April 3, 2023 Adjourned Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community.

Video

Transcript

[00:00:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. City Attorney Logue will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the item listed for closed session. Thank you.

[00:00:50] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening. This is City Attorney Jennifer Logue. There is one item on this evening's closed session agenda. Item 2.one is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is one Amphitheater Parkway, Lot C. The agency negotiators are Angela La Monica, real property program administrator, and public works director, Don Cameron. The negotiating party is Google LLC. Under negotiation, our price and terms of lease. Thank you.

[00:01:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We'll take in person calls first, and each speaker will have two minutes. Seeing no speakers, the council will now, we're on item two, the closed session item, the council will now recess to the Plaza conference room, and return to the council chambers at 6.30 for the regular session.

[00:02:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Good evening, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Welcome to the adjourned joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and the Shoreline Regional Park community. For those joining us in person. Please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio and video presentations, can no longer be shared from the lectern, request to show an audio or video presentation during a council meeting, should be directed to city.clerk at mountainview.gov by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Additionally, due to our hybrid environment, we will no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the council in person, must complete a blue speaker card. Please indicate the name you'd like to be called by when it's your turn to speak, and the number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one blue speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak. And in turn, and turn it into the city clerk as soon as possible, but no later than the call for public comment on the item you're speaking on. Instructions for addressing the council virtually may be found on the posted agenda. I'd also like to announce that, as you may have noticed, I'm chairing this meeting in a mask, because I have recovered from COVID and tested negative, but city regulations say that we continue to wear a mask for a number of days after having tested negative. So this is another exciting experiment in our hybrid and post pandemic meeting situation, where you get to see how well it works for me to project with a mask on. So, should be another exciting evening. With that, we will stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[00:04:27] Unknown Speaker: 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.

[00:04:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: We are now on item 3 of the agenda. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:04:52] City Clerk: Thank you, Mayor. All council members are present this evening.

[00:04:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now, before moving on to the consent calendar, I want to share that we're getting close to launching a new city of Mountain View website that's mobile friendly and easier to navigate with an improved search engine. the public can now take a test drive of the new site located at beta.mountainview.gov. Beta testing officially launched last week, and it will be running for several weeks, so I hope you'll all try it out. As shown, I guess, on the screen. We have a queue, there it is. We have a QR code that you can scan with your phone's camera to access the city's beta website. So this has been a long time coming, and we value your feedback on the city's beta website. Be sure to take the online survey by clicking on the red banner that's located at the top of the city's webpages. We'll also have online testing at several city facilities and host focus groups. Details are on the website. While you're using it, keep in mind this is a beta website, that means it's a work in progress, and staff continues to work with the vendor, and updating the site's content, and fully integrating some of the upgraded features, like search and translation tools. So, thank you to all the staff from every city department who's been working on modernizing the city website over the last 14 months.

[00:06:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Next, we will move to our consent calendar, item 4. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. So would any member of the council like to pull an item? Um, Council member Mattachek?

[00:07:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. I don't necessarily want to pull an item, I just want to register a no vote on item 4.3.

[00:07:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, and council members show Walter.

[00:07:24] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I don't want to pull an item either, but I just wanted to commend the staff for moving forward on the recycled water plan. I think this is, even though we feel a little bit overwhelmed with all the water that we have had this year. We know that that's not what we can expect in the next 20 years with climate change. So moving forward on this recycled water program is really important. So I just wanted to thank the staff for bringing that forward.

[00:08:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. We'll now take any virtual speakers on, uh, actually, we will first take any in person speakers on, uh, the consent calendar. Um, Are there any, I see no in-person speakers on this item? So, we'll now take virtual speakers. I also see no virtual speakers on this particular item, so I'll 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 attached to item 4.2 and the resolution attached to item 4.3 I see motion by the vice mayor.

[00:08:52] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I'd like to move the consent calendar. And for item 4.2. We adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View approving a zoning map amendment from the MM General Industrial Zoning District to a P, Planned Community Zoning District, for the properties located at 1020 Terabella Avenue, 1040 Terabella Avenue, and 1055, San Leandro Avenue, to be read in title only, reading further reading waived, and adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, approving a development agreement by and between the city of Mountain View, and public storage for the Terrabella public storage. for public storage, located at 1040 Terrabella Avenue, and 1055 San Leandro Avenue, to be read, entitled only, further reading waived. Then for item 4.3. We want to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, appointing Davilin Sauder, and reappointing Eva Tang and Jeanette Wang to the Public Safety Advisory Board, and appointing Robert Cox, E.D. Keating, Kieran Madison, Kevin Ma, and Alex Brown to the Rental Housing Committee, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[00:10:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now we can vote. So that's 7 yeses, um, 0 nos, with the exception that council member Mattachek made earlier.

[00:10:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: We are now moving to item number five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on our agenda tonight. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, or the next study session item, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. So I see that there are a number, let me see, a number of, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight in person speakers, at two minutes apiece. So, first, Alex Eulenberg.

[00:11:29] Alex Eulenberg: Last time, last council meeting, I brought to your attention that there was medical discrimination going on at on city premises in particular at the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts. We're allowing theater companies to bar people from entry unless they've been fully vaccinated. And there are theater camps and productions where the members of the theater are excluded. Children's Theater, Peninsula Youth Theater, they're excluding children from participating in the productions, persisting at the camps on city premises. And that's discrimination on the basis of medical condition, and I think it should stop. And by the way, does anyone know anyone who has taken the latest booster and has gotten COVID anyway? Raise your hand. If you know someone who has gotten the latest booster and has gotten COVID anyway. No one? Okay. Fully vaccinated and got the latest. And... No, okay. So, one of two things. Either our mayor is not vaccinated, and then that's not fair, that the mayor can be not vaccinated, and yet we prohibit people from participating in city life without vaccination. Or I don't know what. In any case, to correct this problem, I have a resolution that you can sign, to stop discrimination on the basis of, uh, having, had or not had COVID vaccine, because COVID vaccine does not prevent people from spreading, uh, or transmitting the disease, transmitting or, uh, be infected with the disease, as everyone knows by now. There's no reason, it doesn't make people safer, and a lot of people in the community have not taken it. So you're discriminating against a huge portion of the community, preventing them from participating for no reason at all. And that is violation of the En Rue Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act. I will, if you have questions about this, please, let me know. Um, we have a policy.

[00:13:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much, Alex. And I just want to clarify, uh, during public comment, you'll see that consistently, with each speaker, we don't engage in question and answers, um, in order to allow everybody a fair amount of time to speak, because it would prolong the public speaking period more than we could handle in one meeting. Um, so the next speaker is, uh, Terry Batari.

[00:14:16] Terry Batari: Hello? Okay. Thank you. Thank you for having me speak here. I'm fully in support with Alex and Ari as parents, wanting to take a stand against medical discrimination, which I think this is exactly what this is about. It's medical discrimination. It's also a lack of education as to what the vaccines really are. and how dangerous they are. And also, I just want to, I'll just quote something that he wrote, which I'm 100% behind. Unvaccinated people are being excluded and stigmatized, treated by organizations with vaccination requirements as if they have some kind of permanent impairment of their immune system, that makes them unsafe to be around. This kind of treatment is not recommended by any health organization. This is not following the science. This is letting hateful bias run unchecked. Unvaccinated people do not pose a direct health or safety threat, and singling them out for exclusion, or low class treatment is a civil rights violation. Thank you.

[00:15:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Latco.

[00:15:46] Latco: Hello, my name is Latco, and I'm a resident of East San Jose, Santa Clara County. I'm speaking about the policy of Mountain View's Peninsula Youth Theater to require all children to be boosted with at least experimental product for COVID 19, not approved by the FDA for children. According to the county vaccination dashboard, only 20 to 25% of eligible children receive the latest booster. On top of it, less than 65% of children younger than, 11 years of age, are eligible after receiving the primary series. The most unvaccinated demographics are Hispanics. Overall, the theater excludes over 80% of children. Most of them from working class minority families who can't afford medical care if their children are injured by the experimental medical product. Santa Clara County and California aren't even under a state of health emergency anymore. Normally, excluding so many children, especially minority children, would have caused an outrage. Does the Mountain View City Council care about this rampant discrimination? Thank you.

[00:17:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Uh, now, Lan Yin?

[00:17:14] Lan Yin: Hello? Hi. I'd like to bring to your attention an annual report that Pfizer. submitted early last year to its investors regarding the MRNA vaccines and its ability to make money off of COVID. Page six, quote, our future revenues on our COVID 19 vaccines are uncertain. We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety on our COVID-19 vaccine. Significant adverse events may occur during our clinical trials or even after receiving regulatory approval. Unquote. Pfizer is basically admitting in their own document that due to safety concerns and the inability to demonstrate efficacy on their vaccines, they're not likely to gain regulatory approval for their vaccines. So I'd like to ask you, Mountain View City Council, to questions. Were you aware of this 2022 annual Pfizer report? And if you weren't, Why not? This report is actually available to the public, and can be obtained from the securities and exchange commission website. I sent a copy of the excerpt electronically to you already. The other question I wanted to ask is after today, what do you plan to do with this information? Will you continue to promote an unknown, safe, unknown, unsafe product to the public by continuing to require up to up to date COVID vaccinations on all children participating in the peninsula, youth theaters, camp, and stage productions? Or will you take immediate action, seize its promotion, protect the children, and investigate into this Pfizer report. Do it in the name of public safety, and please, do it for the children. Thank you.

[00:19:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Betsy.

[00:19:20] Betsy: Hello. I am a longtime resident of the Bay Area, and I have been participating in many, many events with unvaccinated children and their families since the beginning of COVID. And all these families are in really good health, and they're appalled by the fact that healthy children are excluded from local programs like the Peninsula youth theater. Less than a quarter of the children in Santa Clara County have received the latest boosters, despite the fact that they're totally available. It means that families are not choosing to get the boosters. And their children are excluded from events like peninsula use theater. This medical discrimination needs to stop. Please, require organizations not to have vaccine mandates. If Peninsula Youth Theater doesn't want to stop their vaccine mandates with boosters, every booster. Please tell them that they are not allowed to use the facilities, because they are damaging the kids. And if you don't do this, if you hear any of these kids that get damaged by the vaccine, you'll know that you have a part in it. Thank you.

[00:20:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Ariadha. If I can't pronounce your last name. I apologize, Solyova.

[00:21:01] Ariadha Solyova: Yes, so live you over. Okay. So, I read some of the resolutions that the city council passed in the past, and some of them emphasize inclusion of all members of the community, which is very admirable. And some, in fact, add more groups to the groups protected by the ADA and then react. So in one statement, it was regardless of the source of income, which is a great idea, you know? It's not in the law, that you should protect everyone's rights regardless of the source of income. But it's a great statement. It shows that you want to include all the different groups, not just the ones literally listed. But of course, medical condition is listed in both the ADA and Unru Act, and businesses are not allowed to discriminate on that basis. And you are requiring staff and volunteers to be fully vaccinated, and you are providing tax funded facilities for groups like the pininsula use theater that require children as young as 5 to receive the latest unapproved booster. The FDA did not approve it. So the families have a perfectly good reason. In less than a quarter of families have received this latest booster of children, between ages of 5 and 17, and even less of younger children. And they're available everywhere. There's no availability problem. And most of the very large percentage is Latino and black families, because they have good reasons to doubt that experimental medical preparations, you know, there's no, there's immunity for these companies, you know, the Pfizer and Moderna. If you get injured, you can't sue them. This is appalling. So, uh, you, uh, the ADA was passed on the heels of the, uh, AIDS scare when the gay people were excluded. The gay people were required to be tested in.

[00:23:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have Patrick Kaleia.

[00:23:19] Patrick Kaleia: Hi, thanks for letting me speak. So probably everyone knows, like, the risk from the virus. It was always known to be exponentially skewed toward the elderly, where, uh, it was dramatically higher for them. For children, it is so low. It is statistically indistinguishable from zero. There have been a few cases in America, some children with leukemia, or other serious issues dying. Not one child could have been was found in Germany to have died from the virus. So what is the point of vaccinating them? You might say to prevent transmission. But now it should be clear to everyone, because, I mean, there was an epidemic after vaccination, that the vaccine does not, in the least, reduce transmission. In fact, it increases it. There's quite a bit of evidence that people who have gotten the vaccine have a higher viral load and spread it more. Then there's the actuarial statistics around the world, showing that, in every place, the vaccine was introduced, excess death rates increased, 20, 30, 40%. You can look this up. I could provide references if you wanted. So requiring it for children is worse than useless. I mean, it's a reckless endangerment of their life. And probably a violation of various laws, as Alex pointed out. So I'm just encouraging you to consider Alex's proposal. Thank you.

[00:24:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Peter Hymonds.

[00:24:56] Peter Hymonds: Good evening, Madam Mayor, city council. I'm here to challenge you, but not in an adversarial kind of way. I believe that you're all here for the betterment of the community, betterment of mankind, children, and grandchildren, and one of the things that bothers me the most about the pandemic is the fact that we have been given partial information. We have been denied information, and we have been given incorrect information. And you make important decisions in this room that affect many, many people. And I would just like to suggest that you consider to make yourselves available to things, places like the children's health defense organization on the internet, where there is alternative information available from very renowned doctors, and people who have great experience and awards, et cetera, who have been deep platformed and not allowed to be heard by the general public. And as we well know from the case of Elizabeth Holmes, and Theranos, money shouts. If you got people with a big name and lots of money, you can get a lot of things done, even if it's completely bogus. And research has shown, and time has passed, where we have found out things about the vaccinations, how they've been administered, who's been making money, what's been hidden from people, and so on, there are cases in court, before people of distinctions, such as yourselves, who have an opportunity to learn the truth, challenge yourselves, and make a difference in the world, based on truth, and love of our population, as opposed to following along in suicidal confirmation bias, which may very well be incorrect. Thank you so much for your time, and I trust that you will do the right thing because you're here for humanity. Thank you.

[00:26:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I see no additional in person commenters, and virtually... This is your chance to... Oh, I do see one virtual commentator, Jesse Cupp.

[00:27:23] Jesse Cupp: Hi, this is Jesse Cupp. Um, and making sure you can hear me all right.

[00:27:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: We can hear you.

[00:27:30] Jesse Cupp: Okay, thank you. Um, I just think, uh, a lot of this evidence that's been provided tonight is just evidence that a small group of anti vex residents can get together and show up at the city council meeting and try to spread misinformation. So, I know a counselor knows what the facts are. You are well informed by our local health officials. Um, and I find it very interesting that when a COVID 19 vaccine is required, they consider that medical discrimination, but not any of the other many, many shots required for K through 12 students, um, including polio vaccine, D-Tap, H, hepatitis B, MMR, Paracella. Uh, there's just decades one, precedent of many vaccines being required to go to school, um, and vaccines, required to to attend college such as meningitis. So, I just wasn't originally gonna comment on this, but I felt like I needed to provide a little bit of a counterbalance for what I just wrote. Thank you very much.

[00:28:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. I also see that the city manager wants to come.

[00:28:43] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. I would just like to let city council and the public know that this is not a city requirement, and our center for performing arts, um, the manager will be working with all of the renters that provide our summer camps and programs and make sure they're following the most up to date information. Also, we'll let everyone know that as of today, the county of Santa Clara did rescind a lot of their previously required COVID related requirements. So effective today and starting this week. Masks will no longer be required in California's higher risk and health care facilities. So this includes jails, homeless shelters, and any long term care homes. In addition, health care workers will no longer be required to get vaccinated for COVID. So again, this just came out today. So our city staff will be following up with our renters, just to make sure that we're following the most current rules. Thank you.

[00:29:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Like I said, we don't usually come in on public comment, but I guess this is a special case. Um, so, um, I see no additional virtual commenters, so, we will now move into, um, item number six. 6.1 is the floodplain management ordinance, and senior civil engineer Renee Gunn will present the item.

[00:30:22] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: Good evening, Counsel. My name is Renee Gunn. I'm a senior civil engineer. I'm here with Don Cameron, the public works director. The item in front of you tonight is an introduction of a code section concerning floodplain management. The city has been responsible for managing development in the FEMA designated special flood hazard area since our entry into the National Insurance Flood Program in 1980. The flood zone areas in the city are primarily on North Bay Shore, but also along permanent Day Creek and Stevens Creek. The city also participates in the community rating system, which is an additional program that requires cities to maintain higher standards than the National Insurance flood program. We maintain additional records, we provide community outreach, about flood prevention and flood response. Mountain View is currently a Class 7 city, providing a 15% discount on insurance to our residents. Our current city code has remained primarily unchanged since it was originally adopted in 1980. Tonight, the drainage and flood control article of the city code is proposed to be removed and replaced, such that the city code aligns with the building code that was adopted last fall. We continue to provide that 15% discount for flood insurance on property owners in the special flood hazard zone, by maintaining our Class 7 rating. And we continue our compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. And finally, the new code section includes requirements and procedures that helps further the flood resiliency of the city. One of the key aspects of the California building code that furthers this flood resiliency is the free board requirement. This requires that all buildings be built with a one foot freeboard, meaning that the 1st floor, the living area, is at least one foot above the butt, based flood elevation. elevation that we think the 100 year flood event will rise to. This provides an extra level of protection beyond our current code. The new code section also includes several administrative items, which are similar to the previous code. These include designating the public works director as the floodplain administrator, granting the authority to that person to manage the program, reviewing any developments in the special flood hazard area, issue permits, and administer the technical details of projects involving the implementation and enforcement of the National Insurance flood program and the city code. Tonight we are asking counsel to consider an ordinance repealing the existing drainage and flood control section of the code and replacing it with a new floodplain management section. That concludes staff presentations were available to answer any questions.

[00:33:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sorry, my mic was off. Thank you very much. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We'll take in person speakers first. Um, actually, it looks like the city manager wants to speak, or have you just not turned it off from last time? Okay, the city manager does not want to speak. Um, So, uh, would any member of the public like to comment? If so, um, are there, I see no in person speakers? Correct me if I'm wrong. And so since there are no in-person speakers, will take virtual speakers. I also see no virtual speakers. So do any members of the council have questions on this item? Vice mayor?

[00:34:47] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I um, I wanted to ask about what the premium for somebody who has flood insurance, uh, roughly is now. I used to work on this program with Renee when I worked for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and so 5 years ago, about countywide, the average flood insurance premium was about $1,000 a year. And I have no idea how much it's gone up or hasn't now, which meant that, you know, this would give everybody who had flood insurance $150 a year discount. So I just wanted to check in about that.

[00:35:28] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: So for the city of Mountain View, our average premium is about $700 a year. which gives the residents and the homeowners that are, um, buying that flood insurance about $120 a year discount.

[00:35:47] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you for doing all the work that you do to make sure that they get that. It's, uh, I know that this program provides a lot of, um, a lot of components that do make our community more flood resilience and generally reduce flood risk. And it helps us all. So that's good. Thank you. Yeah.

[00:36:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Does anybody else have any questions?

[00:36:14] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: If not, I'll move. The staff recommendation? Is there something I have to read?

[00:36:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, okay. So we have, we have a motion and a second. I assume there are no additional comments or questions. So...

[00:36:35] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think you do have to...

[00:36:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, yeah, here we go. All right. Move the staff recommendation to introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending the Mountain View City Code of Ordinances to Repeal, and its entirety, Article 8, drainage and flood control of chapter 8, and add a new Article 8, floodplain management of chapter 8, to further the flood resiliency of the city, and align the city code of ordinances with the California Building Code, and finding the ordinances is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read entitled only, further reading waved, and set a second reading for April 25, 2023.

[00:37:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so we can vote now. So passes unanimously.

[00:37:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Next, we move to item 7.1, which is fiscal year 2324 through fiscal year 2728 Capital Improvement Program. The purpose, this is a study session, and the purpose of the session is to provide the city council with an overview of the capital improvement program. and obtain city council input to guide staff in the preparation of the recommended fiscal year 2324 through 2728 Capital Improvement Program. This is the first of two planned study sessions prior to the scheduled adoption of the Capital Improvement Program in June. Assistant Public Works Director Adarango will present the item. Ed?

[00:38:23] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Orango: Thank you. Just give me one minute. Okay. Thank you, mayor and council members. As mentioned, I'm Ed Orango, Assistant Public Works director, and I'm also joined tonight by Public Works director, Cameron. The goal tonight here is to provide counsel and overview of the Capital Improvement program, regularly termed the CIP, and to obtain counsel's guy input to guide staff in the preparation of the recommended of 2324 through 2728 CIP or 5 year CIP. For background, the CIP is a critical planning tool used to coordinate the many capital permits that maintain and manage the city's infrastructure, being essential to providing services to the community. The five-year CIP is adopted bianually, where every other year is a relook at the entire CIP, and the off years are permanently focused on the 2nd year scheduled projects identified in the previous years, five-year CIP, or what we term roll forward projects. This year is a relook at the entire 5 years CIP. The projects are sectioned into two categories. Nondiscretionary, primarily annual and ongoing infrastructure and maintenance and repair projects to preserve the city's infrastructure investments, and discretionary. Those projects that do not meet the discretionary criteria. Looking at the 10 year historic trend of the average number of new CIP projects added each year, you'll see that between 2020, 2013 and 2020, the average was 58. But reduced to 44.5 in 2021, when council supports staff's approach to limit the number of new projects to help manage the workload. There are currently 351 active CIP projects comprised with roughly a 4060 split between nondiscretionary and discretionary projects. Attachments one through 4 in your packets provide a status update of the major CIPs, and 3 other focus updates of the project's types shown here. As a very brief overview, the city's CIP is funded from various sources, broken into the 5 funding categories outlined here. Each with specific parameters on they may be used. The most flexible funds that generally can be used for any type of capital project are the unrestricted funds, making those extremely valuable. The 2 challenges the city is experiencing when identifying the number and types of projects to include in the CIP are staffing vacancies and the recent high inflation impacts. While we expect additional staffing resources in the near term, given the high number of projects, it will take some time to catch up with our active projects. Consistent with much the region and nation, the cities is experiencing an increase in inflation and cost rise in both labor and materials. Over the past 2 years, the San Francisco region's construction cost index has increased between 5 and 15%. Staff's past practice has been to apply 2% inflation adjustment for roll forward projects, but this is insufficient to keep up with the rising cost. To address this, staff is recommending a 10% increase to new projects with construction plan next year. Already funded projects needing additional funding will be presented to council on a case by case basis. As a summary of the projected status of funding sources, we are seeing unrestricted funds being mixed with expected less construction and conveyance tax, but the CIP reserve getting a $4000000 increase is part of the mid-year budget, though is forecasted to receive less funds than previous years. The wastewater funds have remained stable, but the water fund balance is declining due to the reduced consumption and project cost increases. A utility rate study is being initiated with completion expected by the end of 2023. While the transportation funds are generally expected to remain stable, the gas tax has declined due to the pandemic work from home shift. And staff is assuming a reduction until we see a rebound. The shoreline fund has remained stable, and lastly, development activity has reduced significantly. And this may affect the ability, sorry, this may affect the community and public benefits, funds used for the CIP. Looking at the CIP project list, the nondiscretionary projects continue to play an essential role, and staff may include refinements to present to council at the 2nd steady session in May. For discretionary projects, the candidate projects include projects that were planned for years 3 to 5 in the previous 5 year CIP, rolling forward to years one to 3 of the new CIP. New project proposals and requests for amendments to active CAP projects. Considering the cost rise, staff capacities, and potential for new priority projects, there may be some combination of deferring row forward projects to yours 4 and 5 or moving the projects to the unscheduled list. We have several questions for council's discussion following my presentation, and the 1st one is, are there any role 4 projects in the 1st 3 years of the plan, attachment 6 in your packets, that council would like staff to evaluate for eliminating, deferring, or moving up? As staff is reviewing the projects to include in the CIP, highlighted here are emerging new projects and current projects requiring council's consideration of significant additional funding. The 2nd council question is, are there any project on the unscheduled project list, attachment 7 in your packet? Or any new projects not currently listed the council would like staff to evaluate for adding to the planned CIP? And cancel question number three, are there any projects on the emerging new and amended project needs list that council would like staff to evaluate adding to the plan CIP? As I previously mentioned, the unrestricted funds are extremely valuable. Due to the continued essential nature of the nondiscretionary projects and consistent with past strategy, staff is recommending the nondiscretionary projects without or lacking dedicated funding sources have 1st priority of undestricted funds. For discretionary projects, staff estimates that there will be a shortfall to fund all the projects and amendments that need unrestricted funds. To help prioritize which projects will receive unrestricted funding, staff is recommending using the 7 criteria highlighted here. For council question four, does council support staff's recommended approach and criteria to determine which projects to prioritize for the CIP reserve and construction and conveyance tax funds. After receiving council's direction tonight, staff will present the recommended CIP to the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission later this month, and will return to council in May for a 2nd study session, followed by adoption in June of the recommended five-year CIP. That concludes my presentation with the 4 council questions shown here for council discussion.

[00:45:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, because this is a study session, we start off the session by asking members of the public to make comments. So, um, So first, uh, we would, I'd like to ask whether any members of the public virtually or in person would like to make comments. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or I hope you have submitted a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We'll take in-person speakers first. Um, each speaker will have 3 minutes, and I see Brian Cargill first.

[00:46:45] Brian Cargill: Okay, mayor and city council. I'm Brian Cargill. I live on California Street at Chiquita. I was a bicycle commuter for 30 years on three different continents, and on Wednesday, we saw the plan for the California Street pilot improvement project for the first time. Thank you, Ed. All of my neighbors are totally stoked about this. Our home is one of the historic homes where the front yard was removed to make California Street wider. And I'm sure that city council, at that time, was doing what was best for Mountain View in their view. But it wasn't great for us. This is fantastic. We're thrilled. And in looking at the plan, it can be a lot more green. a lot more green. We can have temporary planners, we can have more barriers to make bicycle commuting more safe, and while we're thrilled with the work, I think it possibly wasn't communicated, how important being green is, to the very hardworking diligent engineers who came up with a pilot plan. And we can't... We can't expect to get super green after the pilot if we don't come out hard charging green in the pilot. There are a lot of temporary planners around Mountain View that are not used right now. If you drive down shoreline, you see lovely concrete planters, many of them don't have anything living in them. And we can do temporary planners without irrigation, purple pipes, I think it's called, in Palo Alto, uses reclaimed water in their truck, and sprays it on plants. And I offered to adopt all the planners in front of my house. It's very small house. I know my neighbors would be right on board, too, everybody. Whoop. So I just encourage us to really take this opportunity to lead, and to be as good as Singapore, and Grenoble, France, and Portland, and the list goes on and on. April, we'll hear a presentation with other examples. Thank you for this.

[00:49:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you for this. From all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have April Webster, and it says, on behalf of herself and other speakers who I assume will, she will be speaking for, and April, do you have the names of those other speakers?

[00:49:35] April Webster: Uh, there are three in the audience. You can put your hands up right now. Oh, those people... Four, actually, in the audience. And then, I think there are maybe three or four online, as well. So... I think they've raised their hands. I think Alex and Megan and Robert Cox.

[00:49:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I see Alex, Megan, and Robert Cox. Anthony Montez, and, yeah, there are a few. Well, her online is... 45 minutes now. There are a lot of people in support of this. Okay. And I have some slides as well. I'm just waiting for those too. And did you arrange for the city clerk how long you would be speaking?

[00:50:13] April Webster: Um, it will be about seven minutes.

[00:50:16] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Sounds good. All right.

[00:50:21] April Webster: Good evening, honorable mayor, and council members, my name is April Webster. Tonight, I would like to speak to you about the importance of implementing green, complete streets for our community. Next slide, please. To give you a vision of what we could realize, if we reintroduce nature into our streets, on the left, a hot and hostile landscape. In contrast, on the right, we have a greener, safer, more inclusive, and climate resilient landscape that people want to use. This is key to unlocking a real modality shift. This would be transformative for our community. Next slide, please. Green streets come in the form of green planters, green median gardens, trees, which all are safer than paint and delineators, like flex posts and rubberized stoppers. And they also had the added benefit of cooling the temperature of our cities and streets. Next side, please. The latest guidance just this last month from the National Association of City Transportation Officials is that the only way to protect our lanes is to separate them from car traffic, using medians, which you see on the right, or using barriers, what you see on the left. Delineators are no longer recommended and should not be used on streets where traffic moves at greater than 30 miles per hour. Next slide, please. Giving street space over to plants and trees helps loathe vehicles through visual queuing, and it provides more substantial barriers for bike lanes. It should be one of the primary tools we use when we want to think about protecting people who ride bikes. Next slide please. More people feel comfortable walking and biking on green streets. Just let that sink in. Green streets provide shade, and they are more visually appealing and beautiful. Nature has a strong positive effect on mental health, and inclusive streets provide equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded. Next slide, please. Okay, obviously, when you look at this, there's a large segment of the population who would be biking, if our streets were designed in a safer and more inclusive way. Next slide. Today, our painted bikes lanes cater mostly to the strong and fearless. However, to see a real increase in the number of people biking, we need to design and build our streets for the interested concern. Those who want to travel by bicycle, but don't, because they're not comfortable riding in traffic. Next slide, please. So green, cement or plastic. Barrier protected lanes are almost unanimously, the protection needed to see more people get on bicycles, and to make our bike lanes more effective and a better bang for our bucks. Next slide, please. All right, in this study, you'll see that median and barrier protected lanes, so those bars to the right, 50% and up, are most comfortable for the interested and concerned. These are the bars in orange. Green planter separated lanes saw the greatest increase in comfort score over the standard striped lane. Next slide, please. Reintroducing and fortify nature in our built environment will lead to more climate resilient streets and urban centers as well. Next slide. Replacing concrete with ground cover, ensures more rainwater is captured at its source instead of being diverted to sewers. It also helps remove up to 90% of pollutants. We have a real opportunity here to make our streets safer, more inclusive, and combat environment issues like flooding, and preserving and storing more water, more of our water resources. Next slide, please. So, we don't add up with situations like this on El Camino Real, which was just a few months ago. Roads that are not usable by anyone in the population, drivers, people on bikes, or people walking. Next slide please. Or people like this. If you can look closely, the woman on the right is a mother, and she's pushing her stroller. She's on the shaded side of the street. The street, when you flip over the left, has a protected sidewalk, yet she's not walking along the sidewalk. She's choosing to be in the shade where it's cooler. And this is just close off of Central Expressway. Next slide please. Economic performance is tied to the comfort and attractiveness of streets. Environments with green expressions, from planters to street trees, to storm water infrastructure, perform better, than streets without green infrastructure. Next slide, please. We already have several examples of green streets in Mountain View. Perhaps the most well known being Castro, the living room of our city. Businesses and residents have embraced it. Inclusivity and green initiatives go hand in hand. Next slide, please. Green streets.

[00:57:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: I have to warn you, you have to wrap up now.

[00:57:30] April Webster: Okay. Let's go to the next slide, please. Okay, the takeaway. Well, we should have started yesterday, we know better, and we can start building projects that are green now, and we move as we move forward. We can also strategically position ourselves to qualify for grant money. announce just this year by Governor Newsom for green infrastructure to better manage Stormwater in our streets to prevent both flooding and drought. That concludes by presentation. Thank you very much for your time.

[00:58:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So the next speaker will be Cliff Chambers.

[00:58:24] Cliff Chambers: Hi, I'm Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and I sent a letter, the details, uh, my three requests, including Green Streets on California Street, excellent job, April. I just hope that the council can include the adequate funding for green complete streets on California Street in the CIP. I'd like to turn to the topic of pickleball. A year ago, I was here advocating for a feasibility study for permanent pickleball courts, and the council, in its wisdom, approved a feasibility study that's now underway, and hopefully up to 12 courts, and a new location, and the design, et cetera, will come back to you sometime in late fall or early 2024. To my dismay, the permanent pickleball courts are currently not in the CIP budget, even though municipalities across the United States are developing pickleball courts, the average cost for doing so is readily available. And it would really provide assurance to both the pickleball players and the tennis players that we're going to have dedicated courts for both tennis and pickleball. And it's been, we've had these really nice shared courts out at Rinksdorf, and I think we've gotten along really well with the tennis players in the shared courts, but that's not the long term solution. And it really does need to be in the CIP so that we all know that the council has the intent to fund these permanent pickleball courts. In the final minute, I'd just like to kind of turn to, um, the 3rd request, which is to really seriously consider ring storef Avenue complete streets as the design and development of the ring store, uh, great crossing goes underway. It would be a perfect opportunity to implement a ring star complete street when that great crossing opens. So if you incorporate it into the design and the thinking now will be ready when that project is approved. Thank you very much.

[01:00:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And next is Chris Perry.

[01:00:59] Chris Perry: Hi, I'm Chris Perry, Mountain View Resident. I just wanted to speak in support of two projects that are on the active CIP list. I'm a bicycle commuter, so I'm always enthusiastic about new bike infrastructure projects, and the California pilots G project is such a great idea. Right now, in Mountain View, We have, you know, some pretty good north south routes that are accessible to writers of all ages and all abilities, but we really struggle with east west, so California, as a pilot project, is a great initial step forward in trying to build out a better east west infrastructure through the city for writers of all ages and abilities. My only hope is that, as the project gets implemented, the dividers will be more substantial than mere flex post. Certainly, planners would be great, or some kind of divider that actually provides physical protection for younger riders going through the street. And then the other project that I wanted to speak and support of was the two lane cycle track on Miramonte from Hans to Castro. I've had one kid go to Graham. I have another kid in Graham right now. That's always concerned me as a parent, that stretch of Irmate. It's particularly unsafe, and for cyclists trying to commute to Graham. So extending the protected, what we have is a somewhat protected line, and making that a two lane cycle track, with a real divider, will be a great improvement for anyone cycling debris. Thank you.

[01:02:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So this is the last call for in person speakers, I see no more in person speakers. So we now turn to virtual speakers. The first speaker is, um, Steve Everett.

[01:02:47] Steve Everett: Hello. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Steve Everett, resident of Mountain View. Um, as clips noted, I want to also thank the city for the six shared tennis pickleball courts at Remstorff Park. Every time that I've played there, I've seen tons of pickleball players of all ages on the courts, including families and young people. It's great to see that so many people have picked up pedal to enjoy the exercise and fun. I play both tennis and pickleball. It's been fun and challenging to learn a related sport, and I've made many friends in the thriving pickleball community. I've spoken to numerous tennis players who have started playing pickleball, as they've gotten a little slower and maybe picked up a few nagging physical ailments. Pickleball is a natural path for people to continue playing a racquet sport when they couldn't otherwise. However, there's been some conflict between pickleball and tennis players over court space. Let's minimize that conflict by building more permanent pickleball courts. My request is to include the design and construction money for 12 permanent pickleball courts in the capital improvement program. So that when the phase A conceptual design is completed, there's funding immediately available to start phase B, which is the final design and construction of the permanent courts. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[01:04:10] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Steve. Next, we have Jesse Cupp.

[01:04:15] Jesse Cupp: Hello? Yep, this is Jesse Cup again. I'd like to voice my strong sport for the California Street, protected by clane pilot project, and I hope you can make it as safe as possible for cyclists. Um, I really like April Lepster's presentation. And I'll just second everything that you saw there and heard, um, and give my obligatory public art plug, saying that if we were to use temporary movable planters that don't require, um, irrigation system to be installed. That would be a great opportunity to have, uh, some art painted on the sides of those. So, in addition to that input, I also want to talk about the Castor Street Mall, which I think would work best and safest as a bike and pedestrian mall, similar to the last commenter who noted that there is conflict between pickleball players and tennis players. I'm sure you've all noticed that there is some conflict downtown right now between cyclists and pestrians. And prior to the pandemic, cyclists were able to ride down those last three blocks of faster sheet, and I think it's a big step backwards to band bikes. Um, and that conflict will not go away just by saying, no bike's allowed here. I think is gonna be, uh, a lot of people who are perhaps not residents of mountains here coming to and from the transit center. And if you look at all the bike lanes and bike paths, and, uh, bike friendly public transit that is a ride around Castro Street, it's... It's, like, a big spider web on the map, with Castro Street, right in the center. So not everyone's destination is gonna be Castro. So just adding more bike parking is not the solution. And I think some people will, uh, obey a band, but a lot of people won't get off their bike, walk it for three blocks, and then continue writing, if it's en route to their destination. So I hope that you, uh, try to make this a a center bike path down the middle of those last few blocks of Castro Street, um, which would still leave more than enough room for pedestrians, like 12 foot wide, walkways on either side of the street. Uh, it wouldn't compromise the space for restaurants or social eddies at all. And that was included in the original staff recommendation, allowing bikes to continue down the center of cash retreat. So I believe this could be done safely. It will be a lot more safe than just trying to say no bikes, and then having that conflict on the sidewalks. Exactly where you don't want it because there are restaurant servers coming out trying to serve people. If you give a designated space to cyclists, it'll be safer for everyone, and you can calm traffic there with sculptures, trees, other things, to make sure it's a slow speed bike. So, uh, thank you very much. Bye.

[01:07:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Sharon.

[01:07:18] Sharon Lamb: Hello, I'm Sharon Lamb, a Martinville resident. I was at Renstov Park last Sunday for several hours. All night pickleball costs were full when I was there, and at the peak, there were people waiting. I talked to a father who was playing with his eight year old son. He said his son likes playing and plays often. I play with a young man, probably around 30. He said he lives nearby and started playing a couple months ago after the shirt courts were available. I talked to a woman who was there to watch her dad play. Her dad doesn't speak much English. She said the pickleball community was very welcoming to her dad. It warms my heart and made my day to see our fellow Mountain View residents from age 8 to 80, having fun, being physically active and socially engaged. Thank you to the city council. Parts and Recreation Commission, and all the city staff, for putting in the pickleball courts that are very well used. Please allocate funds in the capital improvement program to build dedicated pickleball courts. Thank you.

[01:08:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Shani Kleinhouse.

[01:08:38] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening. Mayor Hicks and council members. My name is Shani Kleinhaus, and the environmental advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. I would like to express support for the comments by April Webster's and others, on the importance of complete straits with trees and vegetation along the streets, done properly. This can also support nature and biodiversity in the city's landscape, as envisioned, in the city's priorities. And I encourage you to plant trees in soil, not in concrete boxes. I've seen many planters in our communities that dried out over time. In addition, I would very much like to reiterate the importance of the sailing lake island to the unique and special status species of shoreline park in the region. Visitors, young and old, appreciate these beautiful, interesting birds. And yet the island, the primary nesting site in the region, is eroding away. I have not seen the protection of the island from erosion on the CIP list and hope it is prioritized. Thank you.

[01:09:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And next, we have Jerry Steach.

[01:09:54] Jerry Steach: Evening. Am I unmuted?

[01:09:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: You are unmuted.

[01:09:58] Jerry Steach: Good. Oh, great, thank you. Uh, good evening, uh, Mayor Hicks and counsel, and, uh, Eric, I'm glad to see you're recovering from COVID. Um, ladies and gentlemen, I attended the BPAC meeting, uh, last week, uh, that went in great detail on the, uh, California street, uh, pilot program for for bike lane. I was very very impressed. Um, and I would like to commend the city for the work that has done so far in this, and I encourage it to go through. As a regular bicyclist, who has taken a number of routes going east west, including El Camino, which I don't recommend for anyone. This pilot program seems to be a wonderful solution to get cyclists in that direction. So thank you very much for doing that, and please continue the good work.

[01:10:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So this is the last call for speakers. I see no additional in person speakers or virtual speakers. So we will close the public speaking portion of this study session. Um, and we will move on to the council portion. So, staff has several questions related to the capital improvement program for council's consideration. Question 2 involves discussion of projects on the unscheduled project list, which is Attachment 7, that the council would like staff to evaluate for adding to the plans CIP. Discussion related to the following projects would require council members to recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest. So if any council member wishes to discuss either of these projects, these two projects will be discussed first. The two projects are, the light rail trail lighting project, from Pacific Drive to the MOC, and item number, which is item number 6 on attachment 7. And the second one is Shenandoah Open Space, which is item number 9 on Attachment 7. Does any council member wish to discuss whether the light rail, trail lighting project, uh, item number 6 on attachment 7 should be evaluated by staff for inclusion on the planned CIP? Okay. So seeing none, we will move on. Uh, to the next one, which is, does any council member wish to discuss whether the Shenandoah open space project, item number 9 on attachment 7, should be evaluated by staff for inclusion on the planned CIP? Seeing no one, we will move on from that too. So let me move down my script. So, we will now move on and discuss the remaining CIP items. Do any members of council have comments or questions? Uh, Council member, Mattachek.

[01:13:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I have a couple questions. And then are you going to take the questions in order, one, two, three, four, or do you want to answer all of them at once?

[01:13:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: I was going to take them one at a time.

[01:13:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, a couple questions. Um, you know, I... apologize. I didn't, uh, I wasn't looking for every single project as I was going through all of the, um, lists. Um, and so I appreciate, uh, Shonee Kleinhouse bringing up the island in Shoreline Lake. Is that on one of the lists, or is that funded or? I've sort of lost track of that one.

[01:14:13] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you for the question, Council member Matachek. I'm going to ask Assistant Public Works director Lisa Al, to respond to this question.

[01:14:21] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Al: Good morning, Mayor, city council member. I'm Assistant Public Works Director, Lisa Al. And the Burr Island project is currently funded CIP project this year. So we have issued a request for a proposal for additional work to be to study for the sailing lake, and one of the components is for the Burr Island. We're gonna be studying the erosion protection for the island, as well as look at assessment of what the island look like originally, to be included in the study. So, we're now soliciting for proposals from consultant to be studying. The Burr Island is one of the components of the project.

[01:14:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Welcome. That's good news. And then, let's see. I had, um, proposed an item to be added to the council work plan, and, um, I don't think we can discuss it here, because some people might need to recuse themselves. But what I want to know is, if we have public input, and it's a major project, how does that get on the CIP? And if the council, my colleagues, agree to it. So, thank you.

[01:15:34] Public Works Director Don Cameron: We have to accuse themselves with that kind of a question. Okay. All right. So, um, if there is an opportunity, if, at some point, there is a community engagement process or discussion about, uh, let's say we have, rehabilitating, or renovating an existing park, and it turns out that there is a desire to completely redesign and and reconstruct the park, that, and council can choose to add that to the CIP of one of two ways. One is through a mid-year CIP project, the other is waiting into the next round of CAP, as you know, and as Assistant Public Works director, Rangel mentioned, each year we come back to you. We primarily, in the off years, do roll forward projects, but at times, new projects are added, if they're considered timely, or as part of the next five years, CIP, in two years. When we're dealing with parks projects, there are two main issues that we focus on, number one, is having the staffing resources to deliver them, and in your packet, we shared not only the current active parks projects, which you saw, is quite extensive in terms of new parks and renovations to parks, but also what we're already seeing on the horizon as new parks that we need to be prepared to bring online over the next eight to ten years. So, adding a new park project, we need to evaluate the staffing resources, and if another park gets deferred, and also, is there parkland fund available in that parkland area. And so those are the questions we look at. However, as I mentioned, there are opportunities in the future to add parks, projects, or any CIP project, as part of our annual process.

[01:17:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. And then I noticed there are some CIPs that, um, would be in conjunction with the Mountain View Wisman School District. Um, and I assume these, um, properties are part of the joint use agreement, but maybe they're not. But I guess I'm wondering if that joint use agreement goes away. What happens to these projects?

[01:17:59] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Well, thank you for the question. Council member Matachek. I'll... I will start to answer this question. I believe our community services director, John Matachek, is also online if... Marchant, thank you very much, Sean. It's also online, should additional information be added. Um, I believe what you are, what you are mentioning is the Sports Center at Crittenden Middle School and the Sports Pavilion at Graham Middle School, as well as a couple others, the Crittenden Lighting, the Crittenden Lighting Project, yes. For the gyms themselves, they're a little unique in terms of the facilities we share with the school district, in that the city shares half ownership, actual ownership of the gym buildings themselves. So they have their own agreements in place. And at this... And in terms of the crititin lighting, I think, in this case, I would need to ask, if community service director Machant could chime in a little bit on this. It's also the turf replacement at the Crittenden field.

[01:19:19] Community Services Director John Marchant: Good evening, Council. John Marshant, Community Services Director. Can you hear me, okay?

[01:19:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, we can.

[01:19:25] Community Services Director John Marchant: Great. Thank you. Um, and so a quick response to the question is, yes, uh, some of these improvements are scheduled to be on fields that are part of the, um, joint use agreement with the Mountain View Wisdom School District. There's a couple of things that can happen. Number one is, as we continue our discussions among the agencies, we continue to look at these capital improvement projects. Um, and even in some cases, move forward with them, um, the city pays for them, and be is able to complete that problem. Should the JUA come to an end, then both agencies will have to look at what the city has paid for over time, um, and then look for reimbursement from the school district, from not only these improvements, but other improvements as well. And that is outlined in the existing joint use agreement. So, those are some ways that we would be looking at those should, uh, joint use, not continue.

[01:20:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I appreciate it. Those are all the questions I have right now.

[01:20:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, council members, are there other questions? Uh, vice mayor?

[01:20:40] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I, I have to confess, I have gotten a little confused about what's on various attachments, so I'm not seeing this one on this attachment, but I'd like your, to know what. And that is, I know there's a project related to the replacement of some water or sewer pipes along Miramonte, and then the resurfacing of the road, and also bicycle improvements. Where is that sort of suite of projects? And which question would that be under?

[01:21:15] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you for the question. So, you are speaking about the Miramani Avenue, there's actually two projects happening on Miramani. So the first project is the water and sewer main replacement project. And then the second project is the Nurmani street resurfacing project. So, the Miramani utility replacement project, is currently under construction. We recently awarded that to a contractor. They're doing some initial construction investigation out there to confirm death utilities before they start work, but that has started. We anticipate that to go throughout through the end of this calendar year. Where then we'll have another contractor come in, we'll be finalizing the design and awarding a contract for the Mirmani surface improvement project, which in that case, we are includes the two-way cycle track on the east side of Mirmani between Hans and Kostra. That is, we recently included with the project. And as a reminder, the Mirmani resurfacing project really is a street repair project rehabilitation for the pavement. And the focus there was the repair, but we saw an opportunity to include a couple of components. And one of them was the two-way cycle track between Hans and Castro.

[01:22:42] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, I drive that road quite frequently, and I'm really amazed at how many potholes there are. It's not as bad as El Camino, but nothing is. So, I would hope that we can have some sort of a pothole, particularly the section between Cuesta and Castro's tree. It's just really, it's just really blad. When you're driving down there, it's like almost all of, half of your attention is, is focused on avoiding the potholes, and it shouldn't be. Your attention should be on, you know, what else is going on in that street. But it's so bad, you really have to pay attention to the potholes themselves. So I think when it gets to that point, we need to have a little intervention. So that's, but that's possible in our current system, right?

[01:23:36] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So, and it is, and I wanted to add that. So where this, these projects live in the CIP program, these are existing projects, so they're active. They're not planned projects, or amendments to an existing project. So these are ongoing, and they're not one of the questions here.

[01:23:53] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So they're really not on here tonight?

[01:23:54] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Right, yeah, those are ongoing projects that we're working on currently.

[01:23:58] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, good to know.

[01:24:00] Public Works Director Don Cameron: But if I may, as, since assistant public works director, Rangel gave you an update on these projects, note, also that knowing that we will not be able to resurface the street before next spring, because we have to finish these utility projects first, and then get it out to bed, and if we have another really rainy season, that delays our ability to resurface. So we are working with our streets section, and they are going to do what they can to make some temporary repairs out there as the utility work wraps up, to make sure the road can hopefully do better through the next rainy season until we can fix some of these potholes that you're talking about, until we can get out there and resurface the road.

[01:24:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Okay, so, seeing no other council members, oh, council member Ramirez.

[01:24:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have a few quick questions. The 1st is regarding page 12 of the staff report. So I think those are the emerging new and amended project needs. And I just want to make sure I'm understanding what additional action or direction would be necessary from the council. Do we have to explicitly include these projects, um, into, uh, I guess the, what would be, what is attachment six? So we have to affirmatively state, even though a lot of these seem to already be occurring to some extent, you need direction from us tonight to affirmatively include each of these projects.

[01:25:46] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So I want to 1st thank you for the question because it does allow us to clarify our intentions. Reading the questions earlier today as we were refining them, I realized that that could create a source of confusion. The intent with the emerging new and amended project needs list is, because these are ones staff has identified, we do plan to find a way to incorporate them into the five year CIP. So I think when you're ready to answer that question, which is now question three, the focus should be, are there any of these that you want us to think of deferring or changing in some way? Otherwise, by virtue of identifying them and saying they're a need? We're planning to find ways to move forward with them. The one exception is that this complete parks list. You know, we will put in place the ones where the land is going to be available, you know, will time those based upon land availability as well as staffing and funding availability.

[01:26:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's very helpful. And then also, just for the sake of clarity, the California Street complete street project that was, I didn't go to the VPAC meeting, so I don't have the benefit of doing the project design and parameters, but was what we heard from the public comment, essentially what staff is proposing, or do we need to provide additional direction to include the green street elements that the community is advocating for.

[01:27:25] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: Thank you for the question. The permanent improvements for California Street will include Green Street infrastructure. Staff did here, as you heard tonight, from commute members of the community at the beepag, regarding incorporating Green Street infrastructure as part of the pilot project. So staff, it was just last week. We were still taking in that, the comments and evaluating, and we're going to be going back and evaluating, see how that can be incorporated into the project. We'll be taking a few factors into effect. I mean, it's a long corridor, so we want to be mindful of the pilot aspect of this, um, as well as, including that, um, staff evaluating the safety component, um, for all modes of travel, um, is properly um, looked at, and then um, we will be, uh, council will be seeing. So, I'm sorry, the council transportation committee, and the council will also be seeing the California pilot project again, um, for evaluationsations.

[01:28:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then essentially the same question for Ringstorf. Do we need to provide some direction about a complete street element or Green Street element in the context of the grade separation project or is that already likely to be included in the design?

[01:28:50] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: So for the ringstar of grade separation project, what can be done for trees and other greenery is already being incorporated in design taking into account what we have available for right away. in terms of the more of a ringstore of complete streets project that would be from El Camino up through 101, that is currently on the unscheduled list. And council could choose to uh, ask staff to evaluate it to give it priority to add the five-year CIP. Um, We'll also note that we have just, you know, really gotten started launching the active transportation plan. And one of the key factors of the active transportation plan over this next year is to continue to evaluate the opportunities for green complete streets, as well as prioritization. So, um, again, counsel can request that we evaluate RingStorve to go ahead and look at where it could be added in the five-year CIP now, or you could choose to, um, wait until the act of transportation plan is, um, is done and base it upon those priorities. I will say, though, as mentioned, I think, by the public. Ringstorf has come out as a high priority in the previous planning efforts of Access MV and so on. So it's likely to come out as a high priority. Having said that, though, it would likely be a year, three, four, or five project, because, again, we have a lot of projects already, we're working on, and unless we want to defer one of those, we won't have the staffing resources to start work on Ring Store for another three, two or three years.

[01:30:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's helpful, two more questions. Um, I was happy to see that we're on track for um, implementing the trusted system. I think it's quarter 12024. It's not listed on the CIP active projects list. So I'm, uh, it would, is there a different list for internal IT projects beyond the, I think there were only 4 or 5 that are listed here? Um, you know, where does where does that kind of project live?

[01:31:23] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So, there's a couple ways this is handled. One is in the nondiscretionary list of projects, we have IT projects that are more programmatic, and at your next study session, what is traditionally done is the IT department produces a memo that we bring to you, where they list the projects that they are proposing be funded through their nondiscretionary CIP allocations.

[01:31:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, got it. I didn't realize that was considered nondiscretionary. That's helpful. Thank you. And then the last question I have is about the Nacto, design, guidelines, and similar types of standards. I'm not sure. Bless you, I'm not sure I understood the staff response, some cities like the city of San Jose have formally endorsed or adopted the Nacto standards, we haven't done that. And I'm not sure, is that something that we're going to do in the context of the ATP? Is that something that the council would need to affirmatively direct that we do? Um, because I, you know, the, as April's presentation, I think, demonstrates, there are a lot of things that we could do, right, just as in the context of design work that, um, sometimes we're doing it, other times we're not, because we don't formally have those standards and guidelines as our own. What would be the appropriate way to ensure that those types of standards are used in the design of all of our active transportation projects?

[01:33:15] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: Thank you for the question. So currently, as was mentioned in the response, staff has incorporated the Caltran standards, and as a general practice, when looking at multimodal improvements, there's multiple guidelines that we utilize, Nactu, as you mentioned, ITE as well as the federal highway administration guidelines. So these really do provide us flexibility in identifying the proper treatments for the multimodal improvements as those projects come online and we start evaluating those. As part of a, as part of a formal process to adopt. We think that if council directs us, we'd want some flexibility rather than adopting just one standard, just having some flexibility and endorsing multiple, and that it would give us some flexibility on how we apply these standards and not be sort of focused just on one because there are multiple guidelines that provide us flexibility in evaluating how we apply the multimodal improvements.

[01:34:24] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So if I could tag onto this, what the assistant public works director is referring to is there is not one size fits all as we deal with our existing street network and retrofitting our streets. We have some very narrow streets with very limited right away. We have other streets with more right away potential. We have some streets where we can do road diets and eliminate lanes to create the space that we need. But all of these have to be taken on individually. There could always be, you know, from staff's perspective, council direction or policy to give priority to Nacto, but leave us the flexibility that if there's unique conditions out there, that we can apply some of these other standards to, you know, ensure public safety or the constraints we're dealing with. Having said that, we really are looking to the active transportation plan, to help firm up, the policy guidance, as well as the standards and guidelines that we will use, and what we do envision is when you are seeing the recommended active transportation plan as part of that. There'll be recommendations in there. And I have no doubt it's going to include a recommendation to give priority to Nacto, that is becoming the state of best practices. And we acknowledge that, which is one of the reasons we look at it even today, as we move forward. It's just, um, Again, we need some flexibility because we may not be able to do completely retrofit a street based on various constraints.

[01:36:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: That's very helpful. Thank you. So, I was going to ask a question very similar, but maybe you are as well.

[01:36:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah, I was gonna ask very similar questions to the ones that council member Ram was brought up, but maybe I'll add a few. I feel like this is a rapidly evolving field that since the pandemic, you know, I hear more and more about the importance of active transportation and being outdoors and road diets and so forth. So I would like your advice on how best, I feel like it's probably the kind of thing that we need to bring up early and often. You know, maybe the, um, act of transportation plan is the best place to put it, but this is a good place too. So I'd like your advice for whatever we can do. I'm actually fairly happy with your recommendations for what projects to do, but, and this is... So, I'm going to dig into this one, because this is one of the, one of two or three things that are most of concern to me, the question of green streets. What can we most do, um, this evening to make sure that that's explored for both the priority. Some of the, seem to be priorities for the public, which are California Street and Ranksdorf, but also the, you know, the plethora of other bike paths. What would you, what's your advice to make sure that we, that we really put that on your plate?

[01:37:41] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: At this time, we've really heard clearly direction that you want us to be considering not only active transportation improvements as well as, you know, where it's possible to implement green streets. We definitely always look at green stormwater infrastructure as part of our projects as well. So we are working to integrate them in for projects as the opportunities come up. And so a couple things. For instance, the California streets pilot project, as you heard, we went to the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee last week to present initial design concepts, again, as a pilot project. We did hear a lot of input related to, is it possible to integrate more green in, And we're gonna be looking at that closely. I do want to note, though, part of our evaluation is, if it's going to be planters, how are we going to water them, how are we going to maintain them? Well, I appreciate the offer for adopt planters. We all know that if they fail to maintain them, then we'll need the resources to maintain them. So part of our evaluation, as we look at the pilot project, is what kind of city staff resources would we have to recommend in order to maintain versus the permanent project where we can actually plant things in the ground, with irrigation, and which will help ensure the green lives, and is easier to maintain. So, we are going to look at this, and it's going to come to the council transportation committee before it comes to the council.

[01:39:24] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Just so you know, Meramonte. Even though Assistant Public Works director talked about how we took that to the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee and what we included, What he did not mention is it's us trying to be as responsive as possible, looking at situations. We also looked at it and realized that it actually is an excellent candidate for a road diet. So we've now introduced that, that we're trying to tie into our design process for the pavement. And that's going to come to the council transportation committee as well. So, I, I, not certain that it's anything you're going to do as part of the CIP here, as much as, as we move forward with these projects, and other paving projects where we're looking to, what we can do with a paving project for bikes and pads. We bring those forward as much as possible, 1st the bicycle possession advisory committee, then council transportation committee, and then ultimately to council for approval before we advertise it and construct it. So that's where you'll be able to, you know, review what status proposed and, you know, if you have further direction for us. That's when we can hear about it as more on an individual project basis. Because then we can talk to you about specific constraints. or challenges for that particular roadway or corridor.

[01:40:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I have a related question that is hopefully super simple. I've been hearing that some of the, there's a growing number of grants for green and complete streets, particularly with an emphasis on green, and, but that, to get some of those grants, we may need to name the, give the projects that name. Um, and, and plan them in that, in that way as green and complete streets, and I'm wondering if that's something that you know about, and if that should be looked into for, you know, as a part of this study session. So when you come back to us, maybe certain projects would be named that and be able to get grants.

[01:41:36] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: We can look into that, we'll have to get back to you on that as you may be aware. We've been applying for mini grants and have been very successful. We have been calling in complete streets, but it didn't mean that it does not necessarily include green components, but, you know, we can continue to look at what grand opportunities are out there, and if it is helpful to call them, you know, a green complete street, um, definitely, we can rename projects. Not a problem.

[01:42:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: Just wanted to give you a heads up. And council member command?

[01:42:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Well, um, I think that, you know, there's a lot of excitement related to how we make our community more walkable, unpikable, and safer. So that's always great. And I think for myself, I'm trying to hear staff responses and understand how we as counsel should be thinking about it. I think the answers that I just heard sounded like if there is council interest in green streets that then those need to be on a kind of more project by project, case by case basis. But I think for myself, I'm thinking about, um, our safe routes to school, our vision 0 plan that we adopted this active transportation plan, being on the council transportation committee, thinking about how we implement something like this citywide. I think that that's some of the feedback we receive during the pandemic is how do we make our community more walkable, bikable, greener city. And so I am trying to, to listen to Sassay, you know, project by project, but also I think there's interest in different arteries throughout our city. And perhaps, while we're talking about some of the major thoroughfares ranksdorf, California, I think even those like smaller opportunities I would still be interested in. Um, and kind of how do we use that as kind of the redirection for um, existing um, ridership. So when we talked about Latham, right? So, All of that to say, does staff feel, and I think in the past, and I can't remember which plan it was, we saw the network of what we have existing for bikes and pedestrians. Is that something where council would be able to see where the opportunity spots are from a staff perspective on the the green complete streets or how should we how should we be thinking about it? Or I guess this is how my brain works. It's a little bit more higher, higher, higher the 30,000 foot view than just project by project. So I'd appreciate a response to my kind of question. I try to put a question in there. Thank you.

[01:44:27] Assistant Public Works Director Rangel: Thank you, council member Kamei. Again, I'm going to have to refer back to the active transportation plan. That was built into the scope, was looking at the opportunities to move towards a green, complete street system where that's not only identifying specific locations, but also some principles and guidelines we could use, for, as you're saying, even smaller streets. So that is, being worked on.

[01:45:02] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I'm gonna, are there other questions? No. So, I have one additional question that I just wanted to give council members heads up as time goes on. I'm thinking it may be much more efficient for us to go through all 4 questions. Yeah, having seven people each address each one, one at a time. That would take us all night. So, um, my additional question is, uh, we've had some requests, particularly, you know, one important CIP project, or the, the pickleball and and tennis courts. And it has been raised that maybe we could, um... We could, uh... put aside the money for, uh... the final design and construction costs. Note that in the CIP for pickleball carts so it can move ahead more quickly. Is that something that would be possible? Because I've met both the pickleball and tennis community, and it would make two very large communities happy. Thank you for the question.

[01:46:14] Public Works Director Don Cameron: The, um... The existing... So, there is the preliminary design or the study for the pickleball court project. It's, we just started it. It's just kicked off, so we're excited about that. We have the resources that we put towards that. And as noted, it just started the request for proposals, which will be closing at the end of this week, by the way. It's really early in the process for us to identify the full scope of the pickleball project without having the study to identify where it's going to be, how many quarts, and what's really needed in order to construct these, which will be a public process. We will go through public outreach process to include the community as part of that discussion. An opportunity is to rename the project, Pickleball Court, study, design, and construction, with that intent to eventually construct it. also add funding at the council's discretion, but without the scope and allowing the study to at least complete, to identify what is the intent, it's difficult to identify a number to put into the CIP project in order to construct it. So it would be a big, um, a big guess for us to identify a number. It would simply be a placeholder number that really has no firm basis for how we came up with the number. Although I appreciate the comet that other jurisdictions have constructed pickleball courts, and some of the locations we'll be looking at, we may require a lot of earth moving, retaining walls, which will really affect the construction cost. It would not necessarily expedite the project, because staff will be bringing the results of the study back to council and getting your approval on the location and the number of pickleball courts based upon this analysis. And at that time, you could, as part of a mid-year, add money to this CIP to move into the next step of design and construction. The source of funding will be the citywide Parkland Fund. We have confirmed the money is there. you know, there is money there. So, again, if council, um, directs or indicates to staff that you would like us to change the title of the project now to make it clear, absolutely can do that. If you want us to put some placeholder money in there, we can do that. But the odds are when we come back to you with the study, we'll have to be adjusting the budget.

[01:49:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I think that might be a good idea. So thank you for that answer, you know, to change the name. That seems pretty easy. And put a bit of money in to expedite it, knowing that you'll probably come back to us. Okay. So that sounds like the answer. So now we will do we have any other questions? Okay, seeing none? We'll now go through, um, We, I'm seeking answers from council members to the 4 questions, uh, in our staff report and for the, um, I don't know if we have them available, put on the screen for... agenda floor. We're going to put the questions up on the screen. There were 3 in the staff report, but on, because of the possibility of recusals and so on, we divided question 2 into 2 separate questions to make it easy to follow. Okay, so the 4 the 3 now turned into 4 questions are up for your reading pleasure, and I see that council member Ramirez has a response.

[01:50:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'm generally supportive of the staff recommendations. They're just a small number of adjustments. So for question one, I'm comfortable with the discretionary project list, attachment six, the only one I might consider deferring is the Central Expressway, bicycle and pedestrian crossing, Villa Street, undercrossing, feasibility study, and that would only be if it helps expedite the Rangsdorf improvements and the shoreline improvements. Because I feel like that's a great north-south addition to add, but Rangsdorf and Shoreline are further down the road. and I'd love to see those improvements complete as quickly as we're able to complete them. And so if it helps staff, if there's some additional capacity freed up by deferring the villa under crossing feasibility study, I'd feel comfortable making that trade. Um, and then for um, question two. Um, Again, you know, generally supportive of staff's recommendations. There are a couple of things that I would like to better understand, one would be, so I'm supportive of the pickleball name change, if that's helpful. Anything that we, if there are any modifications that need to be made to, um, realize the California Street, uh, complete street or Green Street improvements, very supportive of that. Um, I would like to, um, elevate or program the ranksdorf Complete Street or Green Street element, and I'm fine with that being year 4, year 5, and the CIP recognizing that there's not a lot of capacity. Um, but that's uh, that would be a priority project for me. Um, and in part because I've gotten so many concerns over the past few years about crossing ring store generally. So, I think I shared with you, Don, a while back, once St. Athanasius Church started doing its regular food distribution. We've had a number of people, you know, run across rank storefund safely to get there. And there aren't a lot of things that we can do, right? So if that were to help improve safety on Ringstorf. I'd love to see that elevated. And the only other thing that would be, I think, I'd like to see explored as, and staff addresses this to some extent, but additional shelters for community shuttle stops. We may already be looking at the Klein Park stops, uh, California and Ortega, but, um, many members of our community use those stops and they don't currently have shelters. And I think I've been hearing more about this because of the atmospheric rivers. So there's heightened sensitivity to this, but if that's not something that's already under exploration, then investigating the feasibility of adding shelters that would be fantastic. For question three, emerging new and amended project needs, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendations, and same with question four.

[01:54:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, and is it helpful in notes to have the numbers of the projects? You didn't write them down. Okay. That's fine. Okay, do we have any other council members ready to respond? Vice mayor.

[01:54:30] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Back up. Yeah, I'm basically going to pretty much say ditto to council member Ramirez's comments. I, too, would like to see the Ringsdorf complete streets moved up as much as possible. But, um, more than that, I just, I want to make sure that, that, uh, the project of the undercrossing of Ringsdorf Railway is, uh, it's just, um, it's just looked at as a whole package. And I would assume that that's what you're gonna do, but I wanted sort of to ask that as a question, and also as a moving up. When you look at the undercrossing of ring store, you're looking at the connections on both sides, right? So that includes the complete streets. Okay. And, yeah, well, I think that's particularly important because of what we heard at NLC about some more grant money that may be available, particularly when pedestrian are included in under crossings. So that would be my comment, and, um, thank you very much for all this work.

[01:55:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I assume, vice mayor, that's a comment, but you're not... We will be taking straw polls on this. I don't think that's something you need.

[01:55:55] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay.

[01:55:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Um, Council member, Mattachuk.

[01:55:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, on attachment six, um, I kind of had a different perspective on the Central Expressway bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Villa, and that's 26XX. I read the staff report, and it talked about how, um, Caltrain has a lot of work on their plate. And so, we wouldn't expect this one to be done much sooner. But I guess I was thinking this might be similar to other projects where I feel like we want to be ready when they are. Because I think this is an important undercrossing. And so I actually was thinking we would move it up. Um, but only to the extent we need to, so that we're ready, if we need to do any work in advance of when Caltrain is ready.

[01:57:00] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I appreciate the suggestion. I will have to tell you that based upon what we've learned working with Caltrain, not only on the 2 grade separation, but the Bernardo Undercrossing, is they are very firm, that they need to be the lead. Even initial preliminary study work. They need to be very involved, with the electrification of Caltrain, as well as the new standards, they're putting a place in terms of their operating railroad right away. What we're finding is, for instance, for the Bernardo undercrossing work that Sunnyvale has done in partnership with Mountain View is being relooked at by Caltrain. And the cities have to pay for that. We had the same thing happen with Castro in that we took it through 35%. And we ended up having to spend a little extra money, so Caltrain could relook at the work, redo some of the work that we did. It's been very clear, and this has been happening with other cities up and down the peninsula, dealing with Caltrain, that any attempt that we did to pursue this study on our own to get ready for it would eventually be redone. And we're pretty sure they're not gonna get to it.

[01:58:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, then will they get to it in 2025, 26, or could it be later?

[01:58:25] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Given the workload that we're working with them on, it's not just our two great separation process, but in addition to Bernardo, there's the two great separation projects in Sunnyvale. There's at least one or two in Palo Alto that want to get moving in the next few years. And then there are others up and down the peninsula. So, based upon what we know, until some of these are actually completed and built, uh, it's unlikely we're gonna be able to get their time and attention on yet another bike ped under crossing in the next few years.

[01:59:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, okay, so I'll just say, yeah, that one's important to me, and if, for some reason, um, they have a window of opportunity, um, I love it to come back to council for us to prioritize it.

[01:59:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I assume that's a comment, but it's not something we're taking astroke. Okay.

[01:59:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Also on Attachment 6, um, Project 24XX fire station number 3 replacement programming study. Um, I appreciate that we are doing this study. Um, and based upon our conversation a little bit earlier about pickleball. Um, I'm thinking I would like to change the name of this and have it also be the design and construction project and put a placeholder in for cost. I don't know if any of you have taken a tour of Fire Station 3, but I did a few years ago. And I'm sure it hasn't improved since then. Um, I appreciated the addition to the criteria where you said, maintain existing facilities. I think this one is beyond maintenance, and needs to be replaced, and the fact that we have city employees living there, makes it high priority for me to rebuild it, rebuild something. A new design, a new fire station. So, I would like to change the name of this one to include the design and construction, similar to pickleball. Okay, then on Attachment 7. Um, as I said, I appreciated the uh, edition of the keeping the facilities in a state of good repair, and therefore, I think the 1st 4 items uh, on this attachment, 1 through 4 are really important. Those are the apparatus trailer shelters for fire station one and four, CPA roof replacement, fire station, number three, replacement, design, and construction, and the public safety building, construction. Those are kind of, you know, basics, I feel like, that the city has that we need to maintain and improve. Um Shannon. Oops. Let's see, I guess we can't talk about that. I don't have a question about it, but could I say Shenandoah open space?

[02:01:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: May I, um, cancel my room, Battle, check the the 4 items you just mentioned. What are you, is that something you want us to take a straw poll on your...

[02:01:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Nope, I'm just calling them out that those are really important to me. Um, they're... Well, wait a minute, they're unscheduled, so I do want them scheduled. Sorry. And, um, let's see, the number 20, East Wisman area transit oriented development improvements phase. Three. That's another one that I think is important as more people live in the East Wisman area or work in the East Wisman area. Um, The crossing at Ellis 101 and, you know, going to the Moffat, um, Boulevard, um, light rail station. That's just not a very pleasant intersection. I guess fair try, it also comes into that. And I think it could be better for pedestrians and bicyclists. And so improving that intersection is high priority for me. And? Um... You know, a lot of the other ones, um, you know, I feel like they, I'm not an expert on, uh, a lot of these other ones. So I will trust staff, because you have much more knowledge than I do, of things like the state of our utilities. And so I will just trust you on all of these, that these are the ones we should be doing. Um, let's see. Then, um, so I'm not sure if I'm mixing questions. I'm following what was in the staff report. I do support the undergrounding of utilities at 1020 Terabella. Thank you so much for figuring out how to incorporate that. I appreciate it. And then, as I said before, I appreciate the addition to the criteria of keeping city facilities in a state of good repair. A lot of our facilities are older and are in need of repair. And I think we should maintain those rather than build new ones. And when we've got those in good shape, then we start on building more. And I think that's it. Thank you.

[02:04:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, council member Romos.

[02:04:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Just the, well, just the clarification on, um, are we going through the questions now, or are these just comments?

[02:04:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: We're going through the questions and making comments on them.

[02:04:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. I guess I'll just... I just wanted to speak briefly on the Shenandoah project. If the request from council member Mattachek is to actually consider moving that onto the CIP, then we do need to take that first. So that was part of the 1st question. So if that is one of the requests, and council's gonna take a straw poll, then we would have council member Ramos, recuse, and then remaining council members could discuss whether or not you want to elevate that to the CIP plans. that she could recuse. So I guess I'd say, I feel like that's something that we don't have really good information on, right, at this time. So we certainly have to keep our eye on it. But I would say that, at some point, it probably is going to become very important to bump up in priority. But I'm not sure we have enough information tonight to do that.

[02:05:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: So you're noting it, but not putting it up for a straw pull. Okay. Okay. Okay, council member Ramos.

[02:05:49] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right, so going down the questions. Question one, I don't plan on eliminating, deferring, or moving up any of attachment 6 items. Um, I'm in support of some of my colleagues mention the renaming of the pickleball project, uh, complete green streets, additional shelter shell stops. I mean, in support of that, in question three. Um, I I am open to adding things to the emerging in new amended project needs, but I don't have a priority necessarily, and I'm happy to support whatever my colleagues would like for that. And, um, I support staff's recommended approach for question number four. Thank you.

[02:06:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbe Koga.

[02:06:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So for question one, overall, support the list. I guess I had one question or interest and maybe swapping out based on the price tag. So the 1st item, actually, the branding and why finding signage installation. I don't know how far along we are on that. But I feel like in light of some of the other projects on here, perhaps that could wait. And I would be interested in moving up the GHG offsets, City Hall, HVAC, JHG offsets project. For me, my interest would be, um, obviously anything related to climate change as well as, um, and this is just general comment, but, um, getting ready. So, this is gonna, I'm gonna jump around a bit, but, um, some of the projects, the new and amended projects needs list has projects that were just funded, like the OBAG projects. And, um, I don't, I don't know if there's a time limit, but, but from our trip to DC, the big, a few, um, takeaways I got was there's money that there's going to be, and there'll probably be more money. Um, but there's gonna be time limits to when we need to spend it by. So I just want us to be prepared and ready to get the money when we can. So projects that will set us up. And we are, this is because we're talking a lot at like MTC and at other levels about project readiness. And the projects that are ready to go are the ones that are most likely to get funded first. And so any project on this list. And that's where even with the grade separations, I know the cost is going up, but I, you know, I don't mean to be overly optimistic, but I, this was like the 1st trip, but in my 1st of all the trips, the best trip in the sense that I have this, I just got a sense that, you know, we're in a good position. Our Rangstorff project is in the top 6 in the state. We also have, you know, you also applied for those other grants that, um, we learned about, we learned more about. So there seems to be opportunity and I just want us to be ready to go. And I understand what you were saying with Caltrain. I've been in a lot of conversations about the interest, to package the whole corridor, into one project, to make it more, you know, attractive in some sense, but I've also been saying to folks, including our member of Congress staff, that, you know, our projects are probably the furthest other than the Lennon Broadway in Burlingame. We are the furthest along. So I just, you know, I'm okay to do things, to package things if it's gonna help us get more funding, but I don't want anything to be slowing our project down. And so let's move forward with whatever we can. And I think I've gotten some support for that approach. So that is my interest is to just whatever projects we have that we look, it looks like there's gonna be funding available. Let's get them ready to go, project readiness is key. So that's kind of just the overall comment on this project list. So that's how I would reshuffle this if there were there were projects that look like that. So I don't know about Central Expressway. Like, it might be worth moving or starting it out, um, just in case there's opportunity. So, yeah, anything that has around, you know, grade sets, the complete streets, tie into the grade sets. Let's just try to move it and start packaging things together. So if there's opportunity, we can be the 1st ones out of the gate to get that funding. Um, I agree with council member Metachek moving up items one through 4 on the unscheduled, I think is an unscheduled list. Um, and then what I would say that this is, um, these are, you know, big, big ticket items and learning from some of my other work. One of the steps that is taken is to come up with a funding plan. And so I would ask for that. Um, you know, replacing fire station number 3 is probably going to be almost as expensive. Well, probably not as expensive as the police Edmond building, but it's going to be in the 10s of 1000000s of dollars, if not, 100s of 1000000s of dollars. So that's my, you know, concern with all this is these are big items. It makes sense. Some of them are coming to the end of life. So we really need to, you know, think about how we're going to fund this, whether it becomes a part of a bond measure that we're talking about or not. But I think that's one of the earlier, one of the earlier things that we should be doing. as we look at these big projects. But I do agree. I think, you know, core services, public safety, is key. So anything on here that is related to that, I would support. Um, I agree, given the interest in pickleball. Um, you know, moving that forward with construct, adding construction and it could be a placeholder amount, that's fine. Um, like we talked about running store for complete streets. I'm excited. Thank you, Council member Ramirez, for supporting the California streets project or bringing that back. That was, like, dormant for a few years, and I appreciate that coming back. Um, and so, yeah, that's just my, overall comment is whatever projects we see, um, that might have funding opportunities coming up. Let's get those as ready as we can. Thanks.

[02:13:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I heard, just to clarify, I heard some overall comments. and some support for things that previous council members had raised. But then you also said, possib... I think this is the one that you brought up in the beginning for straw vote. It's possibly switching. greenhouse gas offset sets at City Hall for, actually, your voice cut out, and I didn't get for...

[02:13:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, sorry. Um, so it was, I guess, I mean, I'm not, I'm not that excited about way finding branding, signage, it's installations. I don't think it's a huge priority. Like, I would rather see things like complete streets or climate change in a shit is. moving those forward. So I just look looking at just the, you know, the price, the cost of these number, uh, let's see, City Hall, HVAC, JHD, offsets phase 2, was the same equal price as North Bay Shore. I don't know, I don't know if that means we're, we just move it up or they're just, oh, we're both going. Would it be like moving something from the 2nd year or the 1st year or yeah, I guess if you can maybe provide some direction.

[02:14:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: For me, it was just that your mic cut out and I couldn't. Oh, sorry. of what you said, but you can still we can still clarify more. It is helpful that if there's any project that council feels could be deferred, it's not just a matter of the funding. These actually use different funding sources, it's also a matter of our staffing capacity. So, any project where council fields could be deferred, we would take that to account as we look also at our staffing capacity. So, um, is there a, do you, is there an urgency to the way finding signage or not? If there isn't, I would recommend we defer it. It's City manager?

[02:15:06] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you, council member Abbe Koga. So I would need to double check with our economic vitality staff, but I believe it could be tied to our downtown revitalization and any of our economic vitality initiatives.

[02:15:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: This one since North Bay Shore. How is that?

[02:15:23] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Well, I just need to double check that and make sure that it's not tied into that.

[02:15:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, thank you.

[02:15:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, council member Kameh.

[02:15:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I don't have any numbers to cite for you, Mayor, or anything new? I'm just gonna make some general comments, so hopefully that will clarify for you. Um, so for item uh, question one, I'm comfortable with the conversation count, um, uh, colleagues have been going in. I always hesitate to remove anything because I, as the city manager was mentioning, There's always a story for why it exists, but so no comments there, but for attachment 7 with the unscheduled proposed projects. Grateful for the conversation of elevating items one through four. I think just personally. I didn't hear these brought up, but of interest to me are still the, um, items 10 and 11, the Stevens Creek Trail extensions, one from Dale, and then on the north side at Middlefield. I know just the usage rates are quite high, and so, at some point, hopefully, as, you know, talking about funding, as maybe some partnerships could be available. I'd love to be able to move those from unscheduled to scheduled. Also, it sounds like, and maybe we'll clarify that we're taking some straw polls maybe on 18, which is the California Street complete streets. Is that right? And then we're going to talk about, um, I did appreciate item 20, the East Wisman Area transit oriented development improvements we just adopted, the, um, the master plan, or the precise plan, and the um, middle field master plan. And so really think we need to be focusing on that. So I'll support those 2 as well. Um, I can't, I can't recall where this was and maybe this will come up um, at CTC next week, but item 22, the Escuela Avenue, the North Bicycle Improvements. I am interested in that. I recall that we've had a conversation about that a while ago, and I just can't remember, where that landed, but not necessarily to take a straw poll on that, but just expressing interest. And then, um, for question 3 and four, I'm comfortable with, um, the conversation would be we've been having and the staff recommendations. Thanks.

[02:17:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I think that's everyone, but me, I have, so listening to everyone's comments, I have an additional question on the renaming the fire station, from maintenance to design and construction, what the implications of that might be. it sounded to me like it might be a big change. Or maybe I misunderstood it.

[02:18:20] Unknown Speaker: So the role forward project is more concept planning and concept study, feasibility study for replacing the fire station. It is listed in the CIP as a replacement project. Adding design and construction of the project title, uh, you know, does indicate further that that intent that we do plan to construct. You know, we were actually showing design and construction as an unscheduled to follow once this initial study's done. However, just to be aware, as mentioned by council member Abby Koga, we won't be able to add a lot of money to this yet because it's not going to be 100 million, but it is going to be in the 10s of 1000000s to construct. So the most, you know, we'd be able to try to find funding for is to be on preliminary feasibility studies, some initial design at this stage of the game.

[02:19:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so what I'm hearing is that renaming it is clarifying, but doesn't is not calling for a whole new project, so it seems feasible. correct.

[02:19:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, good. Um, and then, uh, also the, the other things that were talked about for, uh, unscheduled projects, the for, the one through four, fire on public safety, are there, um, implications for, I think those were the ones from page seven, is that, you know, is that easy, difficult?

[02:20:03] Unknown Speaker: So, projects one through four, and again, the reason you see repetition is this is just lifted from the last five years CIP. So, some, you know, some events may have already started to occur. The apparatus trailers, shelters for fire station one and four, you know, if there's interest, we would look to see where we could put that in the five-year CIP in addition to, we have some critical roll forward projects for the fire station. We're also seeking trying to make sure we have enough money for them. The CPA roof replacement is definitely something we're looking at. We do believe it's going to be needed in the next couple years. City Hall cost us $1.5 million. We can expect CPA to cost, you know, at least the same amount. The big issues, again, are fire station 3, design and construction and public safety building construction, as noted, these are going to need a funding strategy. We are looking forward to starting to include these, including the public safety building construction in our five years CIP. We will complete design in the next year and a half, two years, and it's more a matter of the funding strategy, which is being worked on, and something will be brought forward to you in the future further to discuss what the opportunities for funding, I would say, both these projects. If city manager McCarthy wants to add anything.

[02:21:38] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, public works director, Cameron. No, I don't have anything to add for that one, but I do have to add to the previous question about the way finding. So staff confirmed that that does not tie into the other way finding efforts that we're doing downtown to direct people downtown. So if that is something that you all wanted to remove and elevate some of the other items you discussed tonight. It's an old item tied to implementation of the precise plan.

[02:22:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I don't know if you're, you're, uh, what you would meant. Council member, have a Koga was to remove it or deprioritize it. Um,

[02:22:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, just move it down on the list.

[02:22:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. If we can move something else up.

[02:22:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so with that, I, you know, I, um, generally support the staff recommendations, uh, as they are, um, and the, uh, items that I was going to bring up were, this is the beauty of speaking last, the items I was going to bring up have been brought up by other council members. And I guess my overall comment is the one that I made before that I'm, what I hear from residents, the biggest push has been for more green and complete streets. So that's been said a number of times. I don't have to say it again. And then also for the pickleball and tennis communities to get what, you know, to get more quarts. So with that, I will go through the things that I have listed for straw polls. If any of the council members, if I am, you think I'm misexplaining what you said, please tell me, and if you have any numbers to attach to the ones that I don't have numbers for, you can tell me that too. So, uh, the 1st straw poll item is, uh, to defer the Central Expressway.

[02:23:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: This is yours, council member Ramirez, if it would help to expedite ring store and Shortline. Is that one that you are still putting forward?

[02:23:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Based on what staff shared with us, there's a lot of uncertainty around it. I'll defer to staff. Is it helpful to keep on the list or is it so speculative that we're not in practice really assigning any staff capacity to it?

[02:24:18] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Unless we hear otherwise from council, staff recommendation was going to be to defer work on the villa undercrossing because we know Caltrain is not ready to engage with us on it.

[02:24:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, so that's already the staff recommendation. Okay, so we won't vote on it because that's the staff recommendation.

[02:24:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So number 2 was, um, change the name of the uh, pickleball item to, um, design and construction and uh, put a money placeholder. Have I described that one accurately? Okay, all those in favor? Passes unanimously. The next one was to prioritize, it's number 118, California green street improvements. Passes. Another one is to elevate the, um, Ringstorf, uh, street improvements in Green Street improvements. And then there was, did that include adding shelters? Where would you like that added?

[02:25:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, that's that's not currently in the list, any list at all, and it would be to evaluate the feasibility of adding community shuttle shelters at the Klein Park stop.

[02:25:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, all those in favor, or you have a question? Sure.

[02:26:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Is that a city stop or a VTA stop or a joint stop or who would have to be participate in that decision?

[02:26:11] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So that is a shared stop between VTA and the community shuttle. Um, since we did receive an ass Mountain View about asking about that. We have already engaged VTA to discuss it with them, and they are open, and it's studying it as maybe as part of their next phase of adding shelters. They told us today that they felt based upon, because there's already a bench out there and other amenities that there is the right of way. So it would be to the city's advantage to let them install the shelter. Not only do they cover the cost, but when they install it, they maintain it.

[02:26:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: So council member Ramirez, I assume you're going with what the staff is recommending.

[02:27:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, we will not vote on that one.

[02:27:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Then the next one is also renaming the 24XX, the fire station project, rename it, design and construction as well, all those in favor.

[02:27:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Matt, did you want to clarify anything about that?

[02:27:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No, I guess that just kind of combines number 3 from attachment 7. So, um, Because that says replacement design and construction. Um,

[02:27:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: And then there was, um, prioritizing, uh, you can clarify, if you'd like, council member Matachek, because this is yours, uh, on, uh, the unscheduled projects, one through four, fire on public safety. Would you like to say anything about that one?

[02:27:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, so and it would just be one, 2, and 4 because we just prioritize.

[02:28:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, three. I thought we just renamed three.

[02:28:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: We named it on a different schedule.

[02:28:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. So all those in favor of that.

[02:28:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, and you also had scheduling number 20 East Wisdom intersection improvements. Do you want to say anything else about that?

[02:28:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[02:28:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: All those in favor? Okay. And, um, then we have deferring North Bay Shore wayfinding and signage. All but one. And, um, and moving up greenhouse gas offsets at City Hall.

[02:29:05] Unknown Speaker: It's a roll forward project for year one.

[02:29:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so we can't move it forward. Um,

[02:29:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: That, I think that's all that I have. Did I leave anybody?

[02:29:20] Unknown Speaker: Stevens Creek Trail? Is there some? Now, okay.

[02:29:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I think that's all I have. Are there any that I left out?

[02:29:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, seeing none. Um, we are. We will be.

[02:29:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, would anybody like a 5 minute break?

[02:29:44] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:29:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, 5 minute break. We'll come back at 9:05.

[02:30:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, welcome back, everyone. We are now on item 7.2, the update on city school collaboration and challenges. The purpose of this study session is to receive an update on city school collaboration provide direction on the collaboration process. The focus is the education enhancement reserve agreement that provides a payment to Mountain View Wisman School District in Mountain View, Los Altos Union High School District, and the joint use agreement that enables community use of Mountain View Wisman School Fields, in exchange for the city taking responsibility for maintaining the fields.

[02:31:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Assistant city manager, Audrey Seymour Ramberg, and community services director, John Marchant, will present the item.

[02:31:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Pardon me for the delay. Good evening, mayor and council members. I am Audrey Seymour Ramberg, assistant city manager, and I'm joined via Zoom by Community Services director John Marchant. The overarching topic tonight is, as the mayor said, an update on collaboration between the city and the school districts serving our elementary, middle and high school students and families. The city does have a long history of collaboration, especially with the school districts, Mountain View Wisman school district in the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District. And that is the focus of tonight's presentation. I want to start the presentation by acknowledging how fortunate we are to have such top notch elementary, middle, and high schools that serve us here in Mountain View. They are integral to what makes Mountain View a welcoming and vibrant community and with such a high quality of life. They're also integral to why people choose to live in Mountain View and work so hard to stay here. I could say that was certainly true for me 20 years ago when I moved to Mountain View before my daughter was born. And she has received an excellent education from the public schools here and was taught and cared for by teachers who regularly go beyond the call of duty. So it's beyond me, other council members and staff on the dais who have kids who either do attend or have attended public schools in Mountain View. And that's why I feel I can say that it is not just as public servants, but and not even just as partners, but as parents, that we are invested in this topic. And it is with the type of collaboration that we strive for that our 3 agencies can identify and maximize the areas of common interest that are of benefit to our community. And when there are differences, as there surely are bound to be when there are agencies with different missions and interests and constraints, having strong collaboration allows us to navigate those differences and the interdependencies when they do arise. And that's really what we have done. in many, many ways and have a track record of doing. These are just a picture of some of the collaborations between the city and the school districts that bring great benefits to our students and families, to name a few on the upper left corner. We have the community shuttle, which is free and has a stop at Graham Middle School. And at its peak over the past few months, that's had a ridership of 110 students daily. Next to that is the school resource officer program, which operates at all Mountain View Wisdom schools as well as at Mountain View High School. Next to that is the 777 Middlefield teacher staff housing project coming around the corner. We have the afterschool programs that operate at 2 Mountain View Wisman School districts or Mountain View Wisman Schools. And then the school crossing guard program, which operates right now at 15 locations and is being proposed for expansion to 21 locations. Finally, then in the lower left corner is our teen center, which serves high school and middle school students. So taken all together, these, plus the city's provision of land, Altavista High School, and our contribution to the check joint powers agreement, that totals $7000000 in city investment of which $4000000 is annual ongoing costs. And that does not include the cost for the shuttle, which is $3000000 but not really easy to attribute to the middle school ridership. Also does not include the $1500000 in school field maintenance, which is a topic for later in the presentation. So the reason why we're here today in particular is to talk about 2 areas of collaboration that are underway, and that is the continuation of the payment, from the shoreline community through the education enhancement reserve, joint powers agreement, to both Mountain View Wisman and Mountain View Los Altos High School Districts, and the 2nd is continuing the joint use agreement that in exchange for the city's maintenance of the fields, allows the city to schedule community use of those fields. These 2 collaborations are important because they contribute in a significant way to the city council adopted vision statement, and also to 3 of the council's 7 strategic priorities, which include intentional development and housing options, livability and quality of life, and sustainability and resilience. Progress has been made on both of these collaborations, to be sure, and there are also some challenges. This study session is an opportunity for the council to receive an update from staff and also to communicate to the community. It's commitment to continued collaboration with the school districts, and then to communicate to staff, direction that you would have us follow in our negotiation of these 2 very important collaborations. The presentation will be in 2 parts. I've already started the 1st part, which is this introduction and then focusing on the education enhancement reserve agreement, paid out of the shoreline community. And then community services director Marchant will take over and he will present on the joint use agreement. I would like to apologize in advance that this presentation is a little bit longer than the ones that you are used to receiving because there is a fair amount of background information to share. So first, I'm going to focus on the shoreline community payment through the education enhancement reserve. And to do that, I feel it's important to provide some context, which is information about the shoreline community. The shoreline community was established by a state of California legislative act in 1969. And this created the community as a separate legal entity, with the authority to use property tax increment to achieve certain purposes, and these purposes are related to creating and operating a regional park, enhancing the North Bay Shore area environmentally, enhancing the area economically, and adding needed housing supply. The funding to do this comes from property tax base above, or property tax, rather, above the base property tax in 1977. The improvements to be funded are described in the 1977 North Bay Shore Area plan, which we refer to as the Shoreline Area plan in order to distinguish it from the North Bay Shore Precise Plan. So the act creates the authority to use tax increment, and the plan describes the way in which that tax increment is to be used. The shoreline community is not a redevelopment agency. Redevelopment agencies were set up for different purposes under a different legislative authority, for a more narrow and time limited purpose, and were ended for that do not relate to the shoreline community. So these are some pictures taken from the press and from very, very old city plans and photos that were captured at that time, and as can be seen, the shoreline community has come a long way since 1969. What was once a flood prone area with minimal substandard housing, a hog farm, an auto wrecking yard, and a dumping ground, became, at one time, a site for a regional landfill, accepting refuse all the way from San Francisco. When the landfill was closed and covered with a clay cap. The shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park was developed with a grand opening in 1983. And that makes this year the park's 40th anniversary. Over time, businesses moved in and made the area a robust business park, which coexisted alongside a regional park, complete with a sailing lake, 9 miles of trails, a thriving wildlife habitat, contributing to the biodiversity of the region. But some very important components of the vision of the Shoreline Act are not yet completed. The 1st missing component is the development of housing, as part of complete communities that are supported with streets, active transportation, and utility infrastructure. The 2nd missing component is an extensive program of capital projects to protect the North Bay shore and areas south of 101 from flooding due to sea level rise. These important goals and obligations will continue into the near future, and must be balanced with the payments to the school districts from the shoreline community through the education enhancement reserve agreement. So now I'm going to dial further on in on the background and status of the education enhancement reserve agreement. As previously mentioned, the purpose of the agreement is to provide a payment to the Mountain View Wisman in Mount Villas Altos school district from the shoreline community funds. The 1st agreement dates back to 2005, and the current agreement was entered into 10 years ago and expires on June 30th of this year. The most recent payments to the districts were paid on December of 2022, and they are just over $5.3 million to the Mountain View Wisman school district and just over $3.4 million to the high school district. In addition, the current agreement was amended in 2019 to provide the districts the full amount of property tax revenue accruing from new residential development in North Bay Shore. 2019 was also the year that the city and the districts began negotiating the successor agreement. To provide more time for this process at the direction of the education enhancement reserve, joint powers agreement board. Staff has developed a short term successor agreement, which includes payments of at least the amounts on this slide. And just for background, I'll define the joint powers agreement board. It is the 2 superintendents of the districts, as well as the city manager, McCarthy. Staff is proposing in this study session a process for achieving the long-term successor agreement. And as I mentioned, has already proposed a short-term agreement. Education Enhancement Reserve Agreement. makes payment to the school districts in ways that benefit them by supporting educational programs that benefit the shoreline community related to innovation and economic vitality, and helping address the impact of students generated by residential growth in the shoreline community. So staff seeks council support this evening, one of your 4 study session questions for the short-term successor agreement, as defined with the following key terms. The agreement provides a payment in the coming fiscal year to ensure continuity of funding while the parties continue to negotiate the long term successor agreement. To further create certainty, the proposed agreement would make the payment to the districts upon execution of the agreement rather than in December, as is typical. The amount of the payment would be no less than the minimal payment, and that is referred to as the minimum payment, and that's the payment that was received in December of 2022. In fact, it would be more than this amount by the amount of property tax growth, um, property tax revenue over the year. And that is referred to as the adjustment payment. And on top of that, there would be an extra one time payment referred to as the additional one time payment. So to try to put that into an example, if the property tax revenue grows in North Bay Shore at 10%, as we expect that it might, the total payment to the Mountain View Wisman district would be 5.900000 into the Mountain View Los Altos high school district, it would be 3.8 million. So the city wants to give this money to the districts, and we verbally communicated these terms to the districts in January and followed up with a written draft agreement that was transmitted to the staff at both of the districts on February 24th. City staff wanted to move quickly, as was directed by the JPA board, and provide certainty about the minimum payment, because we had heard that Mountain View Wisman school district was not comfortable budgeting these funds, and the city had repeatedly committed to those funds and wanted to make sure that the school districts felt that they could take those funds into consideration in their budget. Staff received proposed edits from Mountain View Wisman school district staff on Thursday, and we are reviewing the suggested changes. We hope to reach an agreement on the short term successor as soon as possible. And with this agreement executed, the focus will continue on the long term successor agreement that I will go over next. Staff proposes a longterm education enhancement reserve agreement that spans the remainder of the development phase to achieve the remaining major purposes of the shoreline community, which are the development of housing in complete communities. the construction of transportation and utility infrastructure that's needed to support this housing and complete communities, and the identified sea level rise capital improvement program. With the accomplishment of these improvements, the shoreline community will transition to what we're referring to as a steady state phase. During this transition period, the payments to the school districts would increase over time and be balanced with the use of funds to meet these remaining development needs. Once the steady state phase, once at that steady state phase, there would be a more limited use of shoreline community funds for operating the 2 regional obligations inherent in the creation of the shoreline community, which are the park and the landfill. as well as keeping a prudent reserve for future sea level rise maintenance and improvements. This slide illustrates the different components of moving through the development phase in transition to the steady state phase. The green bar is the North Bay Shore Master Plan, which is a key source of information for the estimated revenues and expenses associated with the elements being prepared. regarding the amount of timing of revenues, excuse me. The blue bars show the major obligations during the development phase, with the darker, solid blue segments showing finite periods of constructing the major improvements, and the lighter hatched blue showing the maintenance and operating obligations that would continue into the steady state phase. The city's proposed long term approach was laid out to the school districts at the November 29, 2022 meeting of the Education Enhancement Reserve, Joint Powers Agreement Board. And as mentioned, a draft short term agreement was circulated on February 24th. Given the complexity of these agreements, it is understandable that the path forward comes with challenges. This slide summarizes the primary challenge, which is the magnitude of the interrelated community needs that are at the heart of this agreement. These are the community's needs for housing, schools, parks, environment, natural resources, economic vitality, all of which are essential to the quality of life in Mountain View. These are interrelationships and trade-offs amongst all of these needs, and the city is responsible for all of them. The city has a wide scope of responsibilities that are not mutually exclusive, and we must provide for all of these benefits to our community. We have heard and are glad to hear Mountain View Wisman School District, refer to this as a web of mutuality, so I will borrow that term here. Recognizing that all of these elements are of great importance to the people that we serve. Now, to find an effective solution for this highly complex negotiation requires a high degree of collaboration. And there are a few more challenges in that would be just natural to expect in that level of collaboration. One is finding common ground, that bridges the differences in positions. The city is committed to increasing payments to the school districts over time. While doing this, the shoreline community needs to balance the ability to pay for all of its obligations, most of which are well planned and some of which may be unforeseen. We have heard from Mountain View Wisman school district, a desire to receive payments equivalent to their full tax rate allocation, and to receive those now, perhaps as if the shoreline community did not exist or should not exist. In the city's perspective, this is tantamount to defunding the shoreline community. and its essential purposes and would have a disastrous impact on the city's general fund. We have heard some acknowledgment from Mountain View trustees that the need, there is a need for reasonable phasing, and we really are hopeful to explore this further during negotiation. Another challenge is engaging all of the stakeholders involved in the 3 agencies, as there are 17 elected officials and numerous staff, all with different perspectives to share, and all with their own need for information. And this leads to the next of the listed challenges, which is the need to identify, gather, and share information that the parties consider essential, to understanding each other's positions and interests and finding common ground. As mentioned, one of the critical areas of information is the North Bay Shore master plan, which will inform the long-term forecast for the shoreline community revenues and expenses. In light of these challenges, staff feels that a collaborative process with more structure and support would be useful. This process seeks to bring together stakeholders, starting with a joint meeting of all the elected officials of all three agencies. The joint meeting would be supported by agency staff and facilitated by a neutral moderator. The primary purpose of this meeting would be to kick off the process with relationship building and information sharing. We were targeting June for this meeting. Following the joint meeting, a subcommittee with elected officials and staff, representatives from the 3 agencies and continued support from a moderator would then meet, to further lay the groundwork for ongoing staff discussions. The proposal is for the subcommittee to be comprised of one person less than the quorum of each of the three agencies. So this translates to 4 school board members, 2 from each agency, and 3 city council members. This groundwork would consist of identifying further information needs and communication methods for sharing information, shared in separate interests, and then guidelines for staff discussions. It is anticipated that the subcommittee could complete this work in up to 3 meetings. And this would serve as the direction to staff. It may also be helpful for the subcommittee to convene one or more times later in the process to hear progress reports from the staff discussions. So I've just talked at length about the education enhancement reserve, and I will now speak much more briefly, as that is just one of the ways that the city provides support to the schools regarding the question of school capacity. Additional avenues are the council adopted school strategy, and city staff collaboration to help find potential school sites. The council adopted the school strategy in June of 2020. And it was done at the recognition that both the city and the district face limits and imposing requirements on developers. So the strategy has 3 components, a transfer of development rights known as a TDR program, potential collaboration on shared open space, and working with applicants in larger projects or master plans to voluntarily identify school sites. Following up on that last topic. That's just what staff did with the North Bay Shore Master Plan. Working with Google to relocate and enlarge a school site, to be made available to Mountain View Wisman school district for the purposes of an elementary school. This will come to council for approval with the North Bay Shore Master plan later this spring. The site is now 4 acres, increased from 2.5 acres, and is moved to a location preferred by Mountain View Wizman. This is especially promising, since the Mountain View school district board has expressed support for an urban school in North Bay Shore. Staff is also pleased to note strong collaboration with the Mountain View Los Altos High School district to identify potential sites for an academy style high school on NASA Ames campus. This could be a great opportunity to coordinate with UC Berkeley, which is developing a campus there. Another possibility that can be explored is in the city's collaboration with the high school district is Shenandoah Square. This is a site owned by the U.S. Army and has been of interest to the high school district, but we had heard from the Army that they had put their development of that site on pause. They are now ready to relook at options there, and the city is encouraged about the potential for that site. So with that, I am concluding the part of the presentation related to the education enhancement reserve, joint powers agreement, and I will hand it over to Community Services Director Marchant.

[02:55:13] Community Services Director Marchant: Thank you, Assistant City Manager Ramberg. Good evening once again, mayor, city council. I would much prefer to be there in person tonight. However, I'm glad to be participating virtually. And with that, I'm going to continue regarding the JUA background and some current status. The city and the Mountain View Wisman school district have a history of collaboration through the joint use agreement where the district provides the city access to open space of schools during after school, weekends, and school breaks, while the city in turn provides maintenance at those open spaces. Both agencies recognize the current agreements, need to be updated, and negotiations, um, began, um, in 2019. Those discussions were limited due to COVID-19 and other priorities until 2022, when both agencies began meeting more regularly. Uh, to reach a new agreement. Through these discussions, progress has been made, and there are a few outstanding items to be negotiated, which include a review of the Civics Interact. Confirm site maps that will be added as attachments to a new agreement, and to confirm responsibilities of each agency, including current costs of utilities for each school site. Last month, the district paused negotiations of the JUA, as part of their response to the North Bay Shore, DEIR, and at the March 2nd board of trustees meeting, district staff stated an intention to explore ending the JUA in order to preserve open space for possible future portable classrooms. The JUA has historically provided important benefits to the community. including the shared open space, shared open spaces, are maintained at a high quality by city staff, and they take personal responsibility for the areas that they are responsible for. The JUA allows residents access to open space within walking distance from their homes. And the city has developed a field use policy to provide equitable access to fields which the city would not be able to provide with city-owned fields alone. And by implementing the field use policy, city staff are able to maintain positive relationships with the local use sports groups and often find creative solutions to the demands for field use in the community while keeping the cost affordable for use sports. The JUA also allows shared open space to be used for community and city sponsored events, like outdoor movie nights and local neighborhood association events. Possible end of a JUA that is over 60 years old does create some complications. The slide highlights some of those. Both agencies would need to review and confirm open space improvements the city has constructed or contributed to over time to determine the amoritized value and assess how much is owed to each agency. While the school district does own much of the property utilized for shared open space. The city does own land utilized by the district. This includes a portion of a parking lot, landscaping, and tennis courts along San Pierre way. The city would need to assess whether and how to seek compensation for use of this property. There are also examples of open space in the community where both district and city owned properties that are adjacent to one another, creating contiguous space like Wisman and Cooper Parks. It is unclear how these would, how these areas would be separated and maintained by 2 different organizations. The possible end of a JUA would require significant work by both agencies while determining a path forward that meets the needs of the Mountain View community. Even if the JUA does not continue, ongoing collaboration will be needed between the 2 agencies. The city utilizes Park and Luffy's, that come from net new residential development to create new parks. The city does not have a separate ongoing stream of funds for creating new parks. And the city is currently exploring ways to create new funding sources. Of which I'll talk about on the slide. The city continues to be committed to building new parks in the community. The city has worked on 5 parks over the last year and a half . Which includes those that have been opened, those under construction are those in the design phase. Eight new park sites are currently identified, in which staff has capacity to have up to 4 new parks per year in design and construction phases. The city is planning to complete a nexus study. Excuse me. Uh, the city's planning to complete a nexus study to determine feasibility of implementing a fee on future commercial and hotel development. In addition, a citywide fee study is being implemented in fees for field rentals will be reviewed and updated and expected to be closer to market rate. Excuse me one moment. The city is also exploring the feasibility of a 2024 revenue measure. The measure could include funding for new parks in addition to funding a new public safety administration building. Sustainability programs or other potential uses. Finally, later this spring, The community services department will officially begin working on a new parks and recreation strategic plan. This plan will replace the previous recreation plan as well as the parks and open space plan. Some of these outcomes, some of the outcomes of the plan will be to create a cost estimate, to create new parks, to meet the current goals, recommend new funding strategies, and recommend changes to the Parkland dedication ordinance. And with that, I will turn it over to assistant city manager, Ms. Ramberg.

[03:01:38] Assistant City Manager Audrey Ramberg: Sounds like that's just in time too. In closing, we are hopeful, having heard that trustees are open to phasing payments, and finalizing the joint use agreement, that we can take the next steps and continue and renew and expand our collaboration for the education enhancement reserve agreement. The next steps are to draft an invitation from the council to the 2 boards of trustees to join the city in a joint meeting and also in the formation of a subcommittee. to develop meeting agendas and materials, which includes identification and compiling all desired background information and data, and to direct staff. Oops, I missed one, to direct staff to negotiate the long-term success or agreement, which would be part of the, um, the joint process. For the joint use agreement, the next steps are to continue discussions with Mountain View Wisman school district. in efforts to negotiate the agreement, and then to also assess the impacts to the community and city operations if the joint use agreement is to be ended. So with that, that leads with to the 4 study session questions that we can return to at that point of the meeting. I will stop sharing my screen.

[03:03:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you, Audrey, and thank you, John. So because this is a study session, I'll start out by taking public commentary. So, uh, we will start with um, in-person commentary and then move to virtual commentary. And so if any member of the public joining us virtually in person would like to comment on this item, click the raised hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk, and we will take in person speakers first. Do we have city clerk, do we have in person speakers?

[03:04:05] Unknown Speaker: Their names are not showing up.

[03:04:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. I will give so... So we will give a minute and a half per person. Would you like me to call the speakers?

[03:04:34] Unknown Speaker: Sure, their names are not showing up. Okay. 1st is clip chambers.

[03:04:49] Public Speaker: Resident of Mountain View and have a son at Crittendon Middle School. I want to thank staff for the very informative staff report and presentation of this really important agenda item. I'm really aware of the many examples of the joint use of collaboration identified in the staff report. I've coached soccer for 5 years and probably have used all the joint use facilities. I've only become recently aware of the challenges that you're faced that were identified in the presentation. And I think overall, the next the 5 next steps that were identified at the end of the staff report seem very reasonable. However, unless there's continued a collaboration at a successful rate, it's going to jeopardize many of the things that I've, you know, been advocating for for many years before the city council, including the infrastructure for housing, efforts to mitigate sea level rise, and the shared use of the parks and residents. I'm really here tonight just to find out, as a citizen, what we can do to help this facilitation process work, because it's extremely important to the community. And I don't really think many community members know it's at stake here, and if people are listening, and hopefully you're paying attention, because this is really important. Thank you.

[03:06:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much.

[03:06:15] Unknown Speaker: Next, we have Laura Ramos Burton. Berman? Sorry.

[03:06:25] Laura Ramirez Berman: Good evening. Good evening, evening. Uh, Honorable Mayor, Council members, city staff, and fellow Mountain View community members. I am Laura Ramirez Berman, resident of Mountain View for 15 years. I am here tonight in my capacity as president of the Mountain View Quizman school district. The board. We have the privilege and responsibility of representing and serving over 4,500 students and their families. Not only do we serve our current set of students, we also are working to lay the grand work for the continued excellence of our district, for our future students. Schools are critical infrastructure of a complete community, and it's our collective responsibility to plan for growth that will meet the needs and expectations of Mountain View residents, especially our children. I want to acknowledge the work of the city staff to compile the report for this study session. Thank you. This isn't the forum for us to go section by section through the report to discuss the narrative it outlines. What it includes or doesn't include, that could be the work of a shared subcommittee, to discuss and agree on a set of data about growth, revenue, and expenses, to come to a shared understanding about the needs and constraints that exist for both the city and the school district, and perhaps we can discuss putting that subcommittee together in May before school gets out. Rather, with my limited time tonight. I want to convey 2 ideas. First, we're here to listen carefully, to support it, acknowledge the council in this important discussion tonight. Second and most importantly, to express our willingness and desire to work with you on these issues. The board and our staff remain available to work with our counterparts in the city to discuss solutions to address the needs of the broader community and the students and families of the Mountain View Wisman school district. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:08:17] Unknown Speaker: Next to Yende, Rudolph.

[03:08:28] Public Speaker: Thank you, honorable man, and city council members, allow me to speak. I just quickly want to paint a picture of what education would look like if our schools could benefit from the full funding. Students would have an improving, expanding mental health services, which are necessary, even more, just we emerge from the pandemic. As soon as we enjoy smaller class sizes. Families could benefit from expanding free meal programs, which also serves our community, senior services. Homeless students will have more resources and support. More students can have access to universal preschool and after school enrichment programs, and teachers and staff could receive pay increases that allow them to keep serving and educating these students. With the stroke of a pen, you all can make this vision achievable by allowing a full funding share, this functional line racial part. Now, something that suggests that Mountain View must choose between the well being of its students and the well being environment. This is a false dilemma. Came for children in our community and came for the environment, are not mutually exclusive. We're not required to forsake one to meet our obligations for the other. We have a duty to care for both. As it happens, at Shoreline property, continue to rise, tax revenue from the region, likewise, continues to close, answer the funds, as at its disposal. Of course, we ask for more transparency, so that we can come to a mutual agreement, but it's also true that we, the members and leaders in Mountain View, instructively bound together, and we are a community. And that's in our students, and not a competing initiative. Our students need or needs. And our students' needs or our needs, and we, as a community, must come together to meet them. It is our collective duty to find solutions, and I believe in Mountain View...

[03:10:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Minute and a half has run out.

[03:10:12] Public Speaker: Thank you.

[03:10:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[03:10:16] Unknown Speaker: Laura Blakely?

[03:10:19] Laura Blakely: I just want to point out that the other speakers earlier this evening got two minutes or three minutes, so...

[03:10:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Um... There are many more. So you can't see it, but they're a great number of speakers online, and I... we... allocate the amount of time, depending on how many speakers want to speak for the subject.

[03:10:36] Laura Blakely: Okay, I'll try to be brief. Thank you. I'm Laura Blakely. Here, speaking in my personal capacity this evening. I'm very thankful that you're studying this important topic. Um, I won't rehash the two emails that I've sent you, but I wanted to give you my thoughts on the study session, questions posed by staff. The 1st 2 are around the proposed timing and context for a short and long-term successor, JPA, and the negotiation process. I wholeheartedly endorse putting a long-term successor JPA agreement in place. Yet, I would hope that as a good faith measure, The interim agreement would include a more generous one time payment to the schools, more on the order of 50 to 100% of the adjustment payment, rather than the 10% that has been proposed. I also very much favor the process staff suggests with the joint kickoff meeting, which I hope could be in May and not in June. And then reinstating the subcommittee of elected officials and staff. But this time with a neutral facilitator or a mediator, that would be very helpful. With proper prioritization. I'm hopeful that this process can be expedited before the end of the calendar year, it sounds like that's what you have in mind, so that's great, because, you know, that I've said many times the school districts need to begin their long term funding plans for new schools now. On the 3rd question around information needed, I want counsel to have access to all the data and projections you feel you need. I'm confident the school districts will transparently share whatever information they have available. and provide whatever new information is requested and I hope this city will reciprocate. On the final question about the joint use agreement. I support finalizing the agreement. I think it would to be to all of our benefit. And again, I encourage full and transparent information sharing. Thank you very much for studying this topic. Thank you.

[03:12:26] Unknown Speaker: You, Mackenzie?

[03:12:32] Public Speaker: Greetings, counselors. I'm always a little bit surprised by how many different intersecting layers of bureaucracy I actually interact with as a, I think it was captured earlier in the conversation about Caltrain, VTA, stops, El Camino, and all the different decision makers that come together. Like, as someone in the Monteloma neighborhood, I think you are all very familiar with the sort of park kerfuffle that came up. And I think it's very important to be thoughtful about moving forward, how there can be integration between these different layers of bureaucracy where people make these decisions. And this seemed like it might be. I've floated this idea to, I think, to a few of you before, maybe the whole council. I think this might be an appropriate place to raise it a policy. I'd like to see the city pursue. That could be something that could synergize with the school district would be to lower the voting age in municipal elections to 16 and maybe coupled with some sort of civics education within the school district. And that could be something that we could have long term moving forward to help integrate decision making between the different bodies and develop a lifelong habit of participatory democracy in all the people who grow up here, and try to do something at the local level to counteract some of the vitriol we see at the national level. So, thank that, I hope that you'll consider that. Thanks.

[03:13:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[03:14:00] Unknown Speaker: Jessica Tobin?

[03:14:11] Jessica Chauhan: Hi, everyone. Jessica Chauhan speaking on behalf of Friends of Mountain View Parks. As a nine year resident, worker in Mountain View and parent in the community. I want to thank counsel and staff for your time and consideration of this important issue. I wish to remind counsel that all day walkable public parks and open spaces are vital to the Mountain View community, as our great neighborhood schools, for our children and families, our parks and our schools are important centers for gathering, education, socializing, and the health and wellness, 1st and foremost, for our children, but also each and every member of our community. The current North Bay Shore plan does not provide adequate land or funding for parks or schools. I hope council will take action to remedy this issue, through collaboration with the school district, in place of allowing our current schools and parks like Mauna Loma to be built out. I hope you will consider that future North Bayshore students should have local neighborhood schools like the rest of children in Mountain View. Our schools should receive their fair share of funding, and I urge council to continue your close collaboration with the school districts, but also provide guidance that is 1st and foremost in the best interests of our children and future children who may live in our community. There's no investment more worthy than our children. Thank you.

[03:15:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, seeing no more in person speakers will go to virtual speakers. The first is Annie Yang. Oh, there is one more in person speaker. I saw you putting in a card. You can speak.

[03:15:46] Public Speaker: Okay. You know, I like to go last anyway. Schools, you learn stuff. Cool. Okay. Uh, I live in North Bajor. I want to see it grow. I want to see it thrive as a complete neighborhood. I do think that it's possible to do that, to have parks, to have schools, to have housing. to have redevelopment. I also want it to not be underwater, you know? 10 years from now. A lot of factors, a lot of just not going on. I think that, you know, we need to have a balanced approach where we factor in all of these things and make a very considered choice about how we allocate resources at what time, you know, in what priorities. And we don't need to have tantrums about, like, one source of funding for one thing at any given time. I think that you all are doing a good job at trying to, you know, plan out with goals, fixed. Here's the outcome we're looking for. Here's what resources we have. We're going to allocate. Let's just keep doing that. Instead of reacting, because people are angry, like, oh, yeah, one, my pet issue is a huge deal. Schools are important. Education is important. I do think it's something we can do. We don't have to say it's all or nothing at any given moment for one concept of funding that someone wants. Just act like children. Come on. Just get it over with in, like, um, 10 minutes, be, like, really, uh, you know, angry about it, and then move on instead of years of protracted, long, boring meetings.

[03:17:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, okay, okay. Thank you.

[03:17:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Yang, now it's your turn. Annie Yang will be our first virtual speaker.

[03:17:40] Annie Yang: Good evening, Mayor Higgs and council members. My name is Annie Yang, and I'm the chair of the Environmental Action Committee of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We have been working closely with city leadership, staff, and the community for many years, as you may know. Our work, and yours, has advanced programs that protect birds and wildlife and engage the community in conservation actions. Mountain View can be rightfully proud of its achievements, including the 10 year old burrowing owl preservation plan, the newly adopted shoreline wildlife management plan, and more. You may be less familiar with our education programs. Our classroom education program reaches every 4th grader in the Whisman school district, including introducing students to concepts such as migration, habitats, and conservation, using local ecosystems, and birds as case studies. We also conduct school field trips to Charleston Slough each year. We regularly host birdwalks around Rangstorf House, the lake, and the wetlands of North Bay Shore. During the nesting season, we lead educational events at the egret rookery of Shore Bird Way. As every fourth grader in Mountain View knows, Shoreline at Mountain View is a special place. It provides critical habitats for a large number of endangered species, including some of the most iconic and threatened species of our region, including borough owls and black skimmers. The city of Mountain View and the school districts should work together and prioritize and safeguard programs that benefit these and other species, community protections from sea level rise, and legacy, environmental hazards, as well as the ongoing care and maintenance of Shoreline Regional Park. Thank you.

[03:19:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Shani Kleinhouse.

[03:19:30] Shani Kleinhouse: Good evening. Mayor Hickson council members. My name is Shani Kleinhouse, I'm the environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We have been working and advocating in Mountain View for over a decade. Uh, please overcome attention. between the city and the school districts. We are greatly concerned with the potential implications, if you do not. These tensions can adversely affect both the environment and the community. young learners and their families included. We believe that the continuation of mountain in this shoreline regional power community is critically important. The environmental programs that this community supports are essential. The bay is at our heart, and its water is rising. Many wildlife species of shoreline are cherished by the community, and some of them are endangered, with the community, especially children. be willing to let them be extirpated from our landscape or go extinct. We recognize that the education enhancement reserve joint powers agreement is important to help address the effects of added housing production on schools. But no less important is providing parks to residents, maintaining shoreline at mountain view original park, preserving and enhancing grasslands and wetlands, sustaining endangered species, protecting mountain view from the environmental hazards of a closed landfill, and planning and adapting to sea level rise in more. So please find a way to work together. Earth days coming. Let's not be out of step. Thank you.

[03:21:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Bruce England.

[03:21:14] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. As many of you know, I manage a number of community groups, and so I hear from people coming from a variety of interest areas, and this agenda item is full of people's areas of concern and interest. And I want to act though what other people have said already, which is that it's gonna be extremely important to not single issue this thing, and anybody who comes to the table, it talks about it in terms of it being one issue. Um, that's gonna be noticed. I guarantee you by members of the community. It's got to be broad, it has to be integrated as to Mackenzie said, and our children are learning from this process. You know, if we're going to talk about civics in our classes, then we need to demonstrate to our kids how these things are handled, and not just simply fund the schools. We got to handle education properly in this way. I want to praise the staff members, um, who did the presentations, Audrey Ramberg and John Marchant. Those were really good presentations. I was impressed, I must say. Thought they were very balanced and laid the cases out very well. In any case, with the negotiations and the committees, however, this is handled, I urge everyone to come into it with good faith, and try to get this done, as Alex Brown suggested. Thank you.

[03:22:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Yes, we have Alex Nunez.

[03:22:50] Alex Nuñez: Hello, uh, Mayor Hicks, uh, members of the city council. Uh, so, uh, I'm speaking here, uh, tonight, uh, in my own personal capacity, um... Uh, I guess... I... When I first heard of, uh, the shoreline fund, Um, I think, like, most people in the community, um, my first question was, What in the world is that? Um, but when I came to understand a lot more about, uh, you know, the benefits of the fund, and, uh, you know, what we're able to get as a city from that, and, and also just, you know, understanding, you know, where the school board is coming from in terms of, you know, why they need some of that benefit as well. Um, I think, suffice to say, as many speakers have noted, uh, this is definitely, you know, not just one issue, but, uh, intertwined, um, approach of, you know, what do we value here, right? Uh, I personally value making sure that people can have a better lot in life, and for that, you need housing, and you need education. Um, I'm glad to hear that there's a proposed joint meeting. Um, I would love to what our state legislators have to say on this matter, um, because I feel that right now, uh, we're being left behind by the state, uh, and the funding that we would need to support our housing targets as well. Thank you very much.

[03:24:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Robert Cox.

[03:24:32] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[03:24:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: I can hear you.

[03:24:36] Robert Cox: Okay. Mayor Hicks, vice mayor, show Walter members of the city council. Livable Mountain View strongly supports a continuing dialogue between the city and the school systems leading to renewed collaborative agreements. Our school districts need the city's financial support, our residents need to use our school parks during off school hours and school breaks. The school district should not break trust with the residents of Mountain View and unilaterally cut off negotiations. Any plan to put portables all over our school parks is just not appropriate land use. The statements of the school board members tonight are a hopeful step in the right direction. Mountain View is becoming a more urban area. Our school districts need to understand that. Future plans for our schools, need to include building up, and not just building out. The city should assist the school districts by bringing in urban planners, who can show them how to build up, and put together a viable future plan for the schools, district's land use. As for the shoreline area, the Google Master Plan agreement, covering much of the area will spend a 30 year period, feeding the entire tax basis to the area, to the schools immediately, would compromise the maintenance of the shoreline area, and wildlife habitats, and would cause irreparable harm to the city budget. The city budget serves the needs of all members of the community, including every child in every school and mountain view. Thank you for listening to our views.

[03:26:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Louise Katz. Louise, are you there?

[03:26:25] Louise Katz: Hitting the wrong button. My apologies for wasting time. Yes, to mayor and council members, Louise Katz, multi decade resident of Mountain View, who sent her children to Mountain View schools. Um, I wanted to agree and echo what Robert Cox said and Alex Nunez about the state not being part of our discussions. The whole issue that the district is trying to address of development is caused by the state mandates and the need for housing, and the state needs to be part of the discussion. Also, again, we need to remember, this is not 1960. We cannot be trying to recreate the model of sprawling suburban schools with our limited funds, our limited land, and the limited amount of time that we have in which to plan for urban schools, that in an urbanized city. And I hope that is what you bring to the meetings, which is experts on urban development and urban schools. We have massive teacher parking lots that can be put underground. Obviously it costs huge amounts of money. The state has to be there for us. We cannot say that we're only going to address, quote, unquote, the needs of the students when we then shut out the rest of the community. And the rest of the community, are the ones who vote for the bonds. They're the ones who contribute in massively. to the school district. Thank you.

[03:27:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Principal Vernon Taylor.

[03:28:04] Vern Taylor: Hi, my name is Vern Taylor. I'm the principal at Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School. I want to speak to you all tonight about how impactful it will be to receive the full funding from Shoreline. As you know, the pandemic has had an unimaginable impact on Mountain View family. Currently, 37 of 360, or more than 10% of my students do not reside in permanent housing. More so many more families are barely making enough to survive. My students and families depend on our district's meal program to provide a well balanced meal. Funding from Shoreline would help our district continue to support our families and students. Additionally, I would also like to highlight the benefit, full funding, would provide mental health services for our students. Currently, our district collaborates with check to provide counseling service to our students. Check does a wonderful job supporting our students. Unfortunately, the need in my school, and I'm sure other Mountain View schools is greater than what we can met with our current partnership. Full funding would allow our students to provide a more robust mental health support system, which would include critical components, like counselors at every site, and programs to reduce bullying and promote pro social behaviors. I know all of you value our students in our schools. Because of that, I ask that you do everything you can to prioritize our schools and our students. An investment in our students is an investment in Mountain View. And again, thank you for our time, for your time.

[03:29:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Devin Conley.

[03:29:34] Devin Connolly: Good evening, Mayor Hicks, Vice Mayor Showalter, and honorable council members. My name is Devin Connolly, and I am the vice president of the Mountain View Resident School Board. And a 17 year resident of Mountain View. Before being elected to the school board in 2018, I served on Mountain View's Parks and Recreation Commission, and I have a deep respect for the work of city staff, as well as the importance of open space, as a public biodiversity, and recreational resource. The increase in housing planned across our city will impact not only our open spaces, transportation planning, and infrastructure, but also impact our schools. And while we could debate how many students are going to arrive, we know that we have to have somewhere to put them. Um, I am looking forward to continuing a mutually, um, a mutually beneficial process with the city, and I think that the proposed joint meeting is a fantastic way to start or restart negotiations and really come from a shared understanding regarding the needs of both the city. and the school districts. Thank you for your time tonight, thank you to staff for the presentation, and we look forward to continue working with you. Thank you.

[03:31:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Next, we have Gidev.

[03:31:12] Kita Dev: Good evening, Mayor Hicks, invice Mayor Shawalta and council members. My name is Kita Dev. I'm with the Sierra Club, Lumo Creata Chapter. And we have been following North Asia for many, many years. It's a very special place. Mountain View was truly visionary in creating North Bay Shore that we have today, and it was visionary in creating the financing district that provides the funding for sea level rise, maintaining the landfill, the shoreline wildlife refuge, and park, and the staff that sustain both of these, two incredible regional assets. and all its infrastructure. Now it's moving into a new phase of including a complete neighborhood, including schools to support it. This requires forward and visionary thinking as we move forward into this new phase. As I said, it's truly a unique place. And we wish that other cities had the vision to create this kind of long range plan for transformation. The structure has brought a lot of value to residents. And we believe it's really critical that the city and the school district think, in a visionary way, moving forward, to resolve this issue, because this is a very special place. Thank you.

[03:32:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Annette Hertz.

[03:32:54] Annette Hertz: Hi, my name is Senatorz. I'm a resident of Mount Meuse since 2007, and my family loves Shoreline Park, the wetlands and our wildlife. I am so proud of my city for prioritizing biodiversity and protecting vulnerable species at Shoreline, especially important to me was our investment in protecting the borough outs. When I 1st learned about borrowing outs at shoreline and applied in 2012. It was the 1st time I stood up in public and spoke to this very same city council. A few years later, I was happy to see the borrowing outputs of, in reality, and now recently, I'm even proud of the approval of the really visionary, the shoreline wildlife management plan, that really sets apart our city from others in the Bay Area and beyond, combining the needs of a thriving regional park, and at the same time, maintaining the landfill, so it's not hazardous to the community, protecting us from sea level wise, and protecting endangered species, all this is complex and an intricate balancing act. Keeping these function integrated is important to every mountain view resident, young and old. This park is our asset. It is regionally important as well, and globally, if we consider that some of the species at shoreline are at risk of extinction. I am greatly concerned and ask my city and schools not to stop auto averted funding from the shoreline community away from shoreline, and away from conservation of endangered species, without these programs, mountain view students face a very plea future. Thank you.

[03:34:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Jackie Kierns.

[03:34:42] Jackie Kearns: Good evening, everybody, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Jackie Kearns, and I'm the principal of Mariano Castro Elementary School. My school's pretty unique within Mountain View, with over 60% of my students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. They face housing instability and food insecurity. And we find ourselves really serving as an unofficial community school. At Castro, we not only provide quality education for our students, but we also provide other services to fulfill basic needs, so their students can feel comfortable to learn. Some of my students only get two meals a day, the ones we provide for them. And just this year alone, we have provided clothing, blankets, eyeglasses, shoes, mental health services, job application assistance for parents, resources to families in need, parent education, and after school child care. And when I think about how much money is being diverted from my kids, and when I think of how much more we could be doing to help our families, it breaks my heart, these are not just my students. They're yours, too. And as the leaders of the city, you have the responsibility to care for, protect, and ensure that all of our children can be successful. Providing Mountain View Westman school district with a full allotment will greatly help us achieve that. Please do the right thing and help us get our students and families the support they need. Thank you and have a wonderful evening.

[03:35:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Cindy Nyun.

[03:36:06] Cindy Nguyen: Hi, my name's Cindy Nguyen. and the principal of Bub Elementary School. Thank you for allowing me the space to talk about the impact that additional funds could have on students and teachers. So 1st I want to start by saying that Mountain View Wisman School district teachers and staff are amazing. Teaching has always been a tough job that has become significantly more challenging and multifaceted coming out of the pandemic. In addition to all that teachers have always done, Now they're also needing to mitigate unfinished learning. They have an increased need for supporting social emotional learning. Students are in need of more time and support and learning how to be in a group and learn as a collective unit, how to collaborate, how to have empathy for others. We're also seeing more challenging behaviors in our classrooms because of, um, the impact the pandemic has had on our students. We are asking the classroom teacher of 25, 30, 35 students to be not only the primary teacher, but also the intervention teacher, the one to one instructional assistant, the behavior technician, and the mental health counselor. Teachers are amazing, and they do what is needed, but it is at the cost of their own wellbeing and mental health. As you know, teachers are leaving the profession, and job stress for teachers in the US has increased exponentially in the last few years. Additional funds could lower class sizes, higher additional staff, such as instructional assistance, mental health therapists, and counselors. Our students would get the support they need and deserve. We would be able to retain our amazing and talented teachers. If we have the financial means to do better for kids and the teachers and staff who grow them, then how can we, in good conscience, deny them of this. Thanks for allowing me this space.

[03:37:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Rebecca Westover.

[03:37:44] Rebecca Westover: Good evening. My name's Rebecca Westover and I'm the chief business official for MBWSD. Thank you for taking the time to discuss how the funds from Shoreline are allocated. I know that this city has many issues that it's balancing, but this topic is particularly important because it impacts every child in the city. The children in Mountain View have benefited from the collaboration between the school district and the city for crossing guards, staff housing, and school resource officers to name a few. We have a long history of partnering to support our children. I've greatly appreciated the collaboration with Audrey Ramberg and John Roshan over the years and know that we will have many projects that we will continue to collaborate on together. The district is very appreciative of the pass through of 38% that would typically come to the district. Our most recent agreement is set to expire, offered 100% of new residential growth to the district. It's important for council to know that our operational budget is driven by approximately 50% residential and 50% commercial. Unlike some of our neighboring districts that receive the majority of their funding from residential. Mountain View children are at a disadvantage in comparison to neighboring school districts. The amount we have to spend per pupil is less than Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, and Los Altos. If we were to receive our tax increment, we could reduce class size at the elementary and middle school. Provide an additional adult in every classroom to the primary grades, and have dedicated counselors at every site. much like our surrounding districts are able to do, but we are not. This agreement impacts every child in the city, and we need your help and support to meet the needs of our students. And I look forward to our continued collaboration. Thank you.

[03:39:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next. We have April Webster.

[03:39:40] April Webster: Hello, again, Mayor Hicks and council members. Um, my mother was a teacher and the reason I value education so highly, uh, particularly as a woman. However, it is definitely not the only thing I care about. I'm worried about how this situation could jeopardize the city's efforts to address affordable housing, active transportation infrastructure, mitigating climate change. Sea level rise, and biodiversity is highlighted by Shiny and others. Our ability to continue along the current trajectory of addressing those urgent needs. It's contingent on our city's fiscal health. Please, please, please, do not do anything hasty. I implore you to consider the myriad of needs of the larger community, not just those of a smaller few. As Alex Brown said, we need balance, and as Bruce communicated, our considerations should be broad. Um, I also want to say that I really feel strongly that equitable access to the outdoors, including urban parks, is incredibly important, to the point that I spend a good chunk of my time working with a national nonprofit to provide free and low cost outdoor education for girls and women. And I want to make the point that not everyone in our community has a means to access more distant outdoor spaces, which are, for the most part, only accessible by car. The outdoors promotes good mental health with Mint, which many suggested is important, and it should be free and easily accessible. Please, um, you know, continue to make our our park's important. There are special places. Please do not defend them. Thank you.

[03:41:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Edie Keating.

[03:41:28] Edie Keating: Hello? This agenda item, uh, has given me many things to think about. One of them is how dependent I am on the council and the staff, and hearing all these interdependencies, on their counterparts in the school district. And I appreciate the staff report. I want to read it through several more times, and then I know I will still have questions. So it's important, I have to trust all of you, to understand many of these things that I'll probably never understand fully. Over time, I've come to read many staff reports, and to notice their language, and I don't usually hear words like impact, impasse, severe consequences, needing common facts. I also don't usually hear 45 million in unfunded costs this year for if certain actions were taken. What a dramatic thing to hear. Um... And here I am with my heart moved by the comments of all the, uh, school district and employee speakers. The school community is not the whole community. The whole thing. Where would you fill those 45 million costs that the city would suddenly have? Safe parking programs, homeless services, it all matters. Get this right, and I am gonna have to trust you to all get it right.

[03:43:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. And I think, lastly, we have Jerry Steach.

[03:43:15] Jerry Steach: Oh, good evening. Am I unmuted and audible?

[03:43:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: You are unmuted. We can hear you.

[03:43:20] Jerry Steach: Good, great. Good evening once again, ladies and gentlemen. Um, much of what I intended to say has already been covered, so I'll attempt to be somewhat original here. My concerns are about the use of parks on school sites, which has served the city well. for decades. And I'm a multi decade resident of Mountain View. So I've observed this firsthand. Um, I'd like to strongly advocate the city in the school districts, continue with the dialogue targeted at agreements, which foster, uh, sustained cooperation, that these 2 bodies presently enjoy. Um, that essential level of cooperation will go a long way toward the long term planning, development of schools, and their sites, that ensure our fast growing and increasingly urbanized cities needs are properly addressed. So let's make that a priority, and thank you very much for your time.

[03:44:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And I was wrong, we have one more speaker. Oh, nope, that speaker disappeared. So, this is the last call for virtual speakers. Seeing none. We will... move on. Ah, I've just been given a note that the council needs to vote to continue on moving after 10 a.m. 10 a.m. I hope not. Oh, my gosh. 10 p.m. All those in favor? Oh, yeah, I need emotion. Okay, I see emotion by council member Ramos, and a second by council member Ramos. We can now vote. Oh. Okay. Okay. We can stay after 10 p.m. Okay, so now that we've finished public commentary, we move on to the portion of the program where the council is able to ask questions. Do any council members have questions? Council member show alter, or vice mayor.

[03:46:06] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Well, I know you won't be surprised that a number of my questions have to do with sea level rise. As, um, the resident water geek on the council here. I would like to ask first, what is the area expected to flood if we don't build the sea level rise protection projects? Do we have a map available this evening? Um, Ms. Cameron?

[03:46:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: We do. The public works director, Cameron, will speak to the item, and I will put the map on the screen. Thank you so much.

[03:46:48] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Okay. So, good evening, Don Cameron, public works director. So, yes, you have a map on the screen that shows the year 2070 C level rise inundation map. All areas and blue on the map are already in a FEMA flood hazard area and are very susceptible to lower levels of sea level rise. This includes areas south of 101, along Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek, as well as north of Middlefield Road, including portions of Cretaden Middle School. With a high level, with a high sea level rise estimates, more areas are prone to flooding, with potentially worsening conditions for the areas south of 101. So basically, again, the area shown in blue is already prone to flooding, the area shown in orange, will be added, as we have more sea level rise in the areas in purple, as we hit, what's expected to be the high level of sea level rise. While those areas in blue will just get deeper and deeper water, because they were already prone to flooding. Another piece about this is even though these are year 2070 projections. What's important to note is sea level rise is escalating on us. Just a little over 10 years ago, It was estimated that sea level rise would only be 8 inches to 31 inches, and 2 years ago, that was updated to say that we expect it to be 23 inches to 42 inches. So, it basically, on the low side, tripled, and on the high side, almost doubled. And it's continuous, it's escalating. So even though these are the flood zones in 2070, a lot of these areas will potentially experience flooding much earlier than that due to sea level rise.

[03:48:56] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, and this is what you call the no project scenario, right?

[03:49:00] Public Works Director Don Cameron: That is correct.

[03:49:01] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: And Mountain view has developed a project, which is, I think, really 14 projects, a plan. We have a plan for sea level rise. And we are actively working on those projects to protect this area so that this inundation wouldn't be expected to occur. So what's the schedule generally for completing projects that will really provide us with, you know, begin to provide us with some protection? And then, and then, you know, what's the schedule for completing the program?

[03:49:37] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So, for our sea level rise capital improvement program, we've identified $122 million with the projects in year of construction, which we have funded 17 million of those projects. We've divided the projects into five year, 10 year and 20 year projects. So our goal is to see if we can complete these projects in the next 20 years to, again, protect this area from sea level rise as it progresses.

[03:50:12] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. And that's really important, because, um, you know, 20 years is also kind of the time frame, we think of in terms of the development of the housing, and the housing is what brings the students, which is what brings the needs for the schools. So we need to do this sea level rise. It looks like we need to do the sea level rise, really right away. But in terms of public works projects, because they aren't fast. And the other thing I wanted to ask you, is about the funding. I know that we have, you know, the shrine community for fund is one form of funding, of course, and a very, very important one. But I know it's also not the only one. Can you talk a little bit about the other sources of funding we are pursuing?

[03:51:08] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So we do look to pursue regional and state funding wherever possible. One of the items that we do face, and in fact, I'll just point out, one of our sea level rise protection projects, the Salt Bay pond restorations, is receiving state funding and support through the California Coastal Commission. Um, Conservancy, excuse me. However, one of the things that we all need to be aware of is, and this is from Bay Adapt Plan. They noted that the San Francisco Bay Area is expected to be one of the most significantly impacted regions from sea level rise in North America. So while we continue to work with regional partners and neighboring cities and explore grant opportunities, there is clearly not enough external funding to meet all the jurisdiction needs, frankly, our neighboring cities have needs just as high as ours, and are looking for funding solutions. So what we do find is as we look to pursue grants, the external funding sources are highly competitive. They tend to focus on specific elements or geographical areas, so we may not be competitive for some of the funding that comes out. We will be limited frequently on the number and scope of projects to be received to the port because they're trying to spread out money to many different jurisdictions. And definitely, we have to provide cost sharing in order to compete successfully for the grants. So one of the things we do look at as staff is, with the uncertainty on the availability and timing of the limited external funding, we really realize the city needs to be prepared to fund improvements, and to protect our community from sea level rise.

[03:53:07] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you very much.

[03:53:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, Vice Mayor, that's the last question.

[03:53:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, uh, Council member Matt.

[03:53:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, on the topic of funding, I get a lot of questions from residents who say, why can't developers pay for all the infrastructure and everything else is needed in North Bayshore? The developers developing in North Bay Shore, that is.

[03:53:35] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you again. Council member Mattachek for the question. So the city does require developers to pay impact fees. Some of them are geared towards transportation improvements, some geared towards utility improvements, such as water and wastewater needs. And in order to charge impact fees, The city must conduct what's called a nexus study. So one of the things to recognize about nexus studies is, and this is limited by state law, the amount that developers can be required to pay is limited by the nexus study that establishes a reasonable relationship between new development and the needs and costs of the planned improvements. Per state law, new development can only be required to pay for the share of the improvements that their development will need to use. They cannot be required to pay for improvements that addressed existing problems, such as existing traffic congestion, or beyond their fair share for improvements that benefit other users. So, for this reason, we've needed to come up with a multi sources of funding in order to finish supporting the development of the shoreline community. So, developers are expected to pay using the impact fees for mitigating their transportation impacts, and for helping with improving and increasing the utilities in the area. However, the needs for building, I mean, building a new city, and the infrastructure involved goes beyond what developments can, what we can require the developers pay for in order to really develop the comprehensive transportation network up there, achieve our active transportation improvements. So, we do look towards other sources of funding, including the shoreline fund to complete the infrastructure needed in North Bay Shore. Thank you.

[03:55:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You know, I think earlier, we heard that Shoreline is a special district, and not an RDA, a redevelopment agency. And I know there was some information about this in the staff report, but I think it'd be useful to just reiterate, um, if staff could, what the differences between a special district and an RDA. How's the money spent? How are they formed? Um, how long do they usually last? Not sure who can answer that.

[03:56:16] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So, just want to make sure that I'm understanding the question, sorry, Jennifer Logue, city attorney, you just want to understand the difference between the shoreline regional park community and a redevelopment agency. Is that the question, probably?

[03:56:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, I think I know that, but we've had a lot of people ask. that question.

[03:56:32] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, yeah. Okay, so, um, the shoreline community exists under its own uncodified statute, which is separate and apart from the redevelopment law, which created the former redevelopment agencies. So the shoreline community definitely is not a redevelopment agency, even though it sort of feels like one or is similar to one, it is not one and was not affected by the laws that dissolved the redevelopment agencies. But some of the key differences between the shoreline community, and the redevelopment agencies that were created under that former law, are that the shoreline community is not required to set aside 20% of its increment for affordable housing, as redevelopment agencies were required to do. There are no statutory pass-through obligations as there were for redevelopment agencies. And the purpose of the shoreline community, which includes the permanent obligation to maintain and operate the regional park and other public facilities, is also broader than what was required for redevelopment agencies. So, because it was created by its own uncodified statutes, and there are many differences between the two, this is simply just a standalone special district, and not a redevelopment agency, even though it appears to be similar in a lot of ways.

[03:57:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, Let's see. We did have a council question about enrollment at the school districts, and it looked like the enrollment figures were not necessarily tracking population growth in the city. Is that the latest and greatest chart that shows basically population increasing, but the enrollment? Maybe you could bring up that, is that a slide that could be brought up?

[03:58:29] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, I can do that.

[03:58:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I guess when we see that, do we have any information on what is driving the trend in school enrollment?

[03:58:56] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Oh goodness. So, to your 1st question, this is a slide that staff put together with information about enrollment that was available on the Mountain View Wisman school district website, and then it shows the enrollment is the orange-ish bar, or sorry, rather line, going back to 2012, 2013, showing relatively stable and moderately increasing enrollment as population growth, which are the blue bars, increased more significantly over that same time frame. And then it shows from 2019 to 2020, population continued to increase, but enrollment dropped. And that was, you know, we haven't had a conversation with the district to understand the drivers of that from their perspective and whether there are more recent or different numbers that they would provide for us because this gets us up to 2022, 23. And in terms of the drivers of enrollment, I think that really would be a great discussion to have as part of the joint meeting with the school districts. We certainly provide information and have input around what is projected or what housing projects have been approved and where they are in the pipeline, what housing type they are in terms of what income level they serve and what the configuration is, in terms of the size of the units, and those are things that certainly can be used by demographers to make projections on enrollment growth going forward. And I imagine those same things can be looked at to analyze whether enrollment grew or to the degree to which it grew as housing grew, and as populations grew. One of the things just from this data that we have here is that, and also some data on housing that council members asked for in the council Q and A, is that housing growth grew over the same period of time around 14%. Population grew a little over 10%. And the student enrollment declined 10% over that same time frame.

[04:01:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you Um, I think that's all the questions I have for right now.

[04:01:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Avoc Koga.

[04:01:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to go back to the next study on impact fees. Um, when that when the study uh, took place, were the fees that were determined maximum, somewhere in between. I know the next, the studies usually give us a range. Could you tell us where what we landed on?

[04:02:00] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, so you were correct. The nexus study tells you what your maximum permissible amount legally can be, and I do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but, um, what I do recall is at the time, council did decide not to charge the maximum allowable fee for the various uses. And this was done for the original precise plan that did not include the housing development. It was more focused on the office and other uses. So, again, at the time the council did not select the maximum allowable fee, somewhat reduced amount on the transportation side. When precise plan number two, the update came along that added the up to 9,800 housing units council did decide at that time not to redo the nexus study and start charging these impact fees of transportation utility services on the new housing coming in because of the goal to keep the housing as financially feasible as possible and wanting to rely more on the office development impact fees, to fund the infrastructure needs for North Bay Shore.

[04:03:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And that nexus study was conducted in 2012?

[04:03:34] Aarti Shrivastava: No, it would have been conducted more in the 2015, 2016 time frame. So it's still, it's been seven. years. It has been 7 years. And the, um, the fees do escalate each year. Oh, based on like a CPI or... Yes. Uh-huh.

[04:03:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And then, looking at the... Development phase time horizons, I noticed that the transportation improvements are expected to happen before the North Bay Shore Master plan is completed, and, um, like, could you explain what that timing is based on?

[04:04:21] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Uh, yes, thank you for the question. When we went to update the North Bayshore circulation study, which was updating and building on the priority transportation improvements, that were identified as part of the North Bayshore precise plan, for that set of improvements as well, there was a recommended set of improvements in 5 years, 10 years, in 20 years. And that's what we've been focused on. And there is several priority transportation improvements that are already in design, getting ready to go for construction, are really focused over the next few years of finishing and delivering those, including some fairly large scale projects. However, some of the projects that will really help on the active transportation side, does involve some major interchange project work that Ringsdorf and San Antonio that will be very expensive, involve working with Caltrans, which takes a very long time. So some of those projects we are assuming could take 15 to 20 years to deliver. Ideally, we would stay ahead somewhat of adding and occupying the new office spaces. So while the master plan may be showing a 30 year period, you know, if we can continue with the track of finishing the priority transportation improvements in 25 years, that will put us in a position to have the infrastructure in place. So that that's a key part of this.

[04:06:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I guess I'm trying to get at the fact that, you know, this all happened before COVID, and now we are in a new environment, frankly. The traffic patterns are fascinating to me. I don't really quite understand them, but, you know, there is this, you know, work from home aspect, and it does seem to, at least, um, maybe cover 20% of commutes now have been a little supposedly eliminated. And I realize part of it is that transit hasn't completely come back yet either. But in light of these changes. And, you know, we've also been told by, frankly, Google that they're rethinking what their future plans are. Are we building in that potential of changes, you know, that perhaps office will not be fully built out. Like, what are we doing? What are the projects that, you know, need to be done just because they need to be done in current conditions versus projects that, you know, are tied to this potential full development of the master plan? And, like, do we have it parsed out that way or heavily thought about doing that yet? So, um, let me just find my project list. I will note

[04:07:44] Public Works Director Don Cameron: that the projects that we're currently working on to deliver are definitely to meet current needs that even with post pandemic traffic changes are still needed. And many of them are focused on building out an active transportation network and an internal circulation system for North Bay Shore. itself. So the current projects that we're working on, the US 101 at Shoreline Boulevard, off-ramp realignment. It's, when I look at these, it's probably the only one that is primarily focused on vehicle use and dealing with the fact that we do still have a major problem at 101 and 85. And as you, I'm sure you've heard it empty sea. Freeway traffic has returned to pre pandemic levels. The local traffic has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Everybody's waiting to see if that's just a matter of time because as people start to avoid the freeways, they start using our local roads some more and waiting to see if that starts to occur. And as you said, transit has not yet rebounded and that is leading to more car trips as well. But some of our key projects are like the Charleston Transit Boulevard phases too and three. That primary purpose of that project is to create a more permanent transit only lanes, as well as two-way cycle tracks, finish building out the bike and ped network for Charleston. We have the bike ped, bridge over 101 at Shoreline, again, geared towards, you know, moving us away from cars into bike compared work. Bustling enhancements, Stevens Creek Trail connections, additional protected bikeways. You know, a lot of these, especially the later ones, are really focused on cycle tracks, having to widen bridges in order to handle the cycle tracks. So a lot of these improvements would still be necessary if we really want to make North Bay Shore Car Light and provide a well-developed bike and ped circulation system.

[04:10:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And the, um... we assuming that we would fully fund it somehow on our own, or are we considering like grant funds? For instance, I know, you know, MTC, we're looking at, um, transit priority lanes. That's an area that we're like, so... And I know it's hard to determine, but are we looking at some kind of formula or something that's, you know, that would indicate we're not going to be trying to pay this all on our own or are we really planning to try to fund it on our own?

[04:10:49] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Most of this, we're looking at funding on our own using, again, the combination of impact fees, community and public benefits, as well as shoreline fun. It doesn't mean that we don't apply for grants whenever we see an opportunity. For instance, we did recently, we apply for an OBAG 3 grant for the Charleston transit corridor. Unfortunately, it was not selected. We will continue to keep our eyes open for various regional and state and even federal grant opportunities as we look to build out the bike and ped infrastructure in North Bay Shore.

[04:11:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. It's changing subject areas, um, I think it's, uh, probably to Ms. Randberg. When we talk about the short-term agreement, how did we arrive at the 10% lumpsum amount,

[04:11:48] Audrey Seymour Ramberg: the one-time additional payment, it was a proposal that the city put forward. And it also, when we looked at the, um, anticipated growth rate in North Bay Shore, it got us up to around 6 million, which was a number that we had heard at one point as being of interest to Mountain View Lisman.

[04:12:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So it was based on some analysis of, um, what we expect the growth to be and what that would give us in terms of a total payment. Okay, great. Um, I think that's it for now. Thank you.

[04:12:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[04:12:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions that are follow-ups from previous questions. Oh, Don, this one might be for you. did a financial feasibility analysis, a company, the nexus study that was done for commercial development.

[04:12:55] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I'm sorry, this did predate me, and I do not know the answer to that question. I don't know if our assistant city manager, community services director would know the answer to this.

[04:13:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Financial feasibility study, company... What stuff with the precise plan?

[04:13:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that question, council member, Artisha Vostva, assistant city manager, community development director. Um, if you're asking about the 2014 precise plan where the Nexus study was established. Um, I can, I can confirm this, but I have in discussions with staff. I wasn't here at the time, but heard that, yes, they did do an access study. And that they did look at financial feasibility in determining some things, such as, to what extent, you know, impact fees could be charged, because it had to be a delicate balance between making sure development did happen and that they paid. So, I believe that was done. And then similarly for the residential, for BMR, um, uh, requirements, uh, financial feasibility study was done, and the requirements would develop accordingly.

[04:14:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I think that the intent of the question is that the number that was selected wasn't arbitrarily determined, right? based on some...

[04:14:29] Aarti Shrivastava: It was based on balancing financial feasibility, with development paying its fair share.

[04:14:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Okay, and it might be helpful for staff to provide that analysis to us.

[04:14:41] Aarti Shrivastava: We can go back and look at that.

[04:14:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Uh, great. Thank you. And then also for Don, the projects that you were describing are, are they all mitigations identified in the EIR, or are there discretionary projects that we could elect not to pursue for whatever reason?

[04:15:14] Public Works Director Don Cameron: In terms of the priority transportation improvements, we would have to go back and research which of them were considered formal mitigations under the EIR. What I do know is these were identified as part of, you know, building the transportation infrastructure necessary to support the precise plan. So we would have to go back and confirm which of these were identified formally as mitigation. under the EIR.

[04:15:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Is it fair to say that we have generally less discretion over projects that are formally designated as mitigations?

[04:15:59] Public Works Director Don Cameron: It is fair to say that, yes, it would have to go back to the sequet document and, you know, reexamine things if a mitigation is decided not to pursue a mitigation. But the EIR also included statements of overriding considerations for most of the traffic related impacts, which is why, and as part of doing that, making a major commitment to the bicycle pedestrian and transit improvements in lieu of mitigating for the significant traffic impacts.

[04:16:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Even for a statement of overriding considerations, don't we still have to mitigate the greatest extent feasible?

[04:16:49] Public Works Director Don Cameron: You know, I...

[04:16:51] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: That's always been my understanding, which is why even when you adopt a statement of a writing consideration, still identify what other steps would be taken to mitigate, as you're saying, in another way, or to the greatest extent, feasible. And again, that's how the North Bay Shore precise plan EIR handled the statement of a variety of considerations is committing to a lot of these other types of improvements.

[04:17:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, it may also be helpful to the extent that it's fair to categorize projects as discretionary, as opposed to nondiscretionary, that might be useful information for us, as we continue the negotiations. I have a different set of questions now. I appreciated the analysis of the projected property tax growth in the staff responses to counsel questions submitted in advance in the meeting. Um, but, uh, I think it might be, one component that might be helpful to understand is, for much of this development, the Si West project, at 1500 North Shoreline, in the Google North Bay Shore Master Plan, in order for that redevelopment to occur, a substantial amount of commercial square footage actually comes off the property tax rules, right? We're demolishing some amount of commercial square footage, which is retained entirely within the shoreline community and replacing it with residential, where the school districts would benefit from 100% of the property tax rate allocation under Prop 13. Is that something that is quantified? Do you happen to have that information now, or is that something that we might need to revisit?

[04:18:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, council member Ramirez. That is an issue that we are aware of and that we are building into the analysis of the forecast, that as land is re categorized as residential, that it is treated differently in terms of the way that it shapes the payment to the school districts. But I don't have that information currently.

[04:19:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No worries. And not just the residential, but some commercial square footage might become a park or some commercial square footage might become land dedicated for affordable housing. And so it has not just an impact on the school districts, but also our own property tax collection, right?

[04:19:29] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes.

[04:19:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That would be helpful to understand as well. There isn't a formal nexus study for the use of shoreline community funds, but there still has to be some nexus between the use of the funds, and the rationale for the shoreline community in the 1st place, right?

[04:19:56] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Did you repeat the question?

[04:19:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So there isn't a formal, like, mitigation fiat next to study that's done for the shoreline community, but there still has to be some nexus between the shoreline community and the proposed use of funding from the property tax revenue generated from the community, right?

[04:20:17] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, so use of the tax increment.

[04:20:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: You're saying?

[04:20:20] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes.

[04:20:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, yes.

[04:20:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: And it's more than just a nexus. It's actually governed by the act and the plan on how that money can be used.

[04:20:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: How prescriptive is, so one of the reasons why I ask is, in the public comment, we heard a number of proposed uses, if we were to provide more tax increment to the school districts, but a lot of those things may not actually be legally defensible expenditures, right? Because they don't have a nexus to the shoreline community.

[04:20:55] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: That is correct. So, it's difficult to answer the question on how prescriptive it is. Um, one of the, so, I'm sorry, I'm just gonna turn to my notes quickly. Um, The funds have to be used. So there's so there's like a 3 step process that you have to go through in order to determine whether or not you are using the tax increment appropriately. One, is it authorized under the act, two, does the expenditure implement the plan that is adopted pursuant to the act, and then does the expenditure result in a payment of principle and interest on loans, moneys, advanced to or indebtedness incurred by the shoreline community. It's that 3rd line that requires more analysis. And so it is very difficult to, right now, line item, what can and cannot be used. So, it is prescriptive, and it is possible that some of the ideas that were put out this evening would not be permissible, um, but it would require us to do sort of an analysis on a case by case basis, as each idea was presented, um, to the city.

[04:22:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so, um, are you saying that a, a case by case analysis would have to be done for any proposed expenditure, or are there, is there something kind of like a nexus study that we could refer to?

[04:22:33] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So we have general guardrails, and we, you know, if we're allocating additional tax increment to the school districts, they know that they can use it for these items, but not for other things that don't have that nexus to the shoreline community. I'm not prepared to answer that question tonight. I know that we have outside council that could potentially answer that. I'm not sure if a Nexus study type analysis would be enough. Um, is... Chris, are you there?

[04:23:16] Chris Lynch: Yes, good evening, hi. Hi, this is Chris Lynch from Jones Hall.

[04:23:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thanks. Did you hear the question presented by council member Ramirez with regard to use of the tax increment?

[04:23:30] Chris Lynch: I did hear the question. I don't believe there's a formal nexus study required, but, um, the city attorney did a good job describing how the process works. First of all, you have the act. The act prescribes specific powers and purposes of the shoreline community. And then its ability to use the increment is driven by the North Bay Shore plan, and what it says increment can be used for. So there are, it's not a nexus study, but there are specific guidelines as to how the money can be spent.

[04:24:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That would be helpful to better understand, too, as we continue. That's a good question. So that would apply also to the school district expenditure of tax increment, right?

[04:24:17] Chris Lynch: That's also governed by these guardrails. Yes, that's correct.

[04:24:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful clarification. Thank you. I have a question probably for John. Um, this is switching over to the joint use agreement now. So thank you. And so I Welcome back, John. What are the maximum fees permitted under the Civics Interact? Do we know?

[04:24:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Actually, John, do you want me to take that question for you?

[04:24:57] John: That'd be great, thank you.

[04:24:58] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, so the Civic Center Act separates into basically two categories of, of, um, entities that could be, where you can impose fees against them. You have the community and sort of nonprofit uses, and then you have the for profit uses of the grounds and the facilities, schools, grounds and facilities. When you're talking about nonprofit and, you know, community uses, um, the maximum fees that could be collected are the direct costs of, and there is a formula in the Civics Center Act, on which, how you could calculate the direct costs, um, but you cannot exceed that. So you cannot earn a profit on it. It's only what it costs you to maintain the facility to make it available, and it's even proportional to the amount of time that that nonprofit entity is using the facility. So it's not even just, you can collect the direct cost from one nonprofit, it's proportional to the amount of time. So if they're using it for one hour, the cost of maintenance of the facility, you have to charge them proportion, you know, based on their use. So that is very strict. With regard to for profit, um, entities that might be using the facilities. And the act says that if you are going to charge a fee for the user, you're going to charge a fee to come to the community event for which the facility is being used, or if you are going to collect donations, and those are not going to be used for nonprofit uses or community uses, then you can charge fair market rental value. And again, that is defined within the act exactly what that means. So for the for profit, you could do more. You could charge more. But for the nonprofits, it's direct cost saving. And then, yeah, like I said, within the act, there are specific calculations, specific ways in which you could calculate. But it is important to note that for the nonprofit and community uses, you actually don't have to charge a fee at all. The access may. And so you could charge less, or the school district could charge no fee at all for the nonprofits uses.

[04:27:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's helpful. Thank you. There are in the staff responses to council questions. There's a range of fees that we're charging now. And I'm curious to know if we were to just charge the maximum, which of these would do these, any of these fees reflect what that might look like. Or is it would be well beyond even these numbers?

[04:27:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I don't think we're anywhere near charging the maximum, nowhere near that. It's hard to know, you know, because you have to do a calculus of maintenance and all of the things that go into maintaining the property and making it available for use by members of the public. And then you'd have to work backwards mathematically, right, to figure out what those fees would be on an hourly basis or whatever proportional to the use. But I don't think the fees that we're charging are anywhere near the maximum. So even for the highest fee presented here is $121 per hour for non-resident use, and that's for synthetic fields with lights. So that's a pretty high fee to me.

[04:28:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But what you're suggesting is, if we were to charge the maximum permitted, it would be even higher than $121 per hour.

[04:28:39] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Oh, it's probably a good time for John to jump in here, but my understanding is yes.

[04:28:49] John: So, Council member Ramirez, the maximum calculated, according to Civic Center Act, that is, basically, related to school districts, looking at what their direct costs are, we have not gone through that direct exercise. Once you get to that larger number, we're still probably, maybe low than maximum, but we're getting closer than that $2, obviously.

[04:29:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Do you have a rough estimate of, um, the deficit we're operating under?

[04:29:28] John: I do not have those numbers in front of me. I'm sorry, but we can certainly put those together.

[04:29:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, that would be helpful information. And I guess my last question, John, is, do you are you familiar with, um, uh, paid sick leave? Because you're allowed to take that. That's all. Thank you.

[04:29:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, seeing no current council questions, I'm gonna ask a few of my own. The 1st is, um, I think both one of the shared concerns of the school district and the city is housing several of the, the, um, principal, school principal speakers tonight, talked about, um, some of the housing difficulties of, of students that they serve being overcrowded or, or homeless. I also heard that at the last school district meeting I attended. And this, of course, is a primary concern of the cities as well, creating housing and affordable housing. So in that regard, and we're working very hard on that right now because this is the year that we work on our housing element. In that regard, I'm wondering, RT, I think this is a question for you. Um How, how much housing are we estimating we would be putting in this housing element round in the North Bay Shore area and how much affordable housing there as well?

[04:31:06] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Thank you for that question, Mayor Artisia Bhastava. assistant city manager, community development director. I'm going to have to go back and check the exact numbers as they relate to North Bay Shore. Overall, though.

[04:31:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Pardon.

[04:31:21] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Overall, though, the city is looking at a mandate of over 11,000 units for this eight-year period from 2023 to 2031. And a good part of it is going to come from projects that are getting built, sites that have been identified, and some key projects that we are hoping that will get built in the North Bay Shore. That includes the North Bay Shore master plan. The proposed preliminary application by SiWest, one of them. I look, give me a few minutes. I'm going to go back and see if I can find the numbers, but in terms of just those 2 projects by themselves, will provide over 9000 units, of which the target is somewhere between, I think, 15 to 20% being affordable. But the share that we're going to assume for the 8 year period, I will have to come back to you for. But I believe it's somewhere. And we've made some very conservative assumptions. It's probably less than a quarter of that.

[04:32:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: You know, in ourselves, you may be phrasing the answer better than my question was phrased. Um, because what I'm really trying to get at is that the, is that the North Bay Shore area is one of the primary areas that we hope to develop housing and that it's something that the community has been working on and envisioning for quite some time. And, um, If you could estimate the number,

[04:33:03] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: the number of affordable units are in the hundreds, but I don't know exactly how many. They are definitely in the hundreds. We expect to be able to develop at least three sites that, you know, Google is proposing to provide in the first phase, in terms of housing. So, I believe it's somewhere in the 500 unit range, if you include all the sites, but I'm going to have to confirm that. In terms of affordable housing alone.

[04:33:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: And the reason I bring the question up is that we've been talking a lot about the shoreline area as a place with, you know, a wildlife refuge and a dump that needs to be maintained and the need for sea level rise, but it's also one of the primary places that the community has envisioned and planned housing and affordable housing. So I guess for me, that's just a reason to tread very carefully and make sure that we can actually produce that, because the problems we're talking about. Some of the primary problems that I heard people talk about at their schools was underhoused kids or vulnerably house kids. And that's something that the city takes care of. So, um, I don't know if you have any estimate of what the danger to those projects would be if we drastically cut the...

[04:34:29] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, we are, you know, in conjunction with assistant city manager, Hamburg. We are working on the plan, the overall area plan. And yes, funding for housing is one of the key, key needs in order to make sure that we can go ahead and build affordable housing. The reason is that land dedication is what developers are providing in terms of their share of BMR, which means that the city has the RFPs out so developers can put together funding. But some of that will be the city's share, and the city has routinely put approximately somewhere between 12% to 15% of the funding. We've provided it for units. And we will rely on the shoreline fund to help with that because that's how we can deliver units, affordable units to this area.

[04:35:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: I also know that some members of our community, lower income members of our community, in particular, the folks involved with the Solidarity Fund are wanting community controlled housing, and that that, there's also the possibility that that could be located in the North Bay Shore area. Some people have said. I know there are multiple locations where it could be. But that's one of the possibilities, and that's another thing that I would not want to, in these negotiations and danger.

[04:36:10] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we are relying on the shoreline to help with, not just the housing element, but also to help deliver the housing, because we will get sites from developers, but we need to implement that and deliver housing.

[04:36:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: And another form of interim housing that I fear might be in danger is our safe parking lots. I don't know if that's your particular...

[04:36:39] Unknown Speaker: Not my particular area of expertise and, um, assistance city manager, member, can jump in, but we do know that, uh, lots out at Shoreline have served as safe parking sites, um, and continue, we continue to look at them, um, to provide some of that for, um, the RVs that need, uh, that need parking areas.

[04:37:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Does that funding come from shoreline funds or from elsewhere?

[04:37:06] Unknown Speaker: I actually don't know.

[04:37:08] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for the question, Mayor Hicks. Currently, the safe parking funding does not come from the shoreline community. There are general funds as well as a limited number of housing funds. And as that has turned into more of an ongoing expenditure. I think that will be an open question and part of the homelessness study and funding strategy to really look at what is a sustainable way to fund that program going forward.

[04:37:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: So it's not now. It may be in the future, but we don't know.

[04:37:48] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:37:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, and then, then another thing that I, when I think of, uh, the shoreline area, I think of, um, it was, you know, before the city created it, um, the city was in the red, and it was, this was, before any of us were around, it was in the, you know, '60s and '70s. The city was in the red, and it was part of the city's plan to kind of put us on the map and attract businesses that would keep the city viable. I feel that that's still one of the roles of the Shoreline community. If the funding for infrastructure suddenly dropped, what would be the impact on our economic vitality strategy? Do you have any... any answer to that, or does any staff?

[04:38:43] Unknown Speaker: Um, we can say, I mean, based on, uh, based on the presentation, I think it's pretty clear that Shoreline is envisioned as a complete community. And one of the things that have been very vital to attracting businesses, and we've heard this from a lot of our businesses, the transportation funding, and the improvements are very critical to them, because they rely on, that's how their workers get to work. Um, I don't know if uh, public works director Cameron has anymore to add. But in terms of economic vitality, businesses routinely site, transportation and housing, as the 2 key things that they're looking for, you know, housing for the employees, transportation, transportation options. So we see those 2 things, as being very key to keeping that place economically viable.

[04:39:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Are there other council questions? Oh, maybe we have another answer? No. Okay, do any other council members have questions? If not, um, we go on to the next portion of the agenda tonight. We'll now have each council member provide feedback on the first three questions in our agenda. There they are. Yeah, we're going to do the first three questions first, and then take question number four separately. So, um, the 1st 3 are, uh, you can read them yourself, but there does council support the short term successor, ER, JPA, as described in the memo, and wanted direct staff to continue, uh, to work with the district on it. Does council support staff's proposed negotiation process for the long term successory, ER, JPA, and what information or data would council find helpful to support the ER JPA negotiation process? Council member Ramirez.

[04:40:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. First, I appreciate the members of the community, including representatives of the school district, for sharing thoughts tonight, and also to staff, for the very extensive staff report and the responses to the council questions. My responses are pretty brief. I think the recommendations are very well thought out. So for question one, yes, I support the short-term successor, EER, JPA, uh, and uh, would like to continue working with the school districts to find agreement. For question two, yes, I support the negotiation process supported by staff. And for question three, I sort of hinted at the kinds of information I'd like to see in the questions I asked earlier. I'm happy to repeat some of them if you captured them, then I'm done. Thank you.

[04:41:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Nice mayor.

[04:41:53] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I agree on question one. I certainly support the short-term successor, EERJPA, and really, I hope we can get an agreement as quickly as possible. I think that's in everyone's best interest. I support the staff's proposed negotiation process for the long term successor, EER, JPA, and the kinds of information and data that I think would be particularly important. In addition to what council member Ramirez was talking about. I would really like to understand better. What is the pot of money we expect to have to divide, you know, maybe 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now? What is it we're talking about? I think it's quite a bit of money. I mean, I'm an optimist, and I really think that there's enough to meet our needs. But not all at the same time. And then the other thing I am very interested in seeing is the various projections of how much money are needed for, you know, for the task that need to be accomplished. I mean, one, for instance, the sea level. Rise, um, construction projects, different, projects require different amounts of money, and then there will be some money that is needed forever to maintain the facilities, but it won't be, you know, nearly as much as what was needed during the construction cycle. And again, I'm very interested in how much it costs to build a school, and what kind of lead time is needed for that. We have identified the land. And I'm really proud of that. Because land is very expensive here. And so, to me, that is a, you know, that's a tremendous amenity for our community. We hear all the time how people really don't want to leave Mountain View, um, not, one reason is because it's their home. But the other two reasons we hear touted again and again is because we're a relatively safe community and we have good schools. And we also have lots of jobs. And I think that we, you know, as leaders of the community. We need to be really, um, uh, we need to be, be very, um, thoughtful about all of those things and do what we can to protect all of them. So, you know, the amounts of money, and when they will be needed, and also how big is the pot at various times. Those are generally things that I'm really interested in learning about. And also, you know, specifically the, um, uh, the time frame of the development of the housing, because I do feel like the development of the housing is generally what will generate, you know, the school children out there that need a school. So that isn't going to happen overnight. And it depends a lot on what is built. But I think we could get some reasonable ranges together that we could have good conversations with. So I look forward to working on this and getting it resolved. And then the other thing, the JUA. I live just a block and a half from a city park. And one of the happiest things that happened the day I moved into that house in 1984 was I got my six month old daughter into the stroller, and I started walking around the neighborhood. And I walked a block and there was this gorgeous park. I couldn't believe it. It was you know, it was just great. I hadn't realized it was there. But since then, I've been pretty much twice a day, every day, since I moved to Mountain View. So, I don't know what I would do without that park to help kind of, you know, keep me sane, exercised, and connected to the community. And I know I'm not alone at all. So what we do to make sure that everybody in our community has access to playing fields and parks is, you know, that's really important to me. Thank you.

[04:46:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Kmeh.

[04:46:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So I just wanted to start before going into the questions with a big thank you. I want to thank staff for the big effort to provide all the information tonight. I want to thank our school district representatives, a few who are still here, um, for, um, coming tonight and just want to state that I feel like this is kind of a conversation that's been years in the making. And I think it started with some of us who are part of the school strategy. And now being able to culminate and have this discussion, I do think it's extremely important to the tar city, to the future of Mountain View. Um, and I, and I'm hoping too, that as we go forward, this can be perhaps, um, a, I don't know, fresh start is the correct term, but, you know, fresh, fresh take on something that's extremely challenging. Um, whether it be because of implications from the state or, um, you know, other limitations that we kind of went into the questions about. I'm hoping that, we all mimic the vice mayor's positive attitude and try to find a path forward because at the end of the day, it's about the future of our youth, but also our current residents to make Mountain View a really great place to live work and play. So I just wanted to couch my comments there. I think for question one and 2 very straightforward, yes, yes. For question three, I felt like, um, this was something in the staff report that I felt um, very important, which is um, working with the same information and the same assumptions. And so I would really like to go into the joint meeting with that and perhaps that's how we start the conversation. So some information that I think would be important is some of some colleagues ask questions about developer fees and just kind of walking through the structure and the limitation. I know that, um, we've had different outside consultants bring up student generation rates, but I would like to kind of dig in a little bit deeper, um, into what those can be so that we can, again, work from from the same assumptions. Um, and then as last was mentioned, kind of the revenue. What's the true number that we're working with that we're looking to discuss and allocate? And I think I was whispering to council member Ramirez. I think there needs to be an understanding too of how that those funds from Shoreline can be used by the city, but also the school districts. I think that's really important, clarity that I'd like to have going into the negotiation process. Um, you know, I think some other other things that were mentioned that would be of interest are, um, the mayor was asking questions related to the number of unhoused, um, children in our city. And I would like to have a better understanding of what the current unhoused rates are for our children and families. I'm also with the understanding that that may be low, because it's, I'm assuming self-reported. Um, but I but I am interested if there could be some sort of ballpark that we understand. And I know we recently had our homelessness point in time count, but would like an updated number to work with. Um, And then, let's see. I think key is how much flexibility do we have because Mr. Vasto was mentioning we're we're looking to adopt our housing element. I, you know, next week and that's 11,000 plus units that we need to provide over 8 years. The city doesn't have that flexibility in that regional housing needs assessment number. So we do need to densify and what does that mean? And so I would love to see models of what, um, kind of more dense schools look like. And so I know that there was models, and I think you, um, Miss Ramberg mentioned academies. I think allowing all the different entities to understand those models would be helpful for the negotiation process. And then I think Dr. Westover was mentioning in her public comment, the different rates, which Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale gives funding to their school districts, and I would love to know what those numbers are. And I think that's all for question 3 until we get to question four. Thank you.

[04:51:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattachek.

[04:51:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So for question number one, yes. Um, but I'd like to make sure we keep this agreement as simple as possible and not tie it to anything else. And just get it done. Um, it seems like it should be able to be fairly simple. Question two. Yes, I do think the process, as proposed, is a good one. Um, I actually would just keep it, though, at two council members instead of three. And just have two from each body. And question three. Uh, certainly, the shoreline area plan. I'm very much looking forward to that. And maybe we should have asked what the timeline is for that. If anybody...

[04:52:40] Unknown Speaker: We're hoping to complete it by the fall?

[04:52:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. I, um... I feel like I have a different perspective, often on data. I'm kind of used to, um, looking at scenarios as opposed to, this is the one case we're gonna evaluate. And so as we go through this process, I would like scenarios based upon different assumptions. So that you kind of have an idea of, um, maybe an upper and lower limit and then maybe an average or something. But things like, you know, population growth, student generation rates, because I think different assumptions might lead you to different perspectives on what we should be doing, and it also helps you... Think about what do you need to believe in order for something to happen. And I think that's always a useful way to look at things. You know, I have to believe that inflation is gonna be 20% a year for the next 5 years in order for X to happen. Um, things like that, um, to really test our thinking. Um, I also think it's useful to look at past projections. So, I guess I'll just use student generation rate since, er, student, not generation rate, student enrollment. So what was projected 5 years ago going out 10 years? And what was projected four years ago, going out 10 years, and just kind of see, are we, um, constantly looking at an increase, or have we looked at a decrease, and then, what was the actual? Um, so that we can see, are we consistently being optimistic or pessimistic, um, versus what actually happens? And I think you can do that for lots of things, like the revenue, from the shoreline district, the revenue to school districts, you know, the city's revenue expenses. You know, how good are we at estimating what's happening in the future? Um, Let's see. I also think it would be interesting for the city, and maybe we've already done this. come up with our estimate of the student generation, right?

[04:55:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, based upon what we know about what might be built. in North Bay Shore and East Wisman, the 2 big areas. And... let's see, a question was raised about how can the shoreline money be spent? I'd like to know how it was spent, looking backwards? Were the rules followed by both the city, as well as the school district? Um, and I think that's it.

[04:55:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[04:56:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, so keeping simple question one, yes, question two, yes, and I'm actually really excited about the joint kickoff. I haven't heard anyone say that. I am super excited about that. For question three, pretty much most of my colleagues, I agree with the data that they ask. I wanted to expand on council member committees ask of school district funding of other school districts. I also like to expand, um, including like Cupertino, school district, um, as far as you can, it doesn't have to be unreasonable. But I would also like a separate it out between, because, for example, you have Mount View Wisman, and then you, we have a high school district, and there's some of our neighboring districts, our unified school districts, and if there's any differences on the, the, the, funding per pupil, that they get from their local taxes. Um, And overall, the the main thing I would like to look at in terms of data is what do we need to fund? and what do they need to fund? and how much money we have. And that's generally the sense that I think we really kind of need as we dig into more of the numbers, but the general sense is we're just trying to figure out what we need to fund, what they need to fund and how much we have to fund that. Thank you.

[04:57:23] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbott Coca.

[04:57:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and I also want to thank staff for all of your hard work and the extensive staff report. Very comprehensive. There's a lot of reading a little bit. And I do also want to thank the representatives from our school district. And, you know, I've prided a partnership, the strong partnership that the city and the school has had over a long period of time. You know, I know a lot of us have had our kids go through the schools. My younger one graduating just last year from high school. We have completed that. Um, and, um, you know, I, I actually miss those times and the volunteering at, at the schools and, um, the communities there. And, you know, I, for me, and frankly, when I 1st ran, it was part of the reason was because I felt that we could do more as a city to have an even stronger partnership with our schools as I looked at other cities and what they were doing. And, um, I, you know, I feel like we have been able to um, enhance that partnership and, um, I, I, I'm also going to be an optimist, like the vice mayor, and believe that we can continue a, a continue to have that um, partnership and a stronger one into the future. And that's really my interest in as we discuss and go through these issues at hand. Um, so in that regard, um, let's see, looking at the questions, um, question one. Yes, I do support, um, continuing to work on a short term successor ER JPA agreement. I am encouraged to hear that members from the school district are also interested in that. To be frank, I wasn't really sure where folks were. So I appreciate this opportunity to have that discussion and hope that we can come up with a short-term agreement. I will say, though, that, um, you know, I guess when we get to data that we need, I would go, I would agree. I really would like to understand what this pot of money is. Frankly, I was surprised to see the 10%. And this was just based on when we go through the annual budget and what I just recall. some of the increases in the shoreline fund being, it seemed pretty substantial. And so, um, I thought that we could perhaps, um, offer more. But I think the 1st thing would be to get the analysis of the latest offer or counteroffer or response from the school district. And so I'd like to see that information to see if we're getting closer to an agreement. So yeah, so I guess for me, I would start off. by saying, you know, I know what, I think I know what our city's interests are. I would like to better understand what the school district's interests are in terms of, um, the increased funding, um, requests. And, you know, and I say that in the context of understanding that part of it is tied to perhaps tied to the expected growth of the North Bay Shore area and students being generated. But I think there are other needs and also other ways to look at how we might be able to work together to help fund the needs of the school district. So, for instance, and, you know, I'll just throw some of these ideas out. I know some of you have heard of it, but, um, when I I watched the school district, uh, board meeting from, I think it was March, the presentation that Dr. Rudolph had provided, um, there was a lot of, uh, I found, there's some, talk about, um, the lease revenue that the school district receives from, uh, frankly, leasing their, some of their their properties. Um, and, you know, I thought, well, is there a way? And it looks like, just from what we're seeing, there, if not, at some point, we might be able to maybe cover that lease revenue, um, would that help, you know, free up some funding for the school district and also land. Um, so, you know, I think as I was watching that and thinking this through. I actually came up, you know, and felt like there's many ways we can slice this pie. Um, and so let's just, you know, put out, do brainstorming, let's put out all, you know, all the possibilities. Um, I don't know, I had asked about, you know, this bond measure that we might go out for, is there a way of doing a joint bond measure if, you know, if it's parks and schools and that might even attract more, you know, support. So I guess that's what I'd like to see and maybe that's the process that's with the process that we're laying out with the committee, the ad hoc committee that will be created. But having that kind of just, you know, put everything out on the table, see, see what all of the options, possibilities are and what, you know, can be realistically done. So that's what I would like to see. And so that ties, I guess, more into the negotiation process, question number two. I do support the proposal. I do agree with council member Medachek, just to make it, you know, frankly, equal footing, I would say 2 from each entity makes sense to me. And then in terms of information. So how I see this is, you know, with the Shoreline Fund, and I know it's not a surprise for many of you who have heard me over the years that, as we talked about development and redevelopment and expansion plans for North Bay Shore, Um, you know, there was, there's the, there were the challenges, existing challenges of congestion and so forth. And so the way we had laid out the plan was that, you know, we would not allow more development until the current conditions were mitigated. I would say that some of it may have been, but, you know, frankly, I don't think we actually ever really achieved our SOV, you know, caps and whatnot. And we sort of loosened all of loosened a lot of our requirements over time. And that's been a concern to me. And then this issue of, you know, mitigation projects, and most of them being transportation projects, as much as I, you know, I appreciate that we need them. Um, you know, many of us back then were under the impression or, you know, our intent was that the expansion or an office development would, um, would mitigate, would be responsible primarily responsible for mitigating, um, the, the challenges that would come from that, the growth. And, um, so I think, you know, I understand when the community sees us bonding for some of these projects, I think that, you know, the debt that we're incurring, um, there's a question about whether it should be that way. I question it myself. I think, you know, the corporations who are growing should pay a bigger role in helping to mitigate the externalities. And so I actually would like to see the Nexus study. I think council member Ramirez ask for it. Um, And, you know, I guess I would question whether we would need, we should consider doing another one in light of the 7 or 8 years that has passed. Um, you know, life and as mentioned, things are different now, right? With COVID, things are very different. And so I think we may need to recalibrate where we are in comparison to where we were 10 years ago. So, that. And then actually there's other things we've talked about over time in terms of transportation, mitigation, such as congestion pricing. I am not sure where we are with that study. Paid parking is something I've been, you know, talking about. And we have our, you know, lots that we're leasing out to, um, entities out there to build parking structures and whatnot. And I've asked, well, can we start to, you know, implement paid parking, um, as a way, frankly, to, right, to control congestion, but, you know, incentivize people not to drive, um, to to work. So, um, I'd like to understand, like, what are the other tools we can use, um, to mitigate or to fund mitigations for these projects, um, rather than looking at just, you know, bonding out of the shoreline fund or just funding it out of the fund? Um, So, um, That would be three. And then with four. Again, I appreciate, um, Justy Blakely mentioning that there's interest in, um, negotiating a JUA. I think in light of just how intertwined we are. It makes sense for us to try to continue the partnership. Um, you know, and and but I will say that I think we need to look at, um, some some changes. Just, you know, being Frank, um, the, you know, I understood the fencing, and I understood that from a security reason. But, um, when I went out to Castro school and saw the fencing, um, it is a barrier, it was hard for me to figure out how to get in. And this was after it was on a Saturday afternoon. And, you know, usually there's a lot of people out there playing soccer and whatnot. And there were, it was very, um, sparsely used. And I think part of that was frankly, like, I just didn't know how to get in there. So I think if we're going to do this, you know, joint use, it really needs to be, um, frankly improved so that, um, the community does feel like they can use it when, you know, they're able to, but also just being clear too, about, you know, what are the hours that it can be used. I think there's just been so much vagueness over time and assumptions, and we just need to clarify that more, whether it's with we talking about wavefinding. This is where I think we need signage and weight finding, but, um, you know, really being more clear with the community, about what the actual, you know, ability to use, use is, um, but I do think that, you know, I I agree with the vice mayor, you know, I lived near, uh, their cough school and took my, you know, my baby's there and after school, we'd, you know, be on the playground. I think a lot of people expect that to be available. And so, um, you know, it would be, um, unfortunate if that was taken away. Um, so I would hope that we can find some kind of agreement. And I think there is benefit to, you know, both sides. But I think we need to just clarify what, you know, the expectations are. So, yes, if we can continue to negotiate, I would be very much interested in doing so. Thank you.

[05:10:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Great. Thank you very much. So I have not answered the 1st 2 questions. Just, um, to be just a few remarks to begin with. Um, I, um, I was happy to hear from the, uh, school, school board members that said they also, I guess, if they were, who said, if they were up on the dais, they would approve these, um, this process as well. I think that that is, um, that puts us in a good position if we're all embracing the same process. I want to say that I care very deeply about some of the projects of the city, but also, I brought this plaque, because the Mountain View Wisman school district, awarded me, I, I was on the site, I was the site council president at Castro school, was kind of the, the dual immersion program was struggling at the time. I was one of the people who helped pull it together. And I also put a school garden on every single school in the district. And so I was the favorite person of the year in 2008. So, and I also sent my children to the public schools from kindergarten through high school as, I think, everybody sitting on this dais who has children did. So, um, so I think that's a testament to how much we really do care about the schools, but I also care about all the things that they, you know, that the city is doing as well. I care very deeply about producing enough housing, as you probably know, are in a housing crisis, producing affordable housing, working with some of our very well organized lower income, community members who have great ideas about how to produce that housing. I care about continuing to improve the way we, you know, our safe parking lots, transitional housing, and not just housing. I care about, you know, I care about parks, the wildlife refuge. And I could go on and on. An additional thing I care about. I think that we, in terms of North Bay Shore, I agree with some of the changes that council member Abbe Koga was talking about, but I don't think we can change everything midstream. Um, I, uh, Dr. Rudolph sent us a letter about how he's from Rust Belt Cities. I also, my family is from Detroit and the Buffalo Niagara area. And, um, I, uh, having grown up in those areas leaves me with the fear of economic instability, and we're in a very fluctuating time. So I want to make sure that we continue to create a great business climate. as well as the housing and the environmental things that we've been talking about. So with that background, yes, for question number one and number two, I do want to continue working on those other council members have read the questions, I won't read them as well. In terms of question number three, what information or data I'd like. I would like kind of an open book where we share, I know much more about the city's finances than the school. I have absolutely no idea how you compare to other schools around in terms of per student spending. in terms of what you pay teachers, in terms of just a whole, you know, there's just a whole bunch of figures, facts and figures that I don't have. And so, in addition, all the things that other council members have said that they would like, I think we can do a lot of mutual sharing, and we can make better decisions if we do that. So with that, I'll move on to question number four, does council support continued negotiation of the JUA with the district, and does council have any feedback about further exploring the impasse and options in the event the JUA has ended? And I think council member Abiko already answered that. But council member Ramos.

[05:14:36] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah, I support continued negotiations with a JUA. Um, I also support what uh, council member Abbehoga brought up about how I also had the opportunity to walk around Castro. Um, the Castro Elementary. And I found the open door, or the door that would be unlocked, but I think that we should also think about how we can partner with the schools to make the entryways more apparent that their entryways, because they're all pretty much shut gates. And like, I'm not inclined to test out if a door is locked or not, because I'd be terrified if an alarm would shut on and again, so much trouble kind of thing. And so, like, as we figure out how we share these spaces for our park use with these schools and especially, like, I was there on a Sunday, which presumably there's no school on Sunday. Um, That that it's clearly not being used by the school, but it could be used by our community. If we had it more open and more apparent that our community can use it. So, um, I agree in continuing negotiations, um, the JUA. Um, but try to find ways where we can work together with the school district on making sure that space is truly a shared space.

[05:16:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Other council members? Council member, come I?

[05:16:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So for the 1st part of the question, Yes, I support continued negotiation of the JUA. And then for the 2nd, in terms of feedback for further exploration, I wrote suite of options. And so, you know, I think that, um, kind of, uh, Council member Magic, I kind of talked about this earlier, kind of, um, what is our historic relationship and like, and what are the maybe multiple pasts we could take going forward? And I do think being able to understand that would be, um, great because I do think it's about, um, trying to find maybe at certain properties, X would work, but at other parks. Why would work? And I think the council would really be interested in exploring that and understanding that greater. So if staff can maybe dig into that, because I know some schools have the existing security, already built, some are going to be doing it. And I know that there was an attempt in Mama Loma on that design. And so, what would the path forward be for some of the sites that don't have the existing infrastructure already built? I think that that would be hopeful. Thank you.

[05:17:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[05:17:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. The only, um, so yes, uh, I do support continuing negotiation. The only other, um, addition I would include is an understanding of the fiscal impact to the city. So I would love to know if we're not charging fees at cost recovery levels, that means we're losing money. So how much money are we losing? And that might be helpful for the school district to understand if they're going to assume that liability. And then related to that, if the fees were to go to the maximum permitted under the Civic Center Act, then how would that affect the current users of those fields? Would they decline to use them because now it's prohibitively expensive? So I think some stakeholder input would be helpful. Thank you.

[05:18:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattachek.

[05:18:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I guess I kind of have mixed feelings on this topic. Um, I would like to think that we could come to an agreement. Um, on given days, I feel like it's possible and on other days, I feel like it's not possible. Uh, so if staff thinks we can ultimately have an agreement that, um, is good for residents, then yeah, we should continue. But I do want to make sure, as many have mentioned, that, um, in terms of, um, access to the open space, that, uh, it's not for, like, an hour a day for residents, um, and then it's obvious that they can use it, and that, um, you know, it's a, it's a pleasant environment. It's supposed to be park space. So, um, you know, if there were different options, as was mentioned, of, um, what this joint use agreement might be, maybe we have another discussion about it. Um, in terms of the elements of it. I don't think it's going to look like it does now, but I'm not really sure what it's going to look like. But if staff thinks we can come up with something good, then yes, continue on. Thank you.

[05:20:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor.

[05:20:10] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I think we should negotiate the JUA. It has had a tremendous amount of social value for the community over the years. Putting up the fences has, you know, it's a physical barrier, that's, you know, that's created less value for the community, um, to use those spaces. But I also feel like, um, let's get to work on this, um, uh, the shoreline EER, JPA, initially. To me, that's the one we should work on to start with. And then I think when, you know, we'll get a, we'll get a, um... Hopefully, we'll get a process going that will be productive for the JUA after that. And then I think we need to give some thought to a time frame. You know, how long are we interested in negotiating on this before we, you know, we move on to other things. So and I'm not sure what that is. Whether it's a year, two years, but I don't think we want to be negotiating forever on it. And, um... But I am optimistic that, particularly with the ER, JPA, we can come to a reasonable agreement and, um, in a, uh, hopefully a not too lengthy, um, amount of time. Like with everybody, I don't want to take too much time because it's already midnight, but I do want to thank, um, I want to thank the staff for putting this together. I know you've done a tremendous amount of work. I also really would like to thank the school board members who were here in person to listen. Um, I really appreciate your, um, your coming and joining us. and being here. It means a lot. And I hope that it is, you know, a sign of good things to come. I know several of you have been here quite often before, and that's good, too. Thanks.

[05:22:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'd second that, thanks to staff, and to the school board members who've stayed now until after midnight. And the rest of you as well. So, that said, um, yes, I do support continued negotiation of the JUA, um, I do think it, it's, you know, I understand some of the realities of the changing safety situation at schools, but I do think for that, that it's lost with the fencing and the kind of unclear signage, I think it's lost, and the hours, not just the fencing, but the hours during which the public is allowed to be there, I think it's really lost a trem amount of value. So those were 50%, roughly, of our neighborhood parks that are just gone now, as far as many residents feel about it. And so I would like to continue negotiating it, but I think we do have to keep in mind, as the vice mayor said, that it's lost a lot of value for residents, and that the city has to pick it up somewhere else. And I also agree with the vice mayor that we should negotiate, but not forever. have some time frame and look at alternatives if that doesn't work out. So, and recognize in our park planning that these are, you know, we can't count these 100% as perks because they, you know, because residents can, in fact, use them for a very small portion of their day. So with that, I think we're done.

[05:24:00] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: With this particular item, Madam Mayor?

[05:24:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: No, we're not. Okay. What else?

[05:24:06] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to say that, you know, staff appreciates all of the input regarding information that you'd need. We've taken those notes, and that will be one of our key next steps, is coordinating with my counterparts at each of the school districts, also understanding the data needs that they have and beginning to gather that data. There were 2 points about the process for the long-term success or education enhancement reserve agreement that I wanted to clarify. One is regarding the time frame at which we think it will take to reach that long-term agreement. I may have misunderstood a comment that was made by one of the speakers around the city having said that we would finish that by the end of the calendar year. I don't recall us saying that, and I don't think that that's feasible, that we would get through the joint meetings of the full bodies and then the joint subcommittee meetings, setting the groundwork, and then the staff negotiation, having all of that be complete by the end of December 2023. So I just wanted to make sure that I was clear about that with the council and with the members of the public who were here to speak on it. I also wanted to confirm that the staff recommendation around the subcommittee formation was to have one less than a member of quorum, and that we heard from 2 members of the council regarding a different proposal, but did not hear that from the other members of the council, so that our assumption is that we would go forward with the composition as recommended by staff.

[05:25:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I would strongly like to go with the recommendation made by staff. Thank you. Okay, with that, I think we're done with this particular item, and we now move on to item number eight, which is council staff committee reports. Do we have any council staff or committee reports? Council member Ramos?

[05:26:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, I had my opportunity to participate in my 1st regional board meeting. Yay. It was the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, and one update from that is we approved the fee schedule. They have increased some cost for adoptions and spade, neutering, all that fun stuff they do with animals. But they also went over their, um, fiscal year budget, which would increase, which would cause an increase in all the cities participating in an increase in whatever we pay by 3%. The options they gave us was option one was 6%, and then option 2 was 3% when using some funding from their reserves. Um, but largely the driving factor of the decision was, um, the representatives from Santa Clara, the representative from Santa Clara says that their city actually can't sustain a 6% increase because they actually, they, Santa Clara, interestingly, pays double what amount of you pays. And then Mount View pays like double what Campbell pays, and Campbell pays like double what Montessorino pays. So like if you look, it's like an exponential kind of thing. So we kind of defer to the city of Santa Clara when they're like, let's not pay that much. But yeah, that's what covered in our pretty much 15 minutes of a meeting. It was very quick. Thank you.

[05:27:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Avocoga.

[05:27:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm supposed to report out. I went to the National League of Cities conference in Washington, DC, um, and in conjunction with, um, MTC advocacy trip, um, vice mayor, and I went to quite a few of our meetings with, um, administration staff, uh, HUD, um, the federal railroad authority. And then I and and then I know we split up, I met with Congresswoman Eshu's staff person, the federal transportation administration. And it actually dovetailed really well. So, and as I mentioned earlier, I was very, really, um, pleased because of all the times I've been to DC and I think I've been to about 7 of the cities. This was probably the most productive, I felt. I was surprised that some of the staff had like with HUD, they had done research. They looked up Mountain View and how much funding we had. And we were told we actually had some money in the bank that we need to spend soon and gave us some grant opportunities. And then I got a much clearer understanding of like our grade separation project. you know, our funding requests and where we are. Um, so overall, just a really um, productive trip. And I don't know, like, I know it's a late, but we did have a meeting with the army, um, folks. It was, I guess, a 2nd part to the meeting that the mayor and the vice mayor had here. And at some point, I've shared with our staff, what the conversation has been, but I would expect that we could probably have that discussion at some point with the council. I also attended, um, before that, the civic, well, well, they changed the name, um, conference, uh, and it was, um, um, um, um, um, um, Um, and, um, I actually have to say, I go to these conferences and maybe because I've been to a lot of them, but I feel like um, Mountain View is so far ahead of the game on a lot of these issues that, um, I think we can actually be presenting at some of these conferences. But again, based just there's talk about sustainability, talk about our CCAs, just what's been happening up and down the state. So I did find it interesting to hear what other cities are doing. Thank you.

[05:30:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Vice mayor.

[05:30:22] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, ditto, what Margaret said about it, being a very productive meeting. I really, um, enjoyed myself, and, um, I thought the meetings were, were good. I, um, I sent you all, or I I forwarded you all, one email. It's very dense. So, um, you know, you probably, or the presentations are, you probably will want to look at one at a time and go back, but, uh, I think, uh, they were, um, it was, it was really interesting. There were some very good contact information. Like, there was a new office of energy and transportation that's working together. And that's, you know, that's such a good alignment for sustainability issue. So I think that we need to kind of connect again with that gentleman. And I will be writing up some notes about the other meeting, because frankly, it's too late, and I didn't get to it. But in addition to the ones that Margaret mentioned, I also went and visited the Fish and Wildlife Service. As you know, they own the land that the salt pond that is adjacent to Shoreline Park is in. So they are our neighbors, and we are doing this restoration project with them. So I just, I think it's good to, you know, to maintain a very cordial relationship and touch base. So hopefully, hopefully that's what we did. That's what I did. And, um, I got to see the cherry blossoms. So thank you.

[05:31:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Matichuk.

[05:31:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I also attended the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C., and the session I learned the most from was the one on broadband. And I was glad that Christina Gilmore from the city manager's office was in that session, because the key takeaway for me was, the federal government is working through the states, and you have to be in at the ground floor with the states in order to get funding of any kind for broadband. So, Christina, I'm sure, ran back to City Hall, to get working on that. It was also great to hear the First Lady speak. She's certainly very passionate about education. And, let's see, I also participated in the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission meeting. We are still working on an update to the comprehensive land use plan for the San Jose airport, because they changed their master plan a while ago. So we update ours. And I participated in the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency board meeting on March 16th. And Bosca is 20 years old this year. And it was created by state legislation, and it's the 26 agencies that purchase water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that make up Bosca. At each meeting, we hear from the water management representative, from one of the member agencies. And this time, it was our own Elizabeth Flagel from Mountain View, who presented, and she talked about the benefits of working with the other water managers on a regular basis and some of the projects they're working on. And she did a great job representing mountain view. Also at the meeting, each time we receive an update on the water situation. And, um, I want to caveat this by saying, you know, You can read about different statistics about snowpack, rainfall, water supply, um, and they are all coming from a different perspective. So, this perspective. is of the Hetch Hetchy water system, which serves Mountain View. And, um, as of the March 16th meeting, uh, total system storage, where a storage base system, as opposed to, um, just depending counting on rainfall, um, our total system storage was at 88.3% of maximum storage, whereas the normal for that time of year is 79.9.9. The, as they say, the up country precipitation, uh, was, let's see, year to date, 52.86 inches, whereas the average annual total is 36.68. So a huge rain year for us. And the upcountry snow pack, which, you know, as it melts, fills, continues to fill the Hetchechy reservoir. And so sometimes they have to release water from the reservoir in order to handle the runoff from the snow pack. But the snow pack is at 230% of medium. Exactly. So, based on those current conditions, the SFPUC is going to recommend to their commission that, um, they find that a water shortage no longer exists, um, and that the emergency should be rescinded, and that will happen at the SFPUC's meeting, on April 11th. I know things have been done at the state level and through other agencies, but this, again, is for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, that owns the headchetchee system that supplies Mountain View, or the vast majority of Mountain View's water. And that's it. Thanks.

[05:36:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Council member, Komet.

[05:36:06] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. So, let's see. On the 21st, I attended the farewell retirement for Marcia. She's retiring. She was retiring from Shaq, so was able to present a resolution on behalf of the city, thanks to the mayor for signing that. And then, um, last week in my capacity as part of the VTA policy advisory committee, they did a tour of the Cerrony bus yard. where we were able to ride their 100% electric bus, the Proterra bus, which was really great, which led to conversations about them wanting to host something at our North County facility in Mountain View. So I think TBD and more on that. Thanks.

[05:36:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, seeing no more council updates. Uh, city attorney, we'll move to item number nine, city attorney lobe, do you have a closed session report?

[05:37:04] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, thank you, City Attorney Logue here. I have a quick closed session report out from actually a prior meeting of March 14th, 2023. I'm in closed session on March 14th, 2023. City Council took final action on item 2.one on the March 14th close session agenda, which was a conference with legal council regarding a liability claim filed by Nancy Hobbs against the city of Mountain View. Ms. Hobbs claims sought $1 million in damages for injuries she sustained as a result of a trip and fall incident at Shoreline Amphitheater. Counsel voted with seven eyes, zero nose, and zero abstensions to deny the claim.

[05:37:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. We move on now to item number 10 adjournment. The next city council meeting will be held on April 11, 2023. And this meeting is adjourned at 1216.

• ← Previous
• Next →