December 13, 2022 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. 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. Legendstar.com, YouTube.com forward slash Mountain View Gov, and on Comcast Channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-51267142. Any emails received by 4.30 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. City Attorney Log, will make the closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items listed in foreclosed session.

[00:01:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening. Uh, this is city attorney Jennifer Logue. Um, item 2.one on the closed session agenda was going to be a conference with legal counsel regarding one item of anticipated litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9. However, item 2.one has been pulled from the agenda and will not be heard in close session this evening. Item 2.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9. The name of the case is San Francisco Baykeeper versus the city of Mountain View, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number, 20 dash 00824. Thank you.

[00:02:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the race hands button in Zoom or press star 9 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 recess to closed session and return the webinar at 6.30 p.m. for the regular session. See you then.

[00:03:20] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Mayor, you're breaking up? Could you try to?

[00:03:27] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sorry about that. Is this any better? Better?

[00:03:31] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Um, I'm reading the uh, announcements that we ordinarily read at the beginning of each meeting. Uh, the city is piloting the use of Zoom automated captioning for this meeting. Content represents unedited versions of computer generated captioning of city council meetings, which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript. Please select show captions in zoo to the captioning. You may also click the carrot, be up hero next to the show captions button, to select your preferred captioning language, ultra captioning settings such as font size, or view the full transcript in a side panel. I will now read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city. clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this video, uh, 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.ludestar.com, youtube.com forward slash mountain view gov and on Comcast channel 26. As noted, on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period, by visiting Mountain View Gov, forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom webinar or by phone by dialing 669-9128 and entry webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The city clerk will take attendance viral call.

[01:02:08] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Council member Abbe Koca?

[01:02:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[01:02:10] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: cast member, can I? Council member Labor? Council member, Mattachek.

[01:02:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:02:16] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Council member, Shelter.

[01:02:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here?

[01:02:18] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[01:02:20] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here,

[01:02:21] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Mia Ramirez.

[01:02:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:02:24] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: You have a corn?

[01:02:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. We'll move onto item three. Please note this is the presentation only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation item. Item 3.one is proclamation and recognition of finance and administrative services director Jesse Takahashi on his retirement. And I'm just checking to see, has Jesse joined us, not yet. Um, can somebody help promote him to the panel? Welcome, Jesse. You're happy to be joined this evening by finance and administrative services director, Jesse Takashi, to accept this proclamation. The proclamation reads, whereas Jesse Takahashi joined the city of Mountain View as the finance and administrative services director in January 2019, and whereas Jesse has provided expert financial advice and guidance to the city organization. And whereas Jesse has tirelessly led the finance and administrative services department, overseeing department operations, including financial analysis and budget development, revenue collection, accounting, risk management, purchasing, and support services. And whereas Jesse has fully engaged as a collaborative and thoughtful member of the executive team, supporting his colleagues and addressing financial and administrative needs, and whereas Jesse has made significant contributions to the city's COVID-19 pandemic response by serving on the COVID operation scene, establishing new payment under COVID-19 restrictions, and coordinating financial assistance received by the federal government, including American Rescue Plan Act funding that helped our most vulnerable residents, local local nonprofits and small businesses. And whereas Jesse played a critical role in monitoring and ensuring the city maintained its strong physical health and AAA credit rating in addition to the city continuing to receive national and state awards for distinguished budgeting and excellence in financial reporting, and whereas Jesse implemented the restructured business license tax, past 5 voters in 2018, facilitated expanded use of electronic contract review and approval to enhance sufficiency and remote working capabilities. And implemented a new automated online application to streamline the bidding process for both bidders and city staff. And whereas, Jesse presented a budget 101 city finances workshop to the Spanish and Chinese Language Civic Leadership Academies, as well as to the general public. And whereas Jesse has been a 25 year member of the California society of municipal finance officers, CSMFO, including serving in leadership roles on the CSMFO, standing committees, and the board of directors and as president in 2015. And whereas Jesse has dedicated 26 years to public service for the California cities of Cupertino, Campbell, and Mountain View. And whereas Jesse is recognized by his peers and colleagues for his passion for finance, work ethic, expertise, and dedicated assistance to the city council and city departments. And whereas Jesse's colleagues in the finance and administrative services department, thank him for his leadership and guidance, support and thoughtfulness in decision making, and for continuing to build cooperative relationships between the finance and administrative services department and other city departments. And whereas, after nearly 4 years, After, uh, yes, after nearly 4 years of dedication, hard work and loyalty to the city of Mountain View, Jesse will retire on December 29th, 2022, and whereas Jesse's colleagues will miss him and wish him the very best in his next chapter. Now, therefore, I, because Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council and city staff, do hereby express gratitude and appreciation to Jesse Takahashi for as many contributions to the city of Mountain. Congratulations, Jessie. It would be around of applause in the council chambers if we were there. Jesse, what you'd like to say a few words.

[01:06:44] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Well, thank you very much, uh, Mayor Ramirez. I certainly appreciate uh, that and, um, I really appreciate uh, this honor. And we'd just like to say how grateful that I am to have had the opportunity to serve uh, three different cities over the past 20, almost 27 years. I especially enjoyed my time here in Mountain View. where I met so many talented and dedicated people that work toward a common cause. And for that, I just wanted to do a quick shout out to our previous city manager, Dan Rich, who brought me here to this fine city four years ago. And I'd like to also thank city manager, Kimra McCarthy, for her tremendous support, and for her leadership and friendship to me through the past three very challenging years. I also want to thank the council for your supportive staff. and the civil and orderly manner in which you conduct the public's business. I can't say enough about how my very talented staff here in finance, who do the heavy lifting, to help accomplish city's goals every day, they've been tremendous. And I also want to thank my children, Nico and Noel, for all those times that I would come home late from work over the years. But my biggest thanks and appreciation is for my wife, Jane, who has always been my biggest supporter throughout my entire career and my life. And I just like to say it's truly been an honor to work with all of you here, and I wish everyone here at the City of Mountain View many future successes. Thank you.

[01:08:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Jesse. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Bye, Smurf.

[01:08:30] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I'm gonna keep it short and sweet. I thought I knew everything you did. There were a few extra things that I didn't know. Um, but mostly, I want to thank you for, um, bringing us through these few very difficult years, uh, these last few very difficult years with the art of funds. And when many cities went into the red and we were able to stay in the black. So thank you very much for that.

[01:08:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Robbie Coca.

[01:09:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. These retirements are always bittersweet. I'm very happy for you, Jesse. Congratulations. Um, I wish you the best and um, your next chapter in life. Um, but also, um, and very, with a heavy heart, um, having to say goodbye to you. Um, I too wanted to just thank you for um, your many years of service. You need, I think you had one good year here before COVID hit. And that year was really just, you know, whatever we can do. And so I really appreciated your um, willingness to be flexible and to, um, try new things and innovate and do things on the fly, um, all in, um, in our efforts to, um, help as many of our residents and businesses as we could. So, I know it took a lot of creativity to do all that we did and you're a big part of that effort, and I just want to thank you for your leadership, and again, wish you all the best, um, in, in retirement, and hope that you'll keep in touch and, and, uh, look forward to hopefully seeing you around. Thank you.

[01:10:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Metac.

[01:10:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, it's really been great to have you here in Mountain View, Jesse. Um, I appreciate how well you do your job and how great you are to work with. Um, I really appreciate your positive attitude and your great sense of humor. It certainly makes work a lot more fun. Um, I had the opportunity to speak with Jesse about what he's going to be doing next, and I was thinking, oh my gosh, if he does half of what is on his list. He is gonna be busy and exhausted. But um, I look forward to hearing about all those things you want to do. And it's quite exciting. So thank you for everything you've done for Mountain View. Really appreciate it. And I wish you all the best in your next phase, and don't be a stranger. We'd love to have you come back and visit. Thank you.

[01:11:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show off.

[01:11:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to say that it's been a pleasure to work with you. And in particular, I've really appreciated your willingness to explain financial issues to me. They need a lot of explanation for me, and you were always willing to go into the details, and, and, um, and, uh, you know, make sure that I understood what was happening, and, um, I thought that budget 101 class that you did was just right on, that that was great. So thanks so much for, um, being wonderful to work with, and and willing to, you know, to step up and do new things like that, that, that really help people, um, take part and understand the process.

[01:11:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Councilman reliever.

[01:11:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Well, um, having had the opportunity to share finance and investment review, I've seen up close, Jesse's work, and uh, how he handles, uh, a really complex area of the city's operations. And Jesse are just so emblematic of the depth and professionalism. that we have in staff, and, and, uh, there have been so many times when I wish that I could express that fully to people in the community, who might not, who might not know, uh, all of the work that you've done for the city, and and the way that you've carried it out, and kept us in an outstanding, uh, financial position, uh, going forward for the future. So, I hope you enjoy all the plans that you have, um, going forward and congratulations, um, getting to this finish line.

[01:12:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member.

[01:12:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Well, I just want to say congratulations on your nearly 3 decades of public service, and I think what I want to highlight is it's service, um, local government. Um, isn't always, I think, considered as exciting as other careers, but I think that there's a lot of possibility, and especially in a city like Mountain View, where we've had great fiscal stewardship, and you were able to continue that the last 4 years. We're able to do things other cities aren't because we don't, we've been so prudent. And, um, I know that that's because of of your help and assistance. So, I'm really excited that you'll be able to do all the things that you want to do. Um, and uh, not have to to be on Zoom with us anymore. I'm sure we're all ready for that to be done. But congratulations again. Thank you.

[01:13:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. City manager.

[01:13:59] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. So, I want to give my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Takahashi on behalf of the entire city organization and the executive team. And I won't reiterate everything that's already been said, but I just really sincerely appreciate you, Jesse, for your financial leadership these past several years. I don't think that, um, You can fully appreciate just how hard it's actually been until you've been in the trenches. And our executive team is made up of extraordinary leaders who got extremely close and had to collaborate constantly. So, we've talked a lot about Jesse's uh, technical skills and his uh, financial wisdom, certainly his financial leadership, as mentioned, it's not just here in Mountain View. He was a statewide leader and served as president of the entire financial officers, association of the whole state of California. Um, but beyond that, um, Jesse, you know, you're more than that. I have really appreciated your thoughtfulness, your calm demeanor. You have been a creative partner to all of the department heads, very collaborative and also very kind. And that has really been appreciated and needed, especially these last few years. So, I just want to thank you for your great partnership and great service to the community, uh, to the city of Mountain View and to all of your colleagues within the city organization. So, I'm sure you'll be on the golf course, and you will be doing really fun things on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. So I want to wish you well and thank you for all of your service and everything you've done.

[01:15:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and I want to say some nice things as well. Um, it's been a pleasure working with you over these past several years, Jesse, uh, leading us through uh, some extremely uh, challenging and uh, tumultuous economic times. Uh, but despite that, unlike many other cities in our region, uh, we were never in the red, we did very well. Uh, which is an extraordinary testament to your work. Uh, and, um, it's, it's, it's really been remarkable what we've been able to achieve, uh, not only for the organization, but also for, uh, as the proclamation, uh, mentions the most vulnerable in our community. So thank you very much for your work on doing that. And also, thank you for your patience with me. I feel like every year I ask you questions about the equipment, uh, maintenance and replacement fund that you are always very happy to answer them. So thank you, uh, for, for helping, you know, keep uh, the council afraid of what's going on in our financial world. Roger Jensen, who ordinarily helps us with these meetings, wishes you a happy retirement as well. Um, and, uh, you know, fear fear not, uh, if you already miss, uh, me reading through the proclamation, you're going to hear it one more time tomorrow. Uh, so thank you again, Jesse. We will now take public comment on the presentation item. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation item listed in the agenda. If so, please click the raise, hands, 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, we will, uh, say thank you again, Jesse, uh, and happy retirement. Then move on to the consent consent calendar. Um, these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Um and we have some dialogue here. Vice mayor Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

[01:17:57] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I am recusing myself from item 4.3, uh, which is adoption of an ordinance, approving a development agreement for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project. Because of my uh, business interest in uh, Siemens Health and Ears, uh, in Siemens Health and Ears, which is a medical technology company, located uh, very, very near the park plan area.

[01:18:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Be none. 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 raise and button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on your screen. Being no members of the public wishing to speak. I will, uh, now bring the item back for council action, and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinances, and resolutions attached to items 4.one through 4.8. Council member Abbe Koga.

[01:19:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I would like to go ahead and make a motion and please bear with me as I read the many items. Um, the motion includes uh, items 4.one. adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 8, articles one through 14 of the Mountain View City code relating to the adoption of the 2022 California building codes, incorporating by reference other international uniform codes and adoption of the 2021 International Property Maintenance code, the 1997 uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings to be read entitled only for the reading waived and adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 14, articles one and 2 of the Mountain View City code, relating to the dot adoption of the 2021 international fire code, incorporating by reference amendments adopted by the state of California, to establish the 2022 California fire code, to be read entitled only for their reading waived, and adoption ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 24 of the Mountain View City code relating to hazardous materials, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. And in 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, mending chapter 16, article 3 of the Mountain View City code governing construction and demolition debris diversion, and finding this ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15308, um, parentheses 14 CCR, 15308 to be read in titled only for the reading waived, item 4.3, adoption ordinance of the city of Mountain View, approving a development agreement for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project, generally located at the northeast corner of Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road, and north of West Maud Avenue, between Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California, to be read entitled only for their reading wave. Item 4.4, adopting ordinance of the city of Mountain View, proving a zoning map amendment from the CN neighborhood commercial zoning district to the R4, high density residential zoning district for the property located at 1265, Montecito Avenue, to be read in title, only for the reading waived. Item 4.5 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 361 and making required findings to be read in title only for the reading waived. Item 4.6 adopt a resolution of the city council, the city amount view, reciting the fact of the general municipal election held on November 8, 2022, declaring the result in such other matters as provided by law to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Item 4.7, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, appointing Johnstone to the bicycle, pedestrian advisory committee, appointing Kristen Higaki, and Eric Neurlich, to the board of Library Trustees, reappointing Mike Casper Zack, Marina, Keith, David Lynn, Kira Pascoe, and Jamil Sheikh, and appointing Anne Kavanaugh and Money Singh to the downtown committee, reappointing William Cranston and Jose Gutierrez to the Marmono Planning Commission, reappointing Ida Rose Sylvester and Xavier and appointing Jocelyn Baird, Eric Oisson and Molly Smith to the Human Relations Commission, reappointing Rooney Bryant to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and reappointing Yao Yao and appointing Heather Perez to the performing arts committee. To be read entitled only for the reading wave, and item 4.8, adopt resolution at the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager or designate to amend the city of Mountain View's salary plan for hourly employees, to ensure all classifications reflect Mountain View's minimum wage, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Thank you.

[01:23:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member committee.

[01:23:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Second.

[01:23:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Um, I did want to say 2 quick things 1st uh, as a member of the CSD. I just want to commence staff again for the work on the annual comprehensive financial report. It's an extraordinary document. Uh, and it contains a lot of important information about, uh, the financial health of the city, uh, and I do encourage members of the public to, uh, to take a look. Um, it's uh, uh, a huge amount of work that's done every year. Um, and I'm I'm just grateful for, uh, for, for staff. It's not to say that all of the other things on this consent calendar aren't important. It's an extraordinary amount of work represented here. Um, but, uh, I just want to highlight that as an important resource for the community. And also wanted to thank KMBT for their ongoing partnership with the city. Uh, thank you for, for, uh, helping with the recordings and and making those available to the public as well. If there are no other questions or comments. we will commence the roll call vote. Council member Abbe Koka. I,

[01:24:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: council member Kame.

[01:24:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:24:03] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Libor.

[01:24:04] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:24:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek.

[01:24:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:24:07] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member show Walter.

[01:24:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:24:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[01:24:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:24:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mirror mirrors. Yeah. Motion carries unanimously. Fantastic. Thank you. Well, now move to item 5 oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any item. Uh, during this section, state law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items when any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the race hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on the phone. On your phone, a timer will be displayed on your screen. Um, due to the number of speakers, we're going to limit to 2 minutes, and the 1st speaker is, um, uh, uh, uh, skull, skull, and my apologies.

[01:25:01] Yakov Shkolnikov: Hi, um, my, our dog and neighbors and I have reached out to the consul more than a month ago, after it has failed to provide us with a plan to address its decision to make our street an RPP, an RV parking program. I know this is not a term that exists in a city code, but the city appears to think that it doesn't need to follow the city code. The city has facilitated and condoned the creation of a public nuisance and a safety hazard for both the residents of the street and dwellers of RVs. As anyone who's actually visited our street can see. Our views are blocking site safety triangles, sidewalks, and driveways, not removing graffiti, storing items on the street pavement, blocking traffic signs and parking and purely residential zones. And the city is failing to protect RV dwellers' rights by not providing them with trash and sewage service. Moreover, even the marketing of Ortega is unrestricted is not consistent with the city code. It should be excluded both under the residential parking restriction, stolen books and under measure C. The city council created completely arbitrary definition of what streetwidth is directly in conflict with the city code, a definition created only after measure C vote, and still not approved by any vote by the city. In fact, Artega appears to meet measure C language, both by statute and by language on a ballot. Ortega has blocks narrower than 41 feet, has no divider, has a high density driveways, and the street navigation becomes impeded daily. Maybe the council just decided to wait for an injury or property damage, such as due to a recent fire, to be sued by your tag of residents, now that it has been put to notice of unsafe conditions. But I don't think that litigation is the best use of anybody's time and money. So the ball is in your court again. Please provide us with promised plan.

[01:26:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is, uh, Zing Wei Mo.

[01:27:03] Xingwei Mo: Today, I'm on about that. I'll be packing issue on Otica Abilio, and last meeting, some people say it's not an issue. If we have no impact to our lesson. You want to hear so many complaint about it. In my, every family are different. Army is not an issue for them, doesn't mean it's not an issue for other people. Then how might law be close enough to the law? My lot suffer from the 2nd hand small, and the law in the midnight, it comes from the army. They might not have little baby or small kids. But for me, I need to protect my little one time all of this. By the way, I have the video app done, that army people. smoking next to my home, and nothing I can do when they smoke at the midnight, which is quite awesome. But now, the 17 to hour parking name is the only law we can use to protect ourselves. And I think the city and police support us as well, and in front the law when complaint can. I totally agree that we should help the people living in the army, but lawsuit dropping the 17 to our parking lot. They should health army, people flying for better opportunity. I open all the low in mountain mills, I be parking, or 5 for a little dedicate, more safety, I be parking lot with water, and, you know, totally facility. They should open their, they, might open their glass or driveway to welcome army to park. They are planting of things they can do. But please, to lot her other system in the Otica MLO. Thanks.

[01:28:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Maxwell Sutton.

[01:28:54] Maxwell Sutton: Hi, uh, my name is Maxwell, and I'm a Mountain View resident that has lived on Ortega Avenue for over 3 years, uh, as we've already covered here. This is now one of the few streets in Mountain View deemed wide enough for RVs to be parked as part of a settlement between the city and several RV residents last year. I'd like to share my own experience as a resident of Ortega. Uh, I walk down Ortega daily, often after dark. Uh, I'm, I'm often at home, and I've never had a negative experience with any RV owners or their RVs. In fact, the instances where I've seen or spoken to RV residents on Ortega have either been neutral or pleasant because they're just people trying to get by in an area suffering through a prolonged housing crisis. My experience with RV residents has been fine. I have, however, witnessed and heard about homeowners or renters on Ortega silently surveilling, taking pictures of, harassing and otherwise attempting to forcibly displace the folks in RVs. Personally, I find that behavior far more alarming and frankly disturbing than anything related to the RVs or the residents. I believe that folks in RVs deserve to be listened to instead of watched. They are members of our community and at bare minimum deserve our compassion and respect. I believe that we should be committed to long-term solutions that serve to meet the needs of the RV owners themselves. And I think that starts with opening up a dialogue with the RV residents, not only to determine their needs, but to build community with them in good faith. In the meantime, I would suggest waiving the 72 hour abandoned vehicle penalty on Ortega Avenue at least for vehicles that are clearly not abandoned. Thank you for your time.

[01:30:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Natalia Klyashkina.

[01:30:41] Natalia Kliushkina: Hi, my name is Natalia Klushkina. I'm a resident of Ortega IBM. I think that many of you have heard about RV Fire. It is a shoreline amphiatric parking in Mountain View yesterday. Affected are we burned down completely, and a family with a young kid lives next to that bird, RB. Our big fires occurred every day in the United States. The latest records of the National Fire Protection Association estimates that 20,000 RVs fires occurs annually. According to National Fire Protection Association. Report the fire hazard associated with older or older models of RV. They also have older engines and equipment that is more likely to fail, which is common to cause RV fires. Most fertile RV fires call occur in all the models of our we. Number one, of course, of RB fires is engine compartment, often in electricals in the electrical system. The number 2, of course, of fire is a refrigerator. The electrical system in general, kitchen appliances, engine fuel lines, proper, et cetera. Christmas is coming soon, are with. And mounting your city is going to their Christmas break, white Christmas lights, very often, you need and start to fire, which is increased risk of our risk on Ortega Avenue. Who will be responsible if are we fired, could set a fire of any condominiums on our Chega Avenue where 100s of people live. Today, dozens of RVs park just a few meters away from apartment buildings on the most density population street in Mountain U. I don't feel safe anymore with RB parking by my windows. Here, on Arctica Avenue.

[01:32:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Natalia. I'm sorry. You've exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everyone. The next speaker is Zoom number one PA United.

[01:32:55] Marguerite: Sorry, I think I clicked the wrong one.

[01:32:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Dennis is the next speaker.

[01:33:04] Dennis: Hmm Thank you the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, many issues persist regarding RVs on Ortega Avenue. On Sunday, a man was walking on top of a trailer to install a tarp after the ring. He had no safety arm is on and could have easily fallen off that wet roof and hurt himself or others. Also, since one of the RVs is inoperable, it is connected to a car by chains and illegally towed down the street. What would happen if the vehicle in front stopped, and the RV did not? What would happen if the chains broke, and the RV ran into pedestrians or someone's home? Ortega having you has become an unregulated and unserviced campground. Residents have suffered from a severe lack of police enforcement, including parking and vehicles for over 72 hours, dumping trash and hazardous waste on sidewalks in the street, illegal towing, pollution from vehicles that cannot pass the smog test, and graffiti, just to name a few examples. I implore you to do everything you can to help us. If the study installed signs, prohibiting overnight parking, and enabled police enforcement, it would help immensely. Thank you for your attention.

[01:34:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Zoom number one, PA United.

[01:34:30] Marguerite: Hi, this is Marguerite, a resident of Ortega Avenue. I'd like to use this public comment to highlight what people living at RVs are up against. Displaced from Croissanto. They are now scattered across the city. Those who wish to park in a designated safe RV lot, must wait on a wait list because the lots are full. Those parked on the street are surveilled and their homes photographed for simply going where the city has told them they must park. Every 3 days, the threat of displacement is relived, as they must move to prove their vehicles are not, quote unquote, abandoned, despite the fact that they live in their vehicles. For, if they don't move their vehicles, their homes and belongings may be towed and essentially held hostage for a fee, they may not be able to afford. When they do move their vehicles. They hope to find their spot is still available. City council, I implore you to please find ways to relieve RV residents of some of these burdens. Make more roads available for RVs to park. Do not threaten them with towing their homes and belongings if they don't move every 72 hours. Do not bury them in tickets and fines. These changes are, I believe, relatively small changes for the city and could make a big difference to those living in RVs. Please recognize the dignity and humanity of RV residents. Care about the people at the heart of this issue. Have compassion for those who have been who have been displaced again and again. I respectfully implore the city council. Please give the RV residents more spaces to park. Don't force them to move every 72 hours. Don't tow them. Please don't find them.

[01:36:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Marguerite. The next speaker is Lee Jang.

[01:36:22] Li Jong: Yes, hi, this is Li Jong. Um, I, I sympathize with the people who have to, um, live in the RVs, but my main concern now is as the winter comes and it's getting cold. The people living in the RV need to keep warm. And this, um, create some, uh, fire hazard as, uh, the previous speakers have already mentioned, um, with both with cooking inside of RVs and not heating. Um, because of the diverse population live in the RVs, there's no prediction factors that's how dangerous this could be. Um, I try to read the previous report in the past, you know, the work session, uh, console had have a couple years ago. I could not find any codes, code, uh, or ordinance would keep the residents safe as well as the people living in the RV, um, in a safe conditions with very limited resources, um, with, um, keep warm in the RVs as well as cooking. Um, I think currently, um, with um, the most recent count of how many RVs, um, actually on the public street, uh, excluding region 5. Um, it's already 130 RVs. And we don't really know if console has any plan, how to help these people live in RVs, as all the speakers had mentioned earlier, with a very difficult condition. As RVs, whenever it is designated to be permanent, stand alone leaving quarters. They're supposed to go to the RV parks where they are electricity, all this, water, with disposal, facilities, and other amenities. And none of these are supplied to them when they park on the street. Public street. I make both the residents that live next to it and the RV residents have very...

[01:38:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Lee. Uh, you've exhausted your time. The next speaker is Victoria. Uh, Tubmazian.

[01:38:42] Victoria Tubmazian: Hello, my name is Victoria, and I'm a resident of Ortega Avenue. I wanted to add to comments regarding the recent OSB parking ordinance that quite clearly has had implications on the ability of RVs to inhabit particularly high density streets, such as Ortega. In the last meeting. I'd say we experience a distressing quantity of people demonizing mountain view property owners and residents who experience personal community discomfort with the novel abuse of residential parking streets. These residents include individuals and new families who put down a difficult financial premium to live in a neighborhood, with a known image and a standard of cleanliness and safety and are now experiencing large financial damages due to the new silent ordinance and its lack of enforcement, despite civilian action. These residents are nothing but sympathetic and have experience with the difficulty of affording housing in California and support the implementation of safe parking programs within the county. But this does not necessarily translate to being willing to shift into a more dangerous dynamic, uh, neighborhood dynamic or bare, massive personal losses atop the taxes we pay to support these programs. It has become quite clear that the lack of appropriate enforcement and resource allocation has led to conflict between the affected property owners and residents as well as the city. And the residents have gone out of their way to manage their own safety and force the rules on their streets on behalf of the city and its programs to some degree. And residents have also researched to identify potentially many miles of more appropriate non-residential parking areas that will both benefit RV inhabitants, as well as assist the city to satisfy the current lawsuit whilst benefiting both, uh, the OSV owners and high density residents. So please listen to and work with your static residents instead of berating them for being worried about their own personal and financial well-being alongside that of the other people in this community. We want a universal solution that is appropriate to all contributors. Thank you so much.

[01:40:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Jachi, uh, Hondi.

[01:40:43] Jachi Hondi: Hello. Um, I am also a resident of Ortega Avenue, uh, who has spent all of her savings and life worth in buying a house in this community and pay a lot of taxes in in the process, and it's really disappointing to see that city is not taking any actions on providing safe parking spaces for RVs to uh, park on. Residential areas are not the places, uh, for RVs to park long term. So it's really disappointing to see that city has not taken any actions even after, uh, all the residents of Ortega had had a meeting with city council to highlight this issue over a month ago. We want to really see an action taken place on this. We really sympathize with the RV owners and their situations, but it's city's responsibility to take care of their, um, living situation and provide the, um, provide the spaces for them to park, uh, where they can actually have the access to the facilities along with, uh, being able to live. So please, please take an action on this. Arctic acid residents should not be suffering financial difficulties because our houses are not able to sell right now. So please provide an update on this.

[01:42:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: very much. Next speaker is my.

[01:42:14] Mai: Hi, um. Uh, Is it a meeting?

[01:42:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, yeah, we can hear you now.

[01:42:28] Mai: I'm sorry, yeah, so I'm sorry. I live in also Otega Avenue, and I was also in the meeting with the city councils, and since then, I don't see any action improvement, and people, some people said, why don't we show the compassion, sympathize with the people who live in RVs. But what about us? How, how, we, we, our life is really impacted and then, you know, if you come to this old thing of it. It's like slam. And it's, it's kind of, I don't feel safe. I don't feel safe to let my children walk around the street. And then people say, you know, um, allow them to more than 72 hours. Why don't you take them to, you know, have them to live in front of your house, you know? And also, um, I don't think people are harassing and taking a picture because the city doesn't take any action. That's why the resident of the Oteg Avenue taking action to report the illegal activities, you know, those stolen bikes and the, the trashies in the street and the people smoking, and so I really ask you to take the action. And um, I don't think it's fit for all take a residence or take a residence in suffering these issues. So thank you very much for your time.

[01:43:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is James Kuzmal.

[01:44:03] James Kuzmal: Thank you. I don't have much constructive to add, but... Remember to call out the speakers who have been making comments over the past 10 or 20 minutes that dehumanize the RV residents. There are some negative, there are negative effects to people being forced to live in RVs on our streets, but it is my impression the city is doing the best as can, and the rhetoric and actions of some of these individuals is not consistent with treating our fellow Mountain View citizens as human beings. Thank you.

[01:44:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[01:44:49] Alex Brown: Yeah, well, I, the RVs, viruses, like, are, horrified, 2000 RV, art, analy. So, every year, there's an average of, uh, 358,300 home base fires. Uh, that kill, you know, 1000s of people, an average of 2620 civilian deaths each year, uh, including 500 children. So, yeah, fires are terrible. I, you know, I think even more reason that we should focus on electrification and removing gas stoves and other forms of, uh, cooking that are hazardous to people's healths, both in catastrophic situations and normally. Yeah, because I don't want to catch on fire. Thanks.

[01:45:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Bruce England.

[01:45:43] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. I'm Bruce England Westman Station Drive. I wasn't necessarily gonna speak on this, but I've been listening to all the comments. I won't repeat what James and Alex have said, but they make very good points. I think that, um, I personally volunteer for a safe parking program in Saratoga and I interface with a lot of vehicle residents there. Um, and it's real eye opener when you talk with them. And you realize how they're just humans. They're humans like all the rest of us. And um, I hope that people will take advantage of any opportunities they have to actually interact. with the people who are living in their vehicles and those unfortunate circumstances. I also want to point out that the city has been working very doggedly on solutions both in Mountain View and at the county level. This has been going on for a number of years. This is hardly a city taking no action. Um, is it as successful as we would like it to be? No, and the city continues to work on it and a number of us in the community continue to work on it too. And have been for a long time. So it would be worthwhile for people in Mountain View to look into that. Find out exactly what the city has been doing historically. And what community groups are working on this. Engage with the community groups. There are constructive things that can be done. Thank you.

[01:47:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is ED Keating.

[01:47:11] Ed Keating: Hello, thank you. Um, I don't think I need to mention this, but I think that, um, the low bar that, of course, the city must comply with, is follow the law. And, uh, large vehicle ordinances now, in effect, and so, almost, at least, is the settlement, um, which requires the city to find a certain amount of streets where RVs can park. If you want to encourage RVs to locate in other areas, perhaps there could be some areas where the 72 hour rule is loosened. Um, but meanwhile, um, you know, I think we all agree that someone living in an RV, when they don't have other options, is far superior to someone living on the street, and I support other speakers who have talked about, uh, people needing to meet their basic needs when they have reduced income, and when this is their home. And, um, so I hope you can come up with better options than what we have now. But meanwhile, for what we have now, the council and residents of the city, need to know the law, respect the law, and comply with it. And currently, uh, parking in RV on Ortega, which is a wide street is a valid, uh, action. Thank you.

[01:48:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will conclude item 5 and proceed to item 6 study session. .one revised 2023 to 2031 draft housing element. Translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreters.

[01:49:27] Spanish Interpreter: En la parte, de bajo de su, um, pantaya, y serecione, idio ma español, muchas gracias.

[01:49:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The purpose of the study session is for the city council to review the revised draft housing element, and provide direction to staff regarding modifications, including the addition of alternate programs. Senior planner, Ellen Yao, will present the item, whenever you're ready, Ellen. Oh, I don't believe she has joined. The panel yet. So, uh, staff, I may need some assistance in promoting, there's Ellen, so I'll go ahead and promote her. Um, and if there are other membership staff who ought to be promoted to the panel, um, I would appreciate your assistance and that may include, um, the consultants as well.

[01:50:38] Ellen Yao: Hi, good evening. Okay. Can everyone see my screen?

[01:50:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, yes, we can see it, and there's the presentation. Thank you.

[01:50:56] Ellen Yao: All right. Well, thank you very much, Mayor Ramirez and council members. And tonight we are providing an update on the 2nd draft housing element. Again, my name is Ellen Yao, the project planner for the Housing Element project, and I'm joined by Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager, and our consultant, Stephanie Hager, from BAE, and Bev Choi, from ESA. Just as a brief overview, we initiated the housing element update project at the beginning of 2021, and we've presented at multiple community meetings and study sessions these last 20 plus months. Uh, that started with the development of the framework. So the methodology, to the draft housing element, and then tonight to the 2nd draft housing element. Um, HCD has recommended that cities submit revised drafts rather than adopted versions.

[01:51:41] Ellen Yao: So tonight's study session will solely focus on reviewing the 2nd draft housing element document. And then we're seeking additional policy direction from city council. Um, Tonight. Other parts of the housing element projects such as the rezonings and the environmental review will be presented at a separate public meeting in January, and we'll go over that in the scheduled section of the presentation later. And for tonight, we're going to cover, um, 3 main things. One is we're going to go over previous council direction. We'll discuss key changes made to the housing element in response to HDD's comments, particular changes related to the site's inventory, the AFFH analysis of the site's inventory and programs. And lastly, we'll present on alternate programs that were mentioned in public comments, and we want counsel's consideration on those topics. So I want to highlight the consequences of non-compliance in our deadline for submitting the housing element document to, um, the fate HPD. So if the housing element is not adopted and determined to be substantially compliant by our deadline of January 31st of next year, there are a couple of consequences for the city that I'm going to highlight here. First, there's loss of eligibility for applying for grants. These grants fund very important housing and transportation programs and projects, and they include some of the ones that are listed on the slide here, including affordable housing and a sustainable communities grant, and our local housing trust fund, uh, which would provide funding for affordable projects, and the OBAG program, which allocates federal transportation funding for projects like, uh, the Middlefield Complete Streets, Project, uh, or something like the El Camino, El Monte, and Escuela intersection improvements. Another consequence to having, um, a non-compliant housing element is there is limited ability to deny certain residential projects that would provide 20% low income units or 100% moderate income units. This would allow developers to build housing projects of any density and height and not be subjected to development standards. Now, while the current draft is compliant and we're working with HCD, drafts that are substantially revised will likely require updates to the housing element document to make sure that it complies with, um, recently approved state laws that will go into effect after the January 31st deadline. This slide captures council direction from our June study session. The council specifically endorse the site inventory that we presented and the back pocket sites. And they also directed staff to add 3 zonings for 100% affordable housing sites. These are on East Dublin and on Terabella. And then add the following programs that are shown on the screen here. All these programs were included in the 2nd draft, and the specific program numbers are shown on the slide next to the item for reference. Of course, it includes, you know, live work, religiousize, and things that were discussed in June. So staff submitted the 1st draft housing element to HCD in July for their 90 day review. And then we received comments from HTG at the end of September. HCD's comments included, uh, asking us to clarify the site inventory analysis to provide specific data points, such as comparing local data to the region, providing more information on constraints, adding specific actions and metrics to our programs, and adding more description on how those housing programs relate to the housing needs identified in analysis. We've met with our reviewers several times in September and October to provide clarification to some of their questions, and then also to discuss our approach to responding to their comments. So in the review of the 1st draft housing element, HTD requested additional clarification and information, um, for our site's inventory, specifically regarding redevelopment of non-vacant sites. And demonstrating that the city's past completion rates of pipeline projects would ensure the completion within the 6 cycle. In addition to those main points, we also made other changes to the site's inventory, this includes adding 2 opportunity sites, one on 1250 grant, you know, after further review of some of the building characteristics, show that it did qualify as an opportunity site. And then we also included 15, 1500 North Shoreline Boulevard. This is because after discussion with the property owners, they expressed interest in residential development, which we did not know before. We've also added newly submitted applications such as the 685 East Notafield project. And then we reduce some capacities by up to 80% specifically on large multi tenant shopping centers. To acknowledge the existing viable uses and multiple tenets. Um, the document was revised based on HD feedback from the meetings uh, in September on October, and the 2nd draft housing element was resubmitted to HCD on November. 18th. Since submitting the 2nd draft, we received letters requesting the removal of a couple of sites. This includes the Lozano car wash site and U-Haul sites on, um, El Camino Real. And then based on previous council direction, we have remove those sites, and the site's inventory, the table that you see here reflects those changes, and we do plan on making those specific changes to HCD within the 60 day review period. So the site sanctory right here on this, um, in this table, it includes the removals of the, um, 2 sites that I mentioned, and as you can see, the current buffers are shown in that last row, and it is within ACDs recommended 15 to 30% range. Uh, just to highlight the buffers are on top of what's required for Rena. On the 2nd part of the ACD's comment was regarding the AFFH analysis of the site's inventory, they asked us to provide a little bit more additional analysis. And so for the analysis, we took the distribution of lower income units that's in the site's inventory and we analyzed it on 4 factors. One was income levels, two, access to resources, opportunity levels, three, the educational domain score and for race and ethnicity. So the map on the slide shows a site inventory against a background of existing income levels in the city. So where you see the darker green, it shows lower income households and the lighter green showing higher income levels. Okay, so that's the over the base of the map. Um, the data then shows that the lower income units, um, on opportunity sites, which is shown in the purple, and the pipeline projects are in the yellow, they're located predominantly in higher income neighborhoods, in the lighter green areas. In addition, the religious sites and the R1 zones, shown as pink or the hatch respectively, provide additional opportunities for lower income housing through our programs, um, such as the ADU and SB9 incentive program, and then affordable units at church sites. Um, the same analysis found that lower income units are in areas with high or highest resources, high education, and also located away from areas with the highest concentration of non-white residents. So these other maps, um, are included in the latest draft. Um, the one shown here specifically for income. And then lastly, in the 2nd draft, we included program changes. We included programs that were requested by city council that was presented in a earlier slide in the presentation. These programs that required additional analysis and weren't submitted in the 1st draft. Uh, is now included in the 2nd draft. We also modified programs to provide specificity to the programs based on HCDs comets. So some of these included reduced parking standards for affordable housing, creating an incentives program for ADU development, and updating residential standards and addressing state laws. So our 1st question is, does the city council have any direction on the newer modified program since the last draft housing element? And to highlight, we met with, um, we presented this item to EPC and, and they did not recommend any changes to the programs. And then the following section of the presentation will cover alternative programs for consideration. So these programs came from public comments, and some of them were also previously presented to council. This is another opportunity for counsel to consider these additional programs to the housing element. They include additional rezonings. Are 3 district rezoning, replacement strategy for rent stabilized units, and eliminating parking requirements. So for additional rezonings, public comments were received, and most of them highlighted places like the downtown precise plan area, industrial areas, Charleston Plaza, and other various sites. Um, as council considers these programs. I just want to specify that, you know, rezonings will increase housing capacity of the city, and it will increase the site inventory buffer as well. Uh, if we do include additional rezonings, HCD will expect up zoning programs to identify density targets, uh, which haven't been clearly identified or defined through any analysis or community input at this time. Adding these rezonings would also like to require recirculation of the ER and add to the project budget. And to highlight it all, you know, the city is not limited to doing rezonings through the housing element and can pursue these rezonings at any time. And then for the R 3 zoning district. This is kind of separate from, uh, the previous slide simply because there was a lot more public comments highlighting this particular project. So in previous study sessions, council direction was to not include the R 3 budget update due to the timing, uncertainty, and displacement concerns of the pending project. Um, Including the R3 zoning district update in the housing element would have the similar effect that was discussed in the last slide, which means you would get an increase in capacity, but there could potentially be delays to the EIR. The 3rd topic here is the replacement of rent stabilized units. This was raised by the community to include requirements to replace demolish rent stabilized units, and the current housing element includes a number of elements related to displacement response, which includes acquisition and preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing. Write a 1st refusal requirements for displaced tenants. The exploration of community based preservation strategies. Um, that includes COPA and TOPA or community land trusts, and the enforcement of tenant protections, and the city's relocation assistance ordinance to support displaced tenants. Staff plans to bring a displacement response strategy to counsel for a 2023 study session. Um, that will include the exploration of requirements for the replacement of demolished restabilized units in new developments. Um. This portion, um, is going to be studied by staff, and several options are under reviewed by staff, and options does require further study for legality, feasibility, and implementation. So right now at present, SB 330 does require the replacement of rent stabilized units with affordable units. And this requirement is expected to be in place until the lost sun sets currently scheduled for 2030. Um, so replacement requires are not currently explicitly referenced in the housing element, um, mainly in part because the correct mechanism is still under review, and council will get a chance to, um, provide that policy direction in 2023. And then the last major alternate program. Um, you know, we received public comments for eliminating parking requirements, but the comments also were in favor of maintaining parking standards as well. So as it currently stands, the housing element does have a program and it does address reduced parking for affordable housing, and also TDM ordinance to allow for parking reductions, and to enhance alternative mobility. Um, additionally, we do have in several areas of the city with uh, either no minimum parking standards or reduced parking standards, and these are in very large areas throughout the city, like North Facia and East Wisman. Um, state law also has, uh, reduced um, minimum, almost no parking standards for, uh, air sites that are near rail stops. And then density bonus also has waivers for parking reductions as well. So there are existing uh, reduced parking standards that would address some of the comments uh, covered in this alternate program. So those are the 4 major alternate programs. Um, based on HCD's comments on the 2nd draft that we submitted, it doesn't appear that any of the alternate programs are necessary to comply with state law. However, uh, tonight, council may still wish to include some or all of them in the housing element. And if counsel does wish to include any of the alternate programs. Staffers recommending a 2 step approach to this. Number one, adopt a compliant housing element based on HCD input on the 2nd draft. And the 2nd phase, review additional items that may involve recirculation of the ER or discuss them with HCD and bring back amendments to adopted housing element. Um, this approach would have um, some benefits to it. It does provide the city the best opportunity to have a compliant adopted housing element as close to the January 31st, 2023 deadline as possible. Uh, this really helps ensure the city is able to apply for and receive key grants that are either in the pipeline or will be coming, um, coming up in 2023. And this allows counsel in the public additional time and flexibility to weigh in on alternate programs and inclusion in the housing element. So the question we post to council tonight is 2 parts. Does the city council recommend adding any of the alternate programs? And if so, does the council wish to add them as part of the housing element or part of a future update to the housing element? And presented to the EPC? They did not recommend adding any alternate programs. So, We did submit the our draft, um, to our 2nd draft to ACD back in November, and just yesterday, we met with them, and they provided some outstanding comments, uh, these initial comments, um, you know, said, they stated that, you know, they didn't have any comments for our sites, inventory or AFFH, um, but they did ask us to describe in more detail our local processing procedures, such as the gatekeeper process. describing the landscaping standards and our requirements, and then also our reasonable accommodation program changes that we're proposing. They also wanted us to add language on specific sections of the housing element, identifying how the public comments have been addressed in our programs in our narrative, and then adding analysis about the specific housing needs for each type of special needs group. Um, so, you know, we believe we can make these revisions by, um, December 21st and then the 3rd draft could be out for public review by December 22nd, and then we can resubmit to HCD, January 3rd at the beginning of the year. HCD has said that they can review these revisions during the current 60 day review cycle. Um, so therefore, it is possible to receive HDC HD approval by January 17th, 2023, which is the end of the 60 day approval period. Um, if there is additional direction from council tonight, we will work with HCD to incorporate those changes, and staff can provide an update to council on the schedule changes at a later date. So this slide um, are your questions for consideration tonight? Um, 2 major questions, the 2nd part, um, is broken into two. I just want to highlight that, uh, EPC overall did not recommend any revisions to the draft housing ailment in response to these 2 questions. And this is a brief slide about our next steps on our schedule. Um, so we had the EPC public hearing for our rezonings last week and then we'll have, um, we'll bring that to council, uh, January 24th, uh, of next year. And depending on HCD's determination on our 2nd draft and our revisions, and the level of work from council direction tonight, um, housing element adoption hearings in early 2023. So this concludes my presentation and we look forward to answering any questions. Thank you.

[02:09:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much Ellen. Uh, and because this is a study session, we will 1st take public comment. 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. And uh, we'll go ahead uh, and allocate 2 minutes. The 1st speaker is Bruce England.

[02:09:54] Bruce England: Thank you mayor. Bruce England, Weston Station Drive. I'll be very brief. I've been talking with a number of people in the community about where this whole process is heading. And firstly, I want to praise city staff for working on this as doggedly as they have. It's a lot of work. I'm buying others absolutely appreciate it. But there is a sentiment about whether or not the housing element application is as robust as it needs to be are properties listed in there that are already in the pipeline and probably shouldn't be. And just the various calculations, we all want to make sure that when this is submitted to HCD, that it's acceptable and that it goes through. And I guess I'll wrap up by saying that, If it's going to take more time going past the January deadline to get it right, I think there's general sentiment that that's better than trying to rush it through and really not having it be something that's going to work for our community. Thank you.

[02:10:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is James Kuzmal.

[02:11:05] James Kuzmal: Thank you. I think the bulk of most comments I would make are in written comment letters, but the 2 specific things I wanted to call out, given, um, the contents of presentation, were, 1st off, regarding, um, additional resonance is a potential additional program. I always should be particularly supportive of downtown reasoning, since that is a, to me, yeah, at least an AFFH concern of improving access to opportunity to live in a downtown area where there's high access to jobs, transit, et cetera. Um, and I would hope that it would be possible to, for instance, make use of SB 10 or some, or the such to reduce the timeline of any EIR analysis, since the purpose of that law was to make it so we could do modest upzonings without needing, uh, to do sequel reviews. Um, and secondly, I would love to see citywide parking minimum removal, particularly if we're going to be doing parking minimum removal for 100% affordable housing anyways, and we're going to be dealing with whatever the impacts are of, um, the AB 2097, which, uh, remote parking minimums near rail transit and near high frequency bus stops. If we're gonna be doing that anyways, then we may as well just remove a parking minimum citywide, there's no need to make it. So that whatever corners of the city aren't covered by all those existing areas, still have parking minimums, it just makes everything more complicated, uh, and raises housing costs and helps make our programs more concrete to one of the other issues that was brought up of not all partners of the housing elements happen. One of the big issues in the house, I want this brought up, is, uh, government constraints on housing and costs of housing, and as housing itself mentions, parking costs a lot to build. So if we can commit to that, that would significantly help the strength of our housing element, thank you.

[02:13:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. The next speaker is Ali Saperman.

[02:13:11] Ali Sapirman: Good evening. My name is Allie Saperman. I am calling on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. Um, just want to thank uh, city staff and the council for your work on this housing element. It's obviously really, really critical. Um, but just out of paying attention to this housing element and others throughout the region. I've noticed some deficiencies that I think will make it highly unlikely that the city will receive certification from HCD. So I really want to recommend that these following issues are addressed. Um, first, uh, noting that, uh, there are a number of sites in the site inventory that have already been counted in the 5th cycle. Um, it's roughly around 1500 units being double counted, um, and these sites are particularly occupied, uh, to name a few 2580 California Street, 950 West El Camino Reel, uh, 1720 Villa Street, 555 East Evelyn Avenue. Um, and This is just generally not good policy to be double counting these sites. We want to be maximizing as much housing as possible. And I really don't see this element getting certified as is. Beyond that. It's really important that we are making every effort to adequately promote affordable housing, within the city's highest resource neighborhoods. Um, a big AFFH issue. And until this is addressed, I don't see. this element being... Um, but I really appreciate your work on this.

[02:15:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Ellen. The next speaker is Pamela Compos.

[02:15:19] Pamela Campos: Hello, good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the housing element draft. My name is Pamela Campos, and I'm an early care and education advocate as well as a community organizer with parent voices, which is a grassroots organization that activates and centers the wisdom of parents to transform childcare and ensure all systems that impact our families. Are just fair and inclusive. Today, I encourage the city of Mountain View to include policies that support the development of childcare facilities in the updated housing element. High quality childcare is essential to families and vibrant economic development. Yet there are numerous barriers to prevent new programs from opening. While many of the challenges for childcare facilities development are similar to housing. The childcare sector lacks housing developers mandates, financing sources, and expertise. One of the biggest challenges is finding a location for a childcare facility. Ideally, childcare facilities are located in or near housing, and are close to family friendly transportation options. Housing and childcare costs place the largest strain on families as these 2 services consume the greatest portions of household budgets, when childcare is affordable and accessible, both parents and children have the tools needed to thrive. For working families with young children, having accessible childcare near their homes, reduces traffic and commute times, and generally improves the quality of life for these residents, including policies supportive of childcare in or near housing, is a straightforward way for cities and counties to contribute to creating sustainable communities that welcome families of young children. Proactive and proven policies include working with all housing developers to incorporate childcare that serves families of all incomes and ages. Supporting the inclusion of specially designed and located housing units and multifamily projects for licensed family childcare home providers, and allowing childcare facilities to serve as traffic mitigation measures among other possible solutions. Thank you for your time and consideration of these family friendly policies.

[02:17:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much, Pamela. The next speaker is Peninsula, South Bay Leeds. Uh, Peninsula, South Bay leaves? Are you able to amuse?

[02:17:44] Emily Ramos: Hello?

[02:17:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Hello, we can hear you.

[02:17:48] Emily Ramos: I I logged into the wrong account, but whatever. My name is Emily Ann Ramos. I am with SV at home. Um, we understand the difficulty that staff based in trying to turn in a truly compliant housing element and we really sympathize. The goal of the housing element is for cities to submit to the state. There are plans to address the housing crisis based on local data and input from the community. HCD will not tell the city what to do. They will simply say they need more details, metrics, timelines, and question whether certain programs address the needs, stated. Now, if we treat this like this as a past fail homework assignment and strive to do just enough to get a compliant housing element, we are not only missing a great opportunity to engage the community on housing solutions, it puts us at risk of going through multiple rounds, thus delaying the process and eventual compliance. However, if we take the time to add in more details for many of the programs that are requested by the community, some of these programs, the city is already working on, but not including in the housing element, we can reach both compliance and take a huge step solving our housing crisis. So we urge the city council to direct staff, to provide more details in the programs, and fully address the programs that are been asked for by the community, in order to solve our housing crisis. Thank you so much.

[02:19:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Peter Cat.

[02:19:21] Peter Katz: Thank you, Mayor, and the team members of city council. This is Peter Cat, CEO of this Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. The production of housing is rightly, one of the most pressing issues facing our city, and the housing elements serves as our roadmap to meet these needs. The city staff has done a fantastic job and has done a has expanded a tremendous amount of effort to accommodate the items noted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in their review. However, the 2nd draft still does not adequately address the issue that the Chamber and the HDC raised regarding reducing government restraints that significantly impede housing production. Unless the barriers are reduced, we simply won't be able to produce the numbers specified in the housing element, because no developer will view the projects as economically feasible. As such, the housing element is incomplete and ultimately won't be able to meet its goals. On slide 16 of staff's presentation tonight, It was noted that HD, HCD, ask for processing procedures in more detail. The good news is that separate from the housing element, the city has recognized and been deeply committed to improving its processing procedures. The city's matrix study, details, permits, fees, processes, far calculation methodology, the gatekeeper process, and other government regulations that are barriers to production, and provides clear recommendations. We urge city council to insist the housing element include a commitment to the specific process improvements contained in the study, so that the recommendations become accountable actions rather than just suggestions. Not only will this meet HCD's requests, it'll greatly improve our ability to meet our goals. Thank you.

[02:21:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Peter. The next speaker is Isaac Stone.

[02:21:10] Isaac Stone: Uh, hi, good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Um, I. Shared some of the concerns expressed tonight about a housing element as presented ability to provide adequate housing for the city, um, My concerns are basically in 2 categories. One is that it appears to, uh, rely heavily on the East Westman, for the majority of units, that's basically Google, and if those units don't come through, We may end up with Not enough housing. Maybe, I'm not so concerned if the housing element is in compliance. I'm concerned if the city has enough housing for the people who live here and putting so much emphasis on a single supplier seems foolish. Also, I would like to see more housing more broadly across the city. There appears to be no changes or very little change to my neighborhood in old mountain view. Um, The R3 update maybe is the best option of the suggested ones because it affects all the neighborhoods in the city. Um, I'm, Generally just want to see more housing, and so that more people can live here. Uh, thank you very much.

[02:22:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Isaac. The next speaker is D Hansen.

[02:23:01] Bee Hanson: Hi, thanks for keeping my comments. I've already provided uh, written comments and depth. Uh, to your, um, I think now I'm in grad. And, uh, provided you a letter, uh, they sent to HCD. Uh, I just want to add a couple of moral comments, uh, in addition, uh, 2 things that I would mention that, uh, is that many people who are renters, are also long-term people who join the parks, uh, when they were considered naturally affordable housing. Uh, and they are no longer, and people who are renting, uh, who can't really afford to pay market rent, they are paying. Uh, I did mention that before. The other thing is that our 5% seal, that were ordinance, something that people don't even understand, especially the sealers and stable people who are, a large portion of the rest of these parts. Um, because that's still the highest that we've ever. Uh, that was 2016, some people have, I don't know, but it's unusual. And it's really unfair, considering the fact that we now have data, that we know that our owners are bidding little profits of arts, we didn't know that before. where we wrote that book. Uh, and that's really unfair. So we would, you should really, uh, try to improve, uh, some way of, I'm not sure how, because we have to open up the ordinance, uh, how we could. Get that ceiling down to be more like. Uh, that's basically all I have to say. Thank you.

[02:24:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, B. The next speaker is Robert Cox.

[02:25:05] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[02:25:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:25:09] Robert Cox: Okay. Hi, I'm Robert Cox. speaking for myself tonight. I'm recommending that the council stay on the path that the staff and council have approved so far without making major changes or additions or alternate programs. My key concerns are that there could be serious consequences that we don't get an adopted housing element by the end of January. The so called builders remedy, which would override the council's decision making, and provide for no public input on new developments would kick in. It has already happened in Santa Monica. with 16 new applications because they were late. It could happen here if we are not careful. Above all, I believe that it is our elected officials, who should have the final decision on what our city's future should be. It has taken a lot of hard work by staff, wisdom from council, and tireless engagement from the public to get to this point. As a staff report pointed out. Ultimately, the EPC did not recommend any provisions to the draft housing element, provisions to the site inventory or changes to the work plan. I am with the EPC on this one. As a former Mountain View EPC member. I will never forget what was told to me by an experienced planning commissioner at my 1st California planning commissioner's academy. Never be embarrassed to move the staff recommendation when it is the right thing to do. Let's move forward. We're on the right track. Thank you for your time.

[02:26:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Robert. The next speaker is Alex Brown.

[02:26:49] Alex Brown: Hey friends. I'm mostly here to say I agree with my friend and colleague B. The city's done a lot to try to protect mobile home residents, but it would be negligent of us to not take advantage of this opportunity to highlight the fact that more protections are needed and people are still being hurt. This is a great opportunity to work with the state to have solid commitments and metrics around our programs and protections for vulnerable communities, especially the older folks who live next door. Uh, I think that we already have some of it in our housing element draft. I do think that it would be stronger if we could commit to enhancing protections for residents over time, not just saying, we have a status quo of red stabilization, and we will continue to have that. I don't think that is a, uh, pro housing program. It's not as much as I would like. Uh, someone with a COPA. or like stronger commitments than just to explore it. Staff noses, we talked. Hi, Eric. glad you're feeling better. Bye.

[02:28:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Anna Marie.

[02:28:15] Anna Marie: Hello, I want to say thank you to staff. I really appreciate all you have done. Um, Huge thanks. I'm really glad we're addressing the critical issue of the long term effects of the housing crisis. I'm a nine-year mobile home renter. Mobile home renters pay the AGA annual general adjustment, rental increase, and this year the AJ is 5%. So for mobile home tenants, it covers both the space rent and the rent of the mobile home. Um, this is going to be a huge issue if this continues down the line, and many people are going to face displacement, if not soon, um, within the next decade. And something to note, mobile home tenants. We've had to fight harder than the apartment dwellers or mobile homeowners for this protective legislation. We were almost not going to be included in the MHRSO. Thankfully, we were, so thank you for that. Um, but we are still paying much more than mobile home owners. And unlike the homeowners. Our monthly rents are now close to market rate. Antioch actually addressed this issue. So what they did is they did an annual cap of 3% or 60% of CPI, whichever is less. I strongly recommend cancel revisit the current AGA. Um, rents in Mountain View are not sustainable for many. I would go as far as to say the, to recommend staff lower the base year of the MHRSO to 2019 or earlier, since mobile home should have been protected under the CSF R A back in 2015 or received help sooner. Um, You know, we've faced steep rent increases since 2015, our 5% yearly increases are now based off that. And we know that there is a windfall profit for landlords. Thank you for your time and I hope you all have a great night. I appreciate the work. Take care.

[02:30:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak. We will uh return to council for uh questions and deliberation. Um I have a quick question for staff. Um, this item is heavily segmented because there are various conflicts of interest that will have to be disclosed. Um, but, um, does that apply also to questions? So should we have a round of general questions 1st or should we proceed immediately with the segmenting and ask questions specifically for those items, um, based on, on, uh, each, uh, the, the consideration with complex of interest?

[02:30:55] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. This is Jennifer Logue, city attorney. Um, I would recommend proceeding directly to segmentation and asking questions in relation to, you know, each segment. We've worked really hard to split this out so as to be very, very careful. Um, about any action or direction council provides, um, in each area. And so questions should be limited to their specific areas.

[02:31:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. Then we will proceed with the, uh, 1st set of items, uh, related to housing element, the discussion topics, related to rezoning, the downtown precise plan, the Castro Commons project, program one. 4 religious and community assembly sites for housing and neighborhood shopping areas other than the general planned village, village centers as back pocket site and program. Uh, one.11, no net loss of housing. Uh, housing element sites, uh, require one or more members of the council to recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest. Uh, so, uh, we'll now have members of the council disclose those conflicts, uh, and we'll start with uh, Visner Hicks.

[02:32:12] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, yes, um, I'm gonna be recusing myself from any discussions about, um, well, 1st whether to add a program to, uh, to reason the downtown precise plan because my, uh, house is uh, near the downtown precise plan area. And 2nd whether to add properties northeast of the Castro Street El Camino Real intersection to the site inventory, uh, with or without rezoning, because, uh, again, my house is near the project site. Also, the potential for rezoning and the potential sale of city streets in relation to the Castro Commons project.

[02:33:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abi Koka.

[02:33:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I also will be recusing myself from the discussions on whether to add a program to resign the downtown precise plan due to the proximity of my residence to the downtown precise plan area, and whether to add properties northeast of the Castro Street El Camino Real intersection to the site inventory, with or without rezoning due to the proximity of my residence to the project site. The potential for rezoning and the potential sale of city streets in relation to the Castro Commons project.

[02:33:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. And council member Lieber.

[02:33:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I'm sorry, Mayor, I, uh, have lost the wording that I believe that city staff, um, sent me, but I think the thing that is most applicable is the potential sites, uh, East of, uh, Castro Street.

[02:34:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so okay, thank you. It's the same too, as the...

[02:34:08] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: There's actually... There's actually 3 items. Let me, can I send it to you quickly so that you could read it? Because you actually, by law, have to disclose? So let me just send that to you right now. I'm sorry.

[02:34:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Okay, so, um, I am recusing myself from discussions about whether to add a program to rezone the downtown precise plan, to the proximity of my residence, to the downtown precise plan area, whether to add properties northeast of uh, Castro Street, El Camino Real, intersection to the site inventory, with or without rezoning, due to the proximity of my residence, to the project site. The potential for rezoning in the potential sale of city streets in relation to the Castro Commons project. And third, um, Program one. For the uh, religious and community assembly sites, uh, for housing and discussion on neighborhood shopping areas other than uh, general plan, village centers, as backpocket sites in program one. due to the proximity of my residence to uh, sites being considered for inclusion and rezoning.

[02:35:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Oh, uh, Vice Mayor Hicks, council member Abe Toga and council member Lieber, um, will be asked to uh, step out of the meeting uh, while we discuss these items. And we'll start with the discussion related to Castro Commons and rezoning the downtown precise plan. Does any member of the council have comments or questions on these items? Comes the membership alter.

[02:36:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. This may seem kind of basic, but, um, you've talked about that adding rezoning means that we have to recirculate the EIR. But you use, but does that also mean that adding any sites? means we have to recirculate the EIR. Is there a distinction?

[02:36:39] Senior Planner Ellen Yao: Council member, I'll ask Eric to respond to that.

[02:36:43] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you. Eric Anderson, Advanced Planning Manager. Um, so adding sites to the inventory at existing densities wouldn't uh, necessitate recirculating the EIR.

[02:36:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[02:37:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Mattachek.

[02:37:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, you know, I feel like we've talked about um, the Castro Commons project before, and the concerns staff had about adding that. I was wondering if you could reiterate those for us.

[02:37:22] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'd be happy to. Um, there are a couple of concerns. One is that, uh, if there is a market rate project that's proposed there, and we frankly don't know the dimensions of that project, the potential density of that project, um, The amount of affordable housing that would actually be included to the categories of arena that we really need to be concerned about, you know, the lower and moderate income categories. Uh, could be fairly small. And, uh, certainly, if the project ends up proceeding, it could be less than whatever we assume in the housing element, if we use our kind of typical calculations for, um, for how we might count, um, opportunity sites as opposed to pipeline sites. Um, and so that would put us in a kind of net loss situation fairly quickly. Um, and it would all, could also create a, a scenario where, uh, uh, the, the inclusion of the sites, if council, um, you know, here's the, the analysis on the streets, you know, sale of the streets or whatever that, um, that still needs to be discussed and deliberated about, and decides that the project shouldn't, the city shouldn't sell those streets, then it may make the project infeasible, and we may have to remove them from our inventory altogether. So, um, since we don't really need these, uh, these units, um, it's, it, um, uh, because our, our inventory certainly appears adequate, um, according to HCD, uh, we recommended that, uh, we not include these sites, given the level of uncertainty, uh, with the project, the projects, uh, characteristics, what actual sites, it would be using, what land it would be using, and other unknowns, uh, that could have a big effect on preach project feasibility.

[02:39:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, Nair, did you want comments as well at this point?

[02:39:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, let's see if there are any remaining questions and and then we'll go into a round of comments.

[02:40:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I guess my 2nd question then is, can someone specifically tell me what, what is the downtown precise plan? Um, rezoning? I assume that's not just phase 2 of the downtown precise plan.

[02:40:21] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, it would, it would certainly obligate the city to uh, residential density increases as part of phase two. Um, and so, uh, we would, in all likelihood, do that action during phase two, because you wouldn't you wouldn't want to do two separate, uh, downtown precise plant processes, given sequel and everything. Um, so, uh, one of the realities of this circumstance that we're in is that we, we don't have a lot of, uh, outreach or analysis to, uh, signal to staff or to counsel, uh, what potential density increases might be appropriate as part of phase 2, And so that's one of the challenges right now, however, um, if counsel wants to include this as a program, we can, uh, you know, given the draft language in the in the, um, staff report, and if we don't include any of these downtown sites in the site's inventory at higher densities, uh, we would be able to, um, have a more kind of open-ended possibility, uh, but it could potentially have a, um, you know, time and cost, uh, effects on the EIR for the housing home.

[02:41:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[02:41:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are there any remaining questions? I have a question uh that's related to the AFFH analysis, and we talked about it a little bit in the briefing. Um, I have a concern that, uh, 95% of our affordable housing will be located in areas where 55% or more of the res- residents are non-white. Which, um, is, uh, in conflict with the AFFH goals, uh, that are established by the state. And I know we have some optimism about where HCD has been, um, based on the discussions you've had with staff. Um, but sometimes HPD, uh, despite positive and productive conversations, will nevertheless surprise the jurisdiction with a pretty robust comment letter at the end of the review period. So in the event that HCD identifies this as a concern, you know, we want you to include more affordable housing in, um, in areas where you have, you know, majority, um, you know, white neighborhoods, for instance, um, does staff have a backup plant? What would we do?

[02:43:15] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I think one option here would be to uh, come back to council with another uh, study session. Um, again, uh, this is not something that we've heard from HCD in any of our conversations. So we're not expecting it. Um, but if there was feedback of that level, uh, and it does force us to, um, uh, kind of make big changes, uh, you know, propose additional, uh, inventory, uh, sites, propose specific densities in particular neighborhoods, such as downtown, uh, which we would have to do in order to identify sites in our inventory. Um, it would, uh, it could have real, uh, negative effects on the project schedule, and we would almost certainly have to return, uh, to council to get in place.

[02:44:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then a follow-up question to that. Um, If, Is it helpful for the council right now to provide some preliminary direction in the events that ACD comes back with some strong comments to this effect, right? So if we were to say, if a CD says, not meeting your AFFH obligation. Um, you know, then you have direction from the council tonight. to pursue some course of action. Is that helpful to you or is it your preference to wait to see what HCD says? You know, get that comment letter and then schedule a study session.

[02:44:58] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that could be helpful. It, it, I would be, I would caution the council that, um, a lot more than just council direction would need to go into that analysis. It would also include some pretty robust analysis of site redevelopment feasibility. Uh, and that would have, you know, that would set kind of minimum densities for particular sites, and, and we would certainly want counsel to be aware of that before signing off on it.

[02:45:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Those are all my questions. Are there any remaining questions or if not, we can, um, begin with the roundest comments. I'm not seeing any hands up, um, I'll, I'll, provide a quick start. Um, I, I am concerned about uh, that AFFH metric. It really stands out. Um, and, uh, I don't know if we need to be extraordinarily prescriptive tonight, um, to provide direction, in the event, HCD does flag that as a problem, but, um, I appreciate it that's, analysis in the, uh, responses to the council questions, submitted in advance of that thing, which show that if we do put in some tactical sites that we could have, you know, material impacts on. that specific metric. Um, and, you know, downtown is an important component of that. Um, if there isn't support right now, to, definite, definitively include a site. Um, you know, I do think that it might be helpful to empower the staff to say if we do get that direction, rather than delay things further, wait for another study session. Um, you know, you, you can begin to start that analysis of figuring out, how do we get, um, you know, more affordable housing in certain areas that help us achieve our, uh, affirmatively furthering fair housing goals. So I I do think that's a prudent action. Council member to me.

[02:47:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. Um, uh, I'll I'll respond to this um, topic mayor, which is, I think I found. The numbers problematic, but in a different way. Which is, I find the AFFH, Guideline in terms of metric of, you know, racial analysis, antiquated, and I don't think it takes into account, state demographics, I don't think it takes into account, regional demographics over 50% of Mountain View is non-white. So I really felt like, um, you know, though the the civility round table discussed kind of the the history of mountain view. And, you know, the different things that have occurred in our city, including red lining, which occurred all throughout the country. I do find that it isn't a metric with which I find that helpful when discussing housing. I think that to me, I'm looking. kind of cost of living, cost of housing, and how that's equally distributed through the city in terms of people being able to buy and rent lease at different price points throughout our community. So that is the, um, issue that I took with the numbers with the, the AFFH metric. And while I can understand the concern that you share, mine is more, what the city can do and kind of the, the different programs that we've added or discussing or working on to kind of address the mixed level of the creation of housing that we can have. So that that's kind of my my comments on that.

[02:49:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other comments or, uh, any direction that we want to provide? pertaining to these topics? Council member Meta check.

[02:49:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, I was going to talk about um, some of the other ones we talked about, uh, not necessarily the ones you 2 were just talking about. Um, and is that okay? Did you want to switch? Okay.

[02:49:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, so I uh, would have concerns about, including the Castro Commons project, um, for all the reasons that staff stated, there is so much uncertainty around that, that I don't know, um, what we would assume, for the housing element, and, um, I wouldn't want to give the impression that, We are. We've already decided to, um, sell streets and change the zoning for that property because we really haven't talked about that. Um, and so I, I don't think it should be included. Um, If the property owner wants to pursue that, I think they can um, go through the gatekeeper process. Uh, like any other property owner wanting to rezone their property. And, uh, we can start it out that way. Um, I also feel like there's not enough information, um, about, um, other than the existing things we've talked about as being in part of phase 2 of the downtown precise plan. So I, I also am not wanting to include that. Um, you know, I actually think the EPC had a very robust conversation about, um, the housing element, and I appreciate and agree with their recommendation that we should go forward with what we have. Um, I'm not interested in extending the timeline at all. I would rather go forward with what we have. Um, and if we want to pursue a different additional programs, um, or additional projects, we can do that and have the discussion as part of our goal setting. Um, and, you know, talk about additional things that way as opposed to like in the next update to the housing element. I would just do it as part of the goal setting, um, that we'll have early next year. Thank you.

[02:51:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other comments or recommendations? Council member Shovel.

[02:52:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well. Castor Commons is really a, um. a very difficult issue. Because we haven't had a goalkeeper, gatekeeper process, and what, two, 3 years? I mean, um, so I think that if we say something, you know, something has to wait for the goalkeeper process, that could be, you know, 4 or 5 more years. I mean, it's, so, on the other hand, I don't like the idea either of saying, I mean, we can't say at this point that we accept this project because we, we, um, we haven't discussed what it's like. We could, of course, accept redevelopment. We could put this site in with the idea that it's redevelopment under existing zoning. Um, but that's not what they've talked to the community about. So anyway, I find this one very, very difficult. And, um, because of the way the gatekeeper, um, process really hasn't operated. I don't think it's, I don't think it's been successful. And, um, I don't think this is the discussion to to deal with that, but it's, you know, it's relevant for Castro Commons, and it makes me, um, uh, that makes me very uncomfortable. So, I'm interested in what other people think about that.

[02:53:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any additional comments? How's the member can I?

[02:53:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think, um, this is discussing the 3 items, which is, you know, if we wanted to include the downtown precise plan, casture commas and then I think it's the church uses, is that correct? So we're discussing what we're on.

[02:54:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, uh, the, we, we, we can do with, um, by snare hicks and council member Abbe Koga. So right now we're just... But just these two, just Castro Comas in the downtime precise fan.

[02:54:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. I just want to clarify because I heard Council member Lieber at the end also include the church uses. Okay. So for these two, I wasn't part of the discussion in June when the, um, the study session on the housing island 1st came forward. I was on family leave, but I will say, um, I am interested in what gives the city the most amount of flexibility, and I think in the discussions that I've had with staff, um, and just, the line of questioning tonight. I feel like there are past paths forward for both of these areas. Um, and so we just saw the, we're discussing, you know, the downtown precise plan already, council is, um, and I think we have yet to see what the final, final of that, the Castro Commons property is. I feel like there's different iterations that, that um, come forward. So, I think that there are 2 processes that we're already following, one is the gatekeeper with Castro Commons. The other is a downtown precise plan, and I do tend to agree with what, um, EPC discussed, which is not including these. I think both of them will see redevelopment. And I want to make sure that we capture the most amount of flexibility and what the city can receive and ask for and the parameters that we can set in a, um, from what I have, you know, discussed with staff, it could be, um, a little bit more difficult, should, if we were to, um, envelop them into the housing element. Thanks.

[02:55:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Uh, so I, I'm, uh, I'm not counting a majority for, um, making any modifications to these, uh, components of the housing element. Um, so uh, you know, we can, we can move on. I, I will say I, I, this will be a broader scene that will, um, affect my thinking for other topics too, but I, I, I remain concerned about that. AFFH metric and um, I think, you know, to, to your point, council member committee, it might be helpful for us to better understand how HCD interprets that. Um, because, you know, there is a lot more nuance than, you know, what you get with white non-white. Um, and that may be how each city thinks about it or may not be. And I think it would be helpful for the council, um, maybe to, to understand, um, how that metric will be evaluated, um, uh, by HTD. A council member to me?

[02:56:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well, and I, and I think my understanding is that staff has been having discussions. They've already had 3 meetings with HCD staff, and perhaps that could be the direction given, um, mayor is to continue that conversation and to fully understand how that would. of, you know, affect the housing element and and that would be maybe the suggestion that I make. Um, hearing the concerns that you and I both share, I think. There's many. So perhaps staff can work to, continue that conversation. Thank you.

[02:57:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm going to write that down. I think that's that's probably high level enough for the full council to participate in that discussion. But I think it's a good recommendation. Okay, um, so, uh, summarizing council direction. There is not. Uh, we are making no changes to uh, uh, the Castro Commons properties or to the downtown precise plan. Um, and so now we will uh, invite Visnair Hicks and council member of Etoga back to the panel. We can discuss, um, program one. 4 and neighborhood shopping areas and program one. 11 11. I think both of our colleagues have returned. Welcome back. So now, um, we're moving on to one. 4, which is the religious and community assembly sites for housing and one. 11, um, which is related to neighborhood shopping areas other than the general plan village centers as back pocket site. Um, are there any questions from the council? Visner Hicks.

[02:58:39] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, staff can tell me whether I'm asking the right question at the right time. The segmentation and so forth is kind of complicated for me to keep track of. But, um, I have a question out. Apparently, a Moffat site, shopping center site, shopping center site on Moffat, that is listed. And I'm just, for these sites, I'm, I'm concerned that in various areas, in Moffat being one of them, that we, uh, keep the, the amount of, um, retail and restaurants that the street now has. I think that in order to, um, optimize the use of the transit center and allow people to get out of their cars. You know, there's a lot of residential sites around there. I want to make sure that we don't, we're not turning, um, that particular site, losing all the retail in restaurants and turning it all into, to housing, or turning off it up and down into housing. I would like it to become a little more like Castro Street, you know, a walkable street. So, my question is, um, is there, is, with that site listed in the housing element, is that the direction we're going in, or should we remove it, because, uh, we will hopefully be, uh, doing a moffet precise plan? Would that be a more, um, you know, a way that would allow residents to weigh in more and make sure that we turn that street into the, you know, a street that allows people, I'm repeating myself now, but allows people to get out of their cars and, and, or reduce a number of cars and, and, uh, walk for daily needs. Which would be the better way to handle that, do you think?

[03:00:32] Eric Anderson: Yeah, so I'm happy to answer this question, but, uh, the site that you're asking about is actually a general plan village center, and so it's not part of the topic that, um, council member Lieber is recused for, which is, uh, sites that are not already general plan village centers.

[03:00:53] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I can ask this. I can ask this later when she comes back. Okay. Thank you.

[03:01:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member show, Walter.

[03:01:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, could you review what those sites are? Please?

[03:01:12] Eric Anderson: Sure, the major ones are, um, Leon Drive up there by, uh, 101 and 85. Um, uh, there's a small shopping center uh, on Calderon, uh, at church. Uh, there is the Montaloma Shopping Center, uh, on Middlefield and Rankstorf. Um, and Bailey Park, um, on, uh, Shoreline and Montecito. The Grant Road, one is a village center, and... and the Miramonte, um, Cuesta is a, is a village center.

[03:01:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Exactly. Thank you.

[03:02:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions about either of these items? There are no questions. Are there any comments or recommendations? Council membership Walter.

[03:02:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Why wouldn't we want them included?

[03:02:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, council member, is that a question for staff or for?

[03:02:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, that's a question for staff. I mean, it seems like it's kind of obvious that they should be included. Um, or so, there could be aspects of each one in particular that, that make it questionable, but, but generally, I mean, what's, what's the story behind these that, that makes us, um, makes us need to consider it right now.

[03:03:01] Eric Anderson: Sure. Um, so the story behind, uh, specifically the shopping centers, that's what you're asking about.

[03:03:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

[03:03:11] Eric Anderson: So the story behind these shopping centers is when we did the outreach for the general plan back way back in 10 years ago, 20 before 2012. Um, we asked the communities a lot of questions about where they felt village centers were, where they felt that opportunities for growth in their neighborhoods were, where they felt opportunities for change were. And, uh, these particular, uh, neighborhood shopping centers were not identified as as opportunities for growth and change. And so, they were kept as commercial uses only, um, in the general plan. And so, um, why wouldn't you want to include that? Uh, certainly, um, we have not, uh, discussed this with the community. I think the purpose of the back pocket sites is that we would kind of start, you know, on council initiation or on no net loss initiation. We would start working with community, uh, neighborhoods to kind of identify which of these back pockets would be, um, easiest and, uh, most, uh, uh, uh, best to move forward on, um, you know, based on outreach, based on other needs in the community. Um, issues like AFFH and things like that, and we could present all of that to council when we have to start going down the nova loss process. Um, it probably doesn't hurt to have them on the list because there's still a lot of opportunity to weed through them, uh, at a later date. Um, however, uh, if there are sites that you just know, well, there's no way that this could ever support housing for one reason or another, um, it, you know, council input on that would be, um, uh, appreciated.

[03:05:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you.

[03:05:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, I'll be Hoga.

[03:05:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so thank you for listing the sites I was trying to find them in the staff report and had trouble, but, um, I actually had some comments on some of these sites. Um, I actually think that the Caldron shopping center, which I believe is church in Caldron, um, that I live far enough away, so I can talk about it. Um, the parcel is actually not a large. I don't think it's a very large site and it currently has, um, you know, like a, like I call it the corner store, a laundromat, um, neighborhood serving, um, services, and, um, you know, I think we really need to be mindful as we do this to, um, you know, not disincentivize, um, those types of uses, um, especially since we're, you know, big part of this, right, is to, um, be create a more walkable community. And as we, um, you know, now I know that we're trying to, we're being very cognizant about saying we would add housing to these sites and not eliminate retail, but I think the site itself has to be large enough to be able to sustain both. And I don't see this site. I actually go there, there quite often, um, as being large enough without, you know, demolishing what's there now, um, and rebuilding. And, and, you know, my concern with that, that redevelopment is that we usually end up losing the retail or the retail becomes smaller. So I would like to eliminate the Caldron site. Um, I don't, Leong, I'm not sure, I know that one's been kind of dormant for a while, so there might be potential there. Um, but I can't recollect how large the site is. So I think it's small. I see, um, so I imagine like saying it as well. So yeah, I think, you know, anything that doesn't seem like it would be large enough to sustain both the retail and the housing should be eliminated. So if Leong is that way, I know council member might check lives in that neighborhood, so she has a better idea of how large it is, I would defer to her. But yeah, I, I, I just really want to shy, you know, be to be cognizant and and try to, um, make sure that we're not disincentivizing what retail we have left in our neighborhoods. Same with Mona Lama. It's a larger site and I'm thinking, well, maybe that can that parking lot. Put some housing, but there's already other buildings in the parking lot, so it might be, I think it would be a squeeze. Um, And you know, they have services there, like the grocery store that I think the neighborhood really frequents. So I would actually shy host, yeah, not want to touch that. And then Bailey Park, um, I mean, perhaps you could do something on the front side of that parking lot facing shoreline, but I just, yeah, what I think it might be would be minimal. So that one I, you know, I could be open to, but I certainly, I think the other 3 we should just eliminate at this point. Thank you.

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

[03:08:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Yeah, I guess I, um, need to know what specifically, um, is included in the Lyong shopping center. Um, I can think of, you know, an area that has a few restaurants, bar, little shopping center. I'm sorry, grocery store, um, it's not a huge site. It's kind of um, long and narrow. Um if I'm thinking of the right area. Um, and so, yeah, I think uh, council member Abbe Koga raised a good point. For the smaller sites, I would be concerned about the, um, replacement, I guess I would say, of neighborhood serving retail with housing, um, and not having the retail come back if it was mixed use. Um, And so I don't know if there's a way to say if it's, uh, a larger site, but I'm not sure what I'd say that is. Um, it's okay to have it in the back pocket. But if it's a smaller site, maybe we don't add it right now. I don't know if staff has an idea of, like, is it, you know, 3 acres, 4 acres and above or something like that. We could probably use some help with that.

[03:09:55] Eric Anderson: Uh, I don't think that we can respond right now with, you know, what a size threshold might be, but just to clarify to your question, The Lyong area does include the gas station, the vacant site, 3 hotels, as well as the several, um, uh, small, um, retail uses that you're talking about.

[03:10:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Across the street. So it's on 2 sides of the street?

[03:10:24] Eric Anderson: Yeah, as well as the block, uh, 2 hotels between Evondale and Fairchild on that block. Um, East of Lyon.

[03:10:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, I guess I would have concerns about losing the hotels. Um, in that area, and I think, uh, one or 2 of them, um, have been approved to be redeveloped into hotels, haven't they?

[03:10:56] Eric Anderson: not aware of any existing hotels that are have been approved to be redeveloped. The vacant site, uh, has gone through a number of iterations on a proposed hotel there. I don't know the current status of that application.

[03:11:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, yeah, that's right. Sorry. I'm not remembering that correctly. Um, yeah, so maybe if we could have something where we figure out, um, a size criteria for this. Um, and I guess I wouldn't include one where a street divides it. Thanks.

[03:11:35] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member committee.

[03:11:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I had a quick question. So the sites that we're discussing, though, they're for back pocket. say inventory, correct?

[03:11:46] Ellen Yau: Right.

[03:11:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, um, they, they would be similar to, to other sites in the back pocket, which is, uh, you know, there's an opportunity there, but that doesn't mean that any of the existing uses would need to, to change. correct stuff.

[03:12:11] Aarti Shrivastava: Well, actually, um, if you're talking about the neighborhood shopping centers and maybe Eric could chime in, um, just for background. What council's discussing right now is the known net loss program that we've put into place that allows the city, if we find that some sites are developed from my sites inventory, that are developing with fewer units at various income levels, these are the sites that are gonna make up the difference. We can go and rezone these sites and make up the difference. Um, so yes, the expectation is that the primary use on these sites will be residential. Um, so these shopping centers, for example, will be redeveloped to have residential on them.

[03:12:55] Eric Anderson: I'll also add that, you know, we've crafted a framework. Uh, that we'll be bringing to the council on January 24th, which uh, effectively preserves the retail on shopping center, you know, general plan mixed use village center sites. Um, and so we've set up some standards for that and made all of the SP 330, you know, kind of conservation of of residential density, uh, determinations and everything. And we'll find we'll bring that forward to you on January 24th. I think that if council's really interested in preserving retail on these sites, I think that's a framework that we can extend pretty easily to these other sites. And we would be able to under the no now loss program.

[03:13:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you, thank you for that clarification. I think that that distinction is important. Um, and I, and my understanding, though, and just to clarify, from the comments from the assistant city manager, um, and community development director, though, is that this would be, these are all still back pocket sites, should we not be able to reach them through all of the other inventory, which we have already put forward? Is that correct?

[03:14:13] Aarti Shrivastava: Right. Right. So for example, if we'd assumed a certain number of affordable units on a site in the sites inventory, but it gets developed at market rate.

[03:14:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, thank you. Yes. I appreciate you continuing on, but that's not the question I'm asking. I just, that's, this is the question that I'm asking because I want to. I don't want to go too far into the weeks yet. I just want to, so that I want to be able to answer the mayor's question, which is, you know, I think that I'm comfortable with the back pocket sites, but I do think there needs to be framework, which preserves retail, and I am interested in, uh, the, the bifurcation of the streets doesn't concern me as much as making sure that it's like compatible with the neighborhood and that it doesn't take away existing, you know, uses, because in particular where Leon is, that's where my dry cleaner is. I can't find a dry cleaner anymore in Mountain View. So I'd like to you know, preserve the small businesses. And I wonder too, if there's a way with the, you know, small business strategy, that can only vitality strategy that we're already doing as we're putting together the site inventory that we take into account, those other programs that are happening in the city. Thank you.

[03:15:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Mr. Hicks.

[03:15:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I was gonna say, I was prepared to just say what council member I said, so I'll just, um, yeah, that, so I'll just quickly underline it. I do. I am agreeing with what and then add that I am agreeing with what some other council members have said. I think that, uh, sites us under a certain size. It's going to be hard to, they are often essential retail in the area and it's going to be hard to put housing and preserve the retail. I would have a, uh, a seismetric of some point. But other than that, I agree kind of where we're trending that, uh, preserving the retail is really important for helping people, you know, not feel that they have to get in their cars or buy 2 cars per household or whatever. Um, so I do think it's, it's really important to, um, some, I appreciate that they're back pocket sites, but to have some ways to preserve the retail as well to make sure that we do that. Thank you.

[03:16:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think we're moving into comment now, but that's okay. Council member show Walter.

[03:16:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, mine's definitely a comment too. I was going to say, I agree with council member Kame, and I, I, um, I really think that, uh, if the site is too small, the, I mean, I think we should, we should include that we want these sites to remain, um, having commercial and retail availability. But, um, developers are very smart, and if they want to redevelop, and and figure out how to put housing on them, and the commercial. I'm all for it. Go for it. So I think that just leaving them in the, in the back pocket as we have them is, is seems like a good way to go. Thank you.

[03:17:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'll take a quick turn. Uh, so I have no problem leaving these sites in the back pocket as well, which would mean that the direction the staff is take no additional action on these sites. They're already in the back pocket. If we have to, um, rezone them for residential. I think there's clearly a strong desire to retain a commercial or retail component. So if we have to make those decisions. I'm confident that the council will, will take that action, um, when it's appropriate. There was one other program, though, and it's one that I have much stronger feelings about it, and that has to do with the religious, um, sites or the sites with the, with the assembly uses. And I really appreciate the staff analysis and the um, responses to council. Um, the typical density for affordable housing is much, much higher than what is proposed in the program. Uh what is proposed in the program. I don't think is defensible. I'm not sure if we've ever had affordable housing within recent history at at densities that low. Um, and I, I would recommend that we, uh, consider a density for affordable housing on these sites that is in line with what we typically see. Um, and I would be even comfortable with going at the lower end, right? So we, the lowest is 49.5 units per acre. The highest is 136.7 units per acre. The average is 77.3. I would be okay with 60 as a starting point. Um, because at least that's a defensible number. We've had several affordable housing projects around that density. Um, I think it's a, it's a density that, um, will be economical for affordable housing developers. Um, but I'm open to other suggestions and ideas too, but my strong recommendation would be to increase the density to, to 60, uh, or a number close to that, which is much more in line with, um, affordable housing that's been built in the last 10 years. Um, any comments about that program? Vic Smart.

[03:19:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, um I would be comfortable going to 60. It's a short comment. Thank you.

[03:19:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member manager.

[03:19:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'm actually okay leaving it as is, because when you factor in the state density bonus law, It does become a much more dense project. Um, and um, and so it is going to get to the number you're suggesting. And and I think we always, um, take a, a hard look at affordable housing projects and we, um, I think are open to, um, making changes to accommodate, uh, affordable housing. So I'm okay with this is the starting point. Um, especially when you factor in the state density bonus law. Thanks.

[03:20:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council number show, Walter.

[03:20:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I really agree in a sense with what, um, Council member Matterscheck said, and yet, I think that starting with a number like 60, since we know, um, that's our track record over the last year, 10 years, is is really just more, um, more straightforward. Um, and so I I, I think that it is an appropriate number, and we should just include that. And you're right. I mean, everything is state density bonus now. But the last, the last one we saw, it only used one. 2% of the state density bonus, which is kind of a record. Thank you.

[03:21:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Any other comments? Um, also, I, I'll, we'll take a straw pull, um, but just as a, as a quick thought. I'm, and this is a, this is a broader issue, but I really don't want to get into the habit of planning, you know, and and forcing developers to use the state density bonus. Um, I would rather have in place land use regulations that, you know, provide an outcome that we've support and as community supported, um, rather than have a set of development standards that really don't matter because we're basically forcing a developer to use the state density bonus, to maximize the density, and then to maximize waivers and concessions, to get around all of the development standards that we have. Um, it strikes me as, um, as, uh, a challenging way to plan because we can't anticipate what waivers and concessions might be used. Um, but, uh, if there are no other comments or questions, um, so, if the direction for, uh, council member of Mattachek?

[03:22:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, well, could an uh, solution B, it's uh, 60 units per acre, including the state density bonus law.

[03:22:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Can we just clarify? That might be a reduction in the base density. Uh, right? I don't know what the maximum density for affordable housing is 80%. Is that right, staff?

[03:22:26] Eric Anderson: I think if we use um, um, 80% as our metric, we can, we can figure it out. I don't want to speak for future changes to density bonus law. So if counsel wants to direct us to say, They wanted to get up to 60% with density bonus and for us to come back with the base. Um, that might even be, um, I would say that's somewhere between 30 and 40 anyway. Um, which is what we were suggesting.

[03:23:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member to may?

[03:23:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, thanks. So, um, I'll speak to this. I don't know if you're going to do a strong motion for it or not. Um, so for, for this item, I actually agree with staff, my understanding is that the, those who would fall under religious and community assembly sites did not respond to the city, and there hasn't been a lot of input. And my, um, I would like us at the city and and as this draft moves forward to try to solicit more, uh, feedback from the communities that these policies would affect. I'd like for them to have a little bit more, um, be part of the conversation. So I feel hesitant to, talk numbers tonight without having their input to be completely honest because not all have, have, um, participated. I think the other is that, you know, this recommendation is also part of, um, current arceries densities. I know that we'll be talking about our 3 sometime in the future. And so this, these sites may be, have some changes in their future. So I do think that there's different opportunities for us to, um, you know, maybe perhaps be more aggressive with what's on the properties. But I do think it needs a little bit more, honestly, conversation from the parties involved. So I'm comfortable with the stock recommendation because of those reasons. I just wanted to say that before we take the boat. Thanks.

[03:24:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining comments. Uh, so on this one, um, there are differences of opinion, so we'll take a staff. Oh, sorry, a straw poll, and the, the recommendation would be to increase, um, the, um, maximum density, or church sites, for 100% affordable housing, to 60 units per acre. If there's support for that recommendation will show of hands. One, two, 3 is not a majority, so, um, that, uh, does not fast. Um, and, uh, we'll proceed to, uh, the next, oh, actually that concludes the segments, so we can invite, Council member leave her back in, so I'll text her. You can come back now. Not seeing council member labor return yet. Welcome back, Count.

[03:26:18] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you.

[03:26:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So now, um, we will proceed to, uh, The balance of the, uh, housing element matters, thus far we have made no changes. Um, okay, so we'll start 1st with questions. Are there any questions from the council, about any other item, any to the housing element? Actually, staff, would you mind lowering the, uh, uh, the presentation? Thank you. Councilman reliever.

[03:26:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, I wanted to ask Steph. Um, pursuant to the uh, suggestions that we had. relative to um, childcare. Do we have anything in our housing policies that provide for what they were suggesting?

[03:27:19] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, Ellen, do you, are you aware of anything regarding childcare in the policies or programs?

[03:27:30] Ellen Yau: I don't believe we have anything specific regarding development standards about childcare as a facility within new developments.

[03:27:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: In, in the, um, idea of the on-site childcare is a traffic mitigation measure. Um, do we have anything regarding that?

[03:27:53] Ellen Yau: Uh, we we don't. I would say that that would be more appropriate in, say, a BMT policy, um, But certainly we have, um, uh, you know, We have a range of project characteristics that we plug into, you know, various tools to say whether they reduce VMT or not. I don't know for sure whether childcare on site is one of them, although mix of uses certainly could be. So, um, you know, that that's something that uh, we can look into as far as uh, our BMT uh, procedures and and what ultimately results in uh, vehicle trip productions.

[03:28:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Great. And I think it would be a very late introduction if it, if it fit into our discussion tonight at all, but I just did want to, um, catch it and note it, because one of the things that I hear from a lot of parents in the community is that, um, they're, they're getting into the car to, uh, so some, Some development of policy around that area, I think, would be um, very helpful. Thank you.

[03:29:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other questions? Hicks.

[03:29:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, I'll just I'm not actually, I have some programmatic related questions, but I actually don't want to add a lot of programs. At this point. I pretty much want to get this pass, but I will just add, but this is my opportunity to ask questions. So, um, uh, First, I've been hearing a lot about, uh, programs to reduce city barriers, to office to residential conversions, um, and, uh, you know, because of remote work, uh, we have a lot of office vacancies, and I've heard that there, there are like adaptive reuse ordinances and, um, changes in taxes like land value taxes. I was wondering, um, um, I was wondering if staff had thought about that at all and had any suggestions for uh, programming related to uh, office housing conversions.

[03:30:33] Ellen Yau: So I know this actually had a little bit of discussion during the North Bay Shore and East Wizman precise plan processes, and I believe there's some language in those precise plans. Uh, about, um, incentivizing buildings that can be flexibly repurposed. I would imagine that it might be harder to take a building that was built as an office building and try to repurpose it. It might be easier to actually build a building that can be flexibly purchased. But we do have some economic consultants in the room, and maybe I can ask Stephanie or Bev if they are aware of any office to residential conversion, programs, policies, or incentives that they've seen in other cities.

[03:31:27] Stephanie Hager: Hi, everybody, Stephanie, interview, urban comics. Um, sorry, can you hear me okay? Yeah, okay. Um, so I, this is all sort of a little bit of, you know, changing dynamic in terms of seeing these office vacancies. Um, I don't have any good examples off the hand that I can share with you about what some cities that are working on this, but it's definitely something that we can look into and report back on, um, sort of what, what foods are actually doing. I know that it's a hot topic. It's just all a little bit, uh, new and changing and evolving at the moment.

[03:32:02] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well that's good to hear. It is a hot topic. and I want to keep track of it. I don't know that I want to put it in the housing element right now. But I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask. Um, and then I'm going to ask the question about the Moffatt shopping center again. Do, you know, does staff, is this the right place to ask? And does staff think that that, um, You know, that the way it's handled right now, it would, uh, retain the retail or would it turn all housing and might we, what might we do about that?

[03:32:36] Eric Anderson: Uh, so, as I said earlier, the, um, you know, we will be bringing forward in January to the council are, uh, draft amendments, which the EPC already recommended, uh, to the to the zoning ordinance, which include wired retail in any, um, residential redevelopment of the 400 Moffat site specifically, which is the site that's in the site's inventory. Um, It does not extend to the rest of Moffat Boulevard. Um, now, the, uh, that standard doesn't, and that's because, uh, we, um, prioritized the sites that are, uh, that allow residential in the general plan, but don't allow residential in the zoning, and the rest of Moffitt Boulevard actually already allows residential. So. So, um, any retail requirement for the rest of Moffat Boulevard would have to come through some kind of Moffat Boulevard rezoning. I know that that, uh, kind of looking at, uh, options for that was on the council work plan for this, um, uh, cycle. Um, and unfortunately we haven't been able to get to it. Uh, but uh, it's certainly something that, uh, the council can continue to direct staff to do for the next cycle.

[03:34:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, that's my question. Thank you.

[03:34:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member.

[03:34:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry to be so hungry for questions and answers. I was gone for quite a while. Um, I'd like to get a sense from staff about, um, if the issue of the no net loss, uh, were to be included, what would be the process for that, would it, would it, uh, be included in, in this past at things, or, um, would it be included in an amendment, or? What would be the best way to deal with it and how developed does that policy need to be to, to get this kind of inclusion?

[03:35:07] Ellen Yau: Uh, so if I understand your question correctly, you're looking for more information about our no net loss program that we have in the uh, in the housing element, about how we're going to comply with the no net loss law.

[03:35:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Right.

[03:35:25] Ellen Yau: Okay, so we do have a no net loss program in the housing element, um, where we do a couple of things. One is we lay out some procedures for identifying, um, for for tracking, development, and identifying when we need to instigate a no net loss process. Um, and then the other thing that that program includes is a potential list of areas that staff or the council could consider or no net loss rezoning. Um, and, uh, you know, that we're not committed to any of those and council could direct staff to start with one or another, uh, or to identify still other areas that maybe aren't even on that list. Um, so it's also important to recognize that, you know, the, um, council will likely continue to direct staff to do rezoning actions, which could result in additional housing capacity. Um, over the course of the next few years, and it's entirely possible that uh, those changes could address any future no net loss issues as well.

[03:36:44] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and just a follow on question, would that, uh, address, uh, the replacement of any rent stabilized units that are lost?

[03:36:57] Ellen Yau: Um, so, under SB 330, which is, you know, the law of the land through, you know, seven eighths or maybe even slightly more of this housing element. Um, Under SP 330, we are mandated to uh, rent controlled units, uh, rent stabilized units in new development. And and that is just uh,

[03:37:30] Councilmember Sally Lieber: until 2030.

[03:37:32] Ellen Yau: That's until 2030 at this time, yeah.

[03:37:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And and I saw, um, Ms. Holman, can sure come on the, the call, did she have, uh, I wonder if she might have some comments relative to that.

[03:37:48] Michaela Holman Tincher: Thanks, council member labor, Michaela Holman Tincher, housing division manager. I just wanted to add, I think, um, you might be asking a bit about replacement requirements. Um, that are facing demolition and, um, as, uh, Ellen mentioned earlier in her presentation. Staff is exploring some avenues for that. That we hope to bring to council as part of our displacement response work. Um, sometime next year. And, um, if that involved any amendments to the housing element, we could explore that at that time, but it, very well may not, and we would, you know, take whatever council direction we need at that time.

[03:38:27] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, so it sounds like it could be, um, an amendment at some point in time, but it's it's not fully cooked yet. If I'm understanding it.

[03:38:38] Michaela Holman Tincher: That's right, and it may not need any engagement with the housing element at all to proceed. So we'll just, um, once we've we've done all of our due diligence, we'll bring some options to counsel.

[03:38:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And one more question, if I may, Mayor. Um, under the, the, um, list of sites, um, there was discussion of, uh, Charleston Plaza. In, in the redevelopment there, and, um, Uh, I mentioned that in June, the, the site was presented to city council for uh, discussion, but it was not directed for inclusion. Um, My recollection of things was that there was, uh, some discussion of part of the site potentially being used for housing. And so if we don't, uh, indicate some interest or pursue that in some way at this juncture, then what would happen there?

[03:39:55] Ellen Yau: The site's not currently in the housing element as a inventory site. If it was to be added, we would have to add a program to the housing element that we would um, rezone the site because it doesn't currently allow housing. Um, I will add that, um, there is a development application for the portion that was vacated, uh, for office uses, which isn't allowed use in the zoning district that it's in. Um, and, uh, so that may complicate how uh, HCD might perceive a, uh, um, proposal to include it in the site's inventory.

[03:40:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and if we're um, interested in housing possibilities there, but it's, it's not, um, uh, ready to be considered for, for the inventory here. Uh, is there some way that we can indicate that? Because, uh, my concern is that we're looking at other places around town that, um, have kind of, uh, lifeline type businesses. And, um, a significant segment of the community has gotten, um, very, uh, uh, activated around, uh, the possibilities of what would happen. And, um, it, it seems like that's, that's also a shopping center that, um, you know, I think at one time the, the dogboarding there could have kind of been seen as, as a lifeline business. Um, But it does seem like a place, and I know that there was some discussion, uh, around, uh, housing being located there. So what would the process be of, if we wanted to indicate interest in that?

[03:42:01] Ellen Yau: Sure, yeah, this is, uh, this is one of the other areas that we tee up as an alternate program in the staff report. other rezoning areas. And so if council so directs in that discussion, uh, for uh, question two. Uh, you know, we can include a program in the housing element to rezone uh, Charleston Plaza.

[03:42:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and then my last question, I swear, no more dipping. Uh, in terms of the um, mobile home, um, tenants issue that that came up, where is the best place for them to take that issue to start to get get movement on that?

[03:42:51] Ellen Yau: Um, can I defer this to our housing division manager, uh, Ms. Helman Tinker?

[03:42:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Absolutely.

[03:42:58] Michaela Holman Tincher: Council member, Lieber, were you speaking about the, um, opportunity to purchase act issue that was brought up earlier?

[03:43:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, my my understanding of what was mentioned was that, um, that the city of Antioch has a cap. Um, on rent increases for individuals who find themselves in the situation where they're renting both the mobile home and the space. And that because we don't, uh, have that in mountain view, that they're, in essence, uh, getting double increases of what was anticipated. And so I just like to know, where should they take that kind of concern? What's the process there?

[03:43:48] Michaela Holman Tincher: We can bring that up with our team that enforces the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance and to consider and look into. Probably the easiest is to email MV rent at mountain view.gov, but they are also welcome to contact me, neighborhoods at mountain view.gov, and we'll get them to the right folks to talk to.

[03:44:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, fantastic. Thank you so much.

[03:44:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Assistant city manager.

[03:44:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, I just wanted to understand the question, Council member Lieber. Did you mean to say if the city were to proceed down a path of changing what's in our current mobile home rent ordinance, what would be required?

[03:44:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, uh. Yes, if if our current policy doesn't address that situation where households are facing, uh, uh, a double burden of an increase on space rent and an increase on on rent on the home, uh, what are their options for who should they go to?

[03:45:03] Aarti Shrivastava: Well, um, this would mean, you know, based on what I understand, it would mean revising the ordinance. to reflect, or at least to study the issue, and I would say this would probably be an additional work program item. Um, that the council may consider. In February. Uh, while staff is happy to help answer a lot of questions. We wouldn't begin revising the ordinance without specific direction from council on the exact scope.

[03:45:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, thank you.

[03:45:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions? I've got a couple of, hopefully quick questions. Uh, staff had mentioned a report that HCD was seeking additional analysis about meeting the house you need of special needs populations. Uh, can staff list for us, those special needs populations and what type of analysis you might produce?

[03:46:05] Ellen Yau: Oh, I'm gonna defer this question to Stephanie Hager. Thanks.

[03:46:10] Stephanie Hager: Yes, thank you. Um, Stephanie Hager, VA, Urban Economics. So the special needs populations that HCD, um, is looking for additional analysis on is the, its seniors, persons with disabilities, um, people experiencing homelessness, farm workers, uh, large families and single parent households. Um, And what they're really looking for there, we discussed this in HCD yesterday. is a little bit of discussion about things that, um, these households need from their from their housing that's sort of unique from what other households tend to need. So, um, some discussion around, you know, say seniors tend to have higher rates of um, households that have a member of disabilities compared to other households, so they tend to need accessibility features at a higher rate. Um, I'm sorry, I also missed extremely low income household. another group. Um, so extremely low income households need deeply affordable housing. Um, so a little bit of discussion around, you know, for each of those groups, what some of their particular needs are, and then, um, connecting that to, um, the way that the city is addressing those specific needs among those houses.

[03:47:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then, um, once we produce that analysis, HCD can come back and say, um, you've either satisfactorily addressed those needs or not and you have to add sites to the inventory or add programs, is that right?

[03:47:43] Stephanie Hager: Theoretically, yes.

[03:47:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, thank you. Chance membership.

[03:47:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I really like the slide on page 16. Thank you for putting that up. That's the one with the comments from HCD from the meeting yesterday. That's very helpful. Thanks for including that. One of the questions I have on this is, um, uh, describe processing procedures and more detail. I believe that that corresponds to, um, things that we would do to improve the approval process so that housing would be easier to approve and get built. Um, which here ties into our matrix study and the implementation of it. So, what do you think they mean by this? What do you think you need to do?

[03:48:35] Ellen Yau: So actually, they were very specific in the meeting, and we're being much more general on the slide. They specifically said that they wanted more information about the gatekeeper process. They said they wanted more information about our landscaping findings. So what do we have to say about landscaping about projects as we approve them? Which I think when they looked at our findings, it looked subjective, and we're only allowed to apply objective standards. So we need to connect that dot for them. Um, then, uh, they asked us for more information about our, um, uh, the specific findings that we need to modify for our reasonable accommodations, and the direction from, uh, HCD in a previous draft was that we do need to modify our reasonable accommodations findings, uh, based on, I think we have one finding for that that's, uh, around, um, you know, impacting surrounding uh, neighborhood or something like that. And we actually can't have that finding. So we have to tell HCD that that's what we're amending. We're taking out that finding. Uh, so that's very specifically what they said. Um, and it wasn't general at all about, um, you know, our, our overall processing procedures.

[03:50:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, that's that's good. That's good to hear.

[03:50:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any remaining questions? If there are no questions, then what we'll do is take a, uh, round of comments and suggestions for revisions, and that once it's collected all of those, then we'll take a series of, uh, straw votes the way we had in the previous study sessions. Um, any comments or suggestions for revisions?

[03:50:41] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So the, the revision that I'm, um, trying around within my head is the, the Moffat shopping center, whether we should keep it in, uh, the site inventory or remove it because, uh, even when we do the Moffat precise plan, we can handle it. Um, you know, in a, in a better way through that, you know, maybe producing better outcomes both in terms of housing and in terms of, um, retail in the area. So I'd kind of like to take the temperature of the council on that, what other people think. if anyone has thoughts.

[03:51:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, but, so, Vicemer Hicks, are you feeding the floor to bounce to the council?

[03:51:35] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, yeah.

[03:51:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. Council member.

[03:51:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Yeah, I agree with the Vice Mayor. I think, um, you know, we've had the Moffat precise plan in, frankly, was in our general plan update, and we just never got to it, but I hope that we can, and, um, I think that would be a better process to work on it separately. Thanks.

[03:52:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And and council member, obviously, feel free also to make your own general comments and any suggestions you'd like to make, just so we can, uh, I'm gonna take, um, or keep track of all of the revisions and then we'll do, um, we'll, we'll take them all together with the straw straw, so it's just to, um, try and keep things going expeditiously. Council number of trouble.

[03:52:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I do feel that if we could do it through, um, a Moffitt precise plan, that would be better. But we all know we might not be able to. So I think this is kind of protective. Let's leave it where it is. And if we are able to do it with a mafi precise plan, which we all intend to and hope will happen, then that's better. And if we're not, um, it's still better to have it in here and mentioned as, um, uh, a place where we want to, um, maintain retail and also maybe have some housing than not.

[03:53:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member command.

[03:53:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, I see staff's hands up, so I'll wait.

[03:53:29] Eric Anderson: Uh, thank you, council member. I, I just wanted to mention on the line of this conversation that, um, The, the, rezoning of 400 Moffatt Boulevard, which is the site in the inventory, is gonna come before council on January 24th. And it will come before council with a requirement as part of the rezoning for, um, ground floor retail. So I guess I'd just like to understand is the council member asking for not rezoning it or not including it in the inventory. And just to say, you know, if we don't rezone it, then a developer could come in and build 100% residential at any time.

[03:54:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I was talking about not including in the inventory, but do you think, but I also, you know, I asked the question earlier and maybe I wasn't clear on your answer. Um, about whether that, do you think that that rezoning, uh, is protective enough of, um, you know, that maybe it's protective enough so we leave it in? Is that what you're is that where you're going with this? Leave it in the site inventory or what, you know, what would be the better protection? I would think it would be better to do it in the context of an overall Moffat precise plan. Um, but there is the question of if and when we get to that.

[03:55:09] Eric Anderson: Yeah, so the best protection for requiring retail is rezoning it in January. Um, Whether it's in the site inventory or not actually has no bearing on whether the retail will be required in any future redevelopment.

[03:55:27] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so maybe it's a move point. Thank you.

[03:55:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other comments or suggestions for revisions? Council member Abi Koga.

[03:55:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, sir. Could you clarify, Mr. Anderson? So, rezoning is coming to us in January for the 400 site, Brian Moffett, um, is then the, I guess which, the max density, being requested, being included in the inventory or, I guess like, um, yeah, could you clarify, like, what would be included?

[03:56:15] Aarti Shrivastava: If I may just, Eric, if you can just explain what is coming to counsel in January specifically, there are all the rezonings that are required. Um, for the sites in the housing element for one reason or another. And maybe we can explain the specifics under Maho.

[03:56:37] Eric Anderson: Sure. And it's not just the sites that are required for the site's inventory. It's also, um, you know, these general planned village centers, some of which are in the inventory, but not all of them, where there has been this inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning, as well as concerned from the community about preserving the retail. So we wanted to make sure that we were putting in place the retail preservation standards and the public open space standards and everything else that the community's looking for in these channel plan village centers. So, um, they, uh, what is coming to council in January is uh, several rezoning actions. Some of them are related to proactively rezoning affordable housing sites so that they can have a streamlined review process. Uh, one is related to, um, uh, up zoning, uh, or removing an overlay requirement in the El Camino Real precise plan so that uh, sites uh, near major intersections and where retail is required on the El Camino Real precise plan can actually reach their maximum densities in the El Camino precise plan. This is another general plan and zoning and consistency. And of course, the general plan village centers where we're taking the existing 100% commercial zoning. And, uh, applying, uh, taking the general plan direction, which allows residential on these sites, and creating a building type that will, uh, have both residential and retail, and that's how you build residential in these general plant buildings.

[03:58:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[03:58:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm not seeing any hands up, which means this might be a pretty quick meeting. Um, I'll, uh, I'll cancel my believer. Go ahead.

[03:58:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Sorry, mirror. Um, so I, I just wanna, um, just wanna confirm my understanding on the Charleston Plaza. So the, if, if we are interested in housing there, the, the better thing to do is to wait until longer in the process and not try to include that at this juncture.

[03:59:19] Eric Anderson: So I won't say have a value judgment about what's better or worse. Um, you know, in the staff recommendation, we do, or in the staff report, we do have a recommendation to, um, not incur any additional environmental review. Get our housing element adopted, and then we can come back and make any changes afterward, or we can simply proceed with the rezoning. We don't have to include a rezoning in the housing element to do it. Now, there could be reasons why council members might want to include rezonings in the housing element. For example, it's a commitment to the state. It gives us more, um, uh, certainty with HCD, uh, and, uh, among other reasons. So, um, I won't say which is better, but, uh, there are certainly, uh, reasons to, uh, to do so and not to do so.

[04:00:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Well, mayor, I'd be very interested to hear from other council members, it, it, seems very much like we've, um, kind of, uh, put a lot of activation into, um, other sites around town that are, you know, um, very close to housing and that that have, uh, either the, the supermarket or, um, you know, various things that that people rely on in their everyday lives, the hardware store, the veterinarian. Um, and it seems, it seems counterintuitive that, uh, we wouldn't include, um, Charleston Plaza when it is a very large site. Um, and isn't disruptive of a village center or someone's walkability or someone's access to, a now rare business under our, um, impacted, uh, economic and and availability of, of, uh, real estate, uh, situation. that we're in. Um, There's a very large parking lot there that was used for multiple uses. There is, um, uh, a legacy roofing company that is, is right next door that's very old and, um, maybe at some point will, will no longer be there. And, and I know when I had a chance to talk with the, the applicant way back when, um, they were saying, well, the all, all of this very large space at the front of the site, um, could be used for, uh, a dog park for the, the R&D employees or it could be a place for R&D employees to eat lunch or walk or anything like that. But, but if there is, um, a possibility, even if it's not, um, included in this past, at the housing element, I, I think it just makes sense to be looking at this site. I'd love to know if there's anybody else who's like-minded. on this. Thank you.

[04:03:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, it is it is on the list. So we will, we will consider all of these, um, uh, at the very end, comes from Robbie, okay.

[04:03:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I guess I'm inclined not to included, um, mainly for the reason that, it looks like we have a current application and, you know, these, the sites really have to be realistic that, right, we're looking at the 8 year span. So, um, I think it'd just be a hard, um, hard to convince HCD that this is a, you know, site that could be redeveloped in the next 8 years, um, if there's already an application to rehab the buildings into an R R&D facility. So, um, yeah, for that, I just don't think it's the right timing to do that. And I'm just specifically, you know, for this evening, we're talking about the housing element, and I'll just say, you know, general comments. I'm fine with what staff has provided. My interest is to get the housing element, um, accepted as quickly as possible so that we don't have any repercussions for not getting one approved on time. And, um, so whatever the, whatever the option is and and having getting a little confused, but the option that would get us most likely to get a housing element approved on time is the option that I would like to go for is that I think that's going with what we have. And then, you know, we can just let's button it up and if we want to add other programs, we can do that through our work plan process in February, but my real interest is to just get a housing element done. And, um, so I don't want to add anything that would, I mean, we'd have to do an EIR or that would take longer. Um, uh, you know, I think from what I've been seeing and, um, at the like the Bothfa level and MTC. I do see that, um, working with HCC staff in an iterative process and back and forth is the best way to get, um, the housing element approved. Um, so, um, I would, you know, just want to support staff and continuing that. It sounds like, you know, staff is already doing that. And um, the more conversation that staff can have with HCD. We have a better sense of what they want and we can respond to that. And, um, so, you know, that that seems like the process that we should follow. So, whatever. Yeah. So let's just get it done. It's the option that I would like to go with. Thank you.

[04:05:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye.

[04:05:58] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. The only thing I'll add is that it is a very large site, and because we have an applicant, I have a feeling that we may be back visiting it again, at some point with that applicant, that would be the process for doing it.

[04:06:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member committee.

[04:06:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So, uh, mayor, maybe you can clarify. So I know we had the list of different questions. Just wondering where we are now.

[04:06:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I'm taking all of the questions at the same time because I feel like if nobody brings up any of them, then it's not really worth voting on.

[04:06:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, no problem.

[04:06:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: somebody brings.

[04:06:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, um, I think that the, if we're just taking one, 2 way, 2 be all together, then I'm just gonna put some things out there. And I know that you're taking a list. I think that's the best way forward. So, um, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendations. I did have some interest. I, you know, I don't know, if people were interested, stock provided language on page 20 of the staff report about looking into, um, Committing to or eliminating or reducing parking requirements broadly, if possible. I had interest. I know that there's state legislation that's moving that way anyways. And we already don't require it. And I think someone from the public comments spoke about that for 100% affordable housing. That might not get a majority of votes, but I do have some interest. Um, and then, um, I know that we had some conversations about the, um, AFFH kind of obligations, and so would just say to have staff continue to kind of clarify and talk about how that metric is being used. Um, and then, um, only 2 other things, these are not additions, but, you know, as I was reviewing things, it, I'm heartened that we're looking at our middle income housing strategies and our displacement strategies. I think that that's an area and those are programs that will be kind of really complimentary as we go forward. So those are my comments. Thanks.

[04:08:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Counselor member Mattachek.

[04:08:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, as I said earlier, I'm mostly interested in um, making sure we have a compliant housing element as best as we can. And so I'm not interested in, uh, making any other changes to the current draft that we have. Um, and I think that's consistent with what council member Abbe Coba said. So that's the direction I also want to go. Thank you.

[04:09:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Did you say? Did you call? Oh, I, I, you're coming in and out a little bit. Um, yeah, I would like to say that I am really, um, interested in, uh, getting the HCD draft done without having to recirculate the EIR. That is a tremendous amount of time and effort and, um, I think that's sort of like the cusp. We cannot go over. You know, we can add things until then we get there, but, but we don't want to, we don't want to push that. But, um, generally, I would say that I'm happy with the things that are in here, but I'm not so happy with some of the things I feel aren't in here as well as I would like to see them. And that is really the, you know, getting rid of the barriers to getting housing built. When we talk to developers, and we talk to people in the community, you try and remodel their homes and that sort of thing. We hear again and again about how long it takes. And, you know, time is money. It costs more and it's a deterrent, whether it's money or not. I mean, just, it's, so that's something I, you know, I know that most of that we are doing, um, as part of the implementation of the matrix report, and it's not really in the housing element. But that's something that I'm very, very concerned with moving forward on. Because it affects our community a great deal. And, um, so even if we don't have, we don't put it in this housing element, um, explicitly, sounds like there's going to be descriptions in it, but it's maybe not as explicit as some of us would like, then, uh, I just want to say that that's the thing I worry the most about. Because we do really have some barriers to, um, to getting housing done and, um, and none of them are easy. You know, they're all really, really complex things to deal with, that are embedded in our policies and staff, um, you know, staffing levels and all sorts of things. So, um, I, I just, but that's, that's my general feeling is, I'm happy with, with what's in here. I'm a little disappointed with what isn't in here with respect to, um, removing the barriers to housing development. Thank you.

[04:11:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm gonna take a quick turn. Um, I think, I think, you know, I I, I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should strive for compliance. I think it's important to recognize that many cities are struggling, uh, to achieve compliance, and I think a good metric that we might want to be sensitive to is the southern association of governments, um, which is about a year ahead of us in the process. And looking at the ACD website and staff, please fax check me if I'm wrong. But a year later, 45% of skag jurisdictions are out of compliance. One year later. Um, and so I think we should anticipate a likelihood that, you know, productive conversations with HCD staff, notwithstanding. I'm guessing many of those skag jurisdictions are doing the same thing and talking to HCD staff. We might need a 3rd revision or a 4th revision. A year later. I, I, I would be surprised if no one has picked up on our, our special trip. Um, so I, I don't share the optimism that staff has. You might be right. But I, I think the fact that 45% of Southern, you know, Southern association of governments remain remaining out of compliance a year later is, uh, is a, uh, an ill omen for us. Um, the other thing I'll share is I, I feel pretty strongly, this is something I talked about in the last study session. In my mind, this is an opportunity for us to do a deep dive and understand and try to address the housing needs of our community. And I don't feel like we're, we're doing that. I think what we're trying to do is strive for compliance and um, and not incorporate everything that we're hearing from our community. Um, I don't want HCD staff to write our housing element. I want our community to write our housing element. And I'm concerned that that's not the approach that we're taking. Um, there are a couple of things I did want to suggest. Um, I'll just add them to the list and then we'll do all the straw polls if there's something else. Um, I feel, it's very difficult to, credibly include 950 West El Camino in the site inventory, the Luna Vista apartment. Those have been occupied for a year. We have the grand opening in May. Um, and it, it is, it's really hard for me to credibly say, this is, a site that is going to pertain to the next 8 years of housing planning. Um, so I do think we should remove that site from the site's inventory. Um, I feel very similarly about um, the other projects that are complete. Um, that are constructed and, you know, either fully or partially occupied. they're very difficult to include. And those other sites, um, are predominantly market rate housing. And knowing that, uh, based on the staff presentation, we have a greater than 100% buffer for affordable, sorry for market rate housing. Those could be removed pretty safely because our buffer will still remain very substantial. Um, and it will just clean up the site inventory because the site's inventory in my mind is about planning for growth and not counting 5th cycle units that are constructed and partially occupied. Um, I also struggle with 1500 North Shoreline. Um, and that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're looking at 2000 units there. I don't know if in the history of our city. We had a 2000 unit project. Um, or at least not one that, um, didn't also have a development agreement. And I think, uh, I don't feel like we should remove it from the site's inventory. I think it's a good opportunity site, but I think we need to put in place some more credible parameters. And so I think applying a discount, like what we've done with the shopping centers makes sense. I don't think that we're going to get 2000 units there within the next 8 years. I don't think that's a credible claim. Um. And uh, I also think, you know, we need to be prepared to add sites in the event that we don't meet the affirmatively furthering fair housing objectives. Um, and I think a good starting point, uh, is city owned property, city owned land. I think those are good sites to include because uh, they are in uh, resource rich areas. I'm thinking about the surface parking lots in downtown that we can explore. But there might be others, um, that we have total control over. Um, so that might be something, and actually, I might need to, when we vote on that, we might need to segment that, uh, depending on the city attorney's recommendation. But it's something I think we ought to consider. Um. And I think that was everything in my list. Oh, there was one other, actually, um, and that has to do with, uh, I've gotten a lot of feedback from stakeholder groups saying that the house element draft is just not an accessible document. It's very technical. Um, the, the narrative is, it's really hard to understand. And um, I don't think we could fix that with this provision, but I think in a future revision. I think it's worth investing some time to make the document more accessible to our community, and especially um, stakeholder groups, um, that have been wanting to participate. Um, we, we've had a, a number of people who, so I, I really appreciate that making the document available in Spanish and Chinese. That's phenomenal Um, but what I've heard from Spanish speaking groups predominantly is, thank you for doing that. But it's a very arcane document to go through. Very, very challenging. Um, and some of that we can't fix, but some of it we might be able to help make a little bit more accessible. So I think that's direction that we should , we should consider including too. Um, and my apologies if I'm blowing down a little bit. Uh, uh I might need to take a quick trip to urgent care after this. Um, are, is there anything else that we, um, that we need to? Uh, add to the list of things will take straw motions for. If there is no other item, then I'm going to quickly go through. the items in the list, um, and if there's majority support based on hands raised, then that will be incorporated into the direction. And if there's not, then that direction will not be provided by Snor Hicks.

[04:18:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I just would like to know whether I should recuse myself from that of city owned property since you were referring to downtown property. Or whether that was big enough, any city owned property that I don't have to recuse myself.

[04:18:51] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, could I get clarification? I heard you, Mayor Ramirez, on the one item you identified, and you asked if maybe it needed to be segmented? Um,

[04:19:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I have, I'm prepared to recommend that we, uh, in the event that each CD says, we are not achieving our affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements, and we need to add additional sites, and resource rich areas, that we prioritize city owned properties.

[04:19:34] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Mm, and I guess question is, would that need to be segmented out? Um, sorry, I'm pausing, that's a, it's, it seems like a very high level question that would probably be okay. Um, Eric, do you have a thought on, given our discussions today?

[04:19:58] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well, since the mayor specifically mentioned parking lots downtown, I believe he specifically mentioned parking lots downtown, there is a parking lot that is within a thousand feet of, um, both Counts Vice Mayor Hicks and council member Abby Koga.

[04:20:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay. So if we could segment then just that one recommendation. I think that would be the safest. Although I see the city manager's hand.

[04:20:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, let's go to the city manager.

[04:20:36] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, mayor and council members. So, um, we have a number of city-owned parking lots. Some of them have future intended uses, which may include other development projects that we are in development agreements with right now. Uh, one that's under uh, an agreement for affordable housing, as you all know. Another one that's going to be used as a potential staging for our public safety building, and there is one lot. that is the closest to the council member's residences. I can't remember the number of that lot. Um, six. Is that six?

[04:21:17] Unknown Speaker: Seven.

[04:21:18] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay. Um, so I think that would probably be the only one that is within a 1000 feet, but if council is going to give direction about city own lots. I think it should be very broad, because we do have, as I said, intended uses for some of those lots, and we would not consider them as being available, although there could be others that might be available. So I would just ask for direction that is uh, broad and not to prescriptive, since we do have um, some things that are spoken for already.

[04:21:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, is it sufficient to say the owned property?

[04:22:04] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I would be okay with that if that is general enough. Um, I would look to our, um, assistant city manager, community development director or, or advanced planning manager to confirm, if that language is okay.

[04:22:20] Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think that would be fine. And the word considered is helpful because we have some property that may not be appropriate for housing, and as you've suggested, city manager, there might be other that are not available. Uh, I will also add that, uh, there are additional requirements for inclusion of city on properties in the site's inventory, uh, and, uh, those include, you know, obviously, uh, some kind of commitment or timeline to, uh, um, uh, to converting that site to residential. Um, so, um, yeah, I just wanted to mention. Thank you.

[04:23:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, any remaining questions or comments? Okay, um, then, uh, council member, I'll be Toga.

[04:23:21] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So there, are you adding that item to the list to vote on?

[04:23:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:23:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, I mean, I'll just make a comment. I, I, I won't be able to support that as mentioned. I think we have a lot of, um, considerations as we, you know, we've talked about the growth of our city and the needed infrastructure to sustain that growth. And, um, you know, we've talked about things like libraries and, and we still need the parking as we, um, even staging for the transit center. So, um, you know, all of that or planning to do in the next 10 years or so. Um, we have to do the um, public safety building. So, I think it's, um, there are other uses that I think we need to discuss. You know, we have to add more facilities, more infrastructure. It's, you know, the easiest for us to do with city-owned land. And so I just don't want. I want us to have the flexibility and to have that conversation 1st before we start adding um, sitting on sites onto the inventory at this point. Thanks.

[04:24:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member labor.

[04:24:38] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I wonder if we might just take a straw poll and a very broad brush way of looking at that and then all the complications can come back at a later time.

[04:25:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um. Sorry, can you say that one more time?

[04:25:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, uh, I'd like to uh, take a straw, pull on the very broad way of looking at, at city owned uh, properties and, uh, bringing back uh, information about them and, and uh, if it fits to list them, uh, amongst our, our back pocket sites on a conceptual basis. And I think that gives us the freedom to, um, you know, bring back whatever the complications are later.

[04:25:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I, I'm okay with that. I was going to consider just going through one by one, each of the items. Um, and that would be one of the items under consideration, um, and that way we can provide, uh, the direction that staff needs. The manager you have your hand up.

[04:26:03] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, Mayor. Um, may I suggest taking a 5 or 10 minute, uh, bio break or break, um, and then we can come back to the straw pole.

[04:26:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, I'm going to reveal that I probably will not come back if we do that. Um, I'm feeling unwell, unwell. I'd like to go through the votes because.

[04:26:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Okay.

[04:26:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: split. Um. Are there any remaining questions or comments? Okay. Bye. Go ahead.

[04:26:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I'm just, I'm struggling a little with, uh, the things that we're voting on because they seem to be, and maybe this is clarified enough, but the way you raised it, it was just city-owned blocks, and I don't know, I guess council member leave, that Lieber brought that forward a little more. It could be something like a program to evaluate the possibility of city own lots, but it's so vague to me that, at this point, that I don't, I'm unclear on what process we're voting for. It was a little more clear when council member labor clarified it, but, um, yeah, uh, some of these come out as very vague processes.

[04:27:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The, the specific recommendation was, in the event, that HCD provides in its comment letter, direction for the city, to take additional actions, to comply with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirement, if we are required to do that by HCD. Then, we would prioritize or consider, prioritize in city owned land, in those high resource areas, um, And that would give staff the direction to include those in the site inventory if they're needed for AFFH purposes.

[04:28:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[04:28:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, try and run through this the best if I can. Um, so the 1st I heard was, um, and this I think was an informational request from council member to May, but basically a better understanding of the AFFH metrics pertaining to the white, non-white, um, uh, populations. Uh, so staff, I don't know if you need direction on that. Well we'll go ahead and take a vote. I think that, how that, how staff interprets that, I think is open to consideration. It could be, come back with information about. That, you know what? I'm going to let council member convey explain it because I think she can do a better job than I can right now.

[04:29:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, mine, mine was just, um, that that staff would continue to talk to HCD about it given the concerns that you had raised, Mayor. Um, I think we both kind of brought forward the nuanced issue of using that metric, those metrics and those data. Um, and so just, that was my recommendation, was for staff to continue, to kind of clarify and to continue having that conversation. Kind of given the concerns you're bringing up about wanting to make sure we have additional site inventory. I just wanted to um, That was the other side of the, the issue to me.

[04:29:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that may not require explicit information.

[04:29:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I don't think it does. It was just a comment, but thank you.

[04:29:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No problem. Thank you. Um, and then there was a recommendation to consider or to add as a program, the elimination of parking requirements for 100% affordable housing. Is there support for that recommendation? raise your hand. And to. Yeah, that does not have a majority, or 4, 1234, keep your hands up just to, so I can demonstrate that there is majority, 1234. So yes, thank you. Um, so, uh, there is majority support to add a program to eliminate parking requirements for 100% affordable housing. Um, there was a suggestion to add Charleston Plaza, so the site inventory, is that correct? Council member leader? Okay, so we'll go ahead and vote for that, had Charleston Plaza to the site's inventory. There are 2 votes. Um so unfortunately not a majority. Um, and then, um, I had a couple, um, 1st was to remove 950 West El Camino Real from the site's inventory, as it is, as it has been constructed in this occupied, um, and has been occupied for a year, is to support for removing 950 West El Camino from the sites inventory. 123. There is not support for that. It was, so I, I'd also suggested applying um, a reasonable discount to the 1500 North Shoreline property, um, in anticipation of, the unlikelihood that it'll actually be built out with 2000 units in the next 8 years. The support for applying a discount, keeping it in the size inventory, but applying a discount, 1234. Okay, thank you, and will that staff determine what appropriate discount that may be? Um. And then, a recommendation, in the event that HCD finds our AFFH, um, proposals in the site's inventory insufficient, then, we would consider prioritizing city owned land to help meet those ASFH obligations. Their support for that. One, two, three, four. Yes, there is support for that. I don't have anything else on my list. Is there anything that I missed? Not seen any hands raised? So, just to recap the, um, comfortable with the housing element? And we've added direction to, include a program to eliminate perking requirements for 100% affordable housing, to apply some reasonable discount to the 1500 north shoreline property. That will determine what that may be. And then to consider city owned land. in the event that we have not, met our affordable, sorry, affirmatively furthering fair housing, based on the next HCD comment letter. One, two, three. Those were the only 3 things that I believe we've added any remaining comments or questions. Okay, um staff, is there anything else that you need from the council?

[04:33:41] Ellen Yao: No, thank you, mayor. Eric, did you have any clarifications?

[04:33:47] Eric Anderson: Uh, no, no, actually I don't.

[04:33:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you very much for your work on this. I'm gonna move to continue the meeting past 10 PM.

[04:33:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: For a 2nd.

[04:33:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Accounts number can may. Thank you, um, and then we'll have to do a roll call vote.

[04:34:02] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Mary?

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

[04:34:05] Unknown Speaker: Council member, May.

[04:34:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:34:07] Unknown Speaker: Council member of a Coca? Council member Libor.

[04:34:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes.

[04:34:11] Unknown Speaker: Council member Mattachek?

[04:34:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:34:13] Unknown Speaker: Council member show Walter? Vice Mayor Hicks.

[04:34:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:34:17] Unknown Speaker: Motion case unanimously.

[04:34:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That passes. We're gonna proceed to item 8 council staff committee reports. I'm gonna sign off. Um, I wish you all the best. Happy holidays. Thank you all for your work. Take care. Vice Mayor Hicks, I think you actually take over.

[04:34:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I think I do, yes. Okay, um, and I assume that we're, um, now moving into item seven, but I see two hands up, so I'm wondering.

[04:35:07] Unknown Speaker: We're on now. We're on item 8.

[04:35:11] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Item 8 for it's, uh, it's council staff committee reports. Okay, so there, I was gonna say, item seven, of which, which is public hearings, and there are none, so we moved to item eight, which is council staff committee reports. Are there any council staff committing reports? Uh, 1st uh, council member, Abbe Koga?

[04:35:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to report out that last week. I was invited by the center on budget and policy priorities. It's like a think tank in Washington, DC to speak on a panel at their annual conference. The panel was, the topic was advancing best practices for community engagement and transparency in spending ARPA funds. Um, and they specifically asked me to share about our um, guarantee basic income program, uh, pilot programs. So I had an opportunity to do that. I was on a panel with a gentleman from St. Louis. They also have a guaranteed GBI program, pilot program that they're running, um, as well as uh, um, a state representative from Massachusetts. So, um, it was a conversation about how, um, cities are, when states are spending are but dollars, they're still dollars to be spent. Um, you know, how can we engage the community to make sure that the funding is being spent on what the community needs are? Um, and every time I go to these conferences, whether it was the NLC or this, I always come back feeling very fortunate for where we live. Um, a lot of the conversation was, again, about blue state, blue cities and red states and the challenges that, um, these cities have in doing, um, you know, spending the dollars, um, in ways to to support, um, especially disadvantaged, um, neighborhoods and communities. So, yeah, I would say that they were, um, there's a lot of envy for Mountain View and what, you know, I shared about, uh, in terms of what we have been able to do through the through COVID with, um, all the, all the COVID relief funds. So, um, I, you know, I had to ask like how they came across Mountain View and, um, the organizer was specifically looking for a GPI program in California. And apparently they came across our program. So that was how they they discovered us. Um, and it was heartening to hear. There was a man from New Hampshire who mentioned that he had even read about our program. So we're going national, which is really exciting. So, um, this has, I think, uh, we have a lot to be proud, proud of. Thank you.

[04:38:09] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And council member Mattachek?

[04:38:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Just want to report that we had a meeting of the, um, interim pedestrian mall on Castro, the ad hoc committee. Um, I think we had a great discussion about a number of things. Um, and there was a lot of good public input. Um, and that's going to be coming to council, which, um, I think it's exciting to see, um, the plans that are being put in place. Thanks.

[04:38:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And council member Lieber?

[04:38:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, vice mayor. Well, I have got an item of general interest, I think, to everyone. And it is to report that I sent a letter into the city council today resigning from council. Sorry. Um, effective, uh, December 30th, uh, which is the date that I anticipate accepting my oath of office as a member of the State Board of Equalization. And while the election of state constitutional officers has not yet been certified. Um, I do believe that, uh, by receiving close to 70% of the votes, uh, across the 19 counties that compromise, uh, comprised district, too, that I will win the election. So, I wanted to say that it's been an honor to work with each of you, and to work with her excellent staff. And I learned so much from them. And to have the opportunity to serve people in Mountain View. Now, when I ran for Board of Equalization, I said that I would, uh, that it was my intention to continue on council if I could, and I feel like now we've made a good faith effort to examine that, and while there is no, uh, direct, uh, incompatibility between the offices, there is a conflict based on a piece of telecom equipment that exists in Mountain View, that the Board of E assesses an ad valorum tax on. So it is not possible for me to continue on council, and I have to pick and choose between two offices, and that's really an embarrassment of riches. Um, but I will still be in Mountain View and will still be available, uh, to, uh, everyone, including our community groups, and I really encourage all those who have supported me so much to get involved in the process now, and to help determine what our next council, uh, looks like. So thank you so much.

[04:41:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Council member Labor. I think we'll all, at least I know, I'll miss working with you as well, and I hope you, um, Well, I was gonna say, Zoom in to public comment, but I guess you'll have to... You may have to come in in person. We'll see how that works out. And so, are there any other, um, council staff committee reports? Um, city manager McCarthy.

[04:41:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, vice mayor, and, um, council member labor. I would just like to thank you for your service to the residents of Mountain View and for all of your support of city staff over these last few years. Um, it's been a tremendous support for staff, um, always having the encouraging words and, um, really understanding, I think, where, uh, some of the the push and poll is with the desire to do a lot of great work and then have not necessarily always having the resources. And so I just wanted to thank you for, for your service, to the community and your supportive staff, and, um, wish you all the best in your journey on the board of equalization, and thank you very much for your service.

[04:42:36] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I 2nd that and you'll continue to serve us anyway. Um, I'm sure you're you're, um, you're fully elected. So now, uh, we moved to item 9 closed session report, city attorney lobe, do you have a closed session report?

[04:42:55] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Vice Mayor Hicks. This is Jennifer Logue, city attorney. No, there are no close session reports this evening.

[04:43:03] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: We now move to item number 10 adjournment. Thank you all so much for joining us. The next city council meeting will be held, believe it or not, in person with a virtual component on January 10th of 2023. Until then stay healthy. And the meeting is adjourned at 1013.

• ← Previous
• Next →