It's never gonna, it's never gonna get better, the epidemic if we don't collectively do something. So I'd love to see Mountain View. Put this as an agenda item, not make it political, make it public health, and make it to ensure that our kids' safety is paramount, not, you know, rights to AR 15s for sport. So this is not a political thing. It is, like, everyone uses these words, common sense. But it is common sense. So I would just love to see that, uh, really deliberated at a future council meeting. Thanks a lot. Thank you for your time.

[05:12:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Stephen Goldstein.

[05:12:53] Stephen Goldstein: Thank you very much. I need to address something very important. That's currently going on a lot in this city right now. Please understand, once any agency, regarding the state and county makes a declaration of a value of a property that is significantly less in the original value that was rented, in this case, regarding apartments. Then you can wind up with a very serious situation with regards to both the CSFRA and the enforcement of rental agreements. With regards to property taxes, the local tax assessor is responsible for calculating assessed value of properties in the municipality. While some aspects of the calculation can vary, they generally take the fair market value of the property and multiply it by the assessment ratio to determine how much taxes are gonna be charged. For example, with regards to David Avenue, 184 Center Street. Uh, what happened is that, currently, the SEC, uh, tax appraisal lists the land of being a 2.4 million, but the building was originally that's on the property was $1.25 million, but now, and it's only worth $1.45 million. That is proof that the building has lost 45% of its value. All you have to do is look up their website and look up their full details, and you'll see that this is exactly what's going on here. Since the rental contracts are based on the value of the property when signed or agreed upon, When determining whether the landlord is in breach of contract, by covertly declaring the value officially with any agency regarding the value is not what the contract was based on, this becomes a breach of contract. In effect, one can argue that the entire rent collected under those conditions is not lawful. This is what's been happening here, and I get gathered, it's probably happening all over the state at this point in time. The idea that the level is in breach of contract, when they covertly, intentionally reduce the value of their own property for tax benefit purposes, since the CSFRA states that reduction of value is that by default, every judgment of human services. And it's like housing services. Because the mental value has been reduced by a landlord, in fact, the CFRA says a decrease in housing services or maintenance, or a deterioration of the rental unit beyond ordinary wear and tear, without corresponding reduction in rent, is an increase in rent, and it's unlawful. And so, in this situation, I actually have a crew petition pending regarding the city, sorry, the CSFRA, and I, unfortunately, have been dealing with a situation where property has been breaking, pulling apart, and, unfortunately, I've been stuck on a treadmill trying to figure out how to, am I gonna get my apartment properly prepared? Thank you very much for your time. I understand I'm running out. Have a great rest of your night.

[05:15:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next year is life moves needs to improve.

[05:16:00] Public Speaker: Hi. Um, just a couple of things, a little potpourri of sorts. Um, one, since this is a public meeting. I just want to remind you guys, it would be great when you're talking to not speak in an alphabet soup. Um, you know, I don't know if I really remembers the, uh, Good morning, Vietnam. If the VP is such a VIP, maybe we should do PDQ, all that stuff. A lot of times listening to you guys talk, that's what it sounds like. So if you could include folks more when you're, you know, especially people who are new to meetings, that would be awesome. Um, secondly, um, having issues on the agenda that have other really large issues ahead of them, um, having issues at the tail end that may involve homelessness is really hard because folks who are unhoused usually tend to go to bed early. They gotta find a place to bed down before the dark, et cetera, et cetera. So please keep that in mind when scheduling things for the agenda. Um, lastly, um, I just wanted to remind you that, um, 104 unhoused people have died on the streets so far as of Friday. And 55 of those people are over 50 years old. So when we're talking about whether programs are effective or who needs to be served, those are the people who aren't being served. Um, those are the people that we need to do better for. Um, I can tell you the amount of seniors that I work with right now, with serious medical conditions, people who are being flagged for not going into shelters, because they lack the cognitive ability, meaning like, they just need somebody to nag them. Did you dress yourself? Did you feed yourself? Did you take your medication today? And it's too much for the shelters to be responsible for. So they're being told that they need to go to respite. But if you go to respite and you pee on yourself too much, you're not allowed at respite either. So those people are then told, well, you need to go to a shelter. Well, you can't be in a shelter because you don't have the cognitive skills for a shelter, and you can't go to rest, but because you're incontinent. So those people get left out on the streets, and that's where they die. And those are the exact cases that I'm working with right now. So the way to fix that is for IHSS to allow state caregivers to go into shelters, just to do those simple basic life skills, to make sure, have you eaten, have you taken your meds? Have you taken a shower a day? And that would make a lifetime of difference. And you, as elected leaders, could help on that, and nag the state in easing the IHSS restrictions on working in congregate shelters. And that would make a difference, and maybe we would have less people who are struggling to survive in Mountain View. And particularly life moves, Mountain View, because that place is not doing them any justice right now. Thank you.

[05:18:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Seeing no other speakers in the queue. We'll end on agenda public comment and proceed to 6.one introduction of an ordinance to amend campaign finance regulations. Um, and we'll need to invite Assistant City Attorney Diana Faisley, who will present the item. Thank you very much for your patience. Feel free to start the presentation whenever you're ready.

[05:19:52] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Hi everyone, sorry. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Diana Fazelli, assistant city attorney, and I'm here to present tonight on agenda item number 6. introduction of an ordinance amend campaign finance regulations. In April, council introduced an ordinance that imposed campaign contribution limits, amended our disclosure and advertisements ordinance and repealed the city's political science regulations. To prevent any confusion, I'm going to call that ordinance the April ordinance. The April Ordinance established candidate campaign contribution limits that differs depending on whether the candidate accepts and adheres to our voluntary expenditure limit. The current penalties for violations of those campaign contribute contribution limits are the same as penalties for violations of our voluntary expenditure limit, which essentially are publication penalties, meaning that the violation will be publicized in the newspaper, on the city's website, and physically at city hall. In our disclosure and advertisement ordinance, currently, if a committee has top contributors of $2500 or more, Those, the top 5 contributors of $2500 or more will need to be disclosed on any campaign advertisements. However, if just one of those top contributors meets the state's threshold of $50,000 or more, then state law applies and only requires a disclosure of the top 3 contributors of $50,000 or more. In April, council directed staff to return with a separate ordinance that would, one, add a monetary penalty on violations of the new campaign contribution limits, and 2 bridge that gap between the state and city's requirements for disclosures, so that every circumstance, and in every circumstance, the top 5 contributors of $2500 or more will be disclosed on those campaign advertisements. The proposed ordinance before you tonight includes a monetary penalty for violations of the campaign contribution limits. The monetary penalty is either $50 or the amount accepted in excess of the applicable contribution limit, whichever is greater. And the reason why the minimum is $50 is due to city code section one.19, which requires administrative penalties to be at a minimum $50. So, essentially, if, um, one accepts a campaign contribution, um, that is, um, $one to $50 over the applicable contribution limit, regardless of where it falls within that range, the penalty will be $50. If the contribution accepted is $51 or more, the penalty will be whatever that amount is over the contribution limit. For more context regarding our disclosure and advertisement ordinance and the amendments that we've made in the proposed ordinance tonight. Under state law, the top 3 contributors of fit that have contributed $50,000 or more must be disclosed per state requirements, and under our city code, the top 5 contributors who have contributed $2500 or more must be disclosed per our requirements under the city code. The ordinance before you tonight requires that the top 5 contributors of $2500 or more be disclosed per state law requirements. Meaning the manner of display, how it looks on the advertisement, when at least one contributor meets the $50,000 or more state law disclosure threshold. I have a couple of examples, and I apologize in advance for not having any creativity in naming the committee or contributors. But an example, number one, that a committee has contributors, A through E. And A through E, all of these meet our city code threshold, which is $2500 contributions of $2500 or more. However, and also contributor A meets the state laws threshold as well because it has contributed $50,000 or more. Under our proposed ordinance. In this situation, all 5 would have to be disclosed. And they must be disclosed in compliance with the state laws requirements for the manner of display. In example number two, the same nameless committee has, um, contributors A through E, all of which meets, and as you can see, they meet the city code's threshold of $2,500 or more, but they're all under the state laws threshold of 50,000. In this situation under our proposed ordinance, they would follow, all 5 would be disclosed and they must follow the city codes requirements for how it looks, the manner of display. And with that, um, Seth recommends introducing the proposed ordinance, and I'm available for any questions that council may have. Thank you.

[05:25:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Ms. Fazelli, and I apologize for mispronouncing your name. Are there any questions from the council? There are none, then we'll go to public. Would any member of the public on the line, like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the race hand button zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, let's do 2 minutes. Uh, Emily and Robert.

[05:25:48] Emily Ramos: Hi, hi, city council. Emily Ramos, not the resident. I'm just, uh, speaking in support of the, uh, staff's recommendation in staff's proposed ordinances, um, um, at a time when a lot of our democracy seems to be attacked on so many different fronts. It is really kind of amazing, how much mountain view has taken steps to ensure that our democracy remains represented, and as free from money influences, as, as we constitutionally can. Um, so I am incredibly proud of Mountain View, and all of you, um, for taking this step.

[05:26:34] Emily Ramos: Um, stay awesome. Thank you.

[05:26:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Celine.

[05:26:44] Celine: I just wanted to say +one to everything. Emily just said, thank you.

[05:26:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[05:26:55] Tim McKenzie: Agreed, echo, everyone before, money out of politics. Woo! Yay. Good work.

[05:27:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: All right. Thank you. I see no other members of the public wishing to speak. We'll return to the council. Um, a motion is an order, and uh, reading of the title, uh, is required, and that is in the agenda flow by Snare Hicks.

[05:27:23] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I am ready to make a motion. Uh, uh, to support the staff amendment and to, uh, specifically introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 2, article 12 of the Mountain View City code relating to campaign, pain finance to be read entitled only, further reading waived, and set a 2nd reading of June, 28th of 2022.

[05:27:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Council member Benichick.

[05:27:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I still don't think campaign contributions are probably in Mountain View, because we have the spending limit, but, um, I am supportive of the disclosure part, but since it's all together, I'm not gonna have much of a choice here, but to support the whole thing. Thanks. I'll 2nd it.

[05:28:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I'm the member, show Walter.

[05:28:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I have kind of similar, uh, similar, uh, feelings as council member, um, Madame Check, but I wanted to ask if the examples that you showed us in the presentation are in the ordinance, because I was reading the staff, um, report. I was having a little trouble understanding how it would work if you had an example. And with an example, it's perfectly clear. So I just wondered, is the example in the written up organ ordinance?

[05:28:48] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: No, the example is not in the ordinance, but I think that we can create an example to distribute to, uh, I mean, maybe put on the city clerk website or provide that type of information so it could be distributed by the city clerk's office.

[05:29:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I think that that would get rid of a lot of confusion with people. And then the other thing I wanted to ask is, um, uh, how are we going to enforce this? Who's gonna be on the lookout for this kind of, um, uh, problem?

[05:29:25] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: I believe, as discussed, I think, in April, the enforcement is based on a complaint basis. And so it's, when staff becomes aware, it's, it's forwarded to us, and then, um, because we are mirroring the state laws requirement, when there's that hybrid situation, um, it would go to the FPPC for enforcement, um, regarding disclosures and advertisements, whenever there's a state, whenever a contributor meets the state laws, threshold, and whenever we have, um, City code. Sorry, whenever there's that hybrid situation, I would go to the FPPC.

[05:30:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, the publication penalty would be able to do that right away.

[05:30:08] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Yes. Well, it would, so under our voluntary expenditure limit, it gives us 3 it gives us 72 hours. Um, and so we would we would be able to do that sooner, yes, for the campaign contribution violation. But for the disclosure and advertisements, it would be a more of a prolonged process.

[05:30:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So that would probably be after the campaign's over for most things.

[05:30:31] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: I'm not I'm not sure I haven't been involved in any enforcement actions here at the city, but it could be prolonged, yes.

[05:30:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. It would be nice if there was a publication penalty for the ones for the, uh, the, uh, the violations related to the advertising as well. Is that included?

[05:30:53] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: No, just for the campaign loans.

[05:30:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you.

[05:31:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, let's start the vote.

[05:31:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Nice, Mayor Hicks.

[05:31:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:31:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Can't remember Mattachek?

[05:31:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:31:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member at a Coca?

[05:31:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[05:31:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, Leaper.

[05:31:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:31:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, Sher Walter.

[05:31:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:31:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mirror mirrors.

[05:31:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[05:31:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[05:31:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, well, now, and thank you, um, Ms. Gazelli for your work. Uh, the next uh, item is 7.one public hearing for the fiscal year 2022 to 23 recommended budget. Uh, translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[05:31:51] Unknown Speaker: Bueno, as a gir con el articulo, uno, audience, publica, para el, pre supuesto, recommendado, de la new fiscal, dos mil ventidos, aldos, mil ventitres, abra interpretacional español, si lo necessita, por favor, selecione, el gulo, quedice, interpretation, al inferior de supantaya, y abra, interpretation, al Español. Gracias.

[05:32:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Did he manager Kimber McCarthy and Finance and Administrative Services director Jesse Takahashi will present the item. Whenever you're ready.

[05:32:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. I believe that Mr. Takahashi is going to be sharing his screen for the presentation. Jesse, are you ready to do that?

[05:32:42] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: I don't believe I'm have access to do that just yet. Can you hear me?

[05:32:49] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, we hear.

[05:32:50] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Okay. Yeah, I don't see myself on the panel, and I don't have access to share just yet.

[05:32:57] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay, let us work through some of these technical issues here. Okay, that's step one. Let's see if we can get the step 2 here. Great. Okay. We see it. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Good evening, mayor and council member. So I'm really pleased to be here with you this evening to present a structurally balanced fiscal year 2223 budget to counsel this evening. As you can see. I am presenting tonight with Mr. Takahashi, our finance and administrative services director. Next slide. So this slide just starts to paint the picture of what the budget development process looks like. You can see that it starts in November of every year, and it ends in a culmination with staff presenting the budget to council in June. So there are various touch points between the November and June time frame. Uh, staff really starts working hard before the holiday season and really gears up into that January to March time frame and working with a budget team on their uh, individual department budget requests. Also looking at fees, accomplishments, various aspects of their individual department budgets. They also will put forward requests. For new, what we call limited period items, but really it's just new ongoing funding requests or new, the limited period requests are one time funding requests. So all of that kind of gets worked out over that several month time frame. In February. We will come to council and present a mid-year update of the current budget. And we also incorporate an update to council's work plan at that time. So, the CIP also comes to council in April and the study session. So part of what you will, uh, adopt and review not only, um, in April, but at the end of this month, that your June 28th meeting is to adopt the CIP with the budget as well. Next slide. So this light just gives a brief background on where we're at today from the last update. We are in a good budget position. As I said, we're structurally balanced, and the city is recovering from the financial impacts of COVID. You can see that locally our unemployment rate is one. 7%, and this actually is considered full employment. So we really are in a bubble where we're at in Silicon Valley, where we are seeing very low unemployment numbers compared to a lot of other places and certainly in places across the country. Uh, the economic outlook is generally positive, but there are still quite a few unknowns that do create some uncertainty on the horizon. And none of these things are a surprise to anyone. As we just talked about, we are still seeing increasing numbers of COVID, uh, so the new variants that are coming on, uh, could impact different revenue streams, but right now we do send, we do see our revenue trends still trending in a positive direction. We also don't know about the impact of the war in Ukraine. Uh, the inflation, supply chain issues, rising gas prices. So all of these collective situations that we're dealing with now really do kind of paint a picture of some uncertainty on what is going to happen with the broader economy. So, top line message is, we are in a good situation locally and regionally, but nationally, on a broad scale, there's still a lot of uncertainty. Next slide. So touchy and briefly on some of the highlights of our COVID recovery efforts. We've talked about this a lot. And I think that one of the things that I want to point out is that the city, our organization and our staff, has pivoted over and over and over, over the last couple years, in and acting programs very quickly, in a very innovative way to assist not only our most vulnerable residents, our homeless residents, our lowest income residents, but also our small businesses. Part of that, is also looking at how we can improve our processes. We've talked about that a little bit earlier today in relation to our community development department. But we're looking at that across the board, at all of our departments. So, COVID has really kind of peeled back the onion and allowed us to look at how we're doing things differently. But related to COVID, just briefly, you can see how much we have allocated, that the council has really put, uh, money and time and energy into so many programs to help our community, over $6 million, going towards low income families that have been impacted by the pandemic. Over $21000000 that we have secured in funding for our home key project. So that's both with the life moves project that we heard about earlier, and also with the Crestview Hotel project that we're working with the county on. The 3 safe parking lots that we talked about. We've had over 97 grants, over half a $1000000 towards small businesses. Staff was able to secure over a $1000000 in a grant, um, to offset the revenue losses for our center for the performing arts. As everyone knows, We've closed Castro Street, so that we're gonna make that a pedestrian mall. We've really focused on helping our businesses and restaurants along Castro. And we're also going to be focusing more on the aesthetics and what Castor Street is going to look like long term. So I could probably list 50 other things here, but these are just highlights of what the city council has prioritized and how staff has stepped up to really respond to the pandemic over the last year. And even before that, when the pandemic 1st started in 2020. Next slide. So one of the things that you're going to see tonight, and I know that the slide hasn't moved yet, but one of the things that we're going to talk about tonight is our ARPA funding. So ARPA stands for the American Rescue Plan Act. And this is the funding that, uh, cities, counties, all school districts, all universities and colleges received directly from the federal government to provide direct COVID relief programs. So, council has the ability last year and this year to determine and directly allocate 15.700000 in funding. So that funding came to the city in 2 waves. We already received the 1st wave, which was last year, around $7.8 million. And the 2nd the 2nd wave or the 2nd distribution, I guess you can call it, and funding, we are expecting it to be given to us probably the end of this year. But what you have in front of you tonight is recommendations from staff on how to allocate that 2nd round of funding. And you'll note that it doesn't look that dissimilar to what you all already approved in the 1st round of funding. And part of the funding that you allocated last year, some of that is also continuing into this year. Now, mechanically how this works is that council can decide what to spend the money on now. But we have until 2024 to commit it. So you would have some time. And we have until 2026 to spend it. So this is something that we don't have to, you know, enact these programs tonight and they have to be implemented tomorrow. So we do have a grace period on that. So on the next slide, it basically is the snapshot of a summary of the recommended uses. And as I mentioned, you will recognize many of these items from last year, and we are recommending putting additional funding towards some of the same programs. So you'll see the elevate MV guaranteed basic income pilot program, uh, continued funding for the solidarity fund, uh, towards the community services agency, direct relief, various uh, technology improvements, additional support to small businesses, employee recognition and so on. Uh, so one of the things to note tonight is that staff has recommended around 6.600000 in uses. So there is a remaining amount of $one200000. And I know that we've received a lot of feedback on additional uses for that 1200000 in funding. So council can allocate that funding this evening, or you could defer it towards a later time if you wanted additional feedback. But I know that we have received a lot of feedback already. So that that 1200000 is certainly on the table for counsel to allocate this evening. Next slide. And I'll also remind everyone that council approved a budget equity lens, uh, with the current year operating budget, and we expanded that into the capital improvement program. So what the budget equity lens is, it's a consideration during that budget development process I talked about when, uh, staff and all the departments work with not only myself, but with the finance team on crafting the recommended budget and putting it together. So, we literally ask questions for each, each recommended item on whether it would benefit or burden communities of color, low income residence, or residents that may be disadvantaged or disabled. And, uh, the departments have to explain how their their program or initiative would provide that benefit. So I am pleased that all of the recommendations that are, um, provided to counsel this evening and the budget have been determined to either benefit or be neutral towards those residents. Next slide. Um, as I mentioned, part of the budget is also um, considered with your work plan. So council adopted your 7 strategic priorities last year, you adopted it with the budget last year in June of 2021. And staff provided updates this past February to the work plan. And with this report as well. I believe it's included as an appendix in your budget book. So there are 41 priority projects in the work plan. And these are projects that go above and beyond the daily work of our employees, and they represent some of the most high profile projects and work for the council that really fulfill those 7 strategic priorities. So right now, 34 of those projects are in various stages of progress, 3 have been completed and 4 are expected to begin this next fiscal year. So I also want to note that once we complete this cycle, and it is a 2 year work plan cycle. The next cycle and the next planning for the next next work plan, which we talk about a lot, is going to be in February of 2023. Next slide, please. And lastly, we've we've also talked about this a little bit tonight. I do want to highlight the impacts of the great resignation for council and for the public on what has really happened in the public sector. We've all heard about this and in, you know, our jobs, with our, whether we know from our families or friends, that this is, this is a phenomenon that is happening in both the, the private sector and the public sector, but I want to talk a little bit about what's happening in the public sector and what's happening in Mountain View and give some context for it. We are definitely in a new era for government, and for local government in particular. We are doing business differently than we've ever done business before. If you would have asked me, you know, two, three years ago, if our workforce, if most of our workforce would be working remotely, most days of the weeks, I would have said that's impossible. That's, that's never gonna happen in government. But here we are now. And that's just one example of how we're doing things differently. There are a lot of positive aspects to this. There's things that we are allowed to try now that I think we thought we never could try before. And were really fortunate here in Mountain View to have exceptional employees that are very committed to our Mountain View community. And we talk about this a lot. And we thank our staff a lot and appreciate them. And that is really why we're able to take things to the next level in Mountain View. But I want to say that there is a price to this. And the price is a strain on the workforce. We have increasing stress of our staff. We have increasing workloads because people are working on daily activities, COVID related activities, working remotely, and priority projects. And we're also dealing with employee burnout. So, It's, it's both the good and the bad. And really what's happened is this has caused people to leave the organization or leave public service entirely. So what you see on this slide is a snapshot of a survey that was done by Mission Square Research Institute. And they are the research arm of an organization called the International City County Management Association. And last year, at the end of last year, they randomly surveyed around 1100 public sector employees. This included state employees, local government employees, and also teachers. And the questions they asked in the survey were really geared towards the impact of COVID on these public sector workers. And over half of the people in the survey indicated that they were considering leaving their job over 50%, and 80% said that their jobs were more stressful because of COVID. So I'm not saying that COVID hasn't impacted everyone, but particularly the strain on public sector employees and essential workers has been heightened during COVID. So, One of the things that we are really focused on here in Mountain View and not just, you know, the doom and gloom of this, and I'm not presenting this to be, um, complaining or, um, to scaring anyone, but it's just the reality of what's happening now. And I think that it's good to talk about the reality, because you will see reflected in this recommended budget, a lot of solutions and strategies to try and alleviate and combat what I've been talking. about. So, we're really looking at our HR and our hiring process and giving those resources to HR, uh, really focusing on our employees to session planning, providing training to our staff, development, coaching. We're still very focused on maintaining our great culture here in Mountain View. And we are known in the region and among staff everywhere for being a very appreciative, uh, appreciative of staff, uh, creative culture, a collaborative culture, and you have to maintain that competitive edge, even in the public sector, and especially now, uh, to keep employees and to to entice employees, to come work for you. So we are very focused on those efforts. We're also focused on what we call the next generation efforts. And that's getting people into the public sector and keeping them here. So there's a lot of staff that are involved in those efforts, and then we're also looking at our own secession planning, as I mentioned. So, these are all the strategies and ways that we're trying to get at this. So as I said, those recommendations that are included in the budget really focus on improving processes, supporting our employees, and adding that staffing capacity across the organization. So that's really kind of the foundation of the recommended budget. So now I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Takahashi to walk us through some of the numbers and those budget details.

[05:50:55] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. And I'm going to go ahead and continue on in providing a financial overview of the budget document and good evening council members. Looking at this 1st slide, the recommended revenues for all city funds, total just under $4150000 for fiscal 2223. The city has various funds, as you can see from this chart, but the general operating fund is by far the largest fund and represents close to 40% of the city's entire budget. This next slide is the city expenditures, and for all funds combined, it is just under $47 million. Expenditures are greater than revenues as some expenditures, such as capital projects, are funded from existing balances, meaning that there's not incoming revenues to fund those, but they're coming from existing reserves or balances that are already there. And I would just note that the general operating fund. The largest slice in blue is just over a third of the total budget. Looking at the just the general operating fund budget now for 23 with comparison to the prior year. As I mentioned, it is a single largest fund and provides funding for many of the city's core services, such as police and fire, parks, recreation, library services, some planning and public works, as well as sustainability in all city administrative functions. The estimated revenues for next year are just under $164 million in expenditures, or $158.7 million. This budget includes the city managers recommendations and is balanced as city manager McCarthy noted earlier. And we are projecting an operating balance of $3.5 million by the end of the year. This pie chart of just the general operating fund revenues shows that we have, again, just under $164 million. It breaks down by the various revenue types. And I just want to highlight just a few of those. So of that total, property tax makes up the largest revenue stream, which is about 42% of the total. And then our second largest source, use of money and property, is about $25 million, or about 15%. And the reason for this being the second largest source is that the city of Mountain View actually owns, and leases land, to various corporate and other businesses in the city. This lease revenue that is received annually makes it somewhat unique from other cities. And this source has helped the city maintain financial stability throughout the pandemic over the last couple years, as the city is not as heavily dependent upon other revenues, such as sales tax and hotel tax that are economically driven. So as you can see then, our last 3rd 3rd largest revenue is sales tax at about $22000000 of the general operating fund. Moving on to the general operating fund expenditures. This chart shows you where the various expenses are spent by function, as you can see, public safety, which comprise police and fire, comprise almost half of the general fund budget, and that's driven by the fact that they are required to be staffed 24 by 7, and they're available to all residents, employees and visitors in the city without fees or dedicated revenue source. Administration and support services are the next largest at almost 17% of the total, but I would just like to point out that this total also includes $2000000 in sustainability in human services costs. This is a very high level summary of the uh, potential or the recommended increased cost to the budget for next year and we break them down uh, into these 3 categories, non-distressionary costs. And these are types of expenditures that the city is really doesn't have a lot of choice in, but the fun due to the ongoing nature, things such as utilities, repairs, janitorial contracts, and things that are needed to maintain ongoing service levels. Increases here, one.4 million dollars. And then we have discretionary costs, which things that we have a little bit more control over, in terms of the timing, and how much is needed in a particular year. These costs are recommended for increase of $2.6 million for high priority ongoing programs, of which about $1.7 million relate to personnel recommendations. And then lastly, we have total limited period costs, or one time costs, meaning that these are things that are not recurring from year to year. And this amount of $3.89 includes about $1.4 million of personnel costs, which a lot of it is mostly for the continuation of existing staffing. A complete listing of the details for all of these costs are in the budget document in section 7 for your information. And we, each year, uh, the finance department does uh, multi-year forecast, uh, this year, it's a five-year forecast, and includes latest information available, and including our best estimates for the forecasted years. Projecting revenues has proven to be extremely challenging, especially the last couple of years during the pandemic. mainly due to all the unknown surrounding the pandemic and all of the more recent geopolitical developments that have been occurring around the world. As a reminder, the forecast is just a snapshot in time and can be expected to change depending on numerous factors in assumptions. Our current forecast shows here that next year is forecasted to have a modest ending balance or surplus of about 3.5 million. excuse me. And, uh, it's followed by a break even here in our 2nd year. And then the last 3 years show some improvement going towards the outer years. So this next slide shows some other major funds outside of the general operating fund, which we track revenues and expenditure separately, due to the nature of operations. We have the development services funds that, uh, captures the activity for building, planning and land development, uh, surrounding, um, development within the city. Uh, fiscal year 23 expenditures are expected to exceed revenues by $5 million. And this excess would be funded from existing fund balances that were collected from previous years revenues. We also have the shoreline golf links in Michael's restaurant. Revenues are expected to exceed expenditures here, leaving a slight balance, positive balance, which we expect to be transferred to the general operating fund at year end. And then finally, we have the shoreline regional park community. And that is funded primarily from property tax increment revenues. These revenues are expected to exceed expenditures by about $23 million. However, I'd point out that there's also $13.4 million in capital expenditures that are budgeted, so that also will come out of those existing revenues. And I would just also point out that of those expenditures in the shoreline community, a significant portion of our payments to the county and school districts pursuant to establish agreements with these entities. So we also are going to be staff will be making recommendations for the utility rates, and recommendations for next year are going to be for increases. Nobody likes increases. However, during the past year, our suppliers held 0 increases due to the pandemic. But this next year, they've had to make up for that. So most of these increases are actually passed through costs from suppliers to the city. For example, water is expected to increase 12%, and for water and meter rates as well as 5% for recycled water. And primarily, this is because of increases that the city has had from its suppliers, the San Francisco PUC, Public Utilities Commission, as well as Valley Water, that have had increases of 15, over 15% to the city. And so, um, trying to hold the costs down. We're trying to keep it as low as possible while recognizing that our costs have increased. This will translate for water to a $13.17 per month, increase in rate for the average single family home. In the wastewater area, we're recommending an 8% overall increase rate, and that is primarily due to treatment plant upgrade as well as city operating cost increases. Um, The cost just for the Palo Alto regional water quality control plant or the treatment plant that our water gets treated at are increasing 6.8% alone. Um, So, uh, this will translate into an average uh, increase of $3.70 per month for the average single family. And then lastly, we have our solid waste rate, which is recommended at a 6% overall increase, which also will be a $2.25 per month, uh, increase for the average single family, um, or 32 gallon cart. And these costs are some of the costs behind that are increased in the recology collection services, which had a 3% CPI increase, increases in our smart station costs, and then general operating costs for city staff. I would note that there is going to be a proposition 218 hearing on June 28th for the solid waste rate increase, and that will give an opportunity for utility repairs to lodge a protest vote, and notices were sent out last month. in order to notice all utility rate payers. I wanted to just go ahead and give a brief summary of our capital projects, um, uh, recommendations that came to council um, back in April. So being recommended are about $80000000 in capital projects, between nondiscretionary discretionary projects, as well as amendments to existing projects. And the next steps after tonight are to get direction, and we will convene another public hearing, as I mentioned, for the trash and recycling rates, as well as approval of the fees, and the budget adoption, will prove a ban limitation, and as well as the CIP or capital improvement program adoption. And that concludes staff report, and we are available. Most of the staff is here to answer questions that you may have. any aspects of the budget.

[06:03:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for the presentation. Does any member of the council have questions? Oh, um, I'm surprised. I do have, um, couple of, hopefully quick questions. Several years ago, I think 2019, the council, um, allocated $7000000 for the sustainability, um, program, uh, and I know what we had intended, didn't necessarily, uh, play out the way that, um, uh, we thought it might. I'm curious to better understand where that money went.

[06:04:56] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: So that money, and I'll go ahead and take the 1st stab if, um, city manager McCarthy, would you like somebody else to also answer that question? But that money was put into a capital improvement project, and it was $7500000 was dedicated towards the sustainability initiatives. And with that, there was a lot of, um, one time startup kinds of costs, uh, included, and that was enough to get uh, get us through two to three years. of spending, given the time frame that was needed to develop some of these programs. And now some of that has been incorporated into some funding some, we've been finding a way to incorporate more permanent staffing into some of the positions in the budget ongoing. So that money was spent, and there is still some remaining funds left. I don't have that on the top of my head. I certainly can get that information to you, but a lot of that money was spent on the startup and one time cost over the last couple of years.

[06:06:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. And then the additional 1000000 recommended for the sustainability reserve, what will that likely be useful?

[06:06:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, Mayor, I can answer that. So the intention for the 1000000 and the sustainability reserve is really because as we are ramping up our staffing capabilities, we are now, um, starting to fill, as as you know, um, the, um, chief sustainability and resilience officer, our analyst positions and our sustainability program. And so that's what Mr. Takahashi's talking about, we've had positions in our public works department. Uh, sustainability position. So we're finally able to kind of ramp up. So that $1000000 is really intended to help with any projects or priorities that come out of the carbon neutrality goal that the council sustainability committee will be discussing, I believe, next week, actually, which will eventually come to council, so we are expecting that there could possibly be costs for consultants, other programs that are part of the sustainability action plan for. So it really is just kind of a set aside for what we believe may may be coming up and costs that may be needed.

[06:07:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Um, and then, uh, I appreciate it. the staff analysis about, um, amenities at the community shuttle stops. This is a question I've gotten periodically. Um, what would it take to get, you know, a bus shelter or shading or feeding something along those lines. Um, is there already a capital improvement, or a program proposed to evaluate, um, where, um, bus amenities may be most appropriate based on utilization of the stop, or anything of that nature?

[06:08:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I would ask for our public works director, Don Cameron, to provide feedback on whether there is a project for that or not.

[06:08:22] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, yes, thank you. At this time, we have not included a specific project in our capital improvement program for shuttle stop amenities. What we have done is, we are, I'm happy to announce fully staffed in transportation planning for the 1st time in years. This is a very recent occurrence. And because of that now, we will be able to put more time and attention on the community show. So, in order to answer the question we got, from you, uh, in that question and answer, uh, I was able to, you know, lean on this new staff, who very quickly put together an assessment of all of our stops, and it was reassuring to me, 'cause it was the first step in what we were wanting to do, which is start to look at every stop, what are the current amenities, who else we share it with, VTA, and V Go, what are the possibilities? So we do see ourselves doing that over the next year. And then moving towards, if we see that there are candidates for amenities, that we have the right away, it can be added. We have good ridership at that stop. I could see us then proposing a capital improvement project budget to help put in those amenities.

[06:09:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's phenomenal. So, um, would council direction tonight be helpful or is it really not necessary because you're already planning to do this evaluation?

[06:09:49] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: I would say it's not necessary. We are already moving forward with it, but it's good to know that there's support for it.

[06:09:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fantastic. I hope that's the case. and we can we can ask the council formally later if that's useful. Um I might have more questions later, but I think that's good for now. Council member might check.

[06:10:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you Um, so, uh, I appreciate the update on the council work plan. And I was wondering if everything on there, if it needs funding, does it have funding? Is it included in the budget?

[06:10:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member Mattachek. So there is an item about a broadband service that, uh, staff is working on staff in the city manager's office and the information technology department and really trying to get a grasp on what is happening with the federal broadband initiatives, um, how that might relate to what's happening here in the city and with schools. And I think we may need to hire a consultant to help us through that just because it's a, it's a huge project that's very complex with a lot of moving parts. So, I would say that is one, um, item that doesn't necessarily have funding for it now. But the other items, um, do have funding as far as as far as I know.

[06:11:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, that's the one I was particularly interested in. I feel like since council member McAllister is no longer on the council, somebody had to pick up the broadband mantle. Um, so I thought I would. Um, I think it's really important to our community, um, especially in areas that are, um, struggling with connectivity to the internet, good connectivity, fast connectivity. Um, and so, I'm interested in, um, figuring out how we can fund that. I did have the opportunity to speak with our IT director about it. And, um, got a rough estimate of about $100,000 for that. Um, so I'm helping my colleagues well support using some of our ARPA funds for that. Um and let's see. I think that's the only question I have. Thank you.

[06:12:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Count the membership, Walter.

[06:12:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, this isn't so much, a question is, I guess it's a question. It's kind of a comment. We talked a lot about the matrix study. And study session tonight, and, um, in the budget, there are lots of components of it that seem to be funded, particularly, you know, for getting started this year. And then there are other things that are, you know, you say, will be in phase 2 and come about next year. So, um, I just wanted to ask if there was any more specificity that you wanted to add about, um, the Matrix study and the, um, the implementation of it related to the budget. Do you feel like we have a good grasp of what all of it costs? Or are we still evaluating in a few instances? Um, the recommendations, so we're not sure, what they might, they might actually translate in terms of what we should do in Mountain View to reach the goal that was identified in the matrix study. I mean, kind of give us a little bit of an update with respect to the budget. compared to when we talked about it with a study session earlier.

[06:13:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Sure. So thank you, council member, Show Walter. We have been very, I would say, thorough and thoughtful, specifically on the staffing piece. So just to give a little bit of a background on what is included in the matrix study that we keep referencing in 2020, the city, um, staff embarked upon a process to hire a consultant to do essentially a deep dive or an audit of our development review process in Mountain View. So that involved, looking at our processes, looking at our technology, looking at staffing, and involved interviewing developers, staff, residents, um, just a few, I believe a couple 100 people, um, our consultants interviewed people to just find out what their experience has been. And also from the staff perspective, what staff's experience? What's, you know, staff's ideas on how the process is going. So out of this, several, several months long study, In 2021 came a report, which really identified 3 major areas for process improvements. And those 3 areas were around um, process improvements, uh, related to just how we do things. The 2nd was related to technology, so needing to improve our systems, and, um, frankly, getting more modern with some of our, um, online services and how we're processing, uh, permits and, uh, a lot of our other, uh, I guess you could call them kind of our intake processes for how we interact with our customers. So that's the technology piece. And the 3rd piece was the staffing piece, which we've talked a lot about tonight. Um, and really looking at where those gaps in staffing are, um, and where we need more capacity, especially now as we continue to grow, and as we continue to have the same number of staffing now, as we did many, many years ago, but with an ever increasing workload. So those are the 3 categories. Process technology staffing. So out of that, study, we have been able to kind of figure out, all right, what are the phases for everything? Because we can't do everything all at once. So what this recommended budget incorporates is at least the recommendations for staffing. And I believe there are, uh, 7 positions, and Mr. Takashi, you can, um, update or correct me if it's not 7, but around 7 positions that are in 3 departments, community development, public works, and IT, that are all going to be working on, uh, the process improvements, and also part of the technology. So, uh, to your question, council member show Walter about the funding aspect. I believe we have identified that, and this is really the 1st step for the staffing piece. We still need time to evaluate more of um, some of the systems. So that's going to be what one of the new positions is going to do. So one of the recommended positions is an IT senior analyst position. And that, uh, person is really gonna help lead the efforts to getting a brand new land management system, which is a massive, massive undertaking. And a land management system incorporates a variety of systems into one system, that it will enable staff to see a variety of different data points across the organization. So we need someone that's going to help lead those efforts. I already talked about the assistant CDD director, assistant community development director. going to help lead this whole process. So, I believe that we have identified the funding. However, there is certainly the possibility that next year I could be in front of you in the recommended budget next year. Um, identifying other budgetary needs. So I think some things are going to come out of the process over the next year or so. There might be things that I might need to bring at mid-year budget, but the good news is that we've identified it. We are working on it and we have our phases where we're really starting to march and move ahead. The staffing piece is the really critical piece, though, that we have to move on first. And it doesn't mean that we're going to have someone here tomorrow because we still got to go through the recruitment process, but this is a big 1st step.

[06:18:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, thank you. very helpful. And, um, I'm sure that, you know, maybe, questions will come up maybe quarterly. That essentially are what's the status of this effort, because, um, it is very important to our our community, and, um, our local community, and, you know, in our regional community that deals with us on development. And, um, so, so thanks for all that information. Really appreciate it.

[06:18:56] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you, Council member, She Walter. And I should have mentioned that we do have a web page that has all of this information on it, that the public can review the report, and we're putting, um, updates on that web page as well. So where we're at in the process. Um, I can find out what that, um, webpages and mention it in a little bit. I can't remember off the top of my head.

[06:19:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you very much.

[06:19:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice mayor Hicks.

[06:19:29] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, um, as I'm sure you all know, there's been due to, uh, the death of Andre Ratana, the bicycle death, there's been a lot of talk about, um, improving bike safety in the city. Um, and I recently spoke to a group of advocates, uh, for bike safety and other things related to active transportation, uh, mountain piece streets for all, is the name of the group. which I'm sure many of you have also heard of. They thought that our staffing for safe routes to school is below what other cities have. And, um, I noticed that we are doing, uh, we are putting in $50,000 proposed for additional crossing guards at new intersections. And I'm just wondering, uh, this is a question for the city manager, since we have a $23 million balance in the budget, if we could add to that, I would, I would prefer not to wait too long to, um, address the problem more. So I'm wondering if you might have any advice. Um, I imagine we wouldn't put together a full staffing program, you know, on the spot right now, but if you have any, uh, comments for how we might address that, or if you're thinking of increasing staffing, uh, regarding safe routes to school in any way.

[06:21:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So thank you, Vice Mayor Hicks, um, I'll give a few comments, and then I'll turn to our public works director to fill in some blanks for me. Um, so first thing, yes, we have included uh, $50,000 to add more crossing guard services. And I'll note that this is in addition to 50,000 that the Mountain View Wisman school district also added. So we had matching funding to provide more crossing guards at more intersections. So that's, you know, $100,000 total. Um, so this is certainly a huge priority of the cities, and I would say the school districts as well. Um, What staff are working on now is, um, some really important, uh, work directly with various schools around town where we have our transportation staff going on site and doing really fun, trainings, and, uh, learning programs with school. With the various grades, basically, with the schools, with the grades, um, which, um, Miss can talk about a little bit further. In regards to staffing, I'm not prepared to make any recommendations for new staff on this because as Miss Cameron mentioned, We are now fully staffed up and have more transportation, um, staff than we ever have. Um, but we may want to think about some sort of funding for consultant work. So, um, I would ask if Dawn has any ideas now, or it's something that we might want to consider and bring back to council at midyear, um, because we are really doing a lot of various programs right now. with the district and just among our own transportation staff. But Don, I'm not sure if you have any thoughts or would add to that.

[06:23:07] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you, city manager. I do. First off, for just a little historical perspective for the city council. When I started with the city 5 years ago, our safe routes to school program was a consultant contract that was managed by our real property program administrator. Let's just give you a sense. I want to give you a sense of how far we have come. So now that we're fully staffed in our transportation section, and actually, um, you know, even before we were fully staffed a few months when we were able to bring on a couple new transportation planners and fill those positions, we were really able to activate our safe routes to school program, combined with the fact that the students were returning to school because we went dormant a year ago when the students were just at home doing homeschooling. And we went ahead and started a very active program and planning for it, even before the tragedy of the fatality. We were already working on a program. And at this point, I would estimate that we are committing about a 3rd to 40% of a transportation planner's time to our safe route to school program, in addition to consultant assistance that's already funded through grants that we get from BTA. And when we have these events at the schools, we bring out our whole transportation team. That's 4 to 5 people running these events. And I, one of the things I would refer to is we were asked to give an update to the council transportation committee, at the main meeting about the program, and I'm, um, what the other council members may want to speak to it. We have a full report written up that explains not only all the recent activities that we've done. I'm very impressed by what staff has done. Their plans for next year, but what they're really working on is this partnership, and this coordinating committee they call it, that involves the schools, our city staff, and parents, and the goal is to develop a program that's living among all these groups, because it can't just be the city, going on campuses, providing this training. There's there's too many schools, too many students. It has to be done constantly. So we need to build it into the school curriculum. We need to be having regular events in the schools that the parents are helping to hold, as well as the teachers, and that's what we're working towards as well. So, I would recommend that we're really just got to start in the last couple months, we're, we expect to do a lot more in the fall. We will evaluate how we're doing and if we could use a little more budgetatory assistance. We could come back in mid-year. We may want to ramp up a little more on our consultant support because they provide a lot of the, um, materials that we use, a lot of the training guides. They help with organizing some of the programs at the schools, and if we need more assistance in that area, that would be a good time for us to evaluate and ask for that assistance.

[06:26:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so what I'm hearing is that you have additional staff, and you're doing a lot more because students have gone back to school, plus the tragedy, I imagine, spurred people to do a lot more as well. And that in the fall, you can end probably with additional feedback from the public. you might find ways that you want to beef it up more, and that would be the time to, after that, would be the time to ask for additional funding.

[06:26:45] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: That's correct.

[06:26:47] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Thank you.

[06:26:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Are there any other questions from the council? If not, then turn to of a comment, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please put the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, Let's go ahead and allocate 2 minutes. 1st speaker is Kavita. David, are you able to unmute yourself? There we go.

[06:27:49] Kavita Aiyar: Does that work?

[06:27:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:27:52] Kavita Aiyar: Gosh. Can't see yourself.

[06:27:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: We can hear you now.

[06:28:00] Kavita Aiyar: Can you hear me?

[06:28:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[06:28:10] Kavita Aiyar: Can you hear me?

[06:28:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I can hear you. Uh, your, uh, welcome to speak whenever you're ready.

[06:28:19] Kavita Aiyar: Okay. You can hear me now?

[06:28:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, yeah.

[06:28:24] Kavita Aiyar: All right, sorry. My computer is acting funny. Um, my name is Kavita, Ira. Mountain View resident and work as director of Communications at the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation. Tonight, I speak on behalf of the Foundation and its executive director who is away on travel. In support of city staff's recommendation toward a 500,000 grant, dollar grant to the Mountain View Solidarity Fund. Fondo de solo dadidad de Mountain View, a project we fiscally sponsor. Last year, the city took a leap of faith to allocate $1000000 to the solidarity fund to support vulnerable, low income families in our community. Under resourced families in our community continue to face great challenges, financial, mental health and wellness, stable housing, just to name a few. The solidarity fund leaders have estimated approximately 300 families will require checks averaging $2500 each. We appreciate staffs proposed $500,000 allocation to the solidarity fund, which will support additional vulnerable, low income families in our community, and will close the gap of the approximate $800,000 that is actually needed. Based on the solitary fund leader's long history of work in the community, and what they demonstrated in the fall with the $1000000 allocation from the city, we are confident that they will quickly and effectively redistribute these funds to low income households in need. Thank you so much for your consideration of this. We know that you are all balancing a lot in your decision making with the budget and ARPA funds, and we also know that Mountain View Solidarity Fund will do good work with any allocation of resources by the city council. Thank you.

[06:29:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Avenidas, LGBTQ programs.

[06:30:07] Thomas Kingery: Hello? Um, my name is uh, Thomas Kingry, and I'm here representing the Avenidas Rainbow Collective. Um, I'm here to ask that the, um, Mountain View City Council. Um, uh, uh, Use the ARPA funds to create a, um, RFP, um, to help support LGPTQ older adults in the city of Mountain View. The Avenidas Rainbow Collective is a program where under the Avenidas umbrella, you might know us from the Avenidas Rose Kleiner Adult Day Health Center. They're in Mountain Dew. We also run the senior center in Palo Alto. Um, older adults in general are isolated and depressed, but LGBTQ older adults, um, are at higher risk of depression, suicide, and, um, isolation. Um, so I asked that the uh, Mountain View City Council, um, put, uh, use some of the ARPA funds to create, expand your LGBTQ programming, um, for older adults, as well as younger adults in the community as well, but I represent older adults and oftentimes older adults are not seen, especially the LGBTQ ones. Um, they, in their life, they've had to hide to survive, and Avenida's brain book, like, to be here, to help them, um, not hide anymore and live their authentic lives. Thank you very much.

[06:31:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Adina Levin.

[06:31:35] Adina Levin: Good evening, Mayor and city council members, 1811, executive director, with friends of Caltrain, and, um, here with a, uh, uh, a specific budget request, um, uh, urging the Mountain View City council to renew the organizational membership with, uh, Friend of Caltrain, to support the, um, educational initiatives, to, um, help community members in Mountain View. Uh, participate constructively in topics relating to um, uh, Caltrain and sustainable transportation in Mountain View on the uh, Peninsula Corridor. And some of the activities and themes that we're going to be focusing on in the coming year include bringing riders back to transit, following the impacts of COVID, including celebrating transit in Mountain View and Santa Clara County. budget concerns that could affect the amount of service in upcoming years, completion of electrification and planning for new service patterns, decision processes relating to regional and state funding for public transportation, MTC just last Friday, advanced process, potentially to authorize legislation for regional transportation funding, and that's going to have outreach happening. in the coming year, opportunities for regional coordination of fares and schedules, equity programs, opportunities, uh, to advance uh, grade separation projects, and more um, would be happy to uh, answer questions. And, um, it also, uh, uh, came to my attention that, um, unfortunately, some comments of uh, public comments of mine were, uh, uh, misconstrued and, um, uh, regarding great separations, friends of Caltrain has long supported consistently, uh, great separation on the peninsula corridor, including the good projects in in Mountain View, and will be happy to take any questions about that. topic as well. Thank you.

[06:33:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Tala Perez.

[06:33:48] Paula Perez: Bueno, noche, de consejo. Mi nombre esta, la perez, estoya, qui para, representación de mis compañera, hideres, de fondo de solitarita, de monte, primero, quiero decier, mucha gracias, a todos estedes, por el la pollo, brindado, nestra comunida, Durante, lotos, ultimos años, opresiendo, differentes, a pollos, como, por ejemplo, el centro de ayuda, para la vivienda, de salojo, así como tamía, Olivia del Quiera, travez de ciece, y mas. Especialmente tamo craces of pede poraber, asinado, fondo de solidaridad, el año pasado, un mión de donar eston el cuarse beneficiero, cuatro sienta familias, que estaban pasando, por sitaciones economica, muy complicadas de vido a la pandemia. A travez de nuestra, estrecha relación con la comunidad, vimos que necesidad, en este tiempo de pandemia, es mucho mayor. La familias que fueron beneficiadas con el mión, son a penas una parte del lacientas de familias que sien pasandona, situas. Economica. Complicada. Fondo de solidaritad, esta muy a gradicido con el personal de naciudad, por a verde chula recommendación de quinientos mil dolares, para segira pollando, familia, punerables de nuestra, monidad. Pero la necesidad de muy rande, quinientos, mil dora de noseranso, quiciente, para dar al cance a todo la familias, que not to be non la porta. Y con este dinero, reja, recipidia, una pollo de dos, nosoto.

[06:35:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, Paula.

[06:35:37] Unknown Speaker: I can translate that for her.

[06:35:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[06:35:41] Unknown Speaker: And I'll go ahead and translate. Good evening, respectable council members. My name is Paula Perez. I am here to speak on behalf of fellow leaders of the Mountain View Solidarity Fund. First, I want to say thank you very much to all of you for your support, given to our community during the last 2 years, offering different support, such as the health center for housing and eviction as well as the rent relief through CSA and more. Especially today. We thank you for allocating a solidarity fund last year of a $1000000 with which 400 families who are going through very complicated economic situations due to the pandemic benefited. through our close relationship with the community, we saw that the need during the pandemic is much greater. The families that benefited from the 1000000 are just a part of 100s of families that are, and continue to experience a difficult economic situation. Solidarity fund is very grateful to the city staff for making the recommendation of $500,000 to support vulnerable families in our community. But the need is great, and $500,000 will not be enough to reach all the families who did not have the opportunity to receive any support either local or federally. This reason, For this reason, uh, we are advocating before you, for $800,000, which would benefit 300 families that have not been able to benefit and would receive financial support of $2500. We, as leaders of the Solidarity Fund of Mountain View, had the opportunity to demonstrate our ability to lead with money from the city last fall, making the redistribution of 1000000 in an easy, fast, and effective way to low income families. We ask in a very attentive way that you consider our request to approve $800,000 and allocate it to the solidarity fund to redistribute it in an easy, fast and effective way to most, the most vulnerable families in our community. Thank you very much for your attention, with respect and gratitude, Paula.

[06:37:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. We appreciate the, uh, the translation. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[06:37:41] Alex Brown: Hey, Lisa, I'm very excited to hear you're taking up John's Mantle. I'm you know that I really want municipal broadband and I have for a long time. of all the places to have, you know, a city leading the way on supplying it's people with access to the internet. Let's do it. Let's do it now. Anything you need, let me know.

[06:38:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: All right, thank you very much. The next speaker is Malia.

[06:38:13] Malia Pires: Hi there, can you hear me?

[06:38:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[06:38:18] Malia Pires: Awesome. Thank you so much. So good evening, Mayor Ramirez and City Council of Mountain View. I'm here to discuss the abundance of ARPA funds that are available, specifically around economic development, believing that recovery is multigenerational. So we're proposing our profunds for households earning 50% of the AMI or less. My name is Malia Pyrus, and I'm a 16 year resident in Mountain View, and I'm also the executive director of a local nonprofit reach potential movement has been proudly serving Mountain View residents since 2009. We began serving the city inhabitants by addressing academic insecurity in the public schools and offering parenting classes such as the parent project. Over the past few years, we've added to our passions by heavily focusing on food and housing and security. Advocating and educating ourselves, while connecting with residents facing fears of going to sleep hungry, and or becoming homeless. All these insecurities point to your can lead to poverty. With one in 4 children, Silicon Valley food insecure, and many living below the poverty line. We recognize that in order to truly eradicate poverty for Mountain View families who must support both children and their families, taking a holistic approach to offering lasting solutions and creating economic development opportunities. We currently serve a 1000 residents, unique individuals per month. Uh, we primarily serve low income households in Mountain View, many who are essential workers, some striking statistics, 18% of those residents, um, are Hispanic. It's the number one demographic in the Mountain View Wisman school district. And COVID learning losses exponentially affected these families to advance equitable wealth, health, and academic opportunities for participants. We must address 3 stages of poverty, with the last one being economic development. Um, we piloted a program in the fall and received great um, feedback and we'd like to do more. So I love the RFP suggestions. Thank you.

[06:40:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Next speaker is Nadia Mora. Nadia, are you able to unmute yourself? Nadia, um, We, all right, so, um, we'll go ahead and try heaven 1st and then we'll return to Nadia. So Kevin Ma, you're next.

[06:41:08] Kevin Ma: Evening again, council? Man, it's a midnight meetings. Have I had one of these in a while? Um, I'd like to thank the city for emphasizing the role of staffing the city to 100% capacity. It is important that the city does meet its resident's needs by making sure it has the people to actually do things. Though I will ask that the city try to prevent issues like the fact that there's been 2 planning physicians open since 2017. But if there are issues hiring such an important position and such an impacted department. Perhaps it would be better if we would know that in earlier in advance if we have to, you know, raise the salary if necessary as we did with the chief sustainability officer, because, inherently, that has been a complaint that was brought up in the development review study that there's not enough staff to handle so many applications in our city, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good that there are projects bad is taking so long. Um, the news about that there's a dashboard for development research is news to me because right now, I've only seen the PDF and the PDF still gives the old recommendation timelines where the IT position should have been hired in the last fiscal year, not this fiscal year. So everything is now a bit delayed by about a year. Which is unfortunate because there are a lot of the study recommendations that depend on the new software in place. So I hope there's some strategy to perhaps try to speed it up because punting it to 2025, 2026 is a little bit cutting it in terms of addressing our need to get development speed higher so we can actually address more projects in the future. And I echo a previous comment speaker, the Idina 11 with friends of Caltrain, it is important that we do have the funding necessary to support transit, including transit education so that people are able to use it. And so we can get people off of cars. Thank you.

[06:43:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. We'll try Nadia Mora again. Nadia, you're up next. Nadia, are you able to unmute yourself? All right, um we'll give you one more opportunity at the end. Um, but we're gonna proceed now to Tim McKenzie.

[06:43:47] Tim McKenzie: Hi, all. Um, yeah, just I want to echo what I heard a little bit ago from an earlier commenter. Municipal broadband. What a wicked, cool idea. This is, we, we are the heart of the home place of Gujal. This is the place to do it. This is where we are gonna do it. Also want to echo. Um, what I just heard about, uh, making sure that we have enough staff. Part of the reason that we're here so late is that the housing element went so long went for a long time. It's a very important element, and one of the concerns was having enough staff capacity. It always seems like staff capacity is the most precious resource that we have. Um, and speaking of having enough staff, uh, I'm an active participant in the public safety advisory board meetings, and just a few months ago, there was a presentation about the budget, uh, 2 piece app, wherein we learn that there are more than 2 times as many sworn officers as are needed for, uh, full 247 coverage of the city. And, um, in terms of the amount of officers needed. There are twice as many that we have. I remember last year, there was an open call for a police officer job that was converted to a city staff job. Um, I think it'd be great to continue to, uh, this uh, to, reinvest our resources, divest from militarized policing, and invest in the care that our communities need, um, and continuing to do that, thinking of how as a city we actually are allocating our municipal budget, um, and how much of it is going to the police, and whether that's actually a prudent use of our money. So, I'd be remiss if I wasn't asking for that at this at our budget meeting here. So thanks a lot. Looking forward to the discussion.

[06:45:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tom Myers.

[06:45:56] Tom Myers: Yes, good evening, Mayor Ramirez and city council members. Pleasure to speak with you tonight. I would like to echo the comments. So very well put by Palo Perez earlier, about the 2nd round of money going to direct financial assistance for the Solidarity Fund and to CSA. Uh, that money is incredibly hard to fundraise for and to get, uh, no strings attached, direct financial assistance. Uh, and uh, uh, it was just incredibly uh, an incredible godsend to us. I'd also like to say thank you for the uh, uh, 2nd round of funding if you uh, approve that at your next meeting for the uh, uh, guaranteed basic income uh, program. That's going to provide us probably the most valuable insight we have into poverty, uh, available to us in Mountain View, and it will be incredibly valuable to the city and to those of us who work with vulnerable populations. Uh, and then finally, I would just like to say, uh, you're going to hear a lot of uh, very worthy groups. Uh, the uh, uh, the things that they can bring to the city with any excess funding from ARPA. And I would think that a considered process, an RFP process that takes into consideration, all kinds of things about outcomes and how many are going to be served and so forth, is probably the fairest and best way to proceed with that. So I would fully support doing something like that. And CSA is here to help any group that would like to, uh, to, uh, in that RFP process. So thank you very much.

[06:47:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Tom. Uh, we're gonna try Nadia Mora one more time. How do you? Uh, Are you able to unmute yourself? If you are speaking, we cannot hear you. Um unfortunately, we can't hear you. Um, you have a comment, um, maybe send an email to the council and, uh, we'll try and, uh, review it, uh, as best as we are able to. Sorry, uh, we weren't able to hear your thoughts. Um, so there are no other members of the public wishing to speak. Um, so we will proceed now to counsel, uh, deliberation, uh, and emotion, um, ultimately will be in order. Um, what I'm thinking of doing is segmenting the discussion. Uh, 1st we'll talk about the ARPA allocation, because I think there's going to be a lot of input there and then once we've, uh, come to some majority, uh, support for a particular allocation. We'll proceed with the rest of the about, um, of the budget discussion. Um, and then, um, we'll, we'll take a, a comprehensive motion based on, uh, whatever, uh, majority, uh, supported items, uh, we come up with, and very similarly, I'll do my best to record, um, the recommendations that I hear and we'll take strong motions, that seems like the, the easiest way of doing this. Council membership will.

[06:49:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, this is a great situation to find ourselves in to have money. Uh, that we can use, put to good works, um, in our community to help us help everyone get, get through the COVID crisis. I think the things that have been suggested by the staff are excellent. But I would, um, like to suggest that we bump up the amount to the solidarity fund to $800,000 as has been a suggested. There was also a small increase asked for for the neighborhood grants program. It's been fairly static for a number of years, and, um, uh, I think that there's like a 10%, um, uh, increase requested. Maybe staff you could help me out with what that was. And then also, I remember in the past that our, um, our interactions with the friends of Caltrain were very productive. Um, they provided a lot of education. And, um, that was both general to the regional network and specific to how things were working or not working in Mountain View. It was really valuable. So I would be interested in giving them a little bit of money too. But then the other thing, I think, is, um, because we don't have to spend this money until, um, 2026, I don't think there's anything wrong with just not allocating some of it at this point. Um, And, uh, and because there will undoubtedly be other needs that arise that we don't know about right now, and it would be good to have, um, some of this money available for, for the future. So, um, those are just some quick thoughts.

[06:51:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, council member, just to clarify, um, so we're going to talk about ARPA first, the friends of Caltrane, um, membership request, is, I think, in the other category, uh, in the, the balance of the, the budget discussion because I believe it is an ongoing membership. Uh, so, uh, we, I guess in theory, it could be, well, I don't know, we might need staff input.

[06:51:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, that's fine. That's fine. Yeah, putting that for the next discussion, but just, um, our book for now.

[06:51:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And I think the state, we can, we can talk about this as well. I, I think the, the neighborhood, um, similarly probably should be in the, in the next, um, the, the, the next part of this discussion. Um, unless there's a strong sentiment to use ARPA funding specifically for, um, for the neighborhood grant program. C member of a COVID.

[06:52:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so if we're just talking about ARPA. Um, I, um, I agree, I, well, I agree that we're in a very fortunate situation. Um, and I would say that, um, it's been because of our, um, long history of fiscal prudence, um, that we're here. And, um, you know, I specifically wanted to call out, um, our, um, pension and OPEB, um, other pension obligations. Um, I was pleased to see that I believe it's with OPED, where we're almost, pretty much funded, um, which is quite an accomplishment and very few um, cities are able, we're able, have been able to do that. And because we are where we are. We have this extra funding that we can use for the community. And my, um, you know, since last year when we got our 1st trunch. Um, my interest has been to try to get the funding out to the community, to those most in need as quickly as possible. Um, so to that, and, um, I also support, um, increasing the funding to the solidarity fund, um, to $800,000, um, I think we all probably met with them, and, um, they were, you know, I was, uh, was pleased to hear their accomplishments. They've established a track record. They had an estimate of how much more they think they need to be able to satisfy the need. Um, and that seemed to be in that $800,000 range. So I would support that. Um, my thought, frankly, is, you know, with the, the extra funding, um, again, is is to try to get it out as quickly as possible because I still think there is need out there. Um, so, I would act, and I would like to specifically focus on our small businesses, um, and was looking at, um, increasing that funding, um, by $500,000 total. Um, I've, I've done a little bit of walking around, talking to business owners, um, mostly on Castro Street, admittedly, and I've just asked them, you know, what do you need? What can we do to help? And they've given some interesting ideas. Um, one was, as you know, um, several were hit with the ADA lawsuit. And so there's some AADA improvements that could be made that we could perhaps assist small businesses in doing. Um, there's also this interesting idea with job training and so that's to me, my other, um, thought was to increase the job training, um, amount too, by another to $500,000, but, um, I don't know how this would quite work, but they, uh, the businesses mention how, um, you know, admittedly, such as I supported and championed the minimum wage increase. There are some challenges to that, especially during the training phase of new employees. And so, um, the, the businesses I, those nourish, I spoke to, had asked if there's something we could do there. And I haven't quite figured it out and I, you know, of course, lean on staff to try to figure that out, but, um, I think that is an important piece, uh, you know, the challenge is, um, is, well, it's hard, number one. And to fire, to hire folks, because there aren't many folks, um, looking for employment, it sounds like, but even when that happens, um, they, you know, they spend time training them, and then as soon as they're trained, they often, um, leaves for higher paying jobs or elsewhere. So that's the problem or that's the issue. Um, that, um, there's some solutions that are being, um, you know, sought by businesses is my understanding. So, um, so those were the areas that I would like to also increase funding. Um, I appreciate, um, I know, you know, there are probably a lot of groups out there, um, Well, we've heard from quite a few of them. Um, and I, you know, I could, I could support a process, but, um, I would say it should be an RFP process then. Um, And my concern again with that is just the time it would take to get the funding out. So, um, my preference would be to go with what we have and then to just increase those those amounts in those categories, things.

[06:57:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I do want to clarify, though, for the, um, the increase for business support. Um, are you recommending an increase in the specific program recommended by staff, uh, which, uh, says development of a tool kit to help Mountain View small businesses with risk assessment and mitigation strategies to continue to thrive in the face of increasing variability in the economy and environment? Um, I thought what I heard was more direct financial assistance for businesses. Um, and so is, is it the latter?

[06:57:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, so, um, I know that, yeah, you're right. The categories that are listed by staff don't quite fit, I guess, what I was thinking, but, um, what I would be interested in is to in, under small businesses to be able to include some kind of financial assistance, um, program similar to the grant program we did earlier, but, um, you know, it seems like there are these specific needs that I've heard. There may be others. Um, you know, I hope that we could have our economic development director, um, with the consultant that where you've, I think, brought on by now. Um, looking at economic, uh, vitality, um, strategies to come up with some other, um, projects, programs, um, ways to to help small businesses. And then, and then, and then Castro streets. It could be under Castro streets, the ADA improvements were mentioned there. Um, so maybe upping that part as well.

[06:58:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fantastic. Thank you for the clarification. Council member Mattachak.

[06:59:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so I, uh, also feel like I would like to, um, get some of these funds out fairly quickly. Um, and also support some of the council work plan items specifically broadband. Um, but I also, um, given that we spent, So I've sort of lost track either 4 hours or 5 hours talking about the housing element. And the need for affordable housing. I actually would like to put quite a bit of money into the affordable housing fund. Um, I said that the 1st time we got our ARPA funds and that didn't happen. Um, and we have used some of our affordable housing funds, as we should have to provide immediate relief for folks. Um, but I think we should now backfill a little bit. Um, because we do need a lot of affordable housing funds, um, for the number of units we want to have built in the city. So, um, I actually would like to do, um, 100,000 to the broadband, uh, work plan, um, to make sure that happens. Um, I can, I, I absolutely support um, additional assistance to our small businesses. Um, and whether that's um, direct financial assistance. And then I think council member Abi COVID just also said an increase to Castro streets to help to 8 for ADA. I absolutely could support that. Um, And then, frankly, I would just like to take the rest of it. Uh, and I'm not sure how much council member Ambe Kobo was thinking, so I don't know the total here, but the remainder into the, um, affordable housing funds. That would be my preference. I feel like, you know, we have to do some short term things and some long term things. Um, and it's not a whole lot, um, that we'd be contributing to affordable housing, but I feel like everybody helps. Thanks.

[07:01:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. It's a member, Lieber.

[07:01:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I have, uh, several thoughts I very much liked, uh, what staff put forward, and I would like to see the, uh, an increase in the solidarity fund. Um, if we can get that to uh, 800,000. Uh, total. And, um, Then I think some additional funds for, uh, housing and eviction, uh, help, the eviction crisis is still very much going on, uh, for families in the in the community. Um, I'm very supportive of the Castro streets, um, improvements, and I believe that the ADA improvements that were talked about there are on the city's infrastructure. And if we're giving brants to private businesses, I think we need to take a wider lens than Castro Street, because right now, the businesses that are on Castro Street do have the benefit of the closure in being able to expand on an unlimited basis, and the businesses that are on the side streets do not have that ability. Um, and I think we ought to strive to have, have an equitable situation, um, for, uh, for multiple businesses there. I, I would like to, um, see us do a council, uh, ad hoc committee on the downtown, in conjunction with the increased funding, uh, for the Castro streets. Uh, because I think it's the time when we need to have, uh, council visibility and accountability, uh, on, on what's happening in the downtown and the aesthetic and physical, um, changes that, uh, that we need to make there as well as the amenities and, um, et cetera. So I'm, I'm hopeful that the American, uh, Institute, uh, an ad hoc, um, committee on that. So we have the right level of accountability. And um, then I would like to see an RFP process. Um, for any additional funds. Um, I think I'm more supportive of, um, seeing it go into programming, uh, right now. I think that the affordable housing is very laudable, but it's a, it's a more complex mixture of issues. And, um, I would like to see us, uh, be able to look at what the needs of the community are, uh, right now. I know that there's increased youth, mental health needs, um, and some other things that we could be looking at. uh, that are really pressing right now.

[07:04:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Bye snare Hicks.

[07:04:56] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, honestly, the beauty of speaking last is that most of the things I was gonna say have been said, um, and, uh, I'm not gonna go down the whole list and say I support everything, I think that, you know, the 800,000 for the Solidarity Fund, uh, increasing the community workforce development, the, uh, the additional funding for small businesses, the broadband, the, housing and eviction help centers. So all of those, I, I, maybe I left something out. But basically, I'm in accord with what, what, uh, all council members have said, also, uh, a council, um, as council member, Labor said, uh, a council committee, however, she phrased it, to go along with the, the, um, downtown. The downtown, um, the downtown work, the Castro's streets work, I think, is a good idea. So, I guess what I'm left with is a procedural question, mayor, do you have ideas for making it all balance? Or are you just waiting for emotion?

[07:06:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I, I'm comfortable either way. A member of the council is welcome to recommend an allocation, or what I was going to attempt to do is try and fit everything in as best as I can and use the balance as the source of funding. Um, the almost $one.200000 dollars. Um, I can do air rough math. Um, but if there are any other ideas or particular recommendations, then, um, I'm all ears as well.

[07:06:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No, I think that would be great since you've taken notes and it seems like it roughly got close to balancing with maybe some extra money for an RFP.

[07:07:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, all right. Jesse, would you like to speak?

[07:07:17] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yeah, I was just gonna suggest if it might be helpful to you, uh, all that we have, um, a spreadsheet to track this, that we could screen share, and we can kind of put up. There's a lot of ideas that came up in different numbers, and this might help, so you guys then can kind of figure out what numbers you want, and they can see what's available.

[07:07:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, please, that would be very good.

[07:07:44] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Okay, I'm gonna have our assistant director, Grace, who's been monitoring this in the background. If she can come up and then, uh, Bri brought up into the panel, then we can go ahead and screen share that and update that, uh, as you go.

[07:08:07] Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director Grace Zheng: Good morning.

[07:08:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, good morning. You have any council members? Is our assistant finance director, Gracing? Thank you for your help. While we wait for that, I did a quick question for staff, there was a recommendation for, um, a $100,000 allocation for the broadband, uh, work plan. Um, That, that one I don't have as much familiarity with, so from staff's perspective, is that a, uh, an appropriate amount, um, is there a different amount that staff would have us consider, if we wanted to make a dent in network?

[07:08:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, thank you, Mayor Ramirez. Yes, I do believe that's an appropriate amount. We haven't really done all of the legwork to understand how much a consultant would cost, but I think that's a good amount set aside. Um, and that will allow us to, um, certainly hire someone and, um, do other, other work that may be related to that if, if, let's say it's only 60,000 and not 100,000, then that will leave some money, you know, left over that you all could consider at a later time as well.

[07:09:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. So I do have a proposal. Um, so I'll just run through it, and then we can take council feedback. So the 1st is an additional $300,000 for the solidarity fund, which is reflected here, um, an additional 250,000 for job training. Uh, to bring it up to, um, 500 even, we have the 200,000 for the, uh, small business, uh, economic climate resilience, and there was a recommendation to bringing that up to 500. So, um, an additional 300,000 for small business support, and that probably most likely looks like financial assistance. But maybe we could have some staff recommendations for the best use of that funding. An additional 150,000 for the housing, eviction, uh, and help, uh, sorry, the housing and eviction health center. A 100,000 allocation for broadband. And then that leaves us with, um, by my math, $95,540 and I think that one could go into community needs or health needs. I think was sort of the generic. Um, allocation, and the reason I wouldn't recommend affordable housing is, um, we, we have, The, the amount of money that's needed to subsidize the project is is significant. Um, and I guess it's true, any contribution is, is valuable, but we'll, we'll need a substantial investment, I think, for it to be really meaningful, whereas a lot of the programming that we're looking at here will have a tremendous impact. Um, in a, in a much shorter period of time. Um, and then one. 1500000 for Castro Street is a pretty significant investment. Um, so we, we can look at additional funding, but I think it would be good for staff to sort of more clearly spell out what that would fund before we allocate even more money to that. So, um, See here. 3001st solidarity fun. Um, it looks a little bit different from what I was thinking, but it's substantially similar. Um, so let's take some feedback on this, on this recommendation. Um, and then we could, we could massage it maybe with another round of comments, and if, if we get close to something that everyone is comfortable with, we can take a quick straw pull and then move on to the balance of, uh, the budget. Council number believer.

[07:12:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, thank you, Mayor. So in, in our agenda, the, um, The support for small business. Oh, no, I see it's economic and climate resilience. So the small business. grants for COVID related losses would be under that. But I wasn't sure what we were attempting to get at in terms of climate resilience support to small businesses.

[07:12:51] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, if I may.

[07:12:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[07:12:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay, so thank you. So I am bringing over our economic development manager, John Lang, to discuss what, um, staff was intending for the um, resilience grants and work with the small businesses, which would be different than the general grant program that we had before. Um, so you do have a couple choices. Um, so John, would you explain what staff was thinking of, and then also what our experience was with that 2nd round of grant funding with businesses?

[07:13:30] Economic Vitality Manager John Lang: Absolutely. Good evening. Mayor, members of council, community of Mountain View, John Lang, economic vitality manager. What staff was proposing was a slightly different approach on assisting businesses. One thing that we've kind of learned from the whole COVID experience is just business preparation. Obviously, lots of things are happening with climate. Um, and we also recognize that there is more and more funding going to the world of supporting businesses, um, and being climate resilient, um, and that can have, that has to do with temperature change, impact on employees, impact on health, um, air quality, things of that nature. So, we were trying to come up with a program designed around that aspect of climate and being more resilient to those kinds of changes. instead of, um, the impact of COVID from health perspective. So that was the original thinking and proposal around the climate resiliency element and kind of hardening small businesses around that aspect. As it relates to grants, just to share with all of you, our last round of grant funding, one supported new grant opportunities to small businesses. But after we did that call, over 50% of the businesses that applied were actually businesses that had already gotten grant funding from the city. So our initial attempt to encourage businesses that hadn't been funded or receive funding in prior rounds, we were really trying to get at those types of businesses. Um, we weren't as successful. So, um, vast majority of the second round of funding, I went out, went back to businesses that had already received prior rounds of funding. Um, and your ED, your economic development staff, if you heard from just a handful of businesses about additional funding, just to remind you, um, the way those grant funds were being used were primarily for back rent. Um, very few of those opportunities really went to, um, purchasing equipment or supplies associated with COVID, but it was really backfilling rent. is how a vast majority of individuals stated how they use those funds.

[07:16:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And, Mayor, if I may a follow up question for Mr. Lang. Um, on, on the ADA issue, we have line 33 and line 34, and actually line 34, contains the city's ADA, um, improvements for Castro Street, and then what Council member Abbe Kogo was suggesting was Castro Street businesses, ADA improvement, or wider, um, business, ADA improvement, and, um, My sense of things is that many businesses are in search of technical help around ADA issues. Um, you know, there is no hard and fast, um, rules around the ADA necessarily. There's no safe harbor. But it seems like many businesses are in search of the technical help. Um, And so do we have anything like that currently going where we're, we're presenting seminars and, and information that's culturally competent, uh, about what you need to do to, uh, get closer to ADA compliance.

[07:17:31] Economic Vitality Manager John Lang: Thank you for the question. Um, one thing we did after the rash of lawsuits that impacted many Mountain View businesses, we did partner with the Chamber of Commerce and put on a recorded seminar around, um, how to one address, if you've been, uh, served with a lawsuit. If you hadn't been served with a lawsuit, some of the common areas that are targeted for lawsuits. Um, and we have shared that information that's easily available through the Chambers website. And then as an ongoing item, representatives from the building department and the economic development team, uh, at no charge, go out to businesses and do, uh, light assessments of their businesses where we will walk through and say, the counters or to the countertop might be too high. You don't have an accessible table here. So some of these things can be mitigated with very simple measures. Others are very expensive measures to fix, potentially replacing doors, replacing counters, to bring them into code. So the variety of solutions or run the gamut in terms of potential costs, but we do try and give some advice to them. Businesses always have the ability to hire a certified access specialist, which is a very deep dive on truly understanding the accessibility of your business, but that does cost money to do that, and then certainly to implement the recommendations that come out of that report. I hope that answers your question.

[07:19:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, it does, and that's very helpful to know about, um, what's already going on. I think, you know, the goal is really to, uh, make sure that our, uh, our businesses can do business, and also that people living with disabilities can, um, be out in the community, and, and know that, you know, if the restaurant is accessible, that the restroom is also accessible, and issues like that, and, um, So I'd be interested in getting back, um, you know, information of maybe about what other cities are doing about, uh, low interest loans, um, what I wouldn't want to get in the position of would be, um, where we offered to pick up the tab for, uh, businesses that have not, made efforts, um, and then others who already have put money into the infrastructure in their business, um, are kind of, they paid for, themselves. So, I like to see how some other cities are handling that. Um, where you don't have a free rider situation. Um, but, You also, uh, have have a good, uh, presentation for everyone.

[07:20:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any additional comments, council member, paper.

[07:20:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, no, I just love to see number 33 and number 34 clarified because we definitely want to take care of uh, ADA improvements to our own sidewalks and infrastructure. And that was, uh, that was included in number 34, I guess. The, the one.5 million for the Castro streets includes sewer, ADA, pedestrian improvements, public activity, street furniture, et cetera, but that's our own sidewalks that we're responsible for.

[07:21:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I did want to clarify in the spreadsheet. In my mind, and other members of the council can correct me if I'm wrong. Workforce development and job training are largely synonymous. Um, and so I think, you know, we can consolidate those 2 items. Um, and I thought the recommendation from council member Abikoga was to bring the workforce development or job training item, up to $500,000, which would be a $250,000 increase, and I would, um, suggest that that come out of the community needs or health needs item. Um, I think that more accurately captures the common cipher, um, but of course, we're, um, we're still taking input. So this is a preliminary idea. Council member Metachek.

[07:22:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I was wondering if the one. 1500000 for Castro Street, um, covers the side streets as well, or is it strictly Castro? Because I think to council member Lieber's point, we want to make sure we are helping the businesses on the side streets, and, um, doing things to improve the public area on those streets. I think also helps. But it's not clear to me if it is just Castro or if it's more than Castro. And I'm talking about in the staff report on page seven. I'm not sure who can answer that question, but Would somebody be able to answer that for me?

[07:23:20] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yes, thank you. Dawn Cameron, public works director. Um, so, um, just to clarify, the Castle Street's improvements that are listed, 1st off, on the ADA improvements, we were focused more on the city infrastructure, improving accessibility along Castro Street and access to the businesses themselves. So it could be adding additional ramps from the sidewalk onto the street at various points. So it's not just at the corners, that type of thing. Uh, we did not, um, we did not plan for improvements on the side streets themselves. We were looking at, um, you know, whether we would like to do a little bit more related to pick up and drop off areas, uh, accessibility again, maybe along those streets heading to Castro, uh, that would be, you know, more not just for ADA strict purposes, but just general accessibility. Uh, so, again, the focus is on the Castro closure, and there would be, might be some side street improvements, but it's generally related to accessibility leading to Castro Street.

[07:24:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And, um, did you already factor in the, I guess I would say the, um, small amount sort of that would be applied to the side streets into the one.5 million.

[07:24:50] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: At this point, we're still scoping out the interim improvements that we're proposing. And honestly, I don't think 1500000 is going to be enough for everything we laid out there, so we were planning to supplement that 1500000 with other capital CIP funds once we had fully scoped out the interim improvements. We just felt this would go a long ways towards what we would like to do out there. And as well as, um, that Castle Street itself is in severe need of sewer replacement and and upsizing. And we would like to get that done before we really start investing in the pedmower, we'll just be tearing up the work we just put in there. So we saw ourselves using a portion of this towards that sewer work, which is already under design, but we'll probably have to supplement that as well as wastewater funds. Um, the, As we continue to develop the interim design plans, which will be on the city side, that is something we were planning to bring to council. And, you know, and that would be part of also creating a CIP, uh, to make those improvements. It also includes, by the way, redoing those cross streets, um, intersections to make them far more pedestrian friendly for people crossing those cross streets and they're just traveling along the Castle Pedmont. So that's another, you know, major infrastructure related costs that we want to take on because we really want to create a really connected mall among the three blocks, you know, on the interim basis that eventually leads to the, the more permanent reconstruction of the pedestrian mall.

[07:26:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you.

[07:26:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Um, so this is just one idea for, uh, an allocation, um, and this would exhaust the balance that initially had been proposed to go through, a community process. Um, are there any other recommendations or if not, we can just take a straw, uh, poll on this specific allocation, council member leader?

[07:27:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Um, I, I wasn't clear on what the job training increase would cover the additional 250,000.

[07:27:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'll take a stab at that. So I think when I had spoken with the city manager about the workforce development allocation, I think what uh, staff had intended to do was come back to council with recommendations for uh, specific programs, and it could be existing programs, it could be partnerships, um, based on some of the comments we've received by email recently, um, but we we wouldn't specify a program tonight. Just simply allocate funding, um, that, uh, will come back to us with a a formal staff recommend proposal.

[07:28:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: So it looks like we're getting fairly close to, um, well, maybe not so close, but significantly into the, the, the excess that we would, uh, have for an RFP. Um, So that's what I know that's, you know, there's only so much in the piggy bank, and, um, uh, only spread so far. And I think this actually zeros out that now. Um, if I'm not mistaken. City manager, you have your hand up?

[07:28:45] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, thank you, Mayor. Yes, council member Lieber. So this does 0 out, the 1200000 excess. Um, so just to clarify, I was going to make sure that um, the workforce development piece was fleshed out. Um, so as you, as you mentioned, we have the career online high school program, which we launched through the library and we had our 1st graduate, uh, so there are some existing programs that staff was going to be able to devote more resources to, that was one of them, in addition to some job training and skills development classes. And then on top of that, we can explore new programs and partnerships. So, um, to confirm what the mayor mentioned, yes, we would need to, um, talk to staff, explore what some of those partnership proposals are in the community where we could look at various job skills, job training, opportunities and then come back to council with a recommendation, essentially. So again, build, build upon existing programs and probably create one or 2 new programs. So that's the workforce development and job training piece. And then to clarify the support to small businesses from 200 to 500 would be those resiliency and climate support grants that economic development manager John Lang was mentioning. So that's what that would be for, unless you all want to carve out just direct funding again to businesses, which, as he mentioned, would probably go towards the same businesses that applied in the other multiple rounds. Um, and then I, the 3rd item is I need to clarify what community needs is. I'm unsure of what category that is, and it's not something that staff recommended. So I just want to be clear on what council's recommending for that.

[07:30:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, so I think I'll invite members of the council who had made the recommendations to, um, share, uh, their thoughts on what that could look like. A council member of Akoga, you're, you're up 1st.

[07:31:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so that was actually my question as well, that I was assuming that community needs was the balance that we would put into a potential RFP program. But in light of the amount, I guess I would ask staff, um, you know, that it's, um, right, there's staff work involved and, um, I don't want it to become a long process with a lot of effort, stuff, time taken into it. Um, so, I would ask staff for, you know, your thoughts and like my thought is with $100,000 left over. I mean, we could just do it as a grant program. We could do, you know, up to $10,000, so 10, 10, $10,000 grants. Um, If we just like set some monetary value, would that help to just minimize the, um, the work? I think if we did a free for all, we're already getting letters. And that's what I don't want. I would like to just set some certain criteria so then we are very focused on where that funding would go and how much to each organization, but yes.

[07:32:22] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, council member, Abbe Koga, um, given that it is less than $100,000, I would recommend that you will find a category to put that in. We would spend that much in staff time just coming up with some sort of process. Uh, and remember, you all do have the CDBG process every 2 years where you give funding to organizations and you do that sort of RFP process that you're talking about. So you do you do have that, but I would recommend that you figure out where you want to put that funding because you have other options for our few processes.

[07:32:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Well, in that case, then I would put it either in, um, if we need, uh, broadband, um, or, um, or did the other one, you know. Oh, into, um, the downtown improvement since, um, as Cameron mentioned that the one. 5 wasn't the full amount. So I would just an edit to that helped.

[07:33:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show, Walter.

[07:33:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I, I, uh, Don't understand what the job training workforce development job training is. And so I feel uncomfortable with increasing the amount by $250,000. It seems like the job training that, um, we want to promote is, um, largely related to the electrification of, um, our housing stock, and developing, you know, contractors and workers who can do that work, and I'm pretty sure that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is, um, working on that, and PG&E are working on that. So, I, I don't really understand what the need for that is. I would like to see us shift that money into the CSA category. I think that we have really, um, seeing them just do great things with the money that we have donated to them. And, um, uh, that that would be my preference.

[07:34:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council number, I'll take a stab at, um, bribing, I think, the intended use of that funding. Um, while one time direct financial assistance is incredibly valuable to stabilize a household, uh, that is in immediate need. So, for instance, you've lost a lot of income and you've accumulated credit card debt or medical debt, um, or some other type of immediate need. Um, it only gets you so far. That one time check is great, but next month, you're going to have to pay the rent again and you will still have a lot of the same economic realities to contend with. And I think the intention of the workforce development allocation or job training is, uh, we don't just want to provide a one time check. We really want these extremely low income families, generally, to have access to the incredible job opportunities that exist in Mountain View. So that could be tech, it could be construction and, you know, the trade, that could be, you know, work as a municipal employee. But right now, many of these families don't have access to those jobs, because they don't have the training, they don't have, uh, the credentialing, um, and, and the job, opportunity doesn't really mean anything to them. So the intention of the investment is to try and get, um, access to these jobs for the families who right now have benefited from the one time direct financial assistance. And then, I think, city manager McCarthy, um, if you wanted to, add anything to that. would be helpful.

[07:36:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Sure. So, so, this funding would go towards the, um, programs that we're doing where we're offering programs for the library, like the online heist career high school, um, job skills, job training programs, and then we would come back to council with an idea for various partnerships or a partnership for a workforce development program, which means that it would be some sort of related program for Mountain View residents to gain job skills that are gonna help them get jobs. So I don't know what that would look like yet, but we know that it's gonna cost money for some sort of program like that. So we anticipate that we will need to craft something and then come back to council for you all to bless it. So that's that's what that is.

[07:37:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Thank you. Council member labor.

[07:37:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, Well, I, I'm, I'm feeling like, um, you know, all this, uh, the add-ons could be better grounded. I feel very solid about the, um, The solidarity fund increase. And the, um, housing and eviction, uh, help in, and actually also the the broadband, uh, work plan, um, But I'm feeling like the other things are not well thought out, and we're just kind of, this is a priority, so therefore, let's give it another 250,000. Um, and I wish that our choices had more time to be a little bit more more cooked than they are right now at this point at this late hour. Um, so I wonder if we might settle on several items like that, and then, um, have staff, bring back, um, more information about what it would mean or how it would be used. Um, the, uh, training the businesses how to respond to the, the heat and the climate change, um, uh, feels like it's, it's sort of very much in, in search of, um, type of an item. So I just would rather feel solid about it. And, um, I feel like we're, we're not gonna regret getting more information and, uh, not allocating money that we have until 2026 to spend. Um, so I I, I hope that we can take the time to be a little more grounded and intentional. Um, It is free money to us because it's federal money, but, um, we're going into a time period where, um, federal money is going to be harder to come by. And I think we need to take the time for impact. Um, and and maybe hold some of the spending in advance until we have a clearer idea, but I, I do very much support the increase in the housing and eviction help that's needed, uh, incredibly right now. Uh, the solidarity fund increase. They have a wonderful track record of getting money out the door to people who actually are in need and are not served by other funds. And then I think the broadband. Um, given where we're at with COVID and the economy and et cetera, um, are, are all very solid things that we can identify the why behind them. Uh, the other increases just feel like, um, you know, uh, wall spaghetti in a way, and they may turn out to be really great things, but, um, uh, I think it's not cooked right now at this point in time.

[07:40:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member, Mattachek.

[07:40:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, I kind of assumed that, um, based on what the city manager said, that staff was gonna come back to us, and, um, we would have an opportunity to, I guess, either increase or decrease, um, the amounts that were allocating to things like workforce development, job training, based upon the programs that staff found. Um, and so I wasn't too concerned about that. To me, that was kind of like, you know, this is in the ballpark of what we're thinking. Basically what programs would we be able to fund with that money? Um, I'm okay holding back, um, this 95, 540. Um, because we don't have to allocate everything right now, and maybe we end up, um, allocating that as part of the CDBG home funds because we never have enough of those. Um, and we're always looking for a little bit more and just put that in that same process, um, to increase the funding available through that an existing process. So we don't have a new one. Um, because I agree that if you only have that amount, um, it probably doesn't make sense to create a new process. But, um, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm I'm assuming that for workforce development, especially that one, uh, row 31, that staff would come back to us, um, and we would be able to say yes or no, and it might be a different amount than 200 500,000, sorry.

[07:42:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, city manager?

[07:42:27] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. So just to clarify, um, you all do not have to allocate all of this now, because you have some time. So you can decide, you can land on where, where you want now with, with the certain items. And, um, Grace, that's actually a 550 calculation and option two. So I'm not sure what's going on with the, um, There you go. So, you don't have to do all of it now. You could do 550 and then staff can come back at a later time with further recommendations, or you can carve out, like, for example, the workforce development job training piece, because that's what you've been talking about to say, okay, we think we want to put, you know, the 500,000 to it. And then staff can come back and say, here's what we've identified. Here's what the program might look like. Here's what the cost is. So, you do have some flexibility and some options. So it really just depends on, do you want to allocate all of it now or do you want to come back? Do you want staff to come back and give you some options? Uh, timing wise, again, you do not have to determine what it's going to be until the end of 2024 technically. And then it has to be spent by 2026. So we can still come back by the end of the calendar year. For efficiency's sake. It does make it easier, if you all would land on decisions tonight. But, uh, I anticipate that we will have to come back to council anyways with what some of these programs are gonna look like. Because we don't have it all blushed out tonight. These are broad categories.

[07:44:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, just picking a quick opportunity here. I appreciate council member Matt a check, uh, recommendation to, uh, allocate the 95,000 as part of the CDBG or I think there's also a general fund component. I think that's an elegant solution, um, and, uh, as you've described, um, means we don't have to necessarily figure out where that money is going to land tonight. Uh, council member Shelter.

[07:44:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, given the lateness of the hour, I move option two.

[07:44:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, I think for this one, we're just going to do a staff. Oh, sorry, a straw pull and then it'll all be wrapped up in one motion at the end.

[07:45:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well, can we do that? It's almost one o'clock.

[07:45:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, let's go in order just because I think if we if there is 4 votes, if there are 4 votes for option one, then we don't have to worry about this for a long time. So, um, let's raise, um, Uh, staff. I'm going to ask you to remove the, the screen share for a, a 2nd just so we can, I can tally the votes more accurately. I think we have a good sense of what option one is at this point. Um, do you? Just uh thank you. So option one with the, the complete allocation based on the programs we've just been describing, is there support for option one? One, two, 3 There is fantastic. Thank you very much. So that'll be wrapped up into the motion uh for uh the balance of the budget. Um, I think that's, uh, account a city manager.

[07:46:04] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I, I, thank you. I just want to clarify because it still had community needs at 95,000 and council member Abe Koga, moved that to the Castro Street line item. So I just wanted to make sure that's what the 4 of you who just voted were voting on.

[07:46:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: My understanding was, uh, council member, Mattachek, uh, solution, which was to allocate that as part of the CDBG, um, general.

[07:46:37] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

[07:46:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So we'll make we'll make note of that. And so I believe that was the only change. So we'll make those changes and then put it up at the very end just so that we know where we all landed. Okay, fantastic. Thank you very much. Um, so now that we've dispensed with ARPA. We'll go to the balance of the budget. Um, uh, so we'll, we'll take comments and I'll catalog the recommendations. Um, we'll see what has majority, majority support and then, um, I'll ask somebody to make a, a motion that includes the totality of, uh, the comments. Um, are there any comments or questions about the balance of the budget? Not seeing any. So I'll go, uh, we'll just do quick strap pulls over the items that did come up a little bit earlier. Council member show Walter had a couple of recommendations. Um, and then I had a, I wanted to test, um, the, oh, council member, I'm sorry.

[07:47:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, mayor. Um, yeah, I remember that there were some other items that brought up. Um, I would support, um, and I don't know if this is something we can use at 95004, but, um, the neighborhood grants program, an increase there. Um, I've been, I was on that on the neighborhoods committee for a few years, and, um, we had talked over the course of several years about maybe it's time to increase those amounts. Um, and I don't know if they were recently increased or not, but um, I would be open to looking at increases. Um, so, uh, definitely would support that. I don't have a dollar amount right now. I don't know if Counselor Michelle Walter did, but, um, We could discuss that. And then, um, the friends of Caltrain item. So, um, I know in the past we had been members, um, I don't think we have been in the last couple of years. Um, and, um, you know, Ms. Levin spoke, um, I, I guess I, you know, I, I, that being back in the transportation world, um, I, well, I'll just say, um, there was a concern I had, um, recently at an, at an MTC meeting when we were talking about our grade separation projects. And as you recall, um, we were able to get both of our, um, projects on the list of 66 projects. Um, and, um, I was troubled because, um, at that hearing, um, Ms. Levin spoke, um, basically saying that she had issues, concerns, a poet was opposed to the list, um, and we talked this afternoon, um, you know, she'd explained to me what her intent was, but in light of the situation that we were in, and that, frankly, you know, we've been working really hard to get projects on this list. And frankly, I feel that if I wasn't there, um, you know, unfortunately on MTC now, but I wasn't there. We were in a precarious state because we're very basically competing against every city to for funding, right? And, um, you know, our position, our advantage was that we are shovel ready. And most of these other projects are not. And I guess I was just disappointed, but with the comments. And, you know, granted, in one minute, she wasn't able to say everything, but I just, um, It just, you know, it just, I felt like it put us in a little more precarious state, and had we discussed it beforehand, um, you know, it would might have helped, um, and, and perhaps if she had, you know, use certain words, said she supported us clearly, instead of, you know, saying that the staff, MTC staff needed to add other cities or start from scratch again. Um, I wouldn't be so concerned. But, um, given the situation, it just made me, I guess, question, um, you know, the advocacy that's being done. So we talked about that and today, but I guess my question, my challenge with this is that I'm not really, I don't feel comfortable as a city supporting advocacy organizations. Um, I understand that there's education, you know, they're a nonprofit, but when I look up, if you look up friends of Caltrain, they call themselves an advocacy organization. And there's so many other organizations, and I guess that's the question for me. Like for me, it's about equity. And I want, you know, if we're gonna do this, then we should, like, be able to do an RFP or, you know, put out a request for, you know, all groups to have an equal chance at being funded by the city. Um, but that's not how this was, this happened. And so that's my real issue. Um, one, that it should be equitable to that I don't think we should be supporting advocacy organizations because we're not always going to agree. And that's my concern is, as we talk about other transportation initiatives, um, like, you know, for instance, the seamless principles, principles are great, but the devils and the details, as we've been talking, and we may not agree as a city, with some of what the advocacy groups are pushing for. So I don't think it's just really appropriate for the city to be funding advocacy groups. So that's just, that's my, yeah, that's my perspective on this. Thanks.

[07:52:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions, uh, comments or recommendations you would like to test with a straw vote? Council member Mattachek.

[07:52:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, so, I've said this in the past that, um, I've had concerns with funding, um, friends of Caltrain, um, for many of the same reasons that council member Abbe Koca stated. Um, it is an advocacy organization and it seems kind of odd to fund, um, an organization to lobby you. Um. And I, you know, I, I'm not really ever seen any of the educational material that, um, is prepared, and frankly, if we need information, Um, I think we can just contact Caltrain. Um, it seems like, you know, we should be able to get information. We don't need to go through another party to get it. Um, so, um, I, I would agree that, um, to me it doesn't make sense to find any advocacy organization. Um, so I'm not supportive of it. Thanks.

[07:53:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Smur Hicks.

[07:53:57] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I guess the same funding friends of Caltrain differently. I thought that a lot of cities uh, had that membership and didn't really see it as a, um, conflict or mistake in any way. And that, I thought that friends of Caltrang was kind of advocating for the health of this kind of transportation service that, um, that serves residents in all of our cities up and down the peninsula. So that's why I've supported it in the past. And then I thought, in particular, at this point, it's also doing Friends of Caltrain is also doing educational work to advocate for transit use again. So those would be the reasons that I would think that was appropriate. Thank you.

[07:54:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member.

[07:54:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Just to respond to that. So, yes, I think that's their intent, but in situations like the one we had at MTC, and essentially, we are, you know, we're competing against other cities. So, I would say, I just think it's hard for an organization to support everybody, but then call out one city or another. Um, and so, I just think they're in a tricky situation. And in this case, I don't think they, you know, if it was my, my perspective is they should not have said what they said, um, even if it wasn't intended to be that what, what it was said, but what's said in public is what everyone hears. And I, and so, um, you know, I, I just think it's there in a, it's a tricky situation and we are gonna be, you know, continuing to compete against other cities for funding. And so unless this is a pure advocacy organization for the city of Mountain View, I think it's going to be challenging. Um, yeah. So that's what I feel like, you know, I'm very, you know, I'm very protective of our city and I fight for our city 1st and, um, it's just concerning to me when I don't hear that same support from a group that we should be funding. So, and, you know, we've talked about it. And, like, we can, you know, see how it goes, I'd say. And if things, if we get it, um, more a closer working relationship and whatnot, perhaps we can reconsider. But I do think too, though, that we need to, you know, then look at, we're gonna do this, then we should be opening it up to other groups as well, or, or just, yeah, I prefer just us not supporting. Advocacy groups or, you know, going through the CDG, CDBG process, if we were, we're gonna do this. Thank you.

[07:56:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think this is, uh, an interesting conversation and I would like to ask staff, uh, maybe maybe there is an elegant solution to the challenge. Um, we have a lobbying firm, our PBG, who has other clients, other cities. Uh, those other cities may take positions that are different from the positions, the city of Mountain View, cakes, so, you know, our guy Dane, takes the city of Burling Games position, and speaks with, you know, a legislator, and then city of Mountain View has a different position, and so our guy, Dane, goes to same legislator and says, the city of Mountain View, thinks, the exact opposite. Um, how exactly does that work? What, what? How do we make sure that, you know, we're maximizing the effectiveness of our, uh, lobbying firm, you know, who has many, many different clients across the region, you know, including cities that may have views that are different from the city, mountain views.

[07:57:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So mayor, the, The direction to the lobbyist, when we 1st hired the legislative advocacy firm was to, Put up a wall. essentially, um, in the firm if they have other clients and other interests that may be different from Mountain View, um, that they would not be working on those efforts, essentially. So that is what the firm has, um, talked to staff about, um, and we've had meetings about that. Um, I don't know if you see this in a different category because they're not a nonprofit or a 501 C 3. Um, but that is certainly conversations that we've had with them about that.

[07:58:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Has that wall been effective?

[07:58:49] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Well, this is our 1st time ever having an advocacy firm and we're in the middle of our 1st legislative session. So I think that we still have some time to evaluate that. Um, we seem to be moving, um, a lot of our advocacy efforts forward. So that is still to be determined because the session isn't over yet. There's still a couple, month or so left. Um, they have certainly been helpful to staff, um, and evaluating proposals and, um, helping with a lot of the the federal analysis as well. But, again, this is our 1st time doing it, so we still have to have some time to evaluate how it's going.

[07:59:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Maybe a better question would have been what metrics do we use to gauge the success of the firewall?

[07:59:45] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Tell me a little more about the question you're asking.

[07:59:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, we're halfway through the one year contract, at the conclusion that the contract will have, either say the firewall was successful or it was not successful, and it's not clear to me exactly how we make that, that determination. So, um, what information was staff used to say, this has been a successful endeavor, and we were able to very clearly keep, keep Mountain View's position distinct from other clients of RPPG, or it was not successful despite our best effort. How do we make that determination? I guess what I'm getting at is, that seems like an interesting model we can employ with friends of Caltrain, if a majority of the council wants to pursue a membership. So that way we can have the same, same type of firewall, when there are, just, you know, points of disagreement between friends of Caltrain members.

[08:00:41] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I would, I think that what we need to evaluate is how successful they were representing Mountain View and our legislative platform. So council has adopted a legislative platform. Uh, you have put forth a series of uh, letters of support or letters of opposition, um, various legislative efforts. So we would have to evaluate how productive that was. Um, staff is not out, um, showing up at every committee hearing. We don't know all of those efforts, so I wouldn't really be able to answer very candidly about specific metrics on what else the firm might be doing, but all will know how successful they are and representing our interests, and what you will have put forth. on the legislative platform.

[08:01:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oops, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Council member Liever.

[08:01:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, yeah, I think it can be hard, um, with, uh, hiring lobbyists or an advocacy org, um, because it's very hard to measure, uh, horrible things that didn't happen. Um, and um, it's also, uh, kind of subtle did, did, uh, someone directly take the language that you wanted to insert into a bill. Well, maybe not, but, but it may have influenced the process, and, um, I guess we do provide funding for advocacy organizations. My understanding is that we, uh, provide some level of, uh, support to the cities association, and and maybe the League of California cities. And our legislative positions, as adopted, were very different than the League of California cities. And so that's an org that's out there vociferously advocating. on things that we don't want, um, in particular, uh, around our labor values. Uh, the League of California Cities takes a much different, and in very strident position, in opposition to the labor values that we've expressed, and that we communicated to, to our lobbyists, um, that, that we would like to see put forward. I do think that the, uh, the value that the friends of Caltrain has is, um, to be a voice for the stability of Caltrain funding, uh, the usability of the service, and that is very connected to our downtown, to parking issues, Um, to our, our workforce, um, here. So, I don't know all the ins and outs of, um, you know, who said what and how the pieces move, so I can't really, um, you know, help with that at all. Um, but I, I do think that it's good to be allied with an org that is pushing for more stable governance, something that's always been a problem at Caltrain. And, um, does sit through those Caltrain meetings and the various committees and try to get, uh, a comprehensive, uh, assessment of things. And to have an entity that's out there that's fighting for, uh, stable funding for Caltrain, uh, over time has been uh, a very great need.

[08:04:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member show, Walter.

[08:04:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I think one of the, the things that we're sort of missing here is the, the funding that we've given, uh, friends of Caltrain in the past has not been for advocacy, it's been for their education program, and they do develop, um, materials, uh, about Caltrain and about, um, the future of Caltrain. They give, will give briefings to you, answer questions if you want them. Um, so I think that we, it isn't appropriate for us in this instance to be, um, uh, to be, um, supporting advocacy. That's, I don't think that's what we would be doing. We're supporting their education arm. And that's really a different thing. When you look at a lot of non-profits, They do a variety of jobs, and they get money for, you know, different parts of those jobs, and the job we would be, um, providing some funding for would be education, not advocacy. And I think that that is an important distinction. I'm sure we're all involved with non profits that have an advocacy arm and an education arm. You know, um, and, uh, that's, they have to do that. They have to be very careful about it for tax purposes. And, um, so anyway, I just think that's an important distinction. What, what they are asking for is money for educational assistance, not advocacy. Thank you.

[08:06:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Are there any remaining comments or questions? before we go through the list. I'm not seeing any. Um, so I'll start with the easy one. Uh, staff is already doing it, but they did suggest it might be helpful to have council support, so supporting the staff, uh, work to evaluate, um, amenities at the community, community shuttle stops. There's support from the council for that work. 2, 3, 4, okay. Yes, majority support for that. Thank you staff for doing that. I appreciate it. Um, and we had a recommendation to increase the CNC neighborhood grant program. Um, there wasn't, wasn't an amount specified, so I think we could leave that to staff to return with a final budget approval on, on the 28th with a recommendation. Is there support for increasing the neighborhood grant program allocation? And to unanimous support for that. Fantastic. Thank you. And then is there support for, um, restoring the friends of Caltrain membership, uh, education services only. So we're not funding the advocacy. Um, and maybe we can ask staff to work on the similar kind of firewall that we have for RPPG. Is there support for the friends of Caltrain membership for the educational services? 234? So yes, yes there is. Okay. Are there any recommendations I missed? Not seeing any. Um, so a motion is an order for, um, the staff recommendation with the modifications that a majority of the council has directed. I'll go ahead and make the motion. I'll move the staff recommendation with the ARPA option one that we talked about earlier, and then with the 3 editions that we've just voted on now. And council member lever, was that a 2nd? Oh, thank you, Vice Mayor Hicks?

[08:08:48] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No, I was just gonna 2nd.

[08:08:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any questions or comments, Jesse?

[08:08:56] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yes, if I could just, uh, clarify on the neighborhood grant, was there an amount on that, or was that, uh, come back, uh, with an amount at the at the final?

[08:09:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, come back with an amount so staff would recommend a city manager? Did you want to speak to them?

[08:09:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, thank you, Mayor. Yes. So we'll come back with the amount on the 28th, and then I would also add, is that the same direction for the friends of Caltrain to clarify how much that amount is for the education component?

[08:09:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mhm. Yes. Um, there, that might be defined. I think there was a membership program, but so yes, with a staff recommendation. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you. Jesse, was there anything else?

[08:09:42] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Well, I was just gonna ask, did we want to take another look at their, the ARPA or were we good as is?

[08:09:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, would members of the council like to see the spreadsheet again? Not seen interest. So I think we've understood the option one allocation. Um, any other questions or comments before we begin the roll call though. I'm not seeing any, so I'll ask the city clerk to start the roll call.

[08:10:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[08:10:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[08:10:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[08:10:24] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[08:10:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Coca?

[08:10:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I.

[08:10:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[08:10:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I, but can I register a no vote on the friends of Caltrain part of it? Thanks.

[08:10:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, Council member, show Walter?

[08:10:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[08:10:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[08:10:49] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[08:10:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mission carries unanimously, except for meta chicks. No. No one part.

[08:10:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: They're qualified now. But thank you very much. Um, so now we will proceed to uh, item 8 council staff committee reports. Um, Jesse, thank you very much and Grace, thank you very much for, um, and and Don as well, for, for participating in this discussion. We appreciate your your help. Um, council member leader.

[08:11:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Um, Well, last, uh, at our last meeting, it was, um, really during the meeting when the news was, um, unfolding about the incredibly tragic shooting in Texas where, uh, 19 people, most of them children, uh, were killed and some 17 people were bravely, gravely injured. And, um, this week there were a number of, um, uh, gun rallies, uh, across the country. One of them was a very successful one that was held at Mountain View City Hall, and included a march to the train station, and to El Camino to the free speech area there. And, um, I know that there is really, um, no good time to bring up additional items, um, for our work plan. And I know that council is familiar with my habit of wanting to cut our work plan, um, very dramatically. Um, but I've really waited since, um, you know, several years before I was on council, and now, nearly two years, um, on council, to bring up our our need for, uh, additional, um, items to make Mountain View. a very protective city in terms of guns. And I'd like to ask that we take up 3 measures that are each used in our neighboring cities, that we require a CUP or enhanced local business license to operate a firearm business. And this is something that Palo Alto has, 2nd that we require dealers to have liability insurance. Again, this is something that Palo Alto and now San Jose. have as well. And 3rd that we adopt protective zoning standards that would prohibit gun and ammunition, dealing as a home occupation, also done in Palo Alto in San Jose, and restrict gun and ammunition dealing near sensitive sites that are used by children. Uh, and so I'd really like to, uh, get a straw pull in some way tonight on this, to move forward. The expectations are there in the community, that Mountain View will do more than safe storage, and the ban on possession of weapons on city properties. And, um, we've all watched as the, the, the federal deal came out this week that, um, is really so lacking in substance that, um, you know, it is, it is table scraps, and that's what we're given to do is to fight for table scraps, but I, I think that, uh, entities like cities, need to step up to the plate, and do what we can do as cities, and what only cities can do, um, rather than, uh, waiting for someone else to to make movements. Um, so I would like to get, um, a straw pull to, uh, begin some kind of initial steps on this. Um, thank you,

[08:15:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: council member of staff. Uh, you want to, uh, speak to this and then maybe give us some ideas for how to proceed. A city attorney, did you want to speak to this?

[08:15:40] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: Yeah. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Um, So, um, I did see the comments come in from the community about this and started looking into the possibilities of taking some steps in the direction of, you know, implementing zoning restrictions and things like that. Um, and I did have a chance to take a look at Palo Alto and Sunnyvale to see what they do actually have in place. I'm not aware of any zoning standards. I wasn't able to find any zoning standards in those cities, um, but they do have a robust permit, um, firearms permit system in there, and Palo Alta does have some restrictions with regards to, um, issuance of those permits if the business is gonna be located in your residences or schools and things like that. So, um, you know, if, if that's what you are referring to, council member labor, I think that we can look into that, and, um, move in that direction, and, you know, if, if I could, you know, bring something back to council at that 1st meeting that we're back after the break, to provide a plan for the city to move forward in this direction, I think that's a possibility.

[08:17:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, that would be very, very satisfactory. Thank you.

[08:17:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Council member, Abi Koga, did you want to speak to this issue?

[08:17:13] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks, Mayor. So I am completely in support of gun safety measures. I've been talking about it for many years, and unfortunately, it hasn't made our council priority goals, work plan lists. I finally got to want doing maybe one a year. Um, so, you know, I mean, I appreciate this. I support it, but, um, I guess that, you know, it's just unfortunate that it has to come to seeing a tragedy for us to consider this. And, um, you know, I wish we had done this in prior years. Um, so, you know, I mean, I would support it, but, you know, I'm always, uh, or we're always reminded by staff, well, what's the trade-off or there'll be trade-offs. And so, again, you know, that's what I would, um, ask to have staff bring back in terms of our workload and everything else we discussed. So, um, you know, I'm fine to ask stuff to do that and bring it back to us. But there's some, we, we did a comprehensive, or we had stuff, do a comprehensive, um, memo on the different possibilities and looking at what other cities have done, and, um, I think there's actually a lot more we can be doing. Um, you know, so I would like to actually revisit that memo we had. Um, the insurance one is new and I've been looking, waiting to see where San Jose was going to be with the lawsuit and like, I would like to, I definitely have that. Um, but I would like to see the entire list again. Um, before just picking these three. I think there's a lot more, if we're going to do this, then I think we should do a lot more, if not, all of the, possible measures that we can take. Thanks.

[08:19:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Vice Mayor Hicks.

[08:19:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I have a question of clarification for council member laborer, whoever knows the answer. And that's the insurance idea. Is that insurance for dealers? I thought when I had heard of this kind of program, it was insurance, well, it was cosigning of parents, and insurance for the gun buyer, I thought, but I heard about it only briefly, so I probably don't have all the details accurate.

[08:19:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, what our neighboring cities have done is, uh, liability insurance, uh, the, uh, dealers. And, um, you know, in terms of your question, but also council member Abbe Kogo's question, or statement. Um, you know, there's, there's no level of, of putting protective pieces of ordinances into place that I would not support. I will support everything, and, um, back several years ago, I had, um, mailed the, the Gifford Center, uh, list out to every council member on the peninsula, um, and, uh, Mountain View was really one of the only cities that stepped forward at that time with, uh, the safe storage, um, proposal to get the ball rolling. And there are a number of different options. Uh, I would go for all of them. I would trade away, um, many things that are on our work plan for the safety of children in our community, and for the safety of people, uh, they're forced to live with domestic violence. And, um, I think that we need to begin, um, somewhere, there's, uh, you know, never been a good time to, um, to really, uh, dig into this issue in a, in a more substantive way. And I, I think that we just have to, um, start, start going at it in a more intensive way. And I've, I've, uh, emailed staff the, uh, list from the Gifford Center, the communities on the move list, and I'd really encourage anyone who's watching to, um, look up the Gifford Center communities on the move. And, uh, their latest list was just updated a couple weeks ago. Um, and they are the authoritative source on options for local governments in this realm. But it's, um, I, I, I can't participate in, in saying, well, we're waiting for Congress to do something when there are things that only the cities can do.

[08:22:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, uh, Council member Libra, it sounded like you were amenable to the staff's recommended approach, because they understand that correctly.

[08:22:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, I'd be more than happy to work with the city attorney and to look at what can be brought back and um, Uh, uh, the 1st meeting in August. Sounds like a very satisfactory time and really represents the sense of urgency that's out there in the community to start to take a deeper action.

[08:22:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then staff, would you like a straw poll or are you amenable to that direction with that one?

[08:22:58] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazelli: I am amenable to the direction. I just wanted to clarify that part of that direction is to really look at all possible options for council, is that what you, because I, I'm just taking into consideration also what council member Abakoka, said, so is that what the desire is to look at all potential options for action of this council with regard to guns?

[08:23:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I want as much as I can possibly get. If it's gonna sink the boat, because we're gonna say that we have other priorities. Let's pick as much fruit off the tree as we can carry.

[08:23:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Council member Mattachek?

[08:23:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I'll just add that I'm supportive of this. I appreciate it being brought up again. I think, you know, dusting off off the memo that was written in the past, um, and adding to it, um, would be useful. So we're not starting from scratch. Um, and then as council member, Abi Kogi said, uh, letting us know what the trade-offs are. I might be very willing to make them. I just want to know what they are. Thank you.

[08:24:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, so then, uh, it sounds like by consensus, the council is comfortable with the staff's recommend recommendation for approaching this topic. Um, any other questions or comments on this issue? Are other council questions, comments, or reports? Do you have 2 very quickly? So the 1st is, in accordance with city council policy, A2. I would like to report that I attended the US conferences, and there's meeting, uh, in Reno, uh, from, I think it was June 3rd through the 6th, um, and it was, um, uh, actually a very helpful conference, a lot of, uh, great programming and seminars about, um, ARPA and workforce development and homelessness and housing and, um, probably the most, um, powerful was a, um, a, a panel presentation in which, Um, US, uh, Surgeon General Vivic Mercy participated, and he gave a very compelling speech and received a very lengthy, uh, standing ovation. Um, but in summary, uh, recognizing that the pandemic has been hard for everyone, um, and many people are suffering and we're doing this strange thing of pretending like we didn't deal with collective trauma for 2 years. Uh, we should remember to leave with compassion and kindness and govern with love. Um, so, uh, I really enjoyed um, that opportunity and learned a lot. Um, and then, uh, Ordinarily, I wouldn't report this because there was no, um, uh, taxpayer component, but, um, the Chinese language civic leadership academy graduation. I thought was deeply moving. Uh, we heard some, uh, great speech, uh, speeches from 2 members of the class who, um, were invited to, to share their thoughts, and I think one of, so one of the speeches was provided in, uh, in Chinese, and the translation was shared, but the council, and then the other speech was given in English, and, um, what I heard universally was great appreciation for the city, uh, for organizing uh, the leadership academy, um, and a strong desire to continue the program. So I really appreciate the council support and staff support for organizing it. Um, it's, it's really powerful. And I think we need to just be mindful of, of how important, uh, civic engagement is for communities that historically haven't been brought into, uh, into local government. Um, Council member Madischeck.

[08:26:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Sorry, I forgot, um, I am the alternate to SVRIA, Silicon Valley Regional Interruptibility Authority, and I attended their board meeting, um, because I needed to be sworn in as the alternate. Um, but there was also an interesting discussion about SB 1000 And that is the communications encryption, um, bill that, um, Senator Becker put forward. And SVRIA decided not to take a position on it because they're a technology provider. They're not really the communicator. So they decided not to take a position on that bill. Thanks.

[08:27:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Abby Coca.

[08:27:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, I just wanted to report out on a couple of meetings I've attended, um, the Silicon Valley clean energy, a few items. Um, the board approved a 2 up to $2000000 program for community electrification engagement programs. So, um, I would just ask, uh, if anyone's interested. Um, please check out the information on the website at SV cleanenergy.org. Um, also, um, as you, we've talked before, we're moving into the next, um, reach codes 2.0 and uh, staff is working with the various all cities to to increase uh, electrification in new building. Um, and also, um, the board approved a uh, project to um, bring in geothermal into the electric energy portfolio for SVCE. So we're diversifying our different resources. With MTC. Um, we had a 2 day workshop on what we call, what they're called mega projects, um, projects such as BART and projects that are in the 1000000000s of dollars and how to, um, I guess, find ways to, um, try to avoid over cost overruns and, um, making sure projects are, um, are delivered on time and on budget. Um, it's an ongoing discussion. Um, but, uh, it was helpful to hear about some of the big projects like BART that are happening right now. And then as I mentioned, um, the Bay Area housing finance authority. So we were meeting quarterly. Now we are meeting monthly because they're accelerating their the work. Um, we are hiring staff. Um, we've uh, budgeted the $20000000 grant from the state. Um, there's, I believe, 5 programs that um, are going to be um, administered. And so I would just uh, say if you're interested and I think you might be in light of our earlier conversation on what Buffa does, um, their uh, agendas, uh, meeting agendas are on the MTC website at mtc.ca.gov, along with the MTC agendas. Thanks.

[08:30:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other reports, comments, questions? If not, then we'll go to item 9, city attorney logs, do you have a closed session report?

[08:30:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Uh, no, there's no close session report this evening. For this morning.

[08:30:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, uh, thank you, colleagues. just like the BART extension to San Jose. We are ahead of schedule and under budget. Thank you very much for your work tonight. Um, the council. The next council meeting. will be held on June 28, 2022. Until then, stay healthy. The meeting is adjourned at 142 AM. Have a good rest of your evening.

• ← Previous
• Next →