October 11, 2022 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:40] (archive recording) City Clerk: At 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.likestar.com, YouTube.com forward slash Mountain View Gov, and on Comcast Channel 26. Noted on the meeting that should. Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 6699009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. City attorney log will make a closed session announcement and then the city council welcomes public comment on it is listed.

[00:01:38] (archive recording) City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you. Um and good evening. Um, there are 4 items on the post session agenda for this evening. One item will be heard in closed session at 5 PM, and the 3 remaining items will be heard in a 2nd post session meeting that will be held at the end of the agenda following item 8, council staff, and committee reports. I will announce the post session item for the 5 p.m. post session meeting now, and will announce the remaining three items following item eight. Item 2.1, on the 5 p.m. close session agenda, is a public employee performance, evaluation, pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54957, for city council appointees. The city attorney, the city clerk, and the city manager, and a conference with labor negotiators, pursuant to California government code, section 54957.6, and the, um... For, I'm sorry, related to unrepresented employees, city attorney, city clerk, and city manager, And the agency designated representative is Vice Mayor Hicks. Thank you.

[00:03:02] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight? So again, if so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Be no members of the public wishing to speak. Uh, the council will now reset the closed session, return to this webinar at 6.30 p.m. for the regular session. Uh, and there are additional closed session items that will be heard following the conclusion of the regular session. See, see well at 630.

[01:34:59] City Clerk: You city council of October 11, 2022. I will now 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 a pain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical media location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.lodestar.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 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-51267142. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were received directly by the city council.

[01:36:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: 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. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:36:24] City Clerk: Council member Abby Coba?

[01:36:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[01:36:26] City Clerk: Council member, can I?

[01:36:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[01:36:30] City Clerk: Council member Lieber.

[01:36:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[01:36:32] City Clerk: Council member Manachek.

[01:36:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:36:35] City Clerk: Council member show Walter. Vice Mayor Hicks. Mayor Ramirez. You have a corn.

[01:36:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry about that. Uh, we will now move to uh, 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. The 1st uh, item is 3.one national breast cancer awareness month proclamation. We are happy to have council member Abikoga accept this proclamation this evening. The proclamation reads, whereas breast cancer is the 2nd most common cancer in women and one of the leading causes of cancer related death, and whereas doctors estimate that about 5 to 10% of breast cancers are hereditary, and individuals whose family history put them at increased risk for breast cancer should discuss with their doctor, or qualified health professional, proper prevention, and early diagnosis strategies. And whereas during the month of October, with bold pink ribbons displayed proudly in the community, family, friends, and neighbors stand in solidarity with breast cancer survivors, and reaffirm our commitment to raising awareness of this disease, and whereas National breast cancer awareness month serves as an opportunity to increase awareness of the disease and to encourage individuals to have a plan to detect the disease in its early stages. For these individuals and for their loved ones who give their unwavering support during the most trying times, we recommit ourselves to the essential and necessary work of forging a future free from cancer in all its forms. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as national breast cancer awareness month in the city of Mountain View, and ask the community to join in activities that will increase awareness of breast cancer prevention. Council member Abi Koko, would you would you like to say a few words?

[01:38:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you for this proclamation, um, and thank you to my colleagues for, um, all of your support, um, As mentioned, breast cancer is the 2nd most common cancer in women, one in 8 women, um, in this country, uh, get breast cancer. And so, um, unfortunately, it's a, it's a, um, common, um, disease. And, um, so, when we talk about, you know, what can we do to prevent it, um, frankly, the early detection is really the key to, um, to getting cured, um, and, um, and so I appreciate, uh, raising awareness of breast cancer in this month of October. Um, you know, as, You know, I'll probably know, I am a survivor. It's been 6 years for me and frankly, the further it gets, um, sometimes I even forget. Everything that I went through. And so I, that just tells me how important it is to, you know, have these reminders and raise awareness and um, and encourage um, everyone to, to go and get there. Um, you know, their, their, their screenings um, regularly and um, and um, that's the best way to, um, prevent and hopefully, um, you know, if needed to treat, um, the cancer. Um, so I want to thank um, our city of Mountain View. And in particular as, um, I know the mayors, I think most of us are wearing this t-shirt. I want to thank our Mountain View fire department every October, they wear these t-shirts as part of their uniforms. And they've been doing this for many, many years. Um, and unfortunately, um, in our, in the fire uh, industry, there's a high rate of cancer, not, not just breast cancer, but many cancers. Um, unfortunately, there's some folks right now who are um, battling that um, within our fire department family. And so, I appreciate our fire departments. Um, also uh, supporting the cause and um, wearing these t-shirts and as a reminder to everyone to please, be sure to get your annual checkups, get your annual screenings, um, and, um, uh, to be able to stay healthy, um, and live prosperously. So again, thank you so much, mayor, for this honor.

[01:41:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you again for accepting it. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? If not, uh, oh, council number Lieber.

[01:41:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, I, I just wanted to give a special word to all of the, the nonprofits that uh, work on uh, defeating cancer. And, um, give a special, uh, recognition to, uh, the family members and to those who have, um, struggled with cancer and and not been able to defeat it in their own case. I think we all know individuals in our own lives who are either still struggling and haven't gotten to that five-year mark or who, unfortunately, uh, never made it to be able to have that that worry free future. And, um, many of those individuals, uh, spent their, their remaining time spreading the word and doing their utmost, uh, to see that others would have, uh, a really significant chance. And so I want to give them, uh, a special recognition, and I think that we all think of those in our lives who have been in that category. So thank you.

[01:42:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Do you know other members of the council wishing to speak? Uh, we will proceed to 3.2 National Community Planning Month Proclamation. Uh, and uh, if someone will uh, help me elevate RT. Uh, we are happy to be joined this evening by assistant city manager and community development director Artis Ravostovo to accept this proclamation. Proclamation reads, whereas change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbs, counties, boroughs, townships, rural areas, and other places. And whereas community planning can help manage this change in a way that provides better choices for how people live and work. And whereas community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community. And whereas the benefit of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation. And whereas the month of October is designated as national community planning month throughout the United States of America and its territories, and whereas planners work to improve the well-being of people living in our communities, taking a comprehensive perspective, which leads to safer and more resilient, equitable, and prosperous communities, and whereas the American Planning Association, and its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners, endorse national community planning month as an opportunity to highlight the contributions, Sound planning and plan implementation adds to the quality of our cities and environment. And whereas the celebration of national community planning month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of the environmental planning commission and citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the city of Mountain View. And whereas, Celebration also gives us the opportunity to recognize the many valuable contributions made by the professional community of planners of Mountain View, which includes the community development department staff. And extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professionals. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as community planning month in the city of Mountain View, in conjunction with the celebration of National Community Planning Month. RT, would you like to say a few words?

[01:45:09] Aarti Shrivastava: I would like to thank the mayor council and our entire community and organization for supporting us. Um, we know that, um, as planners, It is our job to help manage change in the community and do it in such a way that it is inclusive, brings in all points of view. Um, you know, creates a comprehensive blueprint, um, at the highest level, uh, for the city, and then to make sure that projects meet those visions and values that are determined. And, uh, I know our planners work very hard every day, but we do it with the support of you all, the community, and the organization. And I'd like to accept this on behalf of planning, community development, but also all the many, all the many people who provide input into the development review process. Thank you so much for your recognition.

[01:46:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Archie. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Bye, Smur Hicks.

[01:46:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, as a city planner myself, I have to say a few words at this point, um, there are a few people I value more than a good city planner. They, um, and I include Mr. Trebastobo, among them, I had the pleasure of taking a downtown tour where she was one of the featured speakers, and got to let know a little more exactly how she thinks about making a great downtown, and I have to say, I came away with even more respect than I had before. Um, I also know that, uh, and then, frankly, I think that's what, uh, city planning is all about, great public places. We get to do our own interior decoration, but city planners are the people who give us great outdoor public places. And I just wanted to note, I have seen Supervisor Submitian, who I think went to the same planning school that I did with his hand up a moment ago, um, maybe to speak on the previous issue, but I would welcome him to speak on this one as well. And there may be other great city planners in the, you know, as members of the public as well, but I don't have my glasses on, so I can't, uh, speak, honor them personally. Thank you.

[01:47:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show, Walter.

[01:47:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just, um, I was just gonna say that, uh, I entered my political career as a member of the planning commission, as many of you did, too. And it was an incredible education in city planning. I know that there's much, much, much, much more I could know, but one of the things that I think is very important about sitting planning is recognizing that it's one of the city services that we provide, that makes a huge impact on all of our residents. And, um, it's one of the things that we can do well, and for the most part, we have done well. And it makes our community just much, much better for all of us to live there. So thank you so much to the planning department on past and future.

[01:48:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any other members of the council wishing to speak?

[01:48:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, very briefly, uh, I, if the mayor has the opportunity to, uh, decide which proclamations to put on the agenda and, uh, I haven't initiated very many of them. But when I found out about this particular one, I really wanted to do it. Uh, because we have taken time to recognize the important work other departments have done. I'm not sure we've done this proclamation before, and it's particularly important to me because your job is particularly hard. Uh, you know, development is is challenging in any community, lots of different ideas and perspectives about growth and how quickly or slowly to occur, uh, different ideas about design. Um, and it's really challenging nights in the match, like balancing all of those perspectives, you know, not only, you know, within the community, but even among the 7 of us. Uh, and I think it is important to take some time to, uh, appreciate the work that you and your department have done, uh, for the city of Mountain View very well.

[01:49:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Archie, for joining us to accept the proclamation. Now we will proceed to the final proclamation for compassion week. Something that we don't often have in the world these days. We are happy to be joined this evening by Malia Pirus, uh, the, uh, uh, with reach potential movement, executive director to accept this propanition. The proclamation reads, whereas the city of Mountain View is a community that embraces, promotes, and values compassion, and whereas the city of Mountain View recognizes the values of acts of compassion that are performed by community-based organizations, nonprofit agencies, and individuals every day to foster a kinder and more connected community. And whereas Compassion Week brings people together for a week in October through volunteer opportunities and acts of service, and whereas the vision of Compassion Week is to build a strong, compassionate, and empathetic community by creating service and learning opportunities for individuals to expand their understanding of local and global needs. And whereas all members of the Mountain View community, regardless of age, background, education, gender, religious, religious beliefs, lifestyle, ability, or skills, are invited to contribute their talents and energy to participate in compassion week projects and activities and help make Mountain View a more caring and kind community. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, declare the week of October 15th through October 23, 2022 as compassion week 2022, and I encourage all residents to unite together in service to our in our community through participation in compassion week activities. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the sponsors of Compassion Week. Uh, the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation, the County of Santa Clara Supervisor, Joe Samidian, and Los Altos United Methodist Church, for their efforts to bring community members together, in service of others, and offer thanks to every community-based organization, nonprofit agency, and individual, whose efforts strengthen our city, and improve the lives of our neighbors. Malia, would you like to say a few words?

[01:51:35] Malia Pirus: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez and the Mountain View City Council for the honor this evening bestowed upon reach potential. I'm honored to accept the city of Mountain View's compassion proclamation. And we stand, uh, you know, we're just one of the many, many wonderful organizations that are hosting projects this week and are doing amazing work in our community. Miriam Webster defines compassion as sympathetic consciousness of others distressed together with a desire to alleviate it. And Mountain View historically and throughout COVID-19, um, has really um, shown that they are a compassionate city. They have really elevated the needs of the least of those in our city, um, through their financial support, through the decisions they're making with programs like the safe lots, and were really, really honored to be um, able to serve the city of Mountain View's inhabitants. And again, we are in the company of many wonderful, wonderful organizations. And we're really honored to accept this award. So thank you each of you.

[01:52:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for joining us to accept the proclamation. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? If not, thank you again, Malia, for joining us. Uh, we will now take public comment for the presentation item. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And the 1st speaker is caller, um, ending in 797.

[01:53:23] Public Speaker: Yes, uh, good evening and thank you for your precious time. Uh, I wanted uh, I don't know uh, if it's relevant to the subject you were speaking. If you can help me with a, a rental, uh, issue that I have, um, with a long list I was waiting for. So finally, the property, called me. But, uh, it looks like, um, we are not communicating, well, I don't know, um, if, uh, at the same time, they have a deadline tomorrow, but I, I did call, and uh, today they were mentioning a price that was, uh, outrageously higher than, uh, uh, what I thought to be. and it usually was uh for the low income. So I don't know, is there any way that could generally, uh tomorrow go and um, say a few words and keep this going.

[01:54:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, unfortunately, the city council isn't able to respond, um, but please reach out, uh, to city staff and uh, we'll make sure that someone is able to provide the assistance you're looking for. Um, seeing no other members of the community wishing to speak. Um, So that was for the presentation, items will now move on to the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion, with any member of the council like to pull an item. A nun. 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 race hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Being no members of the public wishing to speak. Uh, a motion is in order. Comes from my Robbie Koga.

[01:55:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I like to go ahead and make a motion to move the consent calendar, including item 4.2, adopt 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 3661 and making required findings. Thank you.

[01:55:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: But for your music?

[01:56:01] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. I'll 2nd that much.

[01:56:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. There are no further questions or comments. I'll ask the city clerk to start the roll call vote.

[01:56:13] Heather Glaser: Council member, Abby Coca.

[01:56:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[01:56:15] Heather Glaser: by Smear Hicks.

[01:56:17] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:56:17] Heather Glaser: Council member can make.

[01:56:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[01:56:19] Heather Glaser: council member Lieber.

[01:56:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:56:21] Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[01:56:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:56:24] Heather Glaser: Council member, Che Walter?

[01:56:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:56:26] Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[01:56:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Motion carries unanimously. You very much. We'll now proceed to item 5 oral communications from the public. 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, uh, during the section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on an item not on the agenda? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on your screen. I had thought that this was where a supervisor submitting was interested in speaking, but perhaps he had to depart. I've not seen any members of the public wishing to speak. So, we will proceed, uh, right, counsel. uh sorry, Bruce England, 2 minutes.

[01:57:29] Bruce England: No, this is really fast. I just saw this news release. Um, maybe it was from today. City calls on state's local investment advisory board to responsibly investing companies that support a sustainable environment. I was very happy to see that. So thanks to members of the city council who made that happen. Thank you very much.

[01:57:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Kavita.

[01:57:55] Kavita Aiyar: Thank you mayor. Um, I'm calling in as a resident of Mountain View, um, as a member of the public safety advisory board, and as the Director of Communications, as the at the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation. I just wanted to share with the council and with folks that are listening, what I'm hearing from our community that has been affected by the enforcement of measure C. Um, I am hearing quite dire stories of the people who no longer have regular access to clean running water or restrooms. I'm hearing about real fear and uncertainty from our neighbors, who are being affected by the enforcement since a week ago Saturday. Um, and I understand that ticketing is also started with $170 as the minimum fee for violation of the 72 hour rule. And that is beyond the means of many members who are in the community of as residents of RV vehicles. I would like to see the council and the city of Mountain View continue to, um, show compassion and humanity as we go forward in this. I would like to request, um, folks to look at, temporarily expanding safe parking at Shoreline Lot B, and enabling the most vulnerable members of the RV community, those without operable vehicles, the disabled seniors and families with children's in schools to have priority to those um, to those potential spots. I would also like to request, um, uh, that the folks who are in charge look step back, uh, enforcement of the 72 hour rule, which is causing a lot of stress, and which was not originally an original part of measure C. I think it's really important that we all band together and show compassion for our neighbors in this matter. Thank you.

[01:59:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. And that paper is the Dean Miller.

[02:00:00] Adin Miller: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council members. My name is Adine Miller. Resident of Mountain View. I am also the executive director of Los Altos Manor Community Foundation, and uh, TV and I both uh, work together and share the similar concerns about members of our community who are being affected by the implementation and enforcement of the measure of space. It is our responsibility as a community foundation that directly serves the city of Mountain View and its residents to raise awareness about issues that directly affect its residents. And as we are about to celebrate and inaugurate another compassion week, implore us to think about the word compassion, and what we can do to support vehicle dwellers who are being affected by the enforcement, and being required to move, and in some cases, facing real significant uncertainty about their dwelling, their future, and how this community will care for their existence and ability to live here. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide some comments.

[02:01:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Caleb Adams.

[02:01:12] Caleb Adams: Hello, can you hear me?

[02:01:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:01:16] Caleb Adams: Okay, I just wanted to mention that I think measure C is essentially criminalizing poverty. I want to agree with the prior 2 speakers and say that we should not be criminalizing poverty, and we should be taking care of those who are hurting the most in our communities. You know, how are we gonna claim that we're doing anything to help homelessness in the unhoused? if we're literally charging them crazy fees for just existing? Uh, how, and the rest of my time?

[02:01:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Dan David.

[02:01:55] Dan Dabek: Hi, my name is Dan Day back. I'm a resident of Mountain View. I live in Old Town Mountain View. I'm commenting on measure C, and the unethical enforcement of the 772 hour rule. We are criminalizing poverty by doing this. Also, at states in the Mountain View parking regulations that, um, it may be considered an abandoned or get towed if a car has been left on the sheet for 72 hours. So how is this rule being enforced? Are we looking at older vehicles? Are we looking at vehicles that have not been cleaned? In old town, Mountain View? There are Teslas parked in the street longer than 72 hours? Are these vehicles being ticketed? If we compared the vehicles that have been ticketed under this rule. What is being targeted? Are they older vehicles? Or are they new ones? If someone goes on vacation and leaves their car on the street, Are those getting ticketed? How is this rule being enforced? I urge you to think about this, especially during Compassion week.

[02:02:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[02:03:07] Alex Brown: I don't agree with them, what they said. Thank you.

[02:03:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Next speaker is Malia.

[02:03:19] Malia Pires: Hi, Malia Pirates, I'm a resident of Mountain V and I too just wanted to chime in regarding measure C. Um, and just share some of the stories that we're hearing out on the street. Some of the um, our senior neighbors are unable to access water. Um, several of our vehicle dwellers are unable to move vehicles because they don't have the funds in which to be able to do that. There's a long waiting list for safe parking, which is a wonderful program and it's working for our inhabitants as a voter and a registered voter and the city of Mountain View. Um, I don't believe that the voters were, or were aware that there was going to be a $1000000 to pay for signage that 80% roughly of our streets were going to have those signs and not be, um, eligible for parking for wider vehicles. I also don't believe that people understood the fallout. Um, when these vehicles now are starting to park all throughout the city and their neighborhoods. I don't think that there was any awareness or, you know, dialogue around that and what it really meant when measure C was enforced. I believe we are a compassionate city. We have a compassionate council. And I think we're just seeing now the ramifications of measure C enforcements that, um, no resident, I believe, really thought was going to happen. We, I don't believe anybody doesn't want to see a senior citizen have access to water. in bathrooms that who lives in his RV. That's his home, right? So I don't believe that was the intention of the voters. Um, you know, just, you know, when we think about compassion week. I just want to invite our community to go to Silicon Valley Volunteers.org and sign up for the 100s of wonderful projects that many nonprofits like CSA, like Hope's Corner, um, to just join and then join together to, um, execute and elevate compassion in our city. Thank you. I yield my time.

[02:05:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. I mean, no other members of the public wishing to speak, well, now, and non-agenda public comment, and move to item 6.one firearm safety legislation. Purpose of this, of this study session is to receive direction from council on options for additional firearm safety legislation. Um, and if staff wouldn't help, uh, would help me elevate the, um, here we go. Analyst. Um, All of the staff would need to be in the presentation. Feel free to promote to panelist. Distant city attorney Diana Zazelli will present the item. Uh, whenever you're ready, Diana.

[02:06:12] Diana Fazely: Um, good evening, counsel. I'm sorry. Good evening, mayor, and council members, Diana Fazelli, assistant city attorney's office, here tonight to present on the study session regarding firearm safety legislation. As background, since January 2020, the council has adopted too firearm safety ordinances, the 1st prohibiting the possession of firearms on city properties, and also requiring safe storage of firearms in homes and in vehicles. On June 14th this year, council directed staff to return to the city council with additional firearm safety legislation options. I'm sorry, having some technical difficulties. There we go. The city has existing firearm regulations, which are listed in the slide. The 1st 2 are the ordinances that I had just mentioned that have been adopted since January of 2020. Um, additionally, the city has in its building code. The ability to require additional security measures on buildings that are used for weapon, ammunition, or explosive storage. The city prohibits discharge of firearms within the city, and it also prohibits the possession, discharge, or shooting of any firearms within city parks or recreational facilities. As additional background or provide some information on what's going on at the state and local level. In July of this year, Governor Newsom signed um, 13 new state laws relating to gun safety. Um, most, uh, which was, um, The impetus was the recent mass shootings, most notably the one that occurred in Uval, Texas. Those for 13 state laws went into effect immediately upon his signature. And in addition to that, 4 new state laws were signed by the governor last month and go into effect on January 1st of 2023. And just last week, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supported the expansion of law enforcement efforts in the county relating to gun regulation enforcement, with a specific focus on confiscating guns from those individuals who were prohibited from having them. And that leads me to our option number one. Option number one for council to consider would be modifying existing or ordinance or adopting a new organist to expand the locations within the city where firearms are prohibited. In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that a provision of New York State law that required concealed carry weapon or CCW license applicants to show proper cause for license issuance was considered was decided as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. California has a similar provision, or California's is good cause rather than proper cause. And the immediate effect of this case was that that provision was also invalidated. And so essentially, this makes it more difficult for local jurisdictions to deny CCW licenses. One of the steps that the city can take, and which is being considered by other cities, is prohibiting the possession of firearms, including those being carried by TCW licensees, from sensitive areas. So this would expand our current ordinance that prohibits firearms on city property. The state legislature attempted to respond to the Brune case with SB 918, which would have created a robust framework for processing CCW license applications, and also would have included additional restrictions on CCW license sees, including those restrictions on what's deemed a sensitive or what the state legislature deemed as sensitive areas. However, that bill failed by just one vote. The law is still evolving post the Supreme Court case. And so this option would require our office to conduct additional legal research to determine what is the city's capability of preventing individuals who possess valid CCW licenses from carrying their gun in certain locations. It's come to our attention recently that the state of New York. actually did impose these um, restrictions on CCW licensees and sensitive areas, um, including some areas that were consistent with what the state of California attempted to do with SP 918. And those laws were challenged in the district court in the state of New York. And many of them were deemed as unconstitutional. And so it remains unclear whether that case will be appealed to the federal circuit courts, um, But so additional research on our end would be required to ensure that the sensitive areas that we designate are within the confines of the new Supreme Court case. Um, additionally, we would be monitoring state legislation, um, it is within the realm of possibility that a bill like SB 918 would be introduced again, um, because it did just fail by one vote, and we would be monitoring if that occurs to prevent any preemption issues. And finally, again, um, we would be monitoring any sort of litigation, including the New York, the state of New York case, um, to ensure that what we propose is, uh, legally viable for the council to consider. The 2nd option would be to enact a new ordinance to create a licensing framework for firearm dealers. This would require firearm dealers, um, in order for them to be able to conduct business within city and mountain view. They would be required to obtain a license from the Mountain View Police Department. That license can include certain requirements, such as requiring liability insurance. Um, we, it could also um, prohibit the firearm dealer from conducting business from their home. And also, um, we can require, um, the firearm dealers from conducting business, sorry, imposing locational restrictions on these firearm dealers, meaning they would be required to, um, be a certain distance away from areas that in which children congregate such as schools, daycares, and parks. If counsel does direct staff to move forward with this option, um, the staff also requests counsel to provide direction on how to address those existing firearm dealers who conduct business from their homes, um, and or conduct business within a certain distance, from schools, daycares, and or parks. So that would require direction on whether we should grandfather in those existing firearm dealers, meaning they would be permitted to continue to operate, as a firearm dealer, conducting sales of firearms with their specific location. Or amortization, which would be providing them a certain period of time after which they would have to cease operation and comply with the city's new regulations regarding firearm dealers. This slide is the table that's also provided in the study session memorandum, um, with the correction that I that Los Gatos does prohibit firearm sales as home occupation. So this X was missing in the study session memo, but I've corrected it here. So it provides kind of the layout of what some of our neighboring cities have in regards to the options that we've provided for you. And finally, these are the questions that staff is seeking council direction on, um, 1st weather council wants to expand locations where firearms are privited. Does council want to impose a license requirement for a firearm dealers? And then disc council want to prohibit firearm sales as a home occupation. Does council want to restrict firearm dealers from being a certain distance from schools, parks, and daycares. If so, what distance? And then if council, um, provides direction to move forward with 3 numbers 3 and 4 in particular, does council want to amortize our grandfather and the existing firearm dealers? And depending on council direction, the timing for bring back does vary. And with that, I'm available for any questions that the council may have.

[02:15:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Diana. Are there any questions from the council? Council membership, Walter.

[02:15:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm interested in the efforts that are going on throughout the county. to do this on a regional basis. Um, I, uh, I think that that could be, uh, a very effective way to go. So could you explain that a little bit to us?

[02:16:00] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: So, um, the countywide, so I am aware that other cities are considering the sensitive areas type of ordinance, however, it is still being, um, analyzed by those specific, by those relative cities, um, respective cities. For example, in Sunnyvale, they did have a similar study session just in August, and their council directed their staff to explore that type of legislation. And, um, as for licensing as the table noted, um, some of our neighboring cities already do have a licensing requirement, so we would be consistent with, uh, some, some or most of our neighboring cities in that respect.

[02:16:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I understood from my, uh, discussion this morning with the city attorney that, that there was, efforts going on between all the county city attorneys related to the concealed carry, um, And, um, so, although it hasn't necessarily, that effort hasn't necessarily expanded to include the things that are, um, uh, mentioned here, the group has gotten together and is talking about gun safety.

[02:17:12] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: So, yes, we are. It does provide a potential...

[02:17:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I mean, I just wanted to ask about, do you see that as providing a potential platform for collaboration on this topic?

[02:17:27] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Yes, absolutely. So the city attorneys in our county, our meeting about the concealed carry weapon, permit issue, and then specifically, we will be discussing the sensitive areas, legislation. We haven't gotten into the details yet, but that is somewhere where we will be collaborating.

[02:17:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And also, what is the sort of relative value of having, um, this kind of legislation be done on a more regional than a city by city basis?

[02:18:01] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: That's a good question. Um, I'm not sure if there's any, uh, value on a, you know, at a risk perspective. Um, however, it does provide from a, you know, a public safety perspective, you know, you know, if, if, if all the cities in the county have similar restrictions on possession of firearms, you know, it would, um, provide perhaps, you know, those who would carry their guns illegally more, um, give them more caution as to do, to do that in Santa Clara County versus, you know, doing, not being able to do in Campbell, but being able to do it in San Jose, you know, So, um, I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm not able to,

[02:18:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. I think we get the concept, which is that it would be, you know, a stronger prohibition and probably more effective. That's what I'm hearing. Is that correct?

[02:18:55] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Yes.

[02:18:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thank you. So first, I'll acknowledge this was, it is a study session, and ordinarily we go to the public for comment first. I had a lapse in memory. Um, City Attorney Low's. You had your hand up. Did you want to speak to something?

[02:19:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No, it's okay. That it was addressed.

[02:19:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Would the council prefer if we just continue with questions and then to public coming after, since I've already started that? Council member labor, you're up next.

[02:19:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor, and maybe we could, um, ask the community that will ultimately comment about the efforts that they've been making over the years to try to get a unified, uh, approach to this, 'cause I know that the, um, the protections that are present in Palo Alto, for example, have been there for more than 10 years. Um, and I had a question about the issue of, um, amortization. Um, Can we, uh, pursue, uh, amortization, uh, concurrently with a band, so that, um, say, for the example of the, the firearms dealers in in residential neighborhoods that we would not have any new ones, um, starting, and that, um, the, the existing ones would have a period of time to find someplace else to conduct their business.

[02:20:32] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Yes. So if council directs us to prohibit firearm sales as a home occupation, moving forward and allowing, and then also giving those existing firearm dealers a certain period of time to cease operation, then that would happen concurrently. So any new firearm dealers, they would not be able to conduct business from their homes, and the existing ones would be just given a period of time in order for them to come into compliance, meaning, you know, stopping their operations from their home.

[02:21:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And, um, how, how large is the, the spacing requirement in Palo Alto for a ban on, um, firearms stealing, um, adjacent to child uses such as daycare schools, parks?

[02:21:26] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: And Palo Alto, it is 250 feet as well as in Morgan Hill.

[02:21:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:21:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Smur Hicks.

[02:21:41] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I'm gonna start with a naive procedural question, but I realized when I read the staff report, clear on it. Um, so you, you're asking us to study now, and then we're gonna, I'm checking whether this is true, whether my understanding is true. We're having the study session. We could opt to put between one and four of these, but we would re review these during our work plan, and then maybe, which we do in January or February after the election, and then we would have to decide what to not do. Is that, this may be a city manager question. I'm not sure. Is that the procedure that I thought I had heard before, but I'm not completely clear.

[02:22:26] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: If I could address that, um... This is a city attorney, Jennifer Logue. Yes. So depending on what counsel decides this evening, you'll provide us direction, you'll give us parameters on what you'd like to see in the legislation that we bring back. Depending on what you direct us with. Some of it is gonna require a little more research than others. And between now and February, when you're gonna come back and consider your work plan, we will see how far along the we get. Um, in my conversation with council member, Shel Walter, earlier today, um, she brought up the idea of possibly of us submitting a, um, a memo to you prior to February, letting you know how far we've gotten, and what what work would be left to do in order to bring the legislation forward. So you go into your work plan in February with an understanding of what it's going to do for us to pull all the legislation together. And that way, you'll have a clear picture on whether or not things would have to be moved around, or something would have to be taken off of the work plan, because, you know, as you know, our office provides support pretty much on everything on the work plan. And so, we need to balance our workload with what else is on the work plan and any other deadlines that come with what the items on your work plan. So we try to give you a good picture prior to February, so you'd know how to make a decision, um, when you decide to work by. Is that, was that help?

[02:24:02] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, that's it. Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know. That's much more clarity on the procedure than I had before. And my second question. So, basically, we're telling you what to study briefly, and then you bring it back when you know the full, when you have a better idea on what the impacts on various departments would be of each of these four, whichever we select by the end of the night. Okay. The other thing I was going to ask was, But maybe I don't have to. Uh, was your, uh, initial, um, kind of a rundown of each one of the four, which departments you thought would be impacted? So, you know, whether it's community development, you know, land use, whether I mean, I think all of them are the city attorney's office. See, you could give me that rundown, or you could say you'd rather just save that for the memo that you were just talking about.

[02:25:01] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I think we can say with certainty that the police department will be affected, because they will carry the burden of processing the licenses. We've talked to, um, Chief Shang about this at length, and so he's aware. Um, we are not a... we are not clear at this time. What if any other departments would be affected, and whether or not the effect would be long term on them. There might be some short term impacts. But long term, it's the police department.

[02:25:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So that's implementation. But in drawing it up, It's mostly the city attorney's office and, to some degree, community development for some of them.

[02:25:43] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I think mostly the city attorney's office, Diana, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think that there would be much involvement. in the other department.

[02:25:50] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Right.

[02:25:50] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[02:25:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Uh, Council member, let's go to Council member, Matt, check, because I don't think you've spoken yet, unless I've been mistaken.

[02:26:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Uh, thanks. Just a clarifying question. In the staff report, it talks about option one and option two. And, um, I was wondering if there are synergies between the items, um, listed there. Because then, um, in the presentation we just saw, it it had things broken out. So are we? Does it make sense to give direction on each of the individual items broken out or is it option one and option two?

[02:26:35] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: That's a good question. Thank you, Counselor Rabachek. So for option 2 and specifically, we have the licensing framework, which is one option, and we, for the um, prohibition on home occupations and the locational restrictions, it, from a, um, compliance standpoint, it makes the most sense to have those restrictions as part of a licensing framework. So that when the Mountain View, when the police department receives an application, they can check Mark and say, okay, this person's not conducting business from their homes and they're within this certain distance away from schools, parks, and daycares. So those 2 elements, within option 2, really work best as a package, I guess, is the best way to put it.

[02:27:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks.

[02:27:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[02:27:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, one of the vice mayor's comments, um, uh, caused, um, you know, have a question. Again, um, if the county were to, um, have a sudden burst of activity and, um, come forward with very similar measures. Um, then we would have the chance to, uh, cut back on our approach or, um, work with them in some way before the the goal setting would, um, come up or be concluded. Is that right?

[02:28:02] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Yes.

[02:28:04] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[02:28:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any remaining questions? Not, then we'll go to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. This is for the, uh, gun safety legislation, study session. Uh we'll go ahead and allocate 2 minutes. The 1st speaker is Rachel.

[02:28:42] Rachel: Yes. Hi. Hi, city council members. Thank you so much. Um, I'm uh, volunteer with mom's command action and uh, citizen here, a resident of Mountain View, and I am just coming to applaud city council for, uh, taking, to do our holding the study session and taking this very necessary 1st step in commuting, uh, keeping our, So everyone safe, um, and uh, furthering gun safety among our community. Thank you so much for your time and for all that you do on gun safety. Thank you.

[02:29:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tom Catman.

[02:29:26] Tom Tapman: Hi, this is Tom Tapman. I'm a resident of Mountain View, and I'm opposing additional gun regulations in Mountain View. Option one is the main one. And right now, there's a court case going on, it's CRPA versus City of Glendale. The case is about sensitive places, which is the same as what we're talking about here. Um, So, you know, don't pursue this option one. As the Glendale case will set the president for what you can call a sensitive place. And when sensitive places are defined, the city has the burden to prove that the area included our sensitive places. The court case of Berrin, Berwin, says the government must justify its regulations by demonstrating that is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations. And I'd recommend for the legal department to contact the California Rifle and Pistol Association for their input. They're the ones that are suing the city of Glendale. Great. Also, the Melview Police Department's great. Thank you very much for your service. Okay, thank you.

[02:30:54] Unknown Speaker: You're muted, Mayor.

[02:30:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, sometimes the button works, and sometimes it doesn't. Thank you very much. So, see, no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council for, uh, for comments and uh, potentially straw motions for each of the items that were presented in the, in the, the presentation.

[02:31:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member believer.

[02:31:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I very much appreciate my colleagues agreeing to hear this item. Uh, I think it's very, very important that, um, if not a leadership position that we are strongly, um, pursuing this issue. And, um, my own view is that I would like to see us, uh, take an initial pass at, uh, both options one and options two. And, um, I understand that some of them may not, uh, work out, uh, due to the changing landscape in terms of uh, legislation. And in terms of court cases. But I would like to see us pursue a full boat approach to having the most protective ordinances that we possibly can in Mountain View. And I think that Palo Alto has set a very good example for, uh, having a, uh, comprehensive approach in terms of what we're looking at here. So, um, I think that we should pursue as many options as possible, and at least have the research done on them, so that we're able to see, uh, the lay of the land, and at the time of our goal setting, and, uh, do do the best that we can to be protective for our community.

[02:32:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Lieber.

[02:32:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Just for my benefit, um, the, the questions in the staff report were slightly different from the questions in the, uh, the presentation provided, um, a few minutes ago. Uh, and so, uh, did you support, uh, so, the, the questions I, I, wrote down were, uh, a little bit more granular, so expanding locations, um, I think that's for the prohibition of carrying firearms, um, license requirements, restricting home occupations, uh, restricting distance from schools, parks, and other sensitive areas, and then there was a, a, preliminary direction on how far, but that distance should be, and then direction on what to do about existing businesses, um, did you want to speak to each of those or, um, for another round? Uh, I support all those strategies. Uh, I would like to, uh, potentially look at uh, 250 or 500 feet, um, in terms of the storefront, uh, businesses. And I would like to see us, uh, pursue, uh, a conditional use permit for, uh, the storefront businesses, so that people in our community have the, um, have knowledge about, um, businesses that are, uh, coming in, and, and I would like to limit the, uh, conditional use permits to the number of stores that we have right now. And, um, I absolutely want to, uh, see the, uh, the home businesses, uh, out of our neighborhoods, and, um, uh, I think that a, a short period of time to recognize that they would need to, um, find a, a place of business. Uh, that's not in a home on a residential street is is reasonable. Um, but I, I support uh, all of these strategies, and I support them all in their strongest versions. Um, because frankly, the, uh, this has been something that a lot of councils have been talked to over a long, long period of time. And, um, I can really say, without getting overly emotional, that I'm fed up with inaction. And I think that we need to do everything in our power to be protective for our community members.

[02:35:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[02:35:41] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Ramirez, would it be helpful for me to share the screen with the questions for the...

[02:35:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I'll just need to make sure I can go back and forth to make sure I'm capturing everyone's hand. So yeah, let's go ahead and put that up for now.

[02:35:56] Unknown Speaker: Sure. Thank you.

[02:35:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Abby Cooka.

[02:36:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank Amir. So, I am 100% agree with council member, Liber. Um, this has been an issue that's been a priority for me for many years. Um, that's why I brought up gun safety legislation, um, or local ordinances. Several years ago, at that time, the council, during goal session, um, that, uh, staff resources wise, we could only do one a year. So we went with that. I think we've done 2 since then. Um, but each time there's a tragedy. It brings back this issue. And I'm at a point where I just think that we, I also think that we should just do whatever we can in our power, um, locally to, um, to, um, provide the, the strictest or the, um, the most protection regarding gun safety. And so, um, I, I would support, frankly, doing all of these, um, you know, I can't help but bring up, like, for me personally, um, the tragedy at the VTA site last year. Um, it's still in, it's, it's, has completely, um, devastated the agency and the employees, and seeing that, and it being so close to home, makes this so important for me to, that we, we do what we can. So, one, I do support expanding locations where firearms are prohibited. I believe we're talking about sensitive um, locations, which is number four. So all of those all of those areas and whatever was included in the staff report, um, I would support. Um, I don't know, I can't, I was trying to remember. I think we had some kind of distance, um, of, but with cannabis shops and how close they could be to, like, a school and I was hoping staff could remind me what that was, but, um, to be frank, I think, you know, even a mile away from a school is is too close. Um, we have some, we have some stores that are, I looked up on our map like, .3 miles from a daycare and um, point, like half a mile from a school. You just go, you know, straight up the street and you're at elementary school and to me, that's too close. Um, so I don't know what the furthest distance that we could do, but that would be my preference on, but if there is a, um, like a reference with the cannabis shops, I would, you know, look at that. Um, number two, license requirements. I believe Santa, the city of San Jose has done that. Oh, I think that's with insurance. So, yes, for 2 and requiring the insurance piece. Um, 3 uh, absolutely uh, prohibiting home occupations. And I would say, um, you know, I would support an amortization period, uh, but that would include, you know, ban on any new, um, new businesses, and then for figuring out some kind of timing frame to phase out the existing businesses, um, and, and either for help, uh, giving them time to find a location or, um, I guess it was something about recouping sauce. So I would support that. Um, So that was number five. And I think that answers them all. Thank you.

[02:39:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Uh, let's go to the city attorney first.

[02:39:48] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I just wanted to provide a little clarification, the insurance requirements that we're talking about with regard to the license, is for gun retailers, not for gun owners, which is what's going on, and which is what San Jose just did. So I just wanted to distinguish between the two. That's all.

[02:40:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the clarification. Bye, Snur Hicks.

[02:40:13] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I'm gonna agree with the previous speakers that I would like to explore the 4 different options named in the staff report and hear on the, on the screen, um, and have them brought back to us, uh, you know, in a memo and for the review during the work plan. Um, in terms of, um, and yes, hope that the county, um, goes ahead of us on some of them so that we can be uniform across the county. Um, in terms of things like, uh, how many, what the number of feet away from schools, part daycare, et cetera, um, I would just like to hear in that memo what other... I am not gonna take a stab at it now, what best practices are, um, in our surrounding cities, uh, so that we can benchmark from those, or, or who knows, maybe we want to do the one better. Um, and, um, yes, I'd like also in the memo, I'd like the memo to include kind of best practices of the cities listed so we can make those decisions. Then, um, and I'll just say, my reasoning is, I think the, the vast majority of, uh, people in Mountain View do want this to happen. So I would like to make it happen. Thank you.

[02:41:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show Walter.

[02:41:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I think the thing that we're all getting at with gun regulations is to make our community safer. That's really what we're, um, and make our society safer. That's really what we're after. And, um, I had a great discussion with both, um, the city attorney and, uh, the chief of police this morning about this, because it's, you know, it's something that, that, um, is very important to me, too. I grew up in a part of the country where guns were very prevalent. And it does change how things work. And one of the things that I really loved about living here has been the absence of guns. Um, it just, it just makes, um, life a lot less stressful, and that's, you know, that's a good thing. Um, anyway, uh, Chief Chong shared with me this report that was done for the county called the cost of gun violence in Santa Clara County. It came out in August, and, um, I believe that there's a hot link to it in our questions and answers tonight. Anyway, I would suggest that all of you take a look at it. Because what they're talking about as making our society safer. These things are part of the equation, yes, but even more so, are the equity, is the equity work that we are doing. And so I want to bring that, um... I want to bring that up, because we should, um, we should be interested in what the experts have to say about what is effective. So that equity work that we are doing, um, you know, using an equity lens on our budgeting, and, um, taking equity into consideration and zoning changes. Those are also important components of making our community safer. And I think that it's important that we make that part of this discussion. Because, really, that's the bottom line here, is making the community more peaceful and safer, right? I mean, I think that's what we're after. So based on that, so I just want to share this with everybody, and it does have some, uh, interesting data about how many guns that there are in Santa Clara County. It's sort of a shocking number. Um, but the other thing I think that's quite interesting is that, um, whereas something like 18% of the county has, uh, people own guns, um, The people who own guns often own four or five of them. They're not, you know, they're not, uh... It's not one gun per one person kind of thing. And I thought that was really interesting. Anyway, back to the questions before us. I, um, I am interested in the, in pursuing all of these questions, but, really, with the strong caveat that it would be so much more effective to do this, um, as part of a county effort that I think we should be, um, uh, asking our, you know, our city attorney to, to really, um, take an active role in, and trying to make that happen. Because it would be so much better. I mean, you think about how easy it is to go from community to community here. You know, it's just, it's just a few steps for many of us. Um, so I think that having these, having these rules be consistent over, um, a bigger area is just much more protective. The only one I think I would diverge from what has been said today is the one in number five. And I think that personally, I would really be interested more in a grandfather of existing firearms dealers. We do not have a history of problems with these home. Um, businesses, and, um, so I, you know, I feel that, uh, having them grandfathered in is reasonable, um, especially when they would be getting licenses on a regular basis, and, um, I also seem to remember from my days, and on the planning commission, that the legal, uh, bar for amortization versus grandfathering was very different. And, um, that might be a very significant work um, work issue. So that's something that I hope the county the city attorney will weigh in for us. And I think that answers the questions. Thank you.

[02:46:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member committee.

[02:46:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward and the continued conversation as this topic evolves on a policy level, and I'm supportive of the direction that my colleagues have shared. So I don't really have um, too much additional. Um, so for one through four, yes, I'd be interested in, in learning more and, and hearing, um, from staff. I think for number 5 it would, I would be interested to hear both the amortization as well as the grandfathering, I think, um, I'm not well versed in the topic, and so I would, I would like to see the, the options. I see the city attorney racer and.

[02:47:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Mayor, sorry. I can wait. I'm just raising my hand to let you know, I will answer the amortization versus grandfather question when everyone's done.

[02:47:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[02:47:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, so, you know, five, I guess I'll leave for the city attorney to answer that question for us, but uh, one through four, yes, um, supportive of uh, looking at those options. One thing that I, that I've increasingly heard and I would love for the council to consider as like the education component. So, you know, I do think that, um, the, the different, safety measures are important, but I also think that it will be important for the, for us to do an educational component on, on that and, or if there's, um, firearm safety that the police department or the school districts are sharing with the community, if that can be shared with council. I think that there's some, some good information sharing that can happen there, and I know we have a very active, um, Mom's demand action, um, chapter in our area. So I don't know if we can add that as just something to bring back as an informational. I wouldn't want to add anything additional. Um, but just wanted to state that.

[02:48:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much. And then city attorney, did you want to chime in?

[02:48:46] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I can now or I can wait for council member Matachek. What do you prefer?

[02:48:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I Council member Mata Check. But let's go to you and then we'll have city attorney logo afterwards.

[02:48:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I wasn't sure if that, what do you prefer was for me or for you? But, um, anyway, so, um, there were some comments made that I, um, definitely agree with, and let me point those out. Um, I think it would be better if the laws were done at the state level, and if it can't be done at state level, then at the county level. Um, I think it's good to have consistency. Um, so I agree with my colleagues who said that. Um, I'm not sure that's all going to happen, however. So, um, I am interested in, um, doing something at the local level. Um, I appreciate the comparison of what, um, other cities have either done or not done. That's always helpful, because when we're striving to have a better consistency, that's good to know. Um, so for me, um, I would, uh, given staff constraints, um, I would prioritize looking at, uh, option 21st and then I'll go into the details on that. Um, I was actually going to break it out even further than just option 2 in general, but, uh, it sounds like there's more synergies than I thought there were. Um, but, um, I would prioritize the stuff in option 2 over the stuff in option one. Um, assuming that you're not going to work on both of these at the same time. So then with option two. Um, I agree with the comment about, I don't think we should have any new businesses, whether they be storefront or at home. Um, and I, um, I don't know that I have enough information to make, uh, To provide direction on, do I think amortization or grandfather is the way to go. I would need more information on the 3 at home businesses that we have, things like how long they've been in existence. Do we have any information on their sales, where they really located? Um, so I, I'm sorry, I can't really give you direction on that. I need more information. Um, But if we don't allow any new businesses, I think the question of the distance from sensitive areas, Perhaps is a moot point because we're not allowing any new ones. Um, although I guess that could be interpreted if a school is built close to uh, an existing business. What do we do? Um, I don't know if I had the answer to that one either. So I would need more information on that. What might be logical alternatives in the pros and cons of them. Um, and let's see. Um, on option one, yes, I'm interested in expanding the locations, but again, for me, I'm more focused on the elements of option 2 before we get to option one. Um, and we can always talk about this um, in February, because I'm assuming this won't all happen and get done before, um, we have our discussion about the work plan. And let's see. I think that's it. Thanks.

[02:52:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Okay, now go ahead to the attorney.

[02:52:29] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So let me provide a little information about amortization and grandfathering in, um, and also tie it to the distance. So we did have, um, a GIS map, um, drawn for us, and we know that if you go out as far as 500 feet, you will affect one of the existing brick and mortar businesses. And so it's going, it becomes very important to determine whether or not you want to amortize or grandfather in. If you stay at 250 feet, I think we are, um, probably safe with regard to, um, the existing businesses. I will, in a moment, ask Diana for clarification on whether or not that also applies to the home occupations. But, um... if you... if you go at 250 feet, and you're not affecting the brick and mortar businesses that exist, then, um... new businesses that come in would also have to stay within that 250 foot range, and we wouldn't be preventing new brick and mortar businesses coming in, only home occupation. So I just wanted to clarify the two those two distinctions. And then, um... amortization. We have done some preliminary legal research, and we have not seen amortization less than a year. So, and it's gone from just the cases we've looked at, it's anywhere from one to four years. So I heard a statement about it being short, but there is a whole analysis that goes into the amortization period with regard to, um, providing them an opportunity to recoup their investment in their business. And that requires a significant analysis to what their investment in it was into their business and their current location. So that is something we would have to come back to you on to let you know. We would make a recommendation based on our findings on how long that amortization period would be. So I wanted to let you know that that would be governed by California law, and there are pretty, you know, real parameters on that that we would have to consider. So it probably wouldn't be less than a year. Um, and likely more than that, for some of the businesses. So I wanted to give some perspective on that. If you grandfather, you'd grandfather in the existing, and all of any new ones that tried to come in, there would be no new home occupations, and any new brick and mortars that tried to come into place, would have to be at the distance that you adopt. So if you adopt 250 or 500 feet, they would have to be with, you know, that distance away from any schools, parks, or daycares. So, um, I don't know if that helps. We do have some GIS maps we could share on the screen to kind of give you a perspective of what it looks like, 250 feet around the existing brick and mortar businesses 500 feet around them. I don't know if you're interested in that, but we have it if you wanted to see it.

[02:55:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Lieber.

[02:55:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. A question for the city attorney. Um, if, uh, amortization implies finding out the value of improvements such as hardening of a building, et cetera, et cetera, for this very specialized use. Um, is it possible to do grandfathering for a defined period of time? Um, and. And then, uh, require uh, a conditional use permit and limit the number of conditional use permits.

[02:56:30] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So, I think really what you're describing is amortization. So I'm not aware of grandfathering for a limited period of time based on the research we've done thus far, grandfathering in would allow, so it would allow that current use to remain the current use. Now, if the business was potentially sold, or, you know, someone else tried to come in. It may not apply to them. It could potentially apply to... I mean, we'd have to do a lot of research on that. But it basically, it's a zoning allowance. And so I think it would just apply to that particular use for that building and would always exist if you grandfather it. It would always exist. So that particular building could always be used as gun retail if you'd grandfather. And I don't know that there's any such thing as a limited grandfather. I think that's really what you're talking about is amortization, and you would just you could make it for a longer period of time, you know, for years, but then after the amortization, we'd be asking... We would... That use would no longer be permitted in that location, so no more gun retails sales could be out of that location. So there's no... it would be totally prohibited. in that location, moving forward.

[02:58:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And so, if we pursued a 500 foot radius, um, then it, um, we would have one bricks and mortar business that we would have to figure out, what improvements they had put into the structure.

[02:58:23] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, that when, if you amortize, we will have to do the work to figure out what would be a reasonable amortization period for that that one business. Yes.

[02:58:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so we can, um, both ban home dealing and, uh, require a conditional use permit for bricks and mortar businesses. And, uh, limit those to outside of a 500 foot radius. and limit the number of conditional use permits that would be available.

[02:59:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: We hadn't looked into limiting the number of the conditional use permits that would be available, but we can do that. We can look into whether or not we can limit the number of permits that could be issued. Um, we had not considered that that particular, um, that particular factor, but we could, we could look at that to see if we could limit, say, for instance, no more than three or something like that within the city. We didn't consider it, but we can't.

[02:59:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, great, 'cause I think that would be a really useful piece of information to get back and making our decisions. And, um,

[02:59:44] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: I'd like to clarify, conditional use permits are typically granted by the CDD department, and so, I just want to clarify, do we mean a conditional use permit under planning or the Mountain View police department's license that we've, um, presented as an option tonight. Um, do we want to limit those, the per, the police permits, or conditional use permit as provided under CDD? by CDD.

[03:00:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Through the mayor, if I, if I may, it, um, a little bit. Um, I, I don't really care whether it's a police permit to operate or a conditional use permit. I'd like to go with whichever path is easier. Um, and but my main thrust is, I want to, uh, limit the number of, of bricks and mortar, uh, businesses. And I want to eliminate the home occupations. Um, I'm gonna,

[03:00:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: thank you. I'm going to ask a couple of quick questions, then we'll sorry, go back to the for another round of comments. Um, regarding difference between grandfathering and and amortization. It, it, it, it does seem like there is another option, and that would be something akin to a legal non-conforming use, which my understanding means, an existing use that was legally permitted can continue. But when that use, This is operation, after some period of time, it, it no longer is permitted, which is, Definitionally different from what you were describing. So is that, is that another option or are you?

[03:01:35] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: That's what we're calling grandfathering. Yes. That's correct. That's exactly what we're calling grandfathering. So as long as the business, it would become a legal non conforming use. As long as it was continued to operate as a gun retail. If it ever switched, and became a clothing store, right, and no longer was used as a retail business, a gun sales business. It could not go convert back. to it. So as long as it continued, you know, as the retail operation, it could remain as that legal, legal, non conforming use. That's what we're calling grandfathering.

[03:02:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I had misunderstood. I have thought you had said that it runs with the building, which, in my mind, meant, even if a given business ceased operation, that a subsequent business could can continue that use. No, sorry. But that's not, okay, no worries. Thanks for the clarification. And then another question, I guess, about process. Uh, my understanding is staff will return with some analysis, but this basically is all going through the goal setting process next year. Um, and and I'm curious to know how much granular detail you need from us right now when this is all going to be discussed again as part of the goal setting. Do you do you need a lot of granular detail right now? Or, would it be actually more appropriate, rather than have you do a bunch of work, and then only to find that it's not the priority next year, drop it? When would you like the granularity in detail?

[03:03:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I think knowing how you want to handle existing businesses that we're gonna, that are gonna be affected and the distance that you would want to impose is important to know, because that really is going to help us figure out how long it's going to take us to bring this legislation back. So we would, what we'd be doing is letting you know before February, this is a big task, or the law is, you know, post brewing is really going askew, and, you know, this is gonna take much more time than we thought, and we would let you know that before February. But having those, at least those two guideposts, on what you want to do with existing businesses, they're affected, and the distance is gonna be really helpful, because those are two things we need to figure out before we can answer the question of how long it's gonna take us to bring this all back.

[03:04:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's good to know, and it's different from what I was expecting. Thank you. Council member, I'll be Coca.

[03:04:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, question regarding uh, limiting the number of businesses, um, is, do we, are we required to allow any businesses at all?

[03:04:41] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, I, we, we talked about when we were talking about how far the distance you could require, there is definitely a point in which you make the distance too far that you, you effectively boot them out of the city, and we talked about that's going to have to take some significant legal research. I don't know that you could effectively prohibit gun retail sales as a whole. I do not have that answer tonight. So that would be a whole different... you know, legal analysis we would have to perform. Mm hmm. I guess I was just thinking, you know, because we did decide on cannabis shops, whether to have them or not, and how many, what would the difference be with firearms?

[03:05:27] Assistant City Attorney Diana Fazely: Oh, if I may, because the, um, have possessing or having a firearm is considered a constitutional right. There is more of, um, you know, a stronger argument that we would need to, we couldn't prohibit gun stars altogether. There's actually a case out of Alameda County to share a versus county of Alameda, in which, um, the court explored this question and stated, you know, if there was a restriction on, you know, uh, U.S. citizens being able to acquire firearms that could be considered, um, a restraining, restraining their 2nd amendment right under the Constitution. So, but, like, uh, the city attorney said we would need to do some additional legal research on that matter, but because it is a constitutional right, it is different than the cannabis business, um, matter.

[03:06:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Bye, Samur Hicks.

[03:06:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'm gonna give my answer to the distance and amortization, but it's kind of a non-answer. I would, I would like it to be consistent with our surrounding cities, which I realize may not be consistent with each other, but for, you know, other people have talked about reasons for consistency, but I also would think that would make it, um, like, less legally complex. So... That's what I would be most interested in, in hearing come back to us. And then we could go with it or not go with it, if we think we want to, you know, do one better, that would be, that would be something we could choose when this next comes on our agenda. So that's.

[03:07:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member show, Walter.

[03:07:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I basically concur with what Vice Mayor Hicks just said. I also had a question for the chiefs. Um, do we have any data that shows that, um, changing these numbers? Uh, Between like 250 feet and 500 feet? Uh, really increases safety? I mean, that's... I really keep coming back to that. I wanna make my community safe. And is this something that will make us safer? Or do we know?

[03:07:57] Police Chief Chris Chong: Good evening, Chris Chong Police Chief. So the data, I don't have that data. There's no, um, of the statistics that we have, there's no causal relationship between, uh, gun store and nearby gun crime. So I can't really delineate between 250 or 500 or...

[03:08:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? Um, so, unfortunately, the, the 2 questions that that said would be most helpful to them are the 2 most muddied. Uh, so we're going to go through and take a straw pull on each one of these items, and if there are other things you would like. So, uh, provide the staff that we can consider additional straw poles as well. But the 1st is, um, this one had strong majority, majority support, but well, just for the formality of it. The 1st one is the expanding locations where firearms are prohibited. Do we want to provide staff that direction to explore? Let's raise hands. One, two, three, four, five, six. So yeah, so strong majority support for that. Thank you. The next one is uh license requirements for firearm dealers. There's work by that direction to staff, 12345. So yes, strong majority support. And then restricting home occupation. is the next question. So 7 months also unanimous. Um, and then restricting distance from schools, parks and daycares is the next question. 234.5. That's also unanimous. Um, I'm gonna start with 500 and then we'll go to 250 if there isn't support for 500. So now the next one is the distance. Uh, do members of the council support 500 feet. I counts a member of Mattachek that you want to clarify.

[03:10:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so sorry, this is where I feel like it would be helpful to have the maps, um, but we really want to get into that level of detail at this study session.

[03:10:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No, I had thought that this level of detail would not be helpful for staff, but City Attorney Logue had said that they actually would benefit from having this level of detail.

[03:10:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, but I feel like I need more information. So I would need to see the maps if we're going to go to this level of detail.

[03:10:32] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay, we come back. How about if we come back with legislation at 250 feet, with the caveat that you can amend on the floor, to increase the distance, and we can come back with maps, so you can see exactly what it looks like? Um, you know, we can start at 250 feet, and, you know, knowing that that would be an allowable amendment on the floor, so, you know, a motion to adopt with the amendment of a distance is something that you could do, um, without violating any brown act noticing requirements. So we could start at 250. If that would help with the knowledge that that may be increased.

[03:11:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Being a majority of the council shake their heads, uh, but council member Lieber, did you want to see your clarification?

[03:11:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, I just wanted to say that given that there were four votes for 500 feet, I think we should have the option of 500 or 250, uh, co equal. I don't think that we should only be presented with five, or with 250.

[03:11:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I, I had interpreted the city attorney's suggestion to include also allowing exploration to 500 feet as well. So it was sort of both ends, but let's just do a quick show of hand. I think my understanding of what she said was, you'll be presented with 250. And then if you want 500, you could amend it. But I'd like to have, you know, given that there was majority support for 500? I'd like to be fair and have both those options be co equal in coming back. Is there support for that suggestion, so the hybrid, uh, between the city attorney's recommendation to come back with 250 and then also have a 500 foot option? One, two, three, four, five. So looks like there's majority of support for that. So both options will be presented to the council. Um, when, uh, when staff returned. Um, Then the last question is going to be the most challenging, I think, um, I heard, uh, 3 council members supporting amortizations, and then I think 3 Uh, one supporting grandfathering and then 2 interested in exploring both options. I don't think we're gonna get a majority for any of them, but we can try. Um, is there a majority support for staff to return with both options, essentially, and analysis for, for both an amortization option and also grandfathering options.

[03:13:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Um, mayor, if I may, it may be helpful to also, I don't know. It may be helpful to break it up into whether home occupations should be amortized or grandfathered, and then separately the storefront businesses. So maybe that might be an easier way to, to get it to a majority. support.

[03:13:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Not sure. We, I'm not sure there was, I don't think that the difference was based, I think it was based on the treatment of, of, uh, on, on the, the, the business itself, but we can, we can provide that granular detail and helpful. Okay. We, we could also maybe, I'm doing myself a disservice in doing this, but maybe we just ask all of the questions. Is there support to direct staff to explore only amortization? There might be 4 votes for that. One, two, three. There's not support for that. And then is there support to only return with a grandfathering option? There is not support for that. So that means both options will have to come back. And I'm presuming that that will be for both home occupations and also brick and mortar. They're, is that the consensus of the council, 12, 3, 4, 5, except the unanimous support, city attorney? So, I need to clarify.

[03:14:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The reason why that is a problem is because you are literally asking us to draft two totally different ordinances. If you are amortizing, we are drafting an ordinance that provides amortization provisions, and sunsets, and requirements, and things like that, it goes in the ordinance. If we are grandfathering, it's a much shorter ordinance that grandfather's in. So, are you literally asking us to bring back, it's almost as if we're gonna be bringing back four different ordinances, because one is gonna have 250 feet in it. One's gonna have 500 feet in it. Both of those, we have to bring back versions that have amortization and grandfathering. Do you see what I'm saying? They're literally different pieces of legislation. They're written differently. And so I don't know how short of you making... That's why I suggested coming back with an ordinance. It's a $250 in it, and all you'd be doing was amending the distance. But if you're asking us to write different ordinances for you to look at, it becomes just exponentially more complicated. Um, we could come back with another study session and provide a lot more information, if that's what you want, but I think in order to draft, we need to know what you want to do, unless you want us to really, literally bring back several pieces of legislation for you to look at. And that's just a lot of work to write different ordinances. Sorry. But I wanted to clarify what that means, what your vote means for us.

[03:16:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You know, thank you for clarifying. It's in part why I was surprised that you were seeking the granularity of detail right now, uh, when we haven't really had, you know, a great deal of analysis about the impact of each of these. Council member, come in.

[03:16:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I'm going to make a suggestion, Mayor, kind of given all of the discussion and the feedback recently from the city attorney, which is, I I do think that perhaps this needs to come back to us. as a study session. I think that we are. My, we are a council that likes options. And we like to weigh those options. And so I think uh, whether it's the 250 or the 500 feet, whether it's to amortize or to grandfather. those are big decisions that the council needs to make. And if staff is saying that, um, They would need to create 4 different, you know, ordinances, then perhaps that means that we need this needs to come back. And so my, um, my request to staff would be perhaps we could include the, the questions that will be in the study session in the staff report because I think this is a completely, for me, and, you know, I feel like we're having a little bit of a different conversation that I had been expecting given the staff report. And so I think that's why counsel is discussing this so much. So, I don't know if I need to make a motion for that. I know it's a study session, but my suggestion would be that we need to bring back those 2 items in particular where we have had a lot of discussion. Bring them back. So can we get clarification on if that needs to be a straw poll or straw motion or if I can make that?

[03:18:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think that'd be helpful. I certainly happy to, to consider a straw pull. Um, let's let's take a few more comments because if everyone's on board with a study session, then that's great. We won't need to, to focus too much, but if, if there's a, if there is an opportunity to, to provide the, if there are 4 votes for particular direction, then that skips a step, that I think Steph was, was hoping to skip. Um, Vice Mayor Hicks?

[03:18:46] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I'm I'm gonna come back with the same. I have the same question now that I have at the beginning of this study session. I didn't think we were directing stuff to come back with full blown ordinances. I thought they were coming back with a memo, and, and I don't, I don't feel that at this point, I have enough information, you know, so for example, for distances. I don't know, are all, do all the other cities cited, all use one particular distance. I don't have that information, or have cities that have gone for 500 feet, had legal challenges. I really don't have any basis for making these decisions. And I, I think what I'm asking for is just the memo that, uh, that was spoken about earlier, not a fully blown, fully blown ordinance, or with all these options that were not deciding out for different ordinances, fully, but that would flesh out a little more, you know, you showed us the other cities that have some sort of, uh, these, that have these gun regulations, flesh out a little more, what are their distances? Do they grandfather or amortize, and how do they do that? Um, I thought that's what the memo was gonna have, and that we were gonna use that for our work plan in February. So, if that's not the case, I guess I misunderstood the process, and I would like some clarification on what the process is.

[03:20:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council number show, Walter.

[03:20:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I couldn't have said it better myself. Um, I thought, well, we were trying to give direction for was a memo, and that the information in the memo would help direct us during the goal setting and the work plan development. So that's what I think we should be talking about here. I think it's premature to give the, um, you know, the specific direction about what should be in the, um, the ordinances if they are to follow, because, uh, we just don't know enough about it yet. And I also do think that another thing I want to be included in our direction is the desire to work with, um, uh, other communities in the, uh, county.

[03:21:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. City manager, did you want to?

[03:21:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. I see the city attorney has her hand raised, so I'll defer to her if she wants to clarify something, and then I'll follow up based on what she says.

[03:21:26] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you Um, so, um, I did wanna provide some clarification. The memo that I talked about bringing back was on timing. It was on timing on how quickly we could get the legislation back to you. The timing, all hinged on whether or not you were going 250 feet, 500 feet, or something further than that, and whether or not you wanted to amortize or grandfather in. And so if you had decided tonight to say amortize, we would start our legal research on what amortization would be required for each and every one of these businesses, especially if you elected 500 or 1,000 feet, for instance, which is gonna affect the brick and mortars. So the memo would be, if we had gotten the granular, you know, direction today, the memo was going to advise you on what we had figured out with regard to, you know, your distances in your amortization and what needed to be done, and when we believed we could get the legislation back. So, but what I'm hearing is you need us to hone in on providing more information with regard to distances, more information about amortization, and you want specific details with regard to what the surrounding cities do, um, to find out if we are consistent or inconsistent. We can definitely do that. I think it would probably be helpful to have it in another study session, because we are going to eventually need direction from the council on which of the options you choose. But we can now focus on what is clear here, where the confusion is, and where you need a lot more information on crystal clear on distance, amortization, grandfathering, and... surrounding jurisdictions. Thank you. City manager?

[03:23:25] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, city attorney. So that's what I was going to recommend to the council, that, uh, we're talking about a memo, but what I'm hearing sounds more like a study session, um, that we can iron out some of these, um, various options for council, and then you all can give direction on on how you wish to move forward. That way, it's very clear for both council and staff on what the city attorney is actually going to be bringing back to you. And then they can also have more time to do all this research um, that will be helpful in your decision making. So I recommend that as well. I think that will be cleaner for you all.

[03:24:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I just expect a council member to May's suggestion. I think, um, one thing that would help me is understanding, there's a lot of work that goes just in preparing the analysis for the council, um, is staff proposing to have the council, uh, determine whether we want to do this study session as part of our goal setting process, weighing against other work plan items, or is staff proposing that we have this study session. outside of the goal setting process.

[03:24:46] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I would recommend that it be part of the goal setting process. We, it's, we will start looking into it now, but I think that it should be fully discussed during the goal setting process. I think that would make most sense.

[03:25:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. But I think it's important for us for us to be all on the same page about that. Because what that would mean then is that the study session is no guarantee, that we would have to affirmatively prioritize that among all of the other items that are going to go before us for consideration as part of the goal setting process. So, That is the, my understanding of the staff recommended process. Um, their comfort and support for that proposal. Council member labor.

[03:25:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, here. Um, So, uh, under that scenario, in February, we would decide if we want to have a study session, And then, uh, the study session would be prepared. And then we would have the study session. And then out of the study session, um, something that would be the product in terms of ordinances would come out of that. But that wouldn't be until next spring. Right. Yeah, so, I think I'd be more comfortable with uh, a memo of some kind, um, sooner so that we can show the community that we are actually serious about doing something. Um, I think it's been been a lot of years, as Counselor Robbie Koga pointed out. Um, You know, I sent a letter to all the city councils on the peninsula, uh, back uh, about 5 years ago, and and Mountain View was the only one that responded. and picked out a couple things to do from it. And we, council member, Abby Koga and I both participated in the county process about the cost of, um, firearms in the community. And so I think that we're just, um, moving at a really glacial pace. The does not represent where our surrounding communities are. Um, Sunnyvale, uh, placed measure on the ballot, and it was approved by, uh, just over 70% of the voters to move forward on some very ambitious, um, measures and and they're doing more now. Um, Palo Alto, we know, has had measures for more than 10 years. Um, and I, I just think at some point we need to say to the community, we either value this or we don't. And, um, I think that, uh, you know, ample time has been out there to, to get this thing started, and to get it rolling down the hill. And, um, I think that waiting to see if it's prioritized in goal setting before we have a study session, uh, is, is just really thin soup. It's way too weak. And we need to do more of that. And I understand the voices that are out there in the community that say, will this really make a difference for us, um, because we haven't had a problem before. And frankly, VTA didn't have a problem before. Newtown didn't have a problem before. You've already, Texas, didn't have a problem before. And at some point, I think we have to do more than we're doing. And this timeline that's being mentioned is just simply too long.

[03:29:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I think there are 3 options, essentially. One is, we can provide the direction that staff is seeking based on the presentation, and if there's majority support for the various options here, that really expedites the process. We don't want to do that, then we have to have a study session and either that could be done in the context of goal setting, along consideration with everything else, or it could be done outside of goal setting, which means there's a different impact. something is going to have to be deprioritized. We don't know what that will be yet. Um, but that's the only way to make possible the, the, to expedite the, the study session to give us more time to provide this input. So our options are provided the input now. Have a study session sooner, and then staff will have to share with us what gets postponed or do it as part of goal setting. Uh, Council member Abi Koga? Does the city attorney want to say something first?

[03:30:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Sorry about that. I just wanted to, I just wanted to say that it's fine if you prefer to have a study session outside of full setting. Um, I just didn't want to make it too aggressive. Um, it's not something that, given the amount of work that we're gonna need to do, we're gonna need to do a lot of upfront research on amoritization. Um, that's significant research. We're literally doing two paths now. And so I'm fine with having a guaranteed study session outside of goal setting. I just don't know if we can get back to you in advance of bull setting for you to goal set the legislation itself. That's the concern that I had. Um, but I'm fine with with a guaranteed study session.

[03:31:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And council member, I'll be okay. You still have the floor.

[03:31:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mary. Yeah, so, um, my original assumption with this when we, um, 1st discussed it was that today, we would have a discussion on where this goes in terms of our priorities and, um, being able to weigh what else, we would have to look at removing on our current work plan to make this happen. So if we're doing the study session and then kicking it in February. I don't really see any difference, honestly. Um, and, um, yeah, I would say, um, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to try to try to, um, expedite this more quickly, and I think, uh, counsel more labor and I are in, uh, agreement on that. Um, so, I mean, the study, and I feel that the study session is fine, but it sounds like we have 2 maybe 2 questions to answer. And, um, you know, we've had study sessions with like one or 2 items since afterwards, like come out thinking, why did we have that study session? So if there's a way to expedite, with a memo to expedite, um, you know, I would be, I would much prefer to do that. I, I, I, I, I, I know our agendas are already packed. Um, I don't honestly think we can get to those, as uh, city attorney said before February. Um, so at least a memo to give us the options would be helpful so that, um, I guess at that point if we have to make a decision as to where it falls on our list of priorities, we'll have all the information there. But, you know, frankly speaking, if you ask the question, I think I've already answered it. So I'm ready to make the decision right now. Um, I think we did have 4 for 500 feet. So to me, that one was answered. I think the only remaining question then is the amortization or grandfathering issue. So I just don't really feel like we need a full study session for one item, but that's just me.

[03:33:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And I'm happy to, to re-pull some of these because if, if there is majority support for, for some of the parameters that staff is seeking direction on, and we don't need an additional study session or additional work on analysis because that will have gotten the direction that they need. Do that. I need 4 votes. Um. Or, uh, so I, I think then what I can do, if there, there are no other, no other questions or comments. I think what I'll probably need to do is seek 4 votes for which of the 3 processes the council wants to go down. Um, so, uh, I think the 1st one is, because we've heard interest in a study session that is outside of the goal setting process, in order for it to occur temporally sooner. Um, with the remaining questions that we haven't answered. Um, I'll check to see is their support for doing that. If there is not support for doing that, then I'll ask if we could do this instead during goal setting, and if there is not support for that, then we can try again, and ask the same questions about the distance and the amortization versus grandfathering, and if we can get 4 votes for one of those, then we would bypass the need for any further study session. Council member show Walter.

[03:34:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi, isn't um, a memo, uh, before the, um, A memo before the, uh, goal setting and study session also an option?

[03:35:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's, I think what staff is telling us is if we don't provide direction right now, they have to do additional work. Um, so the the work is the analysis about various impacts for lo- different distances, grandfathering versus amortization, the legal justification for amortization over, you know, a period of time. They can certainly do that in a memo form. It's just additional work. Um, so if we don't want them to do the additional work. Then we would provide the direction tonight, and they won't have to do the additional work, and then we can skip a step. Does that clarify?

[03:35:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: And just, just for clarification, we would be doing an extensive memo for the study session. To have us do a memo before the memo before the study session is asking us to write 2 memos. Our goal now, my goal now, based on what I'm hearing is to get you a very extensive memo that does all of the necessary research with regard to all of the, you know, amortization, grandfathering, where are all the existing businesses, how are you going to affect them if you go 250 feet? 550 feet, 1,000 feet. And we are also going to have an extensive memo that tells you exactly what every bordering city around us does so that you know whether or not you're consistent. I prefer to do that one memo one time, and then, and that would be, hopefully, precede the study session at which you could make a decision. I just don't... doing two memos, doing a memo. We can't get the answers from you without, you know, having... So I'd like to... I'm clear on what you need, and I'd really like to do that extensive work one time and come to you in a study session to get the guidance. Um, rather than a second memo. I just wanted to put that out there.

[03:37:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thanks for that clarification. I was, um, I was a little confused there. No worry. Thank you, city. Bye, Smart Hicks.

[03:37:22] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So what I was hoping for was just, I would just like to know what the surrounding cities do. If 100% of them did, or most of them did 500 feet, or if most of them did, or if all of them did 250 feet, if all of them grandfathered, or, you know, if there's some consistency like that, that's the information I feel I need to make a decision. So, I don't know, I... maybe I'm confusing things more by throwing that into the mix, but I'm not really looking for, at this point, for long, you know, a long memo, or full blown ordinances, or maybe not even a full study session. I just don't have, I'm not well versed in this and don't have, um, you know, any benchmarks at all at this point.

[03:38:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, um, thank you. We still have the same fundamental problem. We can either provide the direction tonight, or we can ask staff to do additional analysis, and then we have to decide if they do additional analysis. Do we want them to do it sooner and then push existing work out? Or do we want to do it in the context of the goal setting cycle?

[03:38:37] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: City manager McCarthy. Um, thank you, Mayor. Can I ask for a short 5 minute break just so I can have a discussion with the city attorney on, uh, coming back with the the best path forward for council. I'm hearing your interest certainly in the expediency of this. And I'm also hearing the city attorneys, um, concerns just about workload. So if I could just have a few minutes to talk with her, come back to council, recommend a path forward that you all are comfortable with and that she's comfortable with. I think that would be helpful. The council comfortable with that?

[02:08:05] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Got 5 minutes. Them wisely.

[02:09:11] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City Attorney Logue or any manager McCarthy, did you want to speak to a potential pass forward?

[02:09:23] (archive recording) City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, this, the city manager is going to.

[02:10:41] (archive recording) City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, thank you. So, here is where we landed. So right now, this item is already on your work plan, the current work plan. The gun safety, this is just a continuation of what council decided prior to the summer break, and we're bringing back more options for council to determine how you want to further the item that's already on your work plan. So the challenge we have is that if we provide counsel with a memo, you will cannot give direction via a memo. You can only give direction via an agenda item. So if the city attorney was to come back with a memo, outlining all of the options, and outlining what all the other cities have done, outlining the legislation, outlining the 250 versus 500, outlining the immortization versus grandfathering, you will have decisions to make. So the only way you can make those decisions is via an agenda item. So we suggest that we don't put this on the February work plan in the sense that we will move this forward. City attorney's office will do this research, and the plethora of research because what we're hearing from council is that there is interest in hearing about the options, hearing about what other cities are doing, hearing about the 250 versus 500, seeing the maps, all of that stuff will then come to you all in the 1st quarter of 2023, and then you can give direction on moving forward. And then the city attorney will bring back the ordinances that, um, align with the policy direction that council gives. But we cannot get that feedback from you all via a memo. So we need to come to you all with a study session. So that's where we landed. That is our best recommendation for you all, and how to move forward. And I think hopefully that will get at your desire to move as quickly as possible, but also give the city attorney's office time to do a lot of this research, because it is a lot of work that they need to do. So, I think hopefully we landed in a good middle ground there, and we'll come back in the 1st quarter.

[03:49:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, good middle ground, but I think the question that we do need to ask ourselves is what work gets pushed out because now we have work that was not planned.

[03:49:33] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: That is accurate, Mayor, and I do not know the answer to that quite yet. Um, I'll need to talk to the city attorney and and look at, um, what they are working on and the impacts and then we'll have to let council know.

[03:49:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. Council number Leaver.

[03:49:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I'm I'm hearing that that's the most expeditious thing possible to do, and so I would, um, agree with it on that basis. And if the votes that we've already taken can be conveyed to staff, I know that, um, you know, Stanford right here to hear it. Um, so can hear where the, the interest lies in, in terms of the various options, then we wouldn't have wasted our time, uh, tonight in terms of, uh, of that.

[03:50:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? Uh, keep in mind, we don't have to have the study session if there are 4 votes for the outstanding questions. But if no one would like to, change their vote, then let's take a quick straw full on the staff recommended approach, which is to have a study session in the 1st quarter of next year, and at some later date, we'll find out what items, what, work gets pushed out, because now this is priority. Council member, obviously, okay.

[03:51:10] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, can you just ask the questions that we needed, we were supposed to vote on, and if there's not enough, that's fine, but I, we've been talking about this for so long. I can't even remember what questions we had to finish answering.

[03:51:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: There were two. I'm happy to do that. Um, the 1st is to pose a distance, uh, restricting, uh, home occupation, and I believe the council also is interested in brick and mortar, firearms dealers, um, from schools, parks, and daycares. 2 options were 250 feet and 500 feet.

[03:51:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: City attorney log, I see you've unmuted yourself.

[03:51:51] City Attorney Logan: If it helps, just as a reminder, Palo Alto and Los Gatos are at 250 feet. That's what we know tonight. We don't know other cities, but those are the two we know tonight.

[03:52:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, I'll start with 500. If there's not support for 500, then we'll try 250. The 1st distance proposed is 500 feet restriction. Raise hands, one, 2, 3. And then is there support for 250 feet? One, 2, 3. Okay. Great, strong support for 250 feet, so that answers one question. Next question is amortization versus grandfathering. Um, so we'll, we'll, uh, I, there was closer to majority support for amortization than grandfathering, so we'll try that. So, because the council support exploring amortization of existing businesses. One, two, three. Okay. Four. Okay, that's that's the majority. That means we do not need to have a study session because we've answered the questions that staff needed to prepare. Ordinances. Are there any further questions or comments? Okay, a staff, do you have everything that you need?

[03:53:20] City Attorney Logan: Yes, we do. Yes, we can, we will, we will head down the path of preparing legislation for council's consideration.

[03:53:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you very much. Um, Diana and City Attorney Logan. Keeps you on trigger patients. I can't, I can't remember Lieber last thought.

[03:53:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Mayor, before we leave this item, I just wanted to give kudos to our chief of police and the PD staff, um, for really vigorously implementing the state law on the uh, gun violence restraining orders. Um, it is really great to hear that we're on the lead, um, in terms of that. And also the efforts that the chief and PD have put into gun buybacks, into accepting firearms that people just want to get out of their homes. They've done great work on that and kudos to them for that. Thank you.

[03:54:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. We'll conclude this item and move on to 7.one public hearing on downtown business improvement areas. Uh, and if someone can help me find, uh, uh, economic vitality manager, John Lang, uh, to promote into the panel. Welcome, John. And uh, feel free to begin the presentation whenever you're ready.

[03:54:50] John Lang: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council and community of Mountain View, John Lang, economic vitality manager. I only have a brief set of comments for you this evening. Tonight, we are holding the 1st public hearing. In the long-staining annual renewal, renewal process for the downtown business improvement areas. The 2nd meeting will take place on November 15th, 2022 to approve the renewal. There are 2 business improvement areas. VIA number one, which includes all businesses along Castro Street and the side streets. BIA number 2 includes businesses in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street. The BIA assessments, uh, generated from both areas are used for very specific programming and services to support the downtown business community. In the annual report that was included in the packet, prepared by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, estimated the 2023 projected revenues from both of the areas to be approximately $40,675 based upon the businesses that are there today. Tonight, city council may discuss the BIAs and receive any comments or input from members of the public. There are 3 recommendations before council tonight. Approve the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Annual Report for 2022, and then adopt resolutions declaring intention to levy an assessment in BIAs number one, and number two, for calendar year 2023. This concludes my comments. Thank you.

[03:56:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, John. Are there any questions from the council? Being no, oh, council membership watcher.

[03:56:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, um, I just like to raise a question that I raised in the, uh, in the, um, in our council questions. And that is about the concept of, um, a vacancy tax. And whether or not the BIA fees would be a methodology for vacancy tax. And, um, so I wondered if you could, uh, explain... tell us about that, um, Mr. Lang.

[03:57:15] John Lang: Absolutely. So, one, just know that the B.I.A. fees are meant to help the full district. And so that's really what the assessment is intended to do is drive, um, interest in the downtown, as it relates to a vacancy tax. Typically, that's implemented on a particular business or empty storefronts. Um, and as the council directed staff to look at this through the lens of the economic vitality strategy, we do intend to bring back through that work a, um, a program for council consideration related to either a vacancy tax, a vacancy registry. We do know other communities have implemented vacancy tax, as well as vacancy registry. And these are programs that are designed to collect funds and ensure buildings that, um, maybe vacant are safe, um, and that it is a way to encourage, uh, hopefully new investment in buildings or new tendency in buildings. Um, so right now the BIA funds are not uh, focused on solving, um, empty storefronts. They are meant to market the downtown.

[03:58:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I just wanted to bring that up because I think when we all look at downtown, One of the major issues is, um, you know, is the vacancies we have on these storefronts. So, um, thank you for sharing that information to us, and we are, I mean, I certainly am, and I would imagine that my fellow council members are really interested in what we can do to perk up the downtown, um, and getting rid of, um, uh, vacancies, uh, or, you know, covering those windows with attractive posters or displays or something, um, would upgrade the downtown. So that's why I saw there being a nexus, between the business impact fee, because the, you know, the general appearance of the entire downtown would be approved, and I think those aesthetic things are, you know, they're important. So that's why, you know, I wanted to bring that up. Thank you.

[03:59:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council number, Libber.

[03:59:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I hit a question. I saw the overall amount that the revenue is for the 2 BIAs. I was wondering how much the average storefront is is paying, and it said in the report that, um, the city, uh, assists or requires that the, uh, renewal of the business licenses, um, take, take place the assessments, um, are paid at that time. And are, are most of the businesses, um, paying the assessments and how much do they pay? And what about the high number of vacant spaces that we have, are the vacant spaces paying something as the landlords?

[04:00:33] John Lang: Very good question. So recognizing they're 2 different BIAs and they're structured a little bit differently. So, um, at a high level, BIA number one classifies businesses into 4 categories. And the range of fees that they pay annually. In addition to the business license fee. So this is just the BIA fee, range from $50 to $200 annually. So the lowest is office. They pay $50, and the highest would be a restaurant use, which is $200. Um, that's in BIA number one. And so a vacant space, which does not have a business in it, there would be no BIA fee collected because there's no business. This is on the this is an attachment to the business license fee. So vacant spaces are not contributing to this because it's a, there is no business there. On BIA number two, It's based upon square footage, and there's 3 ranges of square footage. So the square footage rates. At the low end is $25 at a business would pay at the high end with the most space, it would be up to $175. And that detail is actually broken down in the mountain view chamber report, that is one of the attachments. So it does break down those fees in the categories.

[04:01:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so for example, um, through the mayor, if I may ask another question, um, Say, um, book sync has has multiple locations, and one of them, thank God, is here in Castro Street. And so then a commercial landlord would also have multiple locations throughout the valley maybe throughout the state, throughout the country. And, um, so they, they pay nothing, even though they, they are a business that, that, uh, owns that asset or controls that asset. But, but they are paying nothing because they're, they're holding it vacant. Is that the situation right now?

[04:02:43] John Lang: So, um, Yeah, so for instance, uh, in that example, Books Inc. would be paying a business license, as well as the BIA fee. Now, that property, if there was no tenant in there, um, they would not be, there is no business license for no business, and there is no BIA fee. Now, if the property owner does register as a commercial landlord, um, there is a business license that's collected, fee, but there is no BIA fee collected with that. So as a commercial property owner, And renting space, that's your business, you do pay a business license on that. But you don't pay the BIA fee. And so to change that, it would have to be a vote of those participating businesses within the district. That, that would, um, vote to change the rules of the, the BIA, and include, um, uh, Landlords, whether, uh, absentee or are not. So, um, there's, We would, in order to make this change and effectuate this change. Um, we would actually have to come back to council at a separate time to do this. Uh, we've, as part of adopting the report from the chamber, it's outlining this is the fee that's going to be charged, and this is how we noticed it. So if this is something that council would like us to consider, um, It would be staff's recommendation to have us come back next year in that in that cycle. So as we prepare for 2024. to present that to you at that point in time so we could actually communicate that to the business community that there would be a change occurring. Um, once again, this is to basically enact the charge beginning January 2023. Um, so, in order to make the change, we would need time to kind of communicate that, that that change is coming. Um, so our recommendation would be to hold off for the next cycle to do that, uh, if that's amenable to counsel. And I think it's very good for counsel to just, um, know that, um, is council member show altar pointed out, you know, those individuals or corporations or partnerships or, um, whatever they are that are holding a large amount of real estate vacant in the downtown are, are paying nothing towards these, um, business, um, Areas or... They're skating on that. Thank you.

[04:05:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, assistant city manager Shravastova, did you want to speak to this?

[04:05:51] Assistant City Manager Shravastova: Um, yes, um, we, we, we would recommend the council proceed with the recommendation at this point so we can move forward on the assessments and the chambers program. Um, but as, um, as uh, the economic development manager, John Lang suggested, Um, Um, and I would, I would even amend that to say, there's a, there's a plethora of programs the council might be interested in for businesses in the downtown, including the issue of vacancy. Um, I would suggest we address that in the study session for the economic vitality strategy, and then we can develop the funding plan. That will give the chamber some, some, um, room to, um, inform their, um, you know, the businesses that they represent, including the downtown businesses, and we can create a plan for as part of the economic vitality strategy.

[04:06:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Vice Mayor Hitch.

[04:06:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, I think my comment overlaps with what, uh, Mr. Baska has just said, but I think, to some degree, I, you know, I like that we're paying attention to vacancies and think they're important, I think, to some degree, we're confusing two different, um, things, a vacancy tax and a contribution, um, to the BIA. They're not necessarily the same thing, and I'm not even sure that a contribution to the BIA, as a solution to vacancy, is really the best one. I think that RT has mentioned, and John has mentioned about talking about it under the rubric of economic vitality strategy is probably the way to go.

[04:07:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Thank you. We are moving into comments, and I haven't taken public comment yet. Uh, so let's let's, um, stick to questions. Are there any remaining questions about this item? I don't think RT has a question. I'm going to, presume that's an, hand from, another time. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Are there any members of the public? Interested in speaking? I'm not seeing any, so we will return to the council, uh, for deliberation, and I will note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to the report. Councilman Bravik, okay.

[04:08:30] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, mayor. I was gonna go ahead and make the motion. I say hands, all right? Okay. Thank you. So, I will make the motion to adopt a approving the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce annual report and adopting a resolution of the city council, the city amount where you declaring its intent to levy an annual assessment for calendar year 2023 for the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area number one, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, instead of public hearing date of November 15, 22, 2022, and adopt the resolution of the city council simplicity, and that will be declaring its intent to levy an assessment for For calendar year, 2023 for the downtown Mountain View, business improvement area, number 2 to be read entitled only for the reading waived and set a public hearing date of November 15, 2022. Thank you very much.

[04:09:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek.

[04:09:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Second that.

[04:09:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council membership Walter.

[04:09:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I would just like to comment. I'm gonna be supportive of the motion, but I'm also very supportive of what, um, uh, RT suggested. I do think that, um, this vacancy issue is really a big deal for our community. And that's why I brought it up. I mean, it seems like we're talking about downtown. Maybe it's... maybe this isn't the exact way to deal with it, but I do think that we, um, you know, we, uh, we really need to get on top of this problem. And, um, I know that it's been brewing for a long time, but, um, it's, uh, it's gotten decidedly worse in the last couple of years. And, um, I'm quite sure that there are things that we could do, that would make a difference. So, understanding from the staff what those things are. You know, that would be really welcome knowledge. So, thank you for suggesting to include that, and, um, I would just really strongly support that, uh, you know, that creativity and sharing of of the knowledge you have. Thanks.

[04:10:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions or comments? If not, then I'll ask the city clerk to start the roll call.

[04:10:58] City Clerk: Council member, Abai Koga?

[04:11:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:11:01] City Clerk: Council member Metachek?

[04:11:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[04:11:03] City Clerk: Council member Kamei.

[04:11:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:11:05] City Clerk: Council member Lieber.

[04:11:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[04:11:07] City Clerk: Council member of Chewalter?

[04:11:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:11:10] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks? Mayor Ramirez?

[04:11:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:11:15] City Clerk: Motion carry unanimously.

[04:11:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Now we will proceed to item 7.2, Castro Street Pedestrian Mall, various actions. Please note that we will open the public hearing for public comment on this item following the staff presentation and council questions. Therefore, this is the last opportunity for members of the public to submit written protests and written claims related to the establishment of the pedestrian mall. Written protests and claims must be delivered to city hall before the public hearing is opened. Any written Uh, protesting or claims submitted after the hearing is opened will not be accepted or considered. Uh, and I believe all of the staff who are participating are being added. Um, one other thing, um, this discussion that's fairly narrowly scoped. There may be interest in, uh, design, standards, and guidelines, uh, things of that nature, um, there is an ad hoc subcommittee, uh, that is exploring, uh, many of those questions, and there will be no final decisions about design standards or guidelines tonight. Uh, let's see, transportation planner. Uh, Aruna, uh, the, the, will present the item.

[04:12:37] Transportation Planner Aruna: Every year ready. Can you see my screen?

[04:12:57] Transportation Planner Aruna: Okay, sorry, I was on mute.

[04:12:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, no, we can see it. Thank you.

[04:13:01] Transportation Planner Aruna: Awesome. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, and council members. I am Arunabotana transportation planner. Before you tonight, for your consideration and potential approval are actions that will establish the Castro Street pedestrian walls between East Leg of West Abilene Avenue and California Street. Permanently closing these blocks to vehicular traffic. The council took the 1st step in the 1960 pedestrian mall law process by adopting a resolution of intent on June 28th of this year. At tonight's meeting, we are in the 2nd step, which involves holding a public hearing for the establishment of pedestrian malls, and adopting resolutions, and introducing introducing an ordinance. After an ordinance is adopted to establish the pedestrian malls, there will be substantial staff work and council approvals in 2023 and 24 to create an interim pedestrian mall. This interim pedestrian mall would be in place until a permanent pedestrian mall can be funded, designed, and constructed in the future. In August of this year, the mayor approved the formation of a council ad hoc committee to review and provide direction on for the interim pedestrian mall. Staff will continue to work closely with the ad hoc committee over the next few months. On the development of key elements per the pedestrian mall, including a functional and program plan, interim design, standards, and guidelines, and city infrastructure improvements. These elements still be brought back to the council for approval in early 2023 based on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee. No council decisions related to these elements are required tonight in order to adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance to establish the pedestrian law. As specified in the 1960 pedestrian mall law, property owners and tenants abetting the proposed pedestrian malls may protest or submit claims, legal claims up to the time of the public hearing. If property owners representing more than 50% of frontage within a proposed pedestrian mall block, submit written protests, a pedestrian mall for that block cannot be established. If any written claims for damages are received from property owners or tenants, the city must resolve the claims before establishing the pedestrian malls. The process and requirements for submitting written protests and claims that described in the resolution of intent adopted by the council in June. Copies of the resolution of intent were posted along Castro in June, as required by the pedestrian mall law. In addition, the resolution of intent was made to all the abetting property owners and tenants in July. Staff conducted virtual meetings with property owners and held in-person staff powers on Castro to meet with the businesses at various times during this period to apprise them of the pedestrian mall love process. Based on the experience from the past 2 years, and feedback from the community and businesses, staff identified the type of infrastructure, improvements, and amenities that will support the interim pedestrian mall. Some of these include traffic rated ballards at the intersection for safety, additional ADA access rams, repaving the street to remove street markings, ground markings for delineating the pedestrian path, social Eddy furnishings, b finding signage, and intersection improvements. The preliminary cost estimate for implementing most of the interim pedestrian mall improvements is approximately $150000000. Additional funding will be requested as part of the 5 year capital improvement program process in spring of next year. So full implementation of intersection improvements. Council allocated $1500000 in American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA, Funds for Castro Street, in the fiscal year 2223 budget, and staff recommends transferring these funds into a new CIP project. Supply chain issues created by the pandemic continue to persist, and some of some items to be procured could take 6 months or longer to arrive. Approving the CIP project, enable staff to begin procurement of materials, and the design of intersection improvements as we work with the council ad hoc committee and receive council approval on these elements next year. If there are no majority protests from property owners or unresolved claims for damages, staff recommends council adopt a resolution adopting the negative declaration for the pedestrian mall, adopt a resolution to establish pedestrian malls on Castro Street, and introduce an ordinance for the same, and approve the mid-year CIP project for the interim pedestrian mall improvements. This concludes my presentation and staff is available for questions.

[04:18:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the council? A none. We will turn to the public, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen, and we will allocate 2 minutes.

[04:18:46] Krisha (Planning Staff): Um, atrium conference room. Hi, this is Krisha, um, with planning here with one member from the public who'd like to speak.

[04:19:00] Money Saying (Public Speaker): So, um. Hello, uh, my name is Money saying, I'm the owner of a dandy's barbershop in downtown Montenview. I actually started my business literally 6 months before COVID hit, so I saw a lot of changes as we were growing. And I noticed I was talking to all my patrons and customers all the time, and they agree that mountain view has become very vibrant since the street closure. I also think it has increased safety food traffic from pedestrian pedestrians, which has helped save many businesses in downtown Mountain View. People love sitting walking outside, sitting at cafes, and doing people watching. I also suggest that we should think of the future now, then just thinking of a small downtown. I think we should think of closing the longest stretch possible, thinking about the future now. We should also allow signage for all businesses that exist on that stretch. We should also allow these businesses to use the space and promote their businesses and cultural events. But my concerns are that the cost should not just be passed on to small businesses. It should be equally divided in everybody. The BIA cost, I just hear, in the last one was just going to the small business owners. But I think it should be passed on to everybody, including the landlords, because they are also profiting from the rent. I also think that cities should make much more easy for all these businesses and have less taxes imposed on these businesses, because COVID has already broke their back. And I believe if you guys promote the longest, the stretch. If you guys go with the longest stretch possible. It will bring a lot more people, and it will generate a lot more business for everybody. Thank you.

[04:20:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is...

[04:21:03] Public Speaker: Hey, can everybody hear me?

[04:21:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:21:11] Public Speaker: So, I'm here, uh, the timer's not going down.

[04:21:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great.

[04:21:14] Public Speaker: I'm here as a Mountain View resident and voter, and, you know, I support the full pedestrianization of Castro Street. I would agree with the prior person. The longest possible is the best. You know, it makes the streets generally safer for children, you know, people with disabilities, mobilized scooters, the elderly in general, people on bikes, pedestrians. It's just overall safer. It also lessens car dependence. So the more trips we can turn into walks or bike rides, the better. Again, that helps people with disabilities. You know, who wouldn't be able to get to a place like that. Otherwise. And it's basically one of the things that makes Mountain View as a city, a city. You know, it's a great example. We could set a great example here in the Bay Area, by, you know, having all these parks that connect to it. It already connects to those parks. It already connects to bike infrastructure, already connects to Caltrain. Um, you've got your performing arts center, the library, as I'm sure y'all know, the city hall. So all these trips between all these great places is just a walk, right? You could drive there and then walk, but ideally, you could just bike there or walk around the city. And if we're really serious about addressing climate change and making the world that we have control over here in Mountain View a better place, uh, we really need to support measures that pedestrianize trips to points of sales and destinations that just make things less car dependent. Uh, and you know what? I think this would help fix some vacancy issues. I walk around there all the time. And if a new place popped open, I'd sure walk into it. Uh, that's that's all I got.

[02:46:32] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for your comments. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will close public comments, and recess this meeting for 5 minutes to allow staff review of any written protests and claims received from members of the public, so we will return at 9.28 PM.

[02:47:34] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It is now 928 PM I will ask staff if there is anything to report.

[02:47:44] (archive recording) Public Works Director Don Cameron: Good evening, mayor and council members, Don Cameron, public works director. I am pleased to report that after a final check of the mail slot here at City Hall, and checking with staff at the front door, that no written protests or claims have been submitted about establishing the pedestrian wall.

[02:48:06] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, dog. We appreciate that report. I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back for council deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve the recommendation should include reading the titles of the resolutions and ordinances, and that each item should be considered by individual successive motion. Uh, now is the opportunity for comment and emotion. Council member Abi Koga.

[04:29:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I don't well, didn't see any hands, right? So it's gonna go ahead and make the motion. I just want to clarify, do I need to do one at a time? We vote on each one at a time or can I read all 4 and then read all 4?

[04:29:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Yes. No, one time. At a time.

[04:29:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. We will start with the 1st one. Adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, adopting a negative declaration for the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall Study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, to be read entitled only for the reading wave.

[04:29:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Council member show, Walter?

[04:29:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[04:29:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Any questions or comments? If not, uh we'll do the roll call.

[04:29:58] City Clerk: Answer, Abbe Koga?

[04:30:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:30:00] City Clerk: can't remember, show Walter?

[04:30:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:30:02] City Clerk: Council member Kame?

[04:30:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:30:05] City Clerk: Council member leaper.

[04:30:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Abstain.

[04:30:08] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek?

[04:30:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:30:11] City Clerk: Counts member Hicks. I mean Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:30:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:30:15] City Clerk: Mayor Mares.

[04:30:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Motion carry 6. You very much. And then we will now move on to the next motion. Council member of Bitoka?

[04:30:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I will make them motion to adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, pursuant to California streets and highways, code, section 11311, determining that pedestrian malls on Castro Street, between the east leg of West Evelyn Avenue and Villa Street, Villa Street, and West Dana Street, and West Dana Street, and California Street, shall be established to be read entitled only for the rating wave.

[04:30:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Vice Merhicks.

[04:30:57] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: A 2nd that.

[04:30:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I'm sorry I'm not helping you read the motions. My printer is broken and I couldn't print them out.

[04:31:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No worries. We will make do. Uh, no questions or comments, so we'll proceed with the roll call.

[04:31:13] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koka?

[04:31:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye.

[04:31:15] City Clerk: Bye, Mayor Hicks.

[04:31:18] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:31:19] City Clerk: Council member Kame?

[04:31:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:31:21] City Clerk: Council member Lieber? Council member Metachek?

[04:31:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:31:26] City Clerk: Council member show Wilter?

[04:31:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:31:29] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez.

[04:31:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes. No, she carries 6 one. Thank you. Number three. Council member Abi Koga.

[04:31:43] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. I will make a motion to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 27 of the Mountain View, city code to add article 6 establishing pedestrian malls on Castro Street between the East Leg of West Evelyn Avenue and Villa Street, and West Dana Street, and California Street, in the city of Mountain View, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, instead of 2nd reading for October 25th, 2022.

[04:32:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member show, Walter.

[04:32:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[04:32:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Very much. Don't see any hands up, so we'll move to the roll call.

[04:32:23] City Clerk: Council member, Abbe Coca.

[04:32:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:32:26] City Clerk: council member, show Walter?

[04:32:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:32:29] City Clerk: Council member Kamei?

[04:32:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:32:31] City Clerk: Council member Libor? Council member Matachek?

[04:32:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:32:35] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks? Mayor Mares.

[04:32:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Motion carries 61. You very much. And the last one is neither a resolution nor ordinance, so I think it's simple, you can simply say move the staff recommendation. Council member, I'll be Coco.

[04:32:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. the staff recommendation.

[04:32:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Matachek.

[04:33:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'll 2nd that.

[04:33:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. And now we'll start the vote. Oh, wait, cancel number, man. Sorry. Uh, we'll start the vote. Thank you.

[04:33:11] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koga?

[04:33:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[04:33:13] City Clerk: Council member Metachek?

[04:33:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:33:15] City Clerk: Council member Kame?

[04:33:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:33:17] City Clerk: Council member Labor?

[04:33:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[04:33:21] City Clerk: Council member show Walter?

[04:33:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:33:23] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[04:33:24] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:33:25] City Clerk: Mayor Ramirez.

[04:33:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Motion carries unanimously. Fastic. And thank you, Aruna, Don, John, staff. I know a ton of time was put into making this possible and we're very grateful for your work. And we know there's a lot more work to, uh, to do, um, to help make this project successful. Um, if there are no remaining questions or comments, we will proceed now to, Item 8 council staff committee reports. Council member show Walter.

[04:34:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'd just like to share that I attended the, um, uh, California Water Women Conference in Santa Barbara, and it was, uh, it was really an, an inspiring, um, thought there were about 150, uh, participants, and, uh, we heard all sorts of panels related to the impact of, um, climate change on the water supply, and how, um, permitting was expected to change in the next few years. And, um, just generally, oh, and a tremendous amount about the, uh, the signal legislation, which is basically the groundwater management legislation, which doesn't apply directly to Mountain View, but is a, you know, a huge improvement in, um, uh, governance in the California water system, uh, sort of whole system. So, it was, um, it was really an interesting, it was an interesting time, and if anybody would like to talk to me more about it. Please, get in touch. Thank you.

[04:35:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Lieber.

[04:35:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to report that we had a very good, um, meeting of the council finance and investment review, uh, this week, and I requested that we, um, forward the materials both from staff and from the consultant to the council overall, uh, because they were very, very helpful in, uh, getting a fuller picture of our, um, finances and where our investments are. And, um, pursuant to that, earlier in this meeting, uh, Mr. Bruce England mentioned how glad he was to see that we had asked the, uh, local agency investment fund to divest from fossil fuels and to support, uh, environmentally beneficial, uh, investments. And, and I wanted to report that that was, um, due to council member Metachek, who serves on Finance and Investment Review, uh, bringing that up under our overall investment policy. And also, uh, our finance director, uh, Jesse Takahashi, um, preparing that letter and the city clerk staff for, um, sending it through. It gives all of us an opportunity to go to our nearby cities and to ask them to get on board. And our mayor, obviously, was a committee member as well and was supporting that. And also signed that letter. So it's a, it's a very positive thing that we can do. And it was due to counselor, Manachek's, uh, energy and investigative spirit, which we all know that she has to really see that opportunity and to, um, ferret it out. And, um, I think it's a great thing for us because our, uh, state treasurer who serves on the lake board is very interested in fossil fuel, uh, divestment. And sometimes it just takes that little push to, uh, get something that can be very positive started. So thank you, mayor.

[04:37:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And to the member, Meta check.

[04:37:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And thank you, council member Labor. Um, yeah, and we did have the meeting of the council, um, finance and investment review committee meeting. It's too bad we only have those one time a year because they're usually quite interesting. Um, we also had a meeting of the council policies and procedures committee. And we had a very robust agenda, I would say. And um, we did not get through all of it. But what we did get through will come to council over a series of meetings. And, um, we are going to have to schedule another meeting of the CPPC to cover the one item that we continued. Um, so we need to get that on the uh, calendar soon. And then, um, I also participated in meetings. It's our last council meeting of the Santa Clara County airport. Use commission and um, I don't have any report out from that.

[04:38:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You very much. Council members show. Well, actually, let's go to Council member Shelter has already spoken. Okay, great. Thank you.

[04:38:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, so the city manager and I participated in a joint, uh, JPA meeting with Chak, the Community Health Awareness Council last week. Um, talking about, uh, the various roles of the overtization and representing the city. That's my report. More to come. Thanks.

[04:38:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member show Walter.

[04:38:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to make an announcement. Um, we are having another neighborhood meeting this Thursday night, and, um, this time it's going to be the mobile home, um, parks, uh, neighborhood group, and I just wanted to, um, let everybody know this was happening. It's really a wonderful time to see how our city staff just answers questions on the fly, um, right directly to our residents. It works really well. Thanks.

[04:39:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Lieber.

[04:39:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sorry to double dip, Mayor, but it is something that I think is gonna be of interest to the council, is, um, Supervisor Joe Smidian, um, put out information today that, uh, the county assessor's office will be working to, um, remove racially restrictive covenants, um, from deeds in, in Santa Clara County. And I know that a number of council members participated in the recent information, um, session on that, and it's something that's, uh, very much in our, our wheelhouse. Um, so more information is going to be coming. And it's an issue that affects Mountain View, um, fairly pervasively, um, because of the period of time when many of the homes in our city where, uh, were 1st built. And so I think that's a real win for our county to be able to make it easy for homeowners to get that racially restrictive covenant removed. Thank you.

[04:40:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Be no other hands up. We will proceed now to item 9 closed session announcement. City attorney lobe will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items listed for closed session.

[04:40:52] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you. Um, there are 3 items on the closed session agenda for this evening. Um, item 10. is a conference with legal counsel regarding a liability claim, pursuant to government code section 54956.9, the name of the claimant is Michael O'Rourke. Item 10.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding a liability claim, pursuant to government code section 54956.9. The name of the claimant is Laura Gonzalez. And item 10.3 is a conference with legal counsel regarding a liability claim, pursuant to government code section 549, 56.9, and the name of the claimant is Pedro Rivera.

[03:01:07] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen.

[03:01:22] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Being no members of the public wishing to speak. Uh, the council will now recess the closed session and return to this webinar upon conclusion for the closed session report. So see you all after the closed session has concluded.

[03:02:28] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Waiting for a few more members of the council.

[04:59:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, we do have Cora. So I'll just go ahead and move on to item 10, close session report. City Attorney Lo, do you have a closed session room?

[04:59:31] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I do. I have 3 items to report on this evening. In the closed session, in closed session this evening, city council took final action on item 10.1 on the code session agenda agenda, which was a conference with legal council regarding a liability claim filed by Michael O'Rourke against the city of Mountain View. Michael O'Rourke submitted a claim to the city of Mountain View seeking $10 million in damages, based on an alleged conspiracy, beginning in 1997, to cover up his complaints against Mountain View police officers. Council voted with seven eyes, zero nos, and zero abstensions to deny the claim. My second report out this evening, um, is with regard to item 10.2, in closed session this evening. City council took final action on item 10.2 on the post session agenda, which was a conference with legal counsel regarding the liability claim filed by Laura Gonzalez against the city of Mountain View. Laura Gonzalez submitted a claim to the city of Mountain View seeking $7.6 million in damages, resulting from the loss of her son, Aidan Rivera Gonzalez, in a drowning incident that occurred in a swing poll, at a private apartment building located at 1895, Edna Merriway, in Mountain View, California. Council voted with seven eyes, zero nos, and zero abstensions to deny the claim. In close session. Finally, in closed session this evening, city council took final action on item 10.3 on the closed session agenda, which was a conference with legal counsel regarding the liability claim filed by Pedro Rivera against the city of Mountain View. Pedro Rivera submitted a claim to the city of Mountain View, seeking $7.6 million, in damages resulting from the loss of his son, Aidan Rivera Gonzalez, in a drowning incident that occurred in a swimming pool, at a private apartment building, located at 1895, at Namerry Way, in Mountain View, California. Council voted with seven eyes, zero nos, and zero sections to deny the claim.

[05:01:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. The next city council meeting will be held on October 25th, 2022. Until then, stay healthy, and the meeting is adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Thanks, everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →