October 10, 2023 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: You know, I... I used to have play days where there would be like a dozen kids at my house at one time. I actually do well That was today, but I was

[00:00:37] 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 comments on the item listed for the closed session. City attorney low.

[00:00:52] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening, council member. This is City Attorney Jennifer Logue. There is one item on the closed session agenda for this evening. Item 2.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation, pursuant to government code section 54956.9. The name of the case is George Leonos versus the city of Mountain View, Santa Clara County Superior Court case number, 23 CB 419416.

[00:01:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. 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 will take in-person speakers first. And there are none. Raise your hand now, if you want to speak virtually. I see no virtual speakers either. Um, so we are now on item number 2 of the agenda, which is closed session. The council will recess to the Plaza Conference room, and return to the council chambers at the close to continue the study session. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the study session of the Mountain View City Council of October 10, 2023. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:02:28] City Clerk: Council member Abbe Koka?

[00:02:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[00:02:30] City Clerk: Council member Kamei,

[00:02:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: here,

[00:02:32] City Clerk: Council member, Matachek.

[00:02:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:02:33] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[00:02:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:02:35] City Clerk: Council member Ramos.

[00:02:36] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:02:36] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Sholter.

[00:02:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:02:38] City Clerk: Mayor Hicks?

[00:02:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:02:39] City Clerk: Unicorn.

[00:02:41] Mayor Alison Hicks: We're now on item 3.1 of our agenda, which is our displacement response strategy local replacement requirements. Spanish translation services are available for this item, and we will now hear from our interpreter.

[00:03:01] Unknown Speaker: Español, pormedia de zum y impersona, este gustaria, esta tardes, interpretación, por favor, um, accesse a la parte, de inferior de la pantaya, selecione, Lidio ma Español, gracias.

[00:03:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Chinese translation services are also available available for this item, and we will now hear from our Chinese interpreter.

[00:03:30] Unknown Speaker: Shanghai, Tin Yi, Shan, Guang Yi, Shisu, Indi, Chi, Yi, Chi, Yi, Ho, Jung, Yi, Fu. [non-English speech not transcribed]

[00:03:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. The purpose of this study session is to receive council feedback on the timing and approach for implementing local replacement requirements as part of the city's displacement response strategy. Housing director Wayne Chan will present the item.

[00:04:14] Housing Director Wayne Chan: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm going to go ahead and start the item right now on local replacement requirements. Because the council has been a bit of time since we've had a conversation about displacement response. I'm going to just take a couple of slides to orient the public as well as counsel in terms of the background. Uh, tender displacement and addressing that issue, um, has been a top council priority. Two study sessions were held back in 2019 and 2020 to establish principles for the strategy and initial priorities. Elements of the displacement response strategy are also part of the city's five-year affordable housing strategic plan. It's also included in the city's recently certified housing element. These are the 5 principles. Number one, that the overall strategy have multiple parts and that they work together in a comprehensive manner because it's a complicated issue and different factors can cause tendon displacement, that it'd be broad-based, that the strategy look to prevent displacement, but also reduce the impacts of displacement if it's unavoidable. That the approach involve a collaboration with other partners because we cannot do it alone. that the focus is on tenants, specifically CSFRA tenants, and that the strategy be unit and place-based, meaning that if tenants cannot be prevented from being displaced from their unit to find options for folks to at least be able to relocate somewhere within the city of Mountain View. The initial strategy priorities that were discussed with council back in 2019, 2020 include the following 6 and highlighted are items one and 6 because they are related to replacement requirements. Here is a summary of past direction that council has provided on local replacement requirements. First is to study known net loss options and 1st write of return provisions, then also to look at local replacement requirements that would really go into effect after a state senate bill as SB 330 sunsets for units covered by the CSFRA, and we'll talk a little bit more about SB 330 in a moment, and then to adopt an ordinance for replacement requirements. Just to ground the conversation in some data, since 2012, there have been 30 redevelopment projects that include nearly 1000 CS of our demolition units. The term CSRA demolition units are intended to include units that are currently covered by the CSFRA, as well as those units that were demolished before the CSRA went into effect that are older units that would have been CSFR units. There have been a total of 2300 total new units to to replace the 1000 CSFR units and there would be 1,300 net new units after you subtract the demolition units. So that would achieve a known loss of total units. The majority of the total new units are market rate housing, and approximately 400 of the units would be in our deed restricted affordable units. So those would go some ways in replacing the CS of our units, but only about 40% of the CS of our units lost would be coming back as affordable. Here are some data on tenant relocation of the 30 projects. We have data on 24 of the projects and of the 24 projects, 460 households received relocation benefits. There's more limited data on the locations where the display tents relocated to, that began to be tracked more recently after this became an issue, and so there isn't that kind of data for the older projects. But we have data on 6 projects. And in those 6 projects, 240 households were displaced and received relocation benefits. 44% of those tenants. I should say households, relocated somewhere within Mountain View, and the other 56% of the households were relocated primarily somewhere else within the Bay Area, but also some smaller amount elsewhere in California in the country. Regarding the overall strategy, which included input and information about local replacement requirements, That was conducted early 2023 in January, in February of this year, included 7 general meeting slash stakeholder meetings, and we also held an additional meeting that was in person for attendance that included childcare to facilitate their participation. And with the excellent work of the city's multicultural engagement program team, interpretation translation services were provided throughout the process. In addition, we held individual one on one meetings with folks who wanted to meet as well. The impact received about local replacement requirements were small related to comments about the overall strategy, regarding local replacement requirements. Primarily, it was the tenant stakeholder group that provided information saying that there should just be a local version of SB 330 when it sunsets. The other stakeholder groups, which included the property owners, the market rate developers, and the nonprofit developers, didn't focus quite as much on local replacement requirements, but they focus on other aspects of it. It's included in attachment, the overall comments, but we'll focus on the other comments also when we have the study session that is regarding the other parts of the strategy in Q1. So to talk about the options for local replacement requirements, a good place to start is how the city is implementing SB 330 requirements currently. So again, SP 330 provides a variety of components. But the component we're focused on in SP 330 are the state replacement requirements. And based on analysis, it does appear that SB 330 replacement requirements are quite strong. And under those replacement requirements, because it's a state requirement, feasibility options aren't required when implementing those. So, for all intents and purposes, local replacement requirements. During the time SB 330 is in effect is really not required, and we're not aware of any city that has local replacement requirements now. So the way that the city is currently implementing state requirements is based on council input from last September, where there was a policy discussion about how to implement a portion of SB 330. Let me just kind of go through the row. There are a couple of key components. One is the units that are protected and then occupied by tenants who are lower income, 80% AMI and below. For our purposes, we're talking about the rent stabilized units in San Jose, excuse me, in Mountain View. And those are the CSFRA units. The requirement is to replace those units, to have those new units be affordable at those AMI levels for the existing tenants. The middle column is for when information data is not available on who occupies the units, and for most of the situations that probably won't apply here, will at some point know who lives in the units. The last column is about units who are that are occupied by tenants earning moderate income or above, and the state requirement allow cities to make a choice. The 1st choice is to replace those units at 80% AMI. The 2nd option is for those new units to be returned as market rate units, but recontrolled at those new market rate prices. So those are the 2 options. And counsel made the policy determination to have those units be replaced at 80% AMI. One of the components of implementing SB 330 and SB 330 style requirements is that the level of the replacement requirements is very much dependent on who lives in the units and how many of the units are vacant. And that can have impacts on feasibility and feasibility will be one of the pieces that we will have to address when the local ordinance on this topic will become in effect. So this is just an illustrative example to show how the AMI levels can really change and vary depending on who lives in the units and the feasibility. So Project A has more extremely low income residents. That means there would have to be more replacement units at deeper affordability levels, making project A less feasible than project B. So now we're going to transition to post-SP 330 local replacement requirements. And unless there are other requirements in place, staff's assessment is that redevelopment would likely continue. The CSVAR units will only be older by that and there may be additional incentives to want to redevelop those properties as they age. There are still product types that are very popular, and also have good returns, and those are the row house, town homestyle projects. And those have been many of the redevelopment projects that we've seen in the past few years on CSFRA R3 sites that have demolished the CS of our units and then replaced them with row house townhome projects. So we believe that would likely continue when SB 330 sunsets. Also, the state density bonus law covers replacement requirements for density bonus projects, but not other types of projects. So having local replacement requirements can cover all types of projects. Finally, we believe that HCD, the um, state, um, Department of Housing Community Development, um, will likely increases emphasis on strong local tenant protections and have, uh, scene where they've actually used examples of having strong replacement requirements as an example of, of, uh, a practice that the city should consider, and to further increase their emphasis on unfair housing. Based on our process of going through the housing element, we believe that the feasibility options that will be a required component to implement strong local replacement requirements. And that is part of the state law that staff reviewed, along with our consultants, in terms of what would local replacement requirements look like and feasibility options going forward. And it's, it turned out to be a rather complicated set of options to develop, but certainly housing element and how HCD will review the situation will be important. They haven't issued guidance on how to resolve this sort of thing at this time, but we believe it will be something that will really emerge. The AB 1505 inclusionary housing bill, which we turn the ability for cities to implement inclusionary housing, will be one piece of our evaluation in developing feasibility options that would go alongside local replacement requirements. And then also, the state-run control laws are also going to be an important piece. Just to focus on one of the rent control laws that the LS Act will be an important one. The LS Act allows property owners to withdraw their rental units from the market, and they're not required or they cannot be forced to keep their properties to be rented out if they want to use it for different use, including selling it or redeveloping it. And while the Ellis Act allows cities to have replacement requirements for rent controlled rent stabilized units, cities can't adopt requirements that would make their ability to withdraw their units in feasible or use it for another purpose. Just to touch briefly on the R3 zoning district update, we mention it in the staff report because primarily all the CDS of our units are on our 3 sites. So, those are 3 sites, and those seats of various sites will have the simultaneous component of wanting to have either preservation or having those units be replaced if they're demolished, as well as an opportunity area for increased development capacity and introducing new housing options. And so that's where the, some of the overlap is because of the geography. However, the staff is recommending that our 3 update be seen as a related but separate council priority work plan item. The R3 update, in terms of a solution to address feasibility considerations, number one, again, isn't needed during SB330 because feasibility doesn't have to be considered during the time of implementing state requirements. Second, because there are 3 sites are very diverse and the replacement requirements can really vary, depend on, again, who lives there. One size fits all, we don't see that as being a way that it will work. And then a lot can change between now and 2030. And we would certainly want to evaluate the situation again at 2028, 2029 as well. So staff recommends that the R3 update project. be able to move forward according to the goals stipulated by council for that project and have it separate from local replacement requirements, but did want to reiterate that the teams will still stay coordinate in terms of sharing information about how the projects are going and there's still going to be relevant information. sharing. In terms of benchmarking, uh, uh, neither staff nor the city's consultants are aware of any cities, um, they're also looking at replacement requirements, post theSB 330. And we, again, also don't really have state guidance in terms of how to maybe address or resolve this interaction between strong protections, addressing or reducing or mitigating governmental constraints and facilitating housing production. So the council policies and questions that are in front of you tonight are, again, regarding the timing of when an ordinance would be adopted and implemented and the approach for that. The staff has recommended taking a framework option at this time and then implementing an ordinance as we approach 2030. The intent of the framework is really, that would really be what would go into the ordinance itself. And the bring back to council, if that's what council wishes to move forward with, then include more detailed, fleshing out of the options here in front of you. But staff is recommending framework option one. And let me just kind of go through the 3 options as well. I'm going to focus on the first row, and that is the occupied CS of our units, and those units being occupied by the lower income households. Staff is basically recommending to follow, essentially, the post SP330 framework of having those units be returned at the AMI levels affordable to those households. And then options 2 and 3 would be the same. So across the 3 options, that 1st row would be the same. And they would all be based on SB 330. Turning your attention to the 2nd row, we're looking at the 2nd trunch, whether they are vacant units, units where there's no information or units where the households are either moderate or above moderate. So in this 2nd trunch, I'm going to start with framework option two. And actually, let me do this. Is it showing up here? Okay, so I'm going to start on the ownership side. On the ownership side, the staff is recommending that all 3 options have the same replacement requirements for this traunch. This would allow an ownership project that replaces CSRI units to be replaced between 80 to 150% AMI. The recommendation is based on the fact that we're trying to achieve more ownership, options that are affordable, and also achieving more middle income housing. And then for framework option 2, shifting to the rental side, if it's a new rental project, the shaded box there is really reflecting, it's the most closely aligned with how we're implementing SB 330 now, to have those rental units come back as essentially low income units. Where staff is recommending is option one that was just highlighted, to have those units come back as modern in communits. That recommendation is made, again, as another way of achieving modern income units, to align with council priorities on that topic. And also, it can go at least some ways in terms of addressing the feasibility of project. So this would be sort of a middle ground, and it would still protect the existing tenants in terms of having those units available to them at their AMI levels. It wouldn't impact the existing tenets. And option 3 is not recommended, and that would be consistent with the council direction from last September. In terms of the process and the tenant experience of what would occur, post-SB 330, um, we would um, envision having a similar scenario of how we implement SB 330 now in the city's tenant relocation assistance ordinance, which would include a noticing by the property owner, to the tenants, explaining the benefits and eligibility, holding community meetings to explain everything, um, tenants meeting with the city's relocation consultant to find um, housing options. Um, and then a payment of benefits. What would likely occur, though, is some evolution in the process and the requirements as we develop the other parts of the displacement response strategy. For example, we will be reviewing the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, according to the housing element work plan by next year, so there could be modifications that come out of that, that would change the process. And the other parts of the strategies that we'll discuss in Q1 of next year include 1st write of return and interim relocation options. So should we develop those in that would modify the process, we would incorporate that in terms of local replacement requirements, post SB 330. So, um, the recommendations for counsel to provide input on the timing approach for local replacement requirements. Um, the question one is if counsel agrees with staff's recommendation to develop a framework for post-SB 330, develop a local ordinance, um, at a later time, to bring back a resolution for counsel to adopt the framework in 2024, and to work on a local ordinance that would be based off of the framework, um, as we approach the sunset date of SB 330, but no sooner than 2028. So that we have more current information about any changing laws or the economics of development at that time. And basically the 2nd question is related to those pieces in question one. And if council supports the option one for replacement requirements. In terms of next steps, we would bring back a resolution next to or implement other council direction, and then we would anticipate, again, a study session early next year, that would include a discussion on acquisition preservation programs, the opportunity to purchase act programs, 1st write of return, interim relocation options, and preferences for displaced tenants to round out the other parts of the multi-pronged comprehensive strategy. So with that, That concludes staff's presentation, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

[00:24:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: We're now at the portion of the meeting. We're of the study session when members of the public joining us either virtually or in person can provide comments on the item. Uh, so if you want to provide a comment, either raise your hand, uh, click the raise hand button and zoom, or submit a blue speaker, card to the city clerk now, we will take in person speakers first, and every speaker will have three minutes. So first, we have Alex Brown.

[00:25:15] Alex Brown: Hey, how's it going? Good job. Uh, yeah, no, I don't want to see people get kicked out of the city. I would also like to see developers have, you know, take responsibility and build more things and do what they can to help people, especially people who need it the most, who can't afford to shop for a new apartment. Um, When it comes to a framework or an ordinance, I am very much pro-ordinance. I think that the reasoning that someone else hasn't done it, so we can't, or we shouldn't be the 1st to do it, to set an example, to set a standard, to lead the way is not a good argument in my book. I think we should do things. I think we should declare as a city, this is what we want. This is what we want for our people. This is what's good for the residents of Mountain View for the development going forward, and send a clear message, help the developers to know what is the truth. Like what we want as a city. for development for projects coming to us. Just tell them. Don't say at some point, if the state decides to do something or not, Maybe we'll figure out what we want to do, and here's kind of a vague allusion to that that's unenforceable that is not actually passed yet, that we hope that a future city council with an entirely different membership will honor maybe when it comes around to it. You guys got this, just do it, just do it. Just say yes, we would like to do something now. We want to put a stamp on it and say, this is what we want for the city to help people. Thanks.

[00:26:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Edie Keating.

[00:27:02] Edie Keating: Thank you. So this is a question that engages your vision for the city of Mountain View. And do you want Mountain View to be a place where people of all income levels can live? And counting on, you know, only nonprofit developed, uh, affordable housing doesn't get the job done, are naturally affordable housing is required to help keep the city the way it is with, uh, you know, with difficulty, but still, a place where people of many income levels can find a place to live. Rent control helped. There's vacancy decontrol, those annual increases are still difficult for some people. So rent control isn't a great answer, but I'm, of course, very glad we did it, and I think it helps. And you've created, you can take pride in the city that's here, because it is a desirable place to live. And that's part of why housing developers are interested to redevelop and try to make a profit, because they can sell expensive units, and this is a place where people want to live. But it's still so important to keep the income diversity of the city as strong as you can make it. I think one of the best things I did to prepare for tonight was to find the old voice article on 2005 Rock Street. And that was, you know, you didn't have SP330 in place then. And it was just so sad to see the acknowledgment that this was not good for the city, that there was a loss of housing units, and there was a loss of affordability of those units. I mean, perhaps, you know, there is some, certainly value in the replacement, or the, you know, the townhomes that were built, but you can't, you know, question that the affordability went down. And, or was, you know, there was less affordability, $1.3 million was the projected price for those townhomes, or row homes. So, the other thing from that article was that there was a three, four vote, that development proposal was almost stopped by this by a predecessor council. And so, you know, what a heartbreak to see that when this was something that was even losing housing units, and yet the council felt they had to approve it. You don't know what a future council will do. So, I hope you become the council that says, Yes, we want to lock in an ordinance now that tells developers that the future of doing development in Mountain View, especially for rent controlled units, is to include affordable replacement units. Just get the job done. It's the future of the city, and it's the best future available. So please choose an ordinance. Thank you.

[00:30:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So it looks like we have no more in person speakers. We'll turn to virtual speakers. First, we have Tim Mackenzie.

[00:30:18] Tim Mackenzie: Hi, all. Tim Mackenzie, he him Cronouns, uh, member of the Montaloma neighborhood. Thanks for looking into this. I was a tenant who participated in one of the meetings, and I'd like to echo the what has been said by commenters earlier, and what we said at the meetings, a couple months ago, SB 330 local ordinance would love to see it. It's great that we are already seem to have a bit of a framework for how we're thinking about and approaching things. But we know SB 330 is going to sense it. Like, this is already coming down the horizon. We should take action, have a local ordinance, um, within the framework also to help tenants and place-based, uh, displacement prevention, uh, I'd like to suggest helping support or creating frameworks where we can support tendant unions, thing if, uh, residents get together and form a union, uh, to help solve problems in their in their homes. Uh, that's something that I'd like to see the city help support. But really would love to see an ordinance, a local SB 330 ordinance come out of this. And just I have a question that I hope gets discussed a little bit during, uh, during this conversation about how income is decided for a household. I personally am low income, very solidly in the low income category with my own personal income. I live in a 3 bedroom apartment with 2 roommates. I don't know exactly what their incomes are, but my guess is that if we all pool together, we would maybe be above low income. We'd maybe be somewhere in moderate. I don't actually know exactly what. But we're not related to each other. We're just, we're sharing the house together and how that sort of total household versus individual household tenant situation would play out in terms of setting the income levels under the different, the different options. Not exactly sure what that would look like, but I think it would be important to consider in what is hopefully a great ordinance that helps protect the residents of Mountain View from being displaced. Thank you.

[00:32:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have the SRI organization.

[00:32:53] Public Speaker: I'd put in the wrong e mail. Tell him, my neighbors told Cosby? And I'm representing the Cavasito of St. Athlinacious Church. I'm very happy to have this study session round displacement response. Capsito has great experience in having our families displaced because of demolitions, beginning with 2005 Rock Street, and continuing onto many other developments. I agree with the staff recommendation of option one, but I would like to say stay off modify this, because vacant units are being counted as moderate income. Taken units are units where you really have no idea who the previous tenant was. But if they go in as moderate income, instead of low income, It almost incentivizes the property owner to keep the endless vacant. And we need units for families to occupy. So, I think it would be okay to, if it wouldn't be feasible to do all of the vacant units as low income, to at least split the difference, and do half low income, half moderate income, over the priority, for the greatest number of units. Replacement units paying for the low income families. Secondly, encourage the council to choose creating an ordinance, creating an ordinance now in the sense over the next couple of years. And, to be honest, we don't, even though it's a sunset, at 2030, we don't actually know that for certain that SP 330 would not be changed. So I think rather than having to scramble in the future, to just do the ordinance now, when all of the research has been pretty diligently done. So thank you for your consideration.

[00:35:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Steve Welter.

[00:35:22] Steve Welter: Good evening. Um, I just want to say a few words. Um, I'd like you to, to not rush into making, you know, ordinance decisions, and what goes into it. If you want housing, and you're not gonna build it yourself, you have to incentivize the people who are building it. the developers. So bear in mind that if you make an ordinance, and you leave things the way they are now, how long the delays are, getting things through the city, how long, you know, the fees, then people aren't gonna, and then you strap them a little more with what you want to put in an ordinance. It's not gonna, It's not gonna draw a developer in. If you want housing and Mountain View needs housing, and Mountain View is not going to build the housing themselves. They need the developers to build it. You have to make it. You have to incentivize it for the developers, you know, you could throw $10 billion, give it to the city for housing right now. And, you know, the shovel wouldn't break ground for for 5 years. I, you know, I'm just hypothetically throwing that out. But the point is, is the bureaucracy involved now is bad enough. And if you're going to make an ordinance, that defines these things that you've shown. It's, it's not gonna help as a developer. I don't see developer going, oh, let's jump in and, you know, spend more time and more money. And and meet not only the and deal with not only the bureaucracy that exists now, but but have to meet the requirements of any such ordinance that you put in. So, yeah, Mountain View needs housing and Mountain View needs to lead by example by showing the developers they want housing. Uh, there's been years and years to to do that and, and, you know, Mountain View and many other communities are behind the 8 ball. You know, they took all the all the tax money from the big companies that moved in, and they did, they didn't prioritize housing. So, be cautious on what you do. It, uh, that, you know, the economists have said what they said about rent control, and that's kind of overlooked. It's a good short-term solution, but it's not a good long-term solution, uh, and and, uh, if you don't pay close attention to what you put in an ordinance, uh, that could backfire on you. Thank you.

[00:38:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next we have B. Hansen.

[00:38:15] B. Hansen: Hi.

[00:38:15] Public Speaker: Um, I was, when I read this uh, memo, I was really disappointed in in staff's recommendations, and I'd like you not to accept them. Uh, basically, it seemed like uh, the main, The main idea, uh, the main problem that was addressed was the economic feasibility, uh, of building, um, and making sure that it's profitable for developers to build and to and incentivize them, of course. Uh, there was very little emphasis on low income housing, affordable housing. And yet so many of the people that I know, uh, people who work in the restaurants and the shops and clinics and hospital and schools, all of those people. It's well known that we have a major problem here, and it's been known for a very long time. Uh, and I thought that the, uh, the, uh, example of Rock Street, uh, the, all of those folks that got evicted without just cause, uh, was going to be recognized in this staff memo, but it wasn't. Um, So, uh, you know, I'm not worried about myself. I am covered by MHRSO, but I have neighbors. And friends uh, who need housing. Uh, and that are having a very hard time finding it. We know that we have some nonprofit housing being built, especially here at San Diego Villa. We have eaten housing, uh, building uh, very quickly. Excellent, excellent building, but, you know, there's just so little of that, and we have to rely on nonprofits. Why can't we even discuss a 20% rather than 15%? Uh, option for affordable housing in new developments. Um, how can we make that possible? How can we build higher, build up rather than out? Uh, there's a lot I don't understand here. Uh, so I really defer to people like Tim, Bill, Alex and uh, Edie, who know much more than I do. Uh, but I, I really feel that we have to, you know, do a better job here. Uh, and support low income people better. That's all, thank you.

[00:40:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, and I think last, we have Anna. Anna, are you there?

[00:41:07] Anna Marie: Hello, Anna Marie, she, her. Hope everyone's having a good day so far. I'd like to really echo, uh, pretty much what Alex B. Edie, Tim had said. Um, we really need to take action now. I appreciate us having the discussion and doing the study session and all these things. But in order for people to stay in their homes and not face displacement and all these other things, we need to take action now. Um, we need to lock in an ordinance now. I think it would be great for Mountain View to step up and be a leader. Um, in this. And, um, Um, I personally lived in Mountain View for over 40 years my entire life. My family has been here since around 1915 or 16. Um, so we've seen this beautiful city change over the years. I'm tired of seeing neighbors, um, people I've grown up with being forced out. Slowly moving to Sunnyvale, then Morgan Hill, then out of state. You know, this is an opportunity we have to take action. So I'm really looking forward to seeing you all do that tonight or as soon as possible. Thank you so much and take care.

[00:42:30] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So seeing no more, I see no more people wanting to make public statements, either virtually or in person. So we'll now bring the item back to council for questions and then discussion of the questions we've been presented with by staff. Um, Mr. Chen, can you put the questions up so that we can refer to them, and the public can see them? And while we're waiting for that and waiting for questions from council members, I just wanted to frame this issue by saying that this is one of the, this is an issue that's really important to council members and was one of the top rated issues when we voted for what we would put up as a council items that we'd see over the next year. And that, personally, I've been struck when I look at the census, the last census that was out at the tremendous amount of displacement in Mountain View. And that's one of the reasons that I voted for this particular item. And that, you know, as higher income individuals move here for good jobs, many longtime community residents are being displaced, um, either to the Central Valley, where it's difficult to get jobs or to, um, or to our streets. So I'm happy that the city will be addressing this problem. But I want to also emphasize one thing that was in the staff report, that it's not something the city can do alone. We have to partner with non profits, housers, developers, you know, we all have to pitch in to some degree. So, with that, I see a question from council member Romos.

[00:44:18] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, just some, uh, few follow up questions during our, um, during our, uh, meetings, uh, with staff, um, we did, I did have a question about, like, the difference of work between a framework and an ordinance, and could you share with us the answer to that?

[00:44:42] Unknown Speaker: I apologize. Could you repeat the question? The difference between a framework?

[00:44:46] Councilmember Emily Ramos: No, the workload in terms. the workload.

[00:44:50] Unknown Speaker: So primarily the workload impact between an ordinance and a framework would basically be the 2nd hearing, um, that would be required as part of an ordinance process. So there it would not be a whole lot more workload. We would envision taking the option that the staff recommends and whatever it is that we bring back. We would flesh that out more in it could be used for either a framework slash resolution or an ordinance. So really it would just be that 2nd public hearing for the ordinance.

[00:45:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you for that. In the staff report, there was and in the presentation, there was mentioned that there were no other cities working on something while SB 330 was in place. But, um, why did we not look at other cities that already had local replacement requirements in place? I believe they use the Ellis Act. They call them Alice actor, and it's not like they use that LS act, but yes.

[00:45:54] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we have looked at a couple of cities, for example, San Jose and LA. They have developed some of their own replacement requirements as well. We did take a look at this. Ultimately, when we were evaluating the way HCD might look at this issue and then looking at other pieces of legislation like AB 1505 and then the issue of perhaps governmental constraints, even if a local ordinance might be really strongly supported, taking all those pieces into account. factored into staff's recommendation. So we did take a look at a couple of those other cities. Part of the benchmarking thought was that we didn't have a good benchmark in terms of how other cities are addressing the feasibility question. And so that was really one of the pieces in terms of looking at other cities, how might other cities be resolving the feasibility issue. We also have a unique situation here that may not be present in other cities, which is the almost entire overlap of CSFR units on our 3 sites. Now, there are our 3 sites that are Nazis of our units. That's a smaller amount after you exclude ownership units, but basically, all of the all of the cities of our units on our 3 sides. So I think that's a kind of a unique situation in Mountain View when there are sort of these 2 projects as well. with our 3 update and local replacement requirements.

[00:47:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And last question. In the public comment, someone mentioned an idea about essentially splitting the baby with option, in option one, where, um, if the units were occupied by someone who was above, uh, income, that that would be back to, that would be option one, however, if the units were vacant, there were, they can be lower income. How, how, would that be possible would that be an ability for direction if we choose to do it?

[00:48:15] Unknown Speaker: Definitely. If council has input on specific ways of implementing or modifying staff recommendations in the framework options, then we can take that input and then help develop it out and bring it back to council.

[00:48:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right, thank you. all the questions I have. I also just did want to draw your attention as we were going through the questions of question one C, I think. It's in the staff report, but we just updated on the PowerPoint of one C in terms of does counts of any other feedback related to staff's recommendations. I just, I didn't want to flag that to make it consistent with what's in the SAF report.

[00:48:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Um, Vice mayor.

[00:49:01] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, well, I think that there's, you know, agreement among the city council, very, very strong agreement that we want to keep displacement as low as possible, that we view this as something that creates a great deal of social disruption in our community, and consequently, we want to work hard to, you know, to keep it as low as possible. The question is exactly, what's the best way to do it? And that's always the question, right? And, um, I, uh, I, you know, normally, when you think about a law, it's better, in terms of controlling things. It's better if it's a federal law, right? Because then everybody has to follow it. Well, if you don't have a federal law, it's better if it's a state law, because then everybody in the state has to follow. And then if it's just a local ordinance, well, then you're in competition with adjoining, you know, with adjoining neighbors, and that may or may not be a good thing. But usually, it's better to have things covered in a state law. So, from that point of view, I kind of look at SB 330 as, you know, as really helping us out, because it, in a sense, puts a lot of these values that we've said, like, no net loss. I was one of those three people who voted against Rock Street. I mean, it's made that the rule. And it's not just the rule here. It's the rule everywhere in California until 2030. And that is a good thing. That's a very good thing. So, um, but the question I didn't see, Wayne, on this list of questions, is, um, it seems like we need a D, you know, that's, What are the gaps? What are the gaps between what we have and what we see in SB 330 protections, and, um, what are, are there gaps that anybody's falling through in our community? And I think that that's something that I hope, you know, will be investigating, and you've probably given a lot of thought to, actually, over time. You know, what doesn't quite work. Because, um, that's, you know, we want this to be as effective as possible. So, one of the things I'm really interested in, whether we go forward with an ordinance, or whether we go forward with a framework, is being very conscious about things we want to monitor, and they'll undoubtedly change over time, but what do we want to investigate is or isn't working? Like, one of the things I don't think we know nearly enough about is, we just had that one, I asked the question about who comes back, you know, after you're displaced from a unit that is rebuilt, you know, a takes three or four years often to construct a new place. So where do you go for three or four years, and how many people come back? And, um, so, is this, you know, on the one hand, I think having people come back is a notable, is a laudable goal, but I wonder, if that's what people really want. If you've lived someplace for three years, and you're settled. You know, do you want to move again? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I don't know, but I don't know how big, you know, a consideration it is. It was nice that Prometheus was in that project was allowed, you know, was able to do that. So that's really what I'm... And then the other thing is, how often has 330 been amended thus far? It's been amended to extend the requirements, but regarding the actual provisions of the state bill, I might look to... just

[00:53:02] Eric Phillips: once. Yeah, it's just been amended once, but the provisions of the bill itself have remained the same, the requirements.

[00:53:13] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Why don't you come up and talk to us? We don't really understand head nods because we've never met you before, I don't think.

[00:53:20] Eric Phillips: Good evening. My name's Eric Phillips. special counsel to the city.

[00:53:24] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Welcome.

[00:53:25] Eric Phillips: Thank you. nice to be here with you all tonight. I've been working with staff on this since you provided the direction, but in response to your comment about SB 330. It has been amended once, SBA was enacted. It did extend SB 330's deadline by 5 years. That's why it's in effect now till 2030. It did also introduce some cleanup mechanisms. There were some ambiguities in how to apply its requirements. Even some of the replacement requirements were refined a little bit when SBA was adopted after SB 330. But so far, there's only been one amendment.

[00:54:04] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, and so what, what, when was that? When was SB 30 passed?

[00:54:09] Eric Phillips: So SB 330 was enacted in 2019, and SB 8 was passed two years later in 2021.

[00:54:15] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So, in your experience, is that kind of the way these things go after their, you know, they work for a couple of years, people, there's some unintended consequences that rear their ugly heads, and so people want to fix them? And is that that, or do you expect this to be, um, uh, changed repeatedly?

[00:54:35] Eric Phillips: That's a good question. I think it really depends on how well it continues to work. The legislature does continue to revisit high priority items, just like you do here in council. And it would, I think, if there are specific gaps or issues, especially if the legislature continues to have the same interests and priorities in housing production. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some further refinements between now and the sunset date. It's also possible as the sunset date approaches that SP330 gets extended or even made permanent. Um, that's what we just saw with SB 35, um, two years before its sunset, that its sunset date, um, actually three years, because it was set to sunset in 2026. But this year, the legislature adopted some, again, cleanup amendments at an extension to push that sunset date out. tougher to say than I thought. But that is a pattern that the legislature, they continue to revisit and extend the deadlines of bills, to make sure that they're continuing to work, and if it is effective, and the legislature continues to have housing as a goal, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this same thing, with an additional extension, or potentially even making some of these provisions permanent.

[00:55:57] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah. Okay, so what I'm trying to get at is, how much do we think this is gonna change? Because if it's gonna change a lot between now and when it expires, then it doesn't seem like a good investment of our staff time to have them write an ordinance that is sort of to fill in gaps of a state law that's gonna be very different. On the other hand, if we have the gaps, you know, if we know the gaps now, and we expect it to be a relatively static situation, then maybe it's a good idea. So I'm kind of weighing, you know, because if we do it now, and the state law changes, and the changes aren't quite what we wanted. We could be rewriting this ordinance, you know, every three or four years.

[00:56:55] Eric Phillips: Yeah, I think it's more likely than not that we will see additional changes from the legislature, either directly to SB 330, the way that SB 8 modified it, or in some of the other areas, like Wayne mentioned that the state has put a lot of emphasis on affirmatively furthering fair housing, and some things that would even strengthen tenant protections. So there could be additional legislation in that space as well. I think that's part of why the framework felt like a good action to take now, because there is still so much uncertainty and, uh, I think, a high degree of likelihood that things will continue to change, and we want to be well positioned to put the right requirements in place when it's time to have those be effective.

[00:57:46] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, let me see if I have another question here. And the other question I had for staff, Generally, thank you so much. I'm fairly appreciate your comment. Thank you. Um, is, uh, is really about land juice. You know, the land juice implications of this. I'm going to be talking more about land juice in the next, for the next six months, because I think sometimes we forget when we work on these things to talk. about land juice, as well as, um, what is, uh, you know, the topic of the day, and when we're talking about housing, Land juice is always a part of it, right? It might not be a big part of it, but it's always part of it. So, um, it seems like the land juice implications are really what we would cover in R3. Is that correct?

[00:58:41] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[00:58:42] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. And so that's on the docket that's coming to us later. Yeah, 'cause I also think that that is, you know, a crucial component of this displacement strategy writ large. Okay, thank you so much. Those are my questions for now.

[00:58:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Matterchick.

[00:58:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about, um, the interaction between a local ordinance and SB 330. So, um, as the vice mayor mentioned, if we had an ordinance that filled the gaps, but if our ordinance also contains some of the same, um, elements that SB330 wood does, um, does the state law override a local ordinance?

[00:59:30] Unknown Speaker: Thanks for that question. I will take a first cut, and I may turn to Eric Phillips for some additional comments. The way that staff has evaluated SP 330 and local replacement requirements would be, If what we are talking about is really using the same framework or a similar framework for when SB 330 sunsets. At the time, if those requirements are found to limit housing production, then there could be input or action by the state to have the local jurisdiction, address the feasibility question. Um, even if they were to use the exact same requirements as SB 330. Um, If the local replacement requirements were to be, uh, even stricter than SP 330 requirements, then that just places an additional hurdle on the feasibility options. And then certainly if the local replacement requirements were less than SP 330, it can help with the feasibility ability, um, discussion. Um, so I will 1st pause there, receive that responded in part to your question.

[01:00:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: It did. So I made the assumption that if we did a local ordinance that was less restrictive than SB 330. Uh, this SB330 would be the one people would have to follow. But if ours was more restrictive, or maybe the word is more demanding, we would have to provide evidence of not impacting feasibility, potentially.

[01:01:21] Unknown Speaker: Right, if you're talking about the time frame, during SP 330, in a fact, then the analysis would also apply in terms of if the, for example, there's a greater number of units that need to be replaced or that the units need to be replaced at deeper levels. If that is found to be a constraint on development, then that would be something that we would want to address and have a feasibility option in that situation.

[01:01:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, but if there were gaps that are not covered in SB330, um, and I don't know if you've looked at those, I thought that was a good question. Um, if it didn't, um, overlap with SB 330 at all, we could do that. As long as it isn't an additional constraint. on housing.

[01:02:14] Unknown Speaker: Right. I'll start with the gap piece. We did look at a gap in terms of the ability for landlords to withdraw their units and hold it off the market for 5 years, that sort of loophole piece, and cities don't really have the ability to close that loophole. One of the other gaps that we looked at is whether any local replacement requirements or any other requirement would cause an incentive for certain types of actions, whether they might be illegally trying to remove tenants or big tenants. So we do believe that a part of the overall disbacement strategy would likely need to have increased compliance and enforcement options and resources. And so we'll talk about that further as part of the overall strategy. So we think that that would likely be an important part in terms of the gap. We're not necessarily envisioning that that would be, um, something that would be on a developer to fund necessarily that we have to just comply. So that's a response in terms of the gaps component, and I may look to Eric. But again, I think the overall principle is, if there were found to be other gaps and we wanted to try to fill gaps and there was a requirement of the developer and if it impacts project feasibility, then that would, again, fall into the bucket of feasibility options would need to be evaluated and implemented.

[01:03:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Anything else to add?

[01:03:42] Eric Phillips: No.

[01:03:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. So, I was going to ask, just in order to clarify, for certain members of the public, who said that they didn't find, when they heard the staff report, they didn't find that this was enough, the replacement strategy was enough for replacement... were enough for a displacement strategy. This is only part of our displacement strategy. And I'm just hoping it wasn't the staff report, but that was very long, and not everybody read it, I'm sure. So, I'm wondering if you can just outline for members of the public who were concerned what the other elements of the, sorry, displacement, anti displacement strategy are.

[01:04:26] Unknown Speaker: Yes, so I just changed the slide to the next step slide, which captures the main components of the other parts of the strategy that will be discussed in quarter one of next year. And that includes an acquisition preservation program, opportunity to purchase act, which includes the community, the opportunity purchase act, COPA, or tenant opportunity to purchase act, TOPA. The 1st rite of return, interim relocation options and preferences for displaced tenants. So those would comprise the bulk of the remaining parts of the strategy that will come back to council.

[01:05:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I hope that reassures people that this is not all we're doing on this subject.

[01:05:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: I don't see any other questions from council members. So it's time to, um, make comments. Uh, council member council member Kameh?

[01:05:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I was just going to ask a question, but I am happy to go into comments after my question as well. Um, so, uh, the question is, should counsel go with the staff recommendation, in particular, um, one C. Should we see anything different coming from Sacramento? We could bring the item back to ask for a local ordinance, correct, if we're not seeing the legislation that we think is coming.

[01:05:54] Unknown Speaker: Correct. The recommendation is really based on the fact that SB 330 is currently supposed to sunset in 2030, but if that were to change in earlier, then that would be a bring back.

[01:06:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: perfect. great. Thank you. Mayor, so I'm happy to start with answering the question. if that's okay. So for question one, for A, B, and C. My responses are yes. And I think given the kind of discussion that we were just hearing, I think that this is a priority, local replacement requirements are a priority for the legislature. I think we're seeing bills be extended, amended. And I, um, We just got our housing element approved. We're going to be looking at, as the mayor mentioned, a few other different displacement response strategies, which I am very heartened, that we are getting to work on. I know it's been an arduous task trying to figure out all the different buckets, but kind of given that tonight we get to talk about, um, two, in terms of, um, displacement or response strategy, or local replacement requirements, I'm, um, I think that we are on the right path. And I also feel like should counsel this council feel like we need to do something prior to the sense that date of 2028, we could bring this item back for a local ordinance. So that's why I say yes to all the questions in one. Um, and then for question two. Um, yes, I agree with option one. I think one of the interesting components that I would be in, if there is dialogue from colleagues is how we assess the, um, the units for the vacant or occupied, I thought the public comment on that was interesting. Um, But what I do like about the staff recommendation, and this framework is, it touches that 80 to 120% AMI, which, um, I feel like as a council has been really difficult to reach kind of those who are considered are missing middle. And in talking with staff, those who are in the 80 and 120% AMI range, we may feel like they would be kind of above moderate, but they really are moderate to low income in our state and in our county. So, um, for those reasons, I'm, you know, I'd be interested if others have other, um, different comments, but, uh, want to pursue this framework for now from staff. And then apologies. I got into comments before I wanted to thank staff for the robust outreach. I know that it's been many meetings, translation, childcare opportunities. And I feel like that has led to a lot more participation from our residents in our community to get to where we are today. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you.

[01:09:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramos.

[01:09:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, echoing the thanks of council member Kame. I would also like to thanks staff for their outreach and their work on this. It was before I was on council when these outreach started. So I was able to actually check out all the stakeholder meetings. Um, for all that. And to see, like, where, asking the questions of where are we struggling in, in protecting our residents from displacement? Like what Quantitute is a true right of 1st return? What constitutes as being able for them to leave while the unit is being redeveloped and then come back? What are the barriers to that? What are the questions if we have issues of overcrowding? And, um, we ran into some of these interesting questions, as we had our demolition projects as well, where, like, there were some even units that were overcrowded and say you had, uh, 4 people in a unit that was supposed to fit 2 and it was a household, and combined, they might actually make, um, what we would view as above moderate or moderate income. But individually, they would be all low income, and they were, but they would clump together, in order to make that rent. Um, so I'm glad that we are looking at that. I'm really excited for part two. And going down with the questions. I want an ordinance. Um, I think about, um, It's very interesting how uniquely SP 330 affects Mountain View, it doesn't seem to affect other cities like it does for us. When people in Mountain View think SB 330, they think that's the law that prevents, um, the demolitions of these units that, um, that people are, it is an anti-displacement, uh, built to most of us here in Mountain View, and that's the general understanding of the public with SB 330. You step outside of Mountain View. SB 330 is a production bill. And it's kind of crazy. I had a, um, we have a counterpirate in like another city, um, who, their city recently did like a study session on state bills, and he posted on his Instagram. This is what SB 330 does, and it was like, limit jurisdiction's ability to disapprove projects, and prevent down zoning, and all that. None of it mention the replacement requirements. Because it was such, it was not the main intent of the bill. The main intent of the bill was to prevent cities from blocking housing. Um, and it's kind of crazy to think that such a big impact of that bill, to mountain view. Um, was almost an afterthought. And that's why I think it is important for us to have our local ordinance. The state giveth and the state taketh. Um, So, um, that is largely one of my main reasons. The other one is that I forgot who mentioned it before. I think the vice mayor mentioned it, where it was very clear that this was a priority for our community. I do remember, I wasn't on this side of the dais, when we watched many of those displacement decisions. And because, uh, all of your good people, and, uh, and even our predecessors who were no longer on the Zaius, but had to make some of those really, really difficult votes. We knew how hard it was. We felt how hard it was. They were in this very room. There was this palpable sense of helplessness that we had people standing right there saying, Please do not take away my home. And our counsel that said, Sorry, our hands are tied and we can't do anything. And generally, when you do have that deep feeling of helplessness, You do what you can to make sure that never happens again. This is our opportunity to make sure that that doesn't happen again. We can lock in our protections, no matter what the state decides to do. We can, we can tell our community, that this is deeply a priority, that this, that you are protected, that you, we will never have, the, the issues, that we had with Rock Street, and the Montecito, and the middle fields, where we had, even a loss of units, when they were taught, there was a, there was discussion about a feasibility. As it stood, we were losing units, not just affordable units, actual units. And we knew that that wasn't what we wanted for the future of our city. So that's why I really feel strongly that we really need to go for an ordinance and lock that in. Um, this council agree with staff's recommendation for framework one. I'm pretty... Okay, with framework one. Um, I am curious about, um, what it would mean to to decide how those vacant units are treated. Does the split the baby kind of thing? Um, largely because it would be another way to prevent, like, the pushing out of low income people. Um, but I, what I do love about option one is that, um, when council actually voted, this was also before my time on council, um, on the clarification for SB 330. Um, there was questions about, like, what happens if you lived there in your middle income? Um, and it was kind of like, Well, that's it. We can't do anything for you. And so that's why I actually really like option one. So it keeps, it gives the opportunity for someone who is not low income, but like moderate income, middle income, the chance to come back as well. And I think that answers my question. Thank you.

[01:15:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Council member Ramirez.

[01:15:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, as my colleagues have, I also would like to thank staff for your work on this, I have a quick question. Does SB 330. So Mountain View is, I think, unique, correct me if I'm wrong. When in our inclusionary housing ordinance, for ownership housing, we require that a reserve be established by the developer to assist low income homeowners to make sure they could pay for their HOA dues, right? Correct.

[01:16:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: SB 330 require the establishment of a similar reserve. SP 330 does that? And does our inclusionary ordinance carry over to replacement requirements underestimate 330. So would SB33 replacement units also have to establish that reserve?

[01:16:38] Unknown Speaker: I'm going to look to Eric to help frame a response. You know, certainly we have the local requirement that already exists, and it existed prior to SB 330 coming into place, but I'll ask Eric to talk about maybe the interaction.

[01:16:55] Eric Phillips: Oh, yeah, I think it's a little bit more straightforward for this one. The answer is just, yes, that the city's BMR requirements, including the reserve requirement, would apply to replacement units, as well as your inclusionary units. The city administers its BMR program, um, for all of the units that are subject to ongoing affordability restrictions, whether they were created as part of the inclusionary Ordinance or SB 330. And that would be true even above and beyond the inclusionary requirements.

[01:17:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So more than if we have more than 15% of the units replaced.

[01:17:35] Eric Phillips: That's correct.

[01:17:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The additional ones also would be subject to the HOA reserve.

[01:17:40] Eric Phillips: That's correct.

[01:17:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's interesting. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Um, I agree with council member Ramos. I have a couple of additional reasons why. Um, I think it's um, important to uh, bring back the ordinance sooner rather than later. The 1st is, um, uh, staff had indicated, as drafting an ordinance and bringing it back is not actually much more work than just coming back with the framework. You're already doing the policy work when creating the framework, and if it were a substantial amount of additional work, I could understand the reservation in providing that direction, but because the workload is largely equivalent, it sounds like. And I'll defer to staff on how to characterize that. quantitatively. But I'm heartened to hear that it's really not all that much additional work. We can't tie the hands of a future council. And I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we would make a request of a council that there is a possibility none of us will be serving on, that they do us a solid and bring back an ordinance that they may have no interest in. If we want to do something, then we should do it, and not ask a future council to do something that they may not want to do. And there's no accountability if they don't do it. Resolution is a promise that none of us can keep, and it's a promise that nobody can be accountable to if it's not upheld. And future council could also repeal an ordinance that we adopt, just as they can repeal any ordinance that any council adopts. So, I'm uncomfortable with that as a solution to a workload challenge that we will ask a future council to do something when we have the means and wherewithal and ability to do it ourselves. And most pressing to me, there have been, and I think, will continue to be efforts to override state law. I am on an email list about a constitutional amendment effort to essentially preempt any state laws and restore local control. And I would imagine that there are many in our community who loathe the displacement, and also don't like the state usurpation of local control, who might want to have local replacement requirements. So that way, when they proudly vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that would eliminate bills like SB330, they will have the assurance that their neighbors aren't going to be displaced when redevelopment occurs. So for those reasons, we don't know if there will ever be a constitutional amendment, approved by the voters, I think, personally, I think that's something we should be prepared for. I think there's a lot of consternation up and down the state of California about state law. We can also count on a capricious and difficult to predict state, a Supreme Court, at the federal level, to do all kinds of things. And I've been hearing about some cases that might come up, that I'm sure our city attorney will be informing us about over the next year or so, that might radically alter how we implement things like mitigation fees and all of that. So I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, state laws that were confident, you know, will be here in perpetuity, end up disappearing, um, for for reasons that we can't predict. So I'm comfortable with option one, framework option one, presented by staff. I'm interested in the, if a majority of the council's interested as well, the, uh, sort of the marrying of the 2 options and if there are vacant units, having those be lower income. Um, but I agree with Council Memberka May, I think this is a good opportunity also to help us achieve our middle-income housing goals. And the only other direction, I guess, I would want to provide is to give staff broad latitude, in working on some of the things that I don't think we're prepared to talk about today, like feasibility considerations and timing. You know, I don't think this needs to come back next week or next month. You know, I'm fine with it coming, you know, at the end of 2024. But I do think if there is interest in an ordinance, this is the council that really ought to adopt it. Thank you.

[01:22:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, I'm gonna throw my vote in for an ordinance now as well. Um, I don't have a lot more to say, because the previous 2 council members have said, have expressed many of my thoughts. I just think that we're the council that saw so many displacements. I hope we don't see so many in the future. I hope we're preventing them, but we saw kind of the pain of that, and the people who were here during, for example, the Rock Street project. So I think we're the ones, for that reason, who put it on our agenda, and I think that we should take care of it. You know, this council. Um, I also was heartened to hear, uh, from staff that it was not gonna be a substantial amount of extra work. So for those reasons, I would, um, I would go for an ordinance now. Um, I would also, as for, I would also go with option number one, and also be interested in, um, looking more particularly at what we do with the vacant units.

[01:23:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: And now, uh, council member Abbe Koga.

[01:23:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to staff for the comprehensive staff reports. So I'm taking, looking at this purely from, well, most purely from a pragmatic perspective. And I support staff's recommendation. I don't think it's, we need to be spending time at this time when we have a lot of other things going on on a local ordinance that could be altered in many ways between now and 2030. Um, you know, I, I guess I see similar to council member committee, what's going on at the state. You know, I'm working on the regional housing measure, bond measure, and we're talking about preservation there and ways to, um, frankly, fun preservation, uh, strategies. And so I see that I see the Thai going that way, that it's going to get stronger, not weaker. And, um, so I would prefer to see what the state, what the region does, um, and follow that. I agree with vice mayor, that I think these types of laws are more effective when they are done at a higher level and encompasses, you know, the entire state, not just a city. I think we have been, you know, and I'm proud of the fact that we have been a leader in many ways, many strategies, but in some, some ways, I've also seen it hurt us because state laws come in and actually clawed back some of the things that we have put into place or tried to claw back some of it unintentionally because what I see is, yes, other communities aren't as far along as we are. But because of that, we've had to kind of slow it down or the state has slowed us down. And, um, and I think it just gets, um, to be, you know, I really look at, well, what can we do different, but also, like, in comparison to what else we have on our plate. And to be frank, I really think this is the time for us to have our staff work on, you know, we talked about internal, a lot of internal issues that we need to work out, um, to just be able to get production going and more quickly. And rather than spending time on an ordinance that might change, we will probably change by 2030. Um, I would rather spend the time to work on all of the other issues that we need to work on so that we can actually encourage production to happen. You know, I've been on here for 15 years. We've done a lot of planning, but the production hasn't really kept up. And a lot, and when we hear things like, well, you know, our process is slow and this and that, I just think we have a lot of work to do. and we need to speed up production. So that's where I would spend our time, not on an ordinance that might, that'll probably get changed many times over by 2030. Um, you know, I do think that from what I'm seeing, that SB 330 could become extended, could be extended or become permanent. And so, I think that protection is there and we should just, you know, just work with within that framework. And then if, in, as council member Kame said, if, you know, something changes, then we can bring it back earlier, but at this time, it doesn't look like that's happening. So I would rather spend the time on other projects that we, and we have a lot of them. So that's where I stand on this. So I do support on question ones. I do support staff's recommendation. It's fine to adopt a framework. Yeah, I'm not really wedded to like win in 2024, but also in terms of the framework, option one is fine.

[01:27:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I was curious with, I was trying to ask how someone were committed, but in terms of middle income, I guess we would call it the 80 to 150% AMI. I totally understand why that should be. You know, I don't even know, frankly, if it's high enough anymore for, say, for sale products, but in terms of rental, do you think 120 is adequate would be my question.

[01:28:21] Unknown Speaker: Thanks for that question. In really hot markets, the what we've seen in certain cities, and I would Mountain View in that category, market rate rents can exceed 120% A in my rents in markets that are perhaps not blazing hot. Um, it's possible that that market rate units could be um, at the 120% in my level or or lower. And I think part of what staff would bring back would be to flesh out that ban for the rental units in terms of whether it would be at 120% or whether there's flexibility to place those units, I'd say, within the modern income category, but at 100% AMI to make those units, you know, worthwhile.

[01:29:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So the band is...

[01:29:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, the band and that was part of staff's thinking in terms of recommendation, not just have it brought back at one AMI level, but to have the flexibility for that band.

[01:29:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Um, so then I, uh, go with option when, and the real, I think the real challenge here is this issue of constraints and the feasibility question at the state places and, you know, I did, when I saw 330, I wasn't really sure what the state was trying to do. Were they trying to, um, incentivize production? Or, you know, I know that they're trying to prevent displacement, but by adding that added requirement, you know, I heard from developers saying that we're not going to be able to do this. So you're not going to see many proposals and we haven't seen a whole lot of proposals since it's happened. So, um, And so I think the state, you know, included this constraints, feasibility question as a result, that was the response. Um, I think that, you know, in a way, we probably just need to see how this plays out a little longer to really understand, um, if, you know, SB 330 remains feasible or not, or if the state will, you know, add other, um, you know, loosen other requirements to make it feasible. So that's my concern is that that question is probably going to create a lot of revisions down the road. And so I think we just need to see how things play out for a little longer. Thanks.

[01:30:54] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, I have council member Mattachek next, but the vice mayor hasn't spoken. Vice mayor, do you, you want to let...

[01:31:02] Unknown Speaker: Sure, Council member. Okay.

[01:31:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, you haven't? No, I'm so sorry. Yeah, I am so fortunate, yeah.

[01:31:12] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So, um, I agree with what council member Abi Koga just said. Um, I think we learned more about SB 330 tonight. You know, I was thinking it might change, and I'm feeling more comfortable than it might change. And perhaps that's an opportunity for us to, um, try to influence how it changes. Um, but I do think it will continue, and as long as it's gonna continue and change. I feel like doing an ordinance is a bit premature. So I would hold off on a local ordinance. But I'm okay with the framework that has been proposed. I agree with staff's recommendation, actually, um, including, uh, option one for the framework. Um... I guess I can be that short, with this one. Thanks.

[01:32:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And I'm sorry again. Vice mayor.

[01:32:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, this is one where I'm really torn. You know, for once, I don't like the questions that you ask me, and, um, because I'm gonna be like the, you know, the little kid that stands up and says, Wait a minute, I don't, I don't want AB, or, See, I want Z. And, um, anyway, so, I'm gonna start by talking about that. First of all, I really think the most important thing we need to do is R3. That is, you know, we've been collecting outreach on that for several years now, and I really think it's time for us to, you know, really wrestle with that. And explain to people how they can make the densities that we are looking for in a good way that is very protective of the beauty and functioning of our community. So that's the first question I want to answer is, let's do R3, okay? And then the second question I wanted to answer is, I really think we need to collect data. I know that's sort of the scientist pardon me. But to me, this looks like, it's just a wonderful opportunity to collect data. I'm very concerned because of the cost of funds changing that development is going to slow. And we don't want to do things to slow development. Then the third thing, I think we, you know, we really need to do is we really need to advocate to, um, for these, we've been trying, for many, many years, to serve as an example, and have sort of our neighboring communities kind of catch on, that they should really be building this wonderful housing, because it's creating a very nice city that people like, and Mountain View is, is considered very desirable. But that hasn't worked nearly as well as we would have all liked. And, um, so I think the advocacy is very important. But that said, you know, I'm going to go with the housing advocates on this, particularly because I think that if the ordinance isn't a terrible amount of work, then let's go for it. But I'm almost, I almost wish I could abstain on that part, because I think it's the least important of what we're trying to push. It's fine to do it. I'll be glad to support it, but I really think the advocacy that we do is very valuable, collecting data on how things work in Mountain View. I was really struck by what council member Ramos had to say, and then let's go with our three.

[01:34:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: And did you have, did you have a comment on what option, options, one, two, or three?

[01:35:00] Unknown Speaker: The staff recommendations, or fine?

[01:35:03] Unknown Speaker: That's option one. Yes, that is, yes.

[01:35:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, so now everyone has spoken. And I don't know if there are any further comments by council members. Now that everybody has heard everybody, if anybody wants to wrap anything up, but if not, I'm not saying that you should. Oh, council member committee.

[01:35:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I would just ask staff, as this is coming forward, um, if we're hearing anything for the new year in terms of bills or any type of legislation, to also keep, um, council uprised of that. I mean, I'm also comfortable with going for the ordinance, but I know that staff made a recommendation for a reason. And so, you know, always chess staff. Um, but I would like to see that. And then I think also, if there's, if we hear anything more from HCD, I know they're busy trying to work through a long list of housing elements, but, um, I think part of my concern too was HCD seems to be, um, providing feedback at different points of time and not always in sync with work. a council's timelines. And so as much as we can have that, I think, would be helpful as we're going down this path, but you know, comfortable with what other colleagues have said, but I think there's many moving parts and the more information we have, the better. Thanks, Mayor.

[01:36:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Was that a question for staff or just comments for staff?

[01:36:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I record the comments.

[01:36:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, thank you. Okay, great.

[01:36:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I now have, so this is the part in the agenda where I, uh, either summarize or, um, I summarize the majority direction of council, uh, for the record. Staff should tell me if they want any straw poles, but I thought it was fairly clear. Um, I got, um, four or four and a half council members in favor of a, um, ordinance now, and, uh, three or two and a half in favor of the staff recommendation. So Ordinance Now seems to be ahead in that one. And then, as for question number two, um, I think it was unanimous that people were interested in option one, there was some comment, there were some comments about investigating what could be done with vacant units, um, in terms of... In terms of, um, whether we wanted to split them between, I think, option one, treating them like option one and option two. And vice mayor, do you have a comment on that?

[01:38:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Basically, I just wanted to bring up the idea of data collecting. I mean, perhaps that's something that's embedded in it, but I would like my colleagues to agree that we should do data collection of what's happening in our community about this. As everybody agrees...

[01:38:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sure. Do you have a specific kind of data collection?

[01:38:29] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, particularly how people get back into units, if they're able to get back into units, and continuing on the data collection of the trajectory of where they go. And I'm sure that there are other things that, that the, you know, the staff thinks might be good to know about. So the primary one is whether people get back and how where people end up, but any associated data that might be helpful.

[01:38:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, all those in favor?

[01:38:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Passes? So, are there, in addition to the summary I made, are there additional comments? things that should be included? Okay. And I think we're Oh, uh, city manager?

[01:39:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. So I would just also want to add that by doing an ordinance now, council is saying that doesn't mean this gear, I heard by the end of 2024 would be reasonable.

[01:39:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, do we want to draw a poll on that by the end of 2024? Or whenever.

[01:39:34] Unknown Speaker: Or whenever. That's broad.

[01:39:37] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Timeline. Okay. Okay. And then... Second thing to clarify is, I also heard interest in watching legislation on SB 330, and we can also work with our legislative advocate on what they're hearing or if there's any inroads that we might even be able to make on extending that or making sure that it doesn't get rolled back, which I'm quite certain that it wouldn't, given the direction of the legislature. But I also heard interest in that. So just wanting to confirm that with counsel as well.

[01:40:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: All those in favor. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay, any final comments on this item?

[01:40:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sorry. Okay, so we are, we've completed this item. And we are now, um, let's see, what time is it? Okay, we can, we've completed our study session, and we can roll right into our regular session. So we are now, we will now be, I'm calling the regular session to order. Um, and we will start with item number one, which is the pledge of allegiance. And, oh, I'm supposed to say good evening, everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council, and Shoreline Regional Park community of October 10th, 2023. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[01:41:08] Unknown Speaker: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[01:41:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: For now on item two, the city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:41:35] Unknown Speaker: Council member Abi Koka,

[01:41:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: here,

[01:41:37] Unknown Speaker: Council member, Kameh,

[01:41:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: here,

[01:41:38] Unknown Speaker: Council member, Matachek,

[01:41:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here.

[01:41:40] Unknown Speaker: Council member, Ramirez.

[01:41:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:41:41] Unknown Speaker: Council member Ramos.

[01:41:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[01:41:43] Unknown Speaker: Vice mayor, show Wilter.

[01:41:44] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:41:44] Unknown Speaker: Mayor Hicks.

[01:41:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:41:46] Unknown Speaker: You have a corn?

[01:41:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so, um, Thank you very much. Today, we have a few announcements to share. First, I want to share that this Sunday, October 15th. We're hosting the 40th anniversary celebration of Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. Everyone was invited to attend Sundays free community event called Celebrate Shoreline, which will be located at the park. The physical address, if you needed, is 2070 North Shoreline Boulevard. We will have live music, antique vehicle displays, carnival games, and food, interactive and educational booths, and self guided tours around the park. You'll learn about Shoreline's transformation from an auto wrecking yard, a landfill, and a hog farm, into the recreational and environmental jewel we know today. You can bike or walk. to the event. There will also be parking in lots along Shoreline Boulevard, with free shuttle service being provided. The celebrate shoreline festivities are taking place from 11 o'clock in the morning until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, this Sunday. I will be there, along with many of my council colleagues, and I hope to see you there, too. More information is available on the city website at Mountain View.gov slash celebrate Shoreline. My second announcement is that in recent weeks, several of our neighboring elected decision making bodies have been subject to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice, as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all. The council welcomes respectful and non threatening public comments regarding matters over which the council has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct, and the California government code may be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period. Okay, with that, we move on to item number three, which is presentations. Please note these are presentations only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items, and if you would like to speak on these items in person. Please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. So, first, uh, we have Silicon Valley Clean Energy 2023 Electric Showcase Award. I'm excited to welcome the Silicon Valley Clean Energy here tonight to present the Electric Showcase Awards and congratulate the Mountain View winner, Sunshine Garden Apartments. We will now hear from Justin Zaganes, who is the SBCE director of decarbonization programs, and also Deborah Vasquez from Sunshine Garden Apartments.

[01:45:14] Justin Zaganes: Great. Thank you. And good evening. Silicon Valley Clean Energy is the Clean Electricity Provider for Mountain View and 12 other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Since our formation, we have helped reduce 530 million pounds of CO2. In Mountain View alone, our customers have saved more than $10.3 million since SVCE formed. We are proud to serve the community with programs to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including providing up to $8000 in rebates to residents for transitioning to electric appliances. As part of our community work, we are delighted tonight to celebrate the electric showcase award winners. These awards recognize people in the community who are leading the way in electrifying their buildings. This was a historic year for our awards. We selected 16 winners after receiving more than 150 applications. Among the winners is Sunshine Gardens Apartments here in Mountain View. The 44 unit, Sunshine Gardens Apartments were built in 1962, and the complex is taking electrical upgrades one step at a time, and has made a series of energy efficiency, energy efficiency improvements to ensure residents are getting the full benefit. I think we are now going to pause for a short video to celebrate all of the winners.

[01:46:33] Unknown Speaker: Excellent.

[01:46:34] T: I'm T. We live in Campbell, and we are going electric.

[01:46:37] Alexander Moore: My name is Alexander Moore. I live in work in Hell, California, and I'm going electric.

[01:46:41] Judy: I'm Judy. I live in Campbell, and I'm going electric.

[01:46:44] Scott: I'm Scott. I live in Sunnyvale, and my family is going electric. We just figured anything that we can do to replace what we're using now with gas and have it be driven by clean, solar, and wind, electricity, through Silicon Valley clean energy, would be an improvement.

[01:46:57] Ahmed: Hi, Ahmed. I live in Cupertino. And my family's going electric.

[01:47:01] Siva: Hi, my name is Siva, and I have a business in Malpitas, and we have gone all electric.

[01:47:06] Brady: I'm Brady. I live in Sunnyvale, California, and I'm going electric.

[01:47:10] Judy: I'm Judy. My family lives in Los Altos Hills, and we've gone all electric. The biggest benefit we've had is what it's done to our monthly bills. Not only am I helping the planet, I'm also helping my pocket.

[01:47:21] Cindy: I'm Cindy. We're here at Congregation Beth Ahm in Los Altos Hills, and we're going all electric.

[01:47:27] Tom: I'm Tom. I live in Los Altos, and my family went all electric.

[01:47:31] Crystal: My name is Crystal, and I live in Sunnyvale. I'm going all electric.

[01:47:34] Carol: I'm Carol. I live in Saratoga, and I've gone electric. It has been a long transition for us. We didn't just decide. We're going electric, and then we just did it all. As appliances age, we've changed them out.

[01:47:46] Kurt: My name is Kurt. I live in Gilroy, and we're all electric now.

[01:47:49] William: I'm William.

[01:47:50] Lakshmi: And I'm Lakshmi. We live in Sunnyvale. And we've gone all electric.

[01:47:55] Justin: I'm Justin. We live in Los Gatos, and we went all electric.

[01:47:58] Unknown Speaker: We're Sunshine Gardens apartments. In Mountain View? And we're fighting. Everything electric.

[01:48:03] Unknown Speaker: I think most people would like to do the right thing, but if it's gonna cost them a lot of money, It makes it tough. But between the tax rebates and the Silicon Valley Clean Energy rebate, these things are affordable, very affordable.

[01:48:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well that was fun. Thank you.

[01:48:19] Justin Zaganes: Yes, it's a great video. A bunch of wonderful awardees. And I just want to add, if you're interested in seeing more buildings that are going electric in your community. We invite you to join us at the electric home tour on October 14th. Make sure to stop by Sunshine Gardens as they are also participating in the tour and hosting a refill pop-up. You can learn more and register at electrichometour.org. Thank you for your time and congratulations to Sunshine Gardens. With your permission, we'd like to invite Deborah up to take a quick photo and give her the award.

[01:48:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, please.

[01:48:53] Justin Zaganes: Excellent. Thank you.

[01:49:26] Deborah Vasquez: Because, um, I have these... Um, I guess, but I'm here.

[01:49:33] Unknown Speaker: Deborah?

[01:49:34] Deborah Vasquez: Oh, the microphone. Okay. So I just want to thank programs like, um, SVCE, and for the city of Mountain View, in supporting programs like this that, um, preserve vintage, multifamily housing, because this is what houses our, um, diverse population. And this is what is rent controlled, and this is what, uh, you know, the perspectives that we need as a society, um, to have all, um, members to be in. So, um, I'd also like to invite you, personally, to come on the Saturday, um, to the electric home tour, and if you have a chance to see the soap refillery that we're hosting, as well as, um, oh, copy reusable cup app so that we can all cut down on plastics. So, uh, thank you very much, and I'll give you guys a brochure, and, uh, it's nice to meet you all.

[01:50:40] Mayor Alison Hicks: Deborah, thank you very much. I should tell everyone I've been on the tour. And are you gonna do the same one that you did last time?

[01:50:48] Deborah Vasquez: No, I'll do it a little bit different.

[01:50:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: A little different. Okay,

[01:50:51] Deborah Vasquez: I won't walk around as much. And it'll be more spotlight on the two pop ups, which are local pop ups, and with local business owners. And, um, they're also women. So I don't know. It's all a positive thing.

[01:51:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, it was super fun when I went and I encourage everyone to go. It was all electric, but there was a lot more to learn, too.

[01:51:18] Deborah Vasquez: There was a lot, there's just a lot going on at your place.

[01:51:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, there is. And all over the Bay Area from Milbrae to Milpitas.

[01:51:26] Deborah Vasquez: The electric home tour is going to be an eye opener. So without a do, I'll hand out these for you guys, if you're interested.

[01:51:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah. Oh, okay.

[01:51:38] Deborah Vasquez: And you can recognize the place, because it has, I think, the most fun mid century modern sign, retro sign in front of it, of any I've seen in the Bay Area. So very welcoming.

[01:51:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: So we have more council member comments. We have council member Abbe Koga.

[01:52:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So, as most of you know, I've been on the SVCE board since 2017, when we went into service, and it's really been an honor and the source of pride to be a part of this organization that has moved so quickly to make an impact in reducing our carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. So, um, I just want to thank our SVCE organization, uh, led by our CEO, Girish Belichandran, and all of our staff. I'm just so really, they're so smart. Every time I go to our meetings, I just think, wow, we have such a smart staff. And the progress we've made in such a short time is really quite amazing. So I just want to thank those who've been involved for their hard work. And I'd like to congratulate Ms. Vasquez. Thank you so much for what you've done with your apartment complex of the winners. I think you're the only one that's a multi-family complex, which I think is really quite an accomplishment because those are the hardest types of development to retrofit. So thank you for your leadership in doing so. And then I know we also have quite a few single-family home owners who've converted and they'll be on the tour. I'm not sure if I missed them on our little clip. I'm hoping that maybe we could. I don't know if they didn't want to be on it, but it'd be great to highlight some of them too. So that's something I'll talk to our SVC stuff. But again, congratulations and to Sunshine Apartments and thank you so much.

[01:53:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor?

[01:53:53] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I don't think I've ever met, seen you in person before, Deborah, but I've been on many calls and zooms with carbon-free Mountain View, where you've been an active member, and you've been so willing over the last four or five years easily to share how things worked and how things didn't work and to provide inspiration for all of us to move forward. And I just want to say that I'm very proud of your accomplishments, and I also really admire your willingness to teach everybody about it. So, thank you so much. And congratulations.

[01:54:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, thank you again. Now, we'll move on to our next proclamation. This is for Compassion Week, 2023. We're happy to be joined this evening by Aiden Miller, CEO of the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation to accept this proclamation. Aidan, will you please join me at the lectern?

[01:55:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: This is on. So, I'll read a few words to you from the proclamation. They're usually very long, so I probably won't read the whole thing. Um, and then, um, you can share a few words with us. Um, so, it's the proclamation says, whereas the city of Mountain View is a community that embraces, promotes, and values compassion, and whereas the city of Mountain View recognizes the values of acts of compassion that are performed by community based organizations, nonprofit agencies, and individuals every day, to foster a kinder and more connected community, and, whereas the vision of compassion leak is to build a strong, compassionate, and empathet community by creating service and learning opportunities for individuals to expand their understanding of local and global needs. And whereas the, the, whereas all members of the Mountain View community, regardless of age, background, education, gender, religious beliefs, lifestyle ability, or skill, are invited to contribute their talents and energy to participate in compassion week projects and activities and help make Mountain View a more caring and kind community. Now, therefore, I, Alison Hicks, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do declare the week of October 7, 2023 through October 15, 2023, as Compassion Week, 2023. And here you are. Please share a few words.

[01:56:55] Aiden Miller: I'll be very brief. Thank you very much, Mayor Hicks. Council members, nice to see you all. D. Miller, CEO of Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation. I'm accepting this, because we are a sponsor of Compassion Week, the actual lead organization is the Los Altos United Methodist Church, and they're actually at an event for Compassion Week. So that's why I'm here. I do want to acknowledge council member committee for launching us. We were in this room just on Saturday morning, having a panel discussion about how community comes together and kicked off Compassion Week. I myself volunteered at 2 different activities today. I would encourage others to look at volunteer opportunities throughout the week, and then, obviously, throughout the year. This is an important opportunity to give back to community and build community at the same time. So thank you. Appreciate the proclamation, and good luck with your work tonight. Thank you.

[01:57:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: We're now open to comments. Council comments first, and then we will be taking public comment for the presentation items. If any member of the public joining us virtually or in person, would like to provide a comment. Um, Please click the raised hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card. I see. No speakers. So, in this case, we will move to item number 4 on our agenda, which is the consent calendar, 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, oral communications on nonagenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Would any member of counsel like to comment on an item? Vice mayor?

[01:59:01] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I would. I would like to comment. Let me find my notes here. Yeah, I would like to comment on item 4.2. The San Antonio sewer improvement project. The design documents are complete for the San Antonio A Area Sewer Improvement project. This project will address the operation and capacity issues for the city's sanitary sewer collection system in the San Antonio Service area. And they'll replace a sewer meter and improve our wastewater flow measure it accuracy. If the recommendations are approved and a responsive bid is received, then this will get going in early 2024 and be completed by fall of 2024. This pipeline is on the boundary of Mountain View, Los Altos and Palo Alto. And since parts of it will be in all cities, there's been a lot of coordination needed between the neighboring cities. So that's made it more complex and harder to get done. But it's ready to go out for construction bids now, which is really something to be celebrated. It means that a tremendous amount of work has been done. And this kind of project, is what keeps our sewers in good shape. So it's really important. I mean, none of us really wanna have to think about our sewers. We really want the city to just take care of it. And that's what this is all about. This project is all about. But I want to bring it up, because I think it's important for everybody to understand that it is quite a bit of work, and if somebody doesn't do it, a tremendous amount of trouble can arise. So we're going to avoid quite a bit of trouble down the road because we're doing this project. So at this point, I just, as the civil engineer on the council, I just want to thank the public works department for taking care of this for all, all of us, and, um, we appreciate your work.

[02:01:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so, seeing no councilman, this is the last call for pulling items. I see nobody wanting to pull items. So, and also a last call for anybody who wants to speak on consent items, any members of the public. I also see nobody wanting to speak on it. Um, So, uh, I'll now bring the item back for council action, um, there... Uh, so we have a motion to approve the consent calendar by council member Kameh, and a second by council member Ramirez, so we can vote. Okay, it passes. We are now on item number 5 on our agenda, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits counsel from acting on non agenda items. 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. I see no people wanting to speak. Um, and raise your hand in Zoom, if you'd like to speak virtually. Uh, I see uh, Money Singh. Money are you there?

[02:03:07] Money Singh: Hi, am I audible?

[02:03:08] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, we can hear you.

[02:03:10] Money Singh: Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm not sure you said it's a public comment, so I'm just going to go straight to the points, what I have wrote it down. and want to bring attention to a couple of things related to Mountain View. Being a business owner in downtown Mountain View, I would like to address that there are slow days, such as Mondays and su- Tuesdays, in downtown area for all the businesses. And I would request the funds that are allocated in advertising to focus some of the events on special on Mondays and Tuesdays, which can bring more people to downtown. To boost foot traffic and local economy. I propose. We should also focus on kids focused activities in downtown Mountain View. Um, I have noticed that in Centennero, it's been very um, um, accepted, well accepted. I think that the return of investment by spending on kids' focus activities is much higher because when we are advertising like that. We are bringing not only the kids, but also the parents. So the return of the investment of the dollars is much higher, so they're likely to shop more. Um, I also recommend um, creating videos, which is about 15 to 32nd for each downtown businesses and other events being hosted in mountain view. and advertise them on, um, we need to have a lot more digital presence, uh, where we have a lot more visibility and engagement. All of these videos should be posted on social media channels such as YouTube shots, reels, TikTok, all kind of form of official mountain view, accounts, chamber of commerce, or any other neighboring accounts that is there. Um, these are few. I have some more points that I have thought of to boost the downtown. I also think that just like how we have, how we have, oh, by the way, sorry, I'll get to say the other point. So we also need to open the comments of public on YouTube and take those comments and instead of opening just the Zoom thing, which will help some more engagement from the community and pick those comments and questions and reply them during your meetings. I also think there should be um, business licensed subscriptions, which would also encourage a lot of businesses to sign up. If there's a subscription rather than an annual fee, That will also encourage a lot of businesses to join because everybody's always tied on the money. So these are the only comments I had related to Monterey today. Thank you.

[02:05:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. This comment may have actually been related to the next item, but I didn't catch it quickly enough, so you get a free pass. And I see no other public comments. So, we will go into item number six, with items number six, which are public hearings, for 6.one, which is the Cowper's contract amendment for all unrepresented safety Pepra employees, uh, ordinance, and this is the 2nd reading, human resources manager, Lindsey Bishop, will present the item.

[02:06:41] Lindsey Bishop: Good evening. Mayor and council members. I'm here on behalf of human resources. Returning again for the final required legislative body action for the cost share amendment for unrepresented safety employees under the public employees Pension Reform Act, otherwise known as Pepra. The council's adoption of the ordinance, included tonight as attachment one to the city council report, will authorize the amendment of the contract between the city and Calpurs, in response to an increase in the normal cost, and as required to maintain the agreed upon normal contribution for these members. As a reminder, these changes are for pepper members only, and they are for unrepresented members. Those changes for represented members have been adopted through side letter, MOU. And finally, following council adoption this evening, staff will prepare the Calpur's contract and required forms for the mayor's signature to submit to Calpur's for an anticipated effective date in November. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

[02:07:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Thank you. Do any members of the council have questions? I don't see any questions. 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. I see no in person speakers or virtual speakers. Um, so I'll bring the item back to council for deliberation and action. I see a motion by the vice mayor in a 2nd by council member Mattachek, so we can vote. Mayor.

[02:08:42] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh. We need... Vice mayor? I think there's some reading for you to do.

[02:08:46] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Sure. I move that we adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View authorizing an amendment to the contract between the city council, of the city of Mountain View, and the Board of Administration, of the California Public Employees Retirement System, to be read and title only, further reading waived.

[02:09:03] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, now we can vote. Pass this unanimously. And I think we're going to now take a short break until 7:30, and then come back to do item 6.2. Okay, welcome back from break, everyone. We are now on item number 6.2 on our agenda, which is the downtown business improvement areas. Um, we will start with um, Council member Abik Kogo, do you have a statement to make?

[02:09:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I will be recusing myself from participating in any discussion or determination of the downtown business improvement areas one and 2 due to the proximity of my personal residents to both improvement areas. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:10:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I will also be recusing myself from participating in any discussion of the downtown business improvement areas one and 2 due to proximity of my personal residence to both improvement areas.

[02:10:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: All right. Well, um, economic vitality manager, John Lang, will present the item.

[02:10:43] John Lang: Thank you. Good evening, mayor and city council and committee of Mountain View. Tonight, we are holding the first public hearing in the long standing annual renewal process for the downtown business improvement areas. The 2nd meeting will take place on November 14th, 2023 to amend or, I'm sorry, to approve the renewal. There are 2 business improvement areas. BIA number one includes all businesses along Castro Street, and the side streets between View and Franklin. BIA number 2 includes all businesses in the 100, 200, 300 blocks of Castro Street. The BIA assessments generated from both of the areas are used for specific programming and services to support the downtown businesses. In the annual report prepared by the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, the 2024 projected revenues from both of the areas is approximately $39,700. Tonight, city council may ask or discuss the BIAs and receive any comments or input from members of the public. There are 3 recommendations for council tonight. The 1st is to approve the annual report. and then adopt 2 resolutions declaring the intention to living an assessment in BIA's number one, and number 2 for 2024. This concludes my comments. I'm available for any questions.

[02:12:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. All right. Would any council members like to ask? Do you have a question? Not seeing any. Okay, so that means we'll go to the members of the public. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person? Like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in person speakers first. We don't have any. So now we will go to the virtual speakers. And I don't think we have any of those either. All right, so, um, Thank you then. I will bring the item back for council deliberation and action. And note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to the report. Council member Matachek.

[02:13:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. You were so quick there. I actually do have a question. I wasn't as quick as you were. Um, I found um, attachment for the Chamber Annual Report, really interesting. And there was something in there specifically, um, that caught my eye, and that was that they would like to work with the city or the county, to develop a certified access specialist program. And my question is, was that mentioned at all in the economic vitality strategy?

[02:13:50] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, council member. That specific item is not directly referenced in the economic vitality strategy. We have had conversations with the chamber about supporting the business community with more ADA accessible training. The city does have 2 trained building inspectors in this area. And we have had several conversations about rolling out a program that the local business community would be able to leverage. So that is not currently reflected in the vitality strategy, but that is certainly something we could add in as an action item within the strategy.

[02:14:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I guess I'm interested in having it at least on the list. for when it comes back to council as an action item. Um, not at the goal level. if I've got the terminology correct. Um, so that at least we would know, like, the level of effort it might be and the cost and that kind of thing, um, so that we could potentially prioritize it. If I want to do that, do we need to do a, um, raising of the hands or take any kind of vote on that, to just include it on the list for further discussion when the economic vitality strategy comes back to us?

[02:15:07] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Uh, Council member Mattachek, I think you can take a straw poll.

[02:15:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. Our art's familiar with that? The what it actually means and does. Why don't you talk for a minute about it?

[02:15:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I'm not the expert, but it's my understanding that if you have someone who is certified, as part of this program, they come out to your business and do the inspection, and they will list the things you need to do to be ADA compliant, and then you have the opportunity to, um, plan for addressing those issues, um, you don't have to do them all at once. But one of the things this does is it sort of deters the lawsuits. Because if you've gone through the certification. Um, it's, you know, it's like, well, why bother suing you? Because you've got a plan to address all these issues. And if you are sued, I believe the penalties are lower. And maybe you want to add to that?

[02:16:18] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yeah, there's a couple things. One is, it certainly brings the business in the building into compliance, but two, if you have an implementation plan and you haven't gotten to it, generally, the course view that more favorably. And so the judgment generally is less as the council member stated.

[02:16:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, I guess I would like to see if there's interest in adding that just to the list so we could have further discussion. about it when we discuss the economic vitality strategy later this year.

[02:16:50] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Council member Kumei, is that what you wanted to talk about, or?

[02:16:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, well, then yes, I think that's a great idea to have a straw poll.

[02:16:57] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Everybody in favor? Okay, that's five, five zero. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. And that's it.

[02:17:05] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, um, council member, come in.

[02:17:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, I realized, as Counselor Matchak did, that I had a quick question. And so there was some council questions about the outreach and the communications. And one of the things that I did know in the attachment attachment for was like the flyering. So will that have the QR code on that with resources on the flyer or more information?

[02:17:33] Unknown Speaker: I think we can certainly talk to the chamber about how to increase accessibility of their flyers with QR codes. But the flying was a way to advertise upcoming DBA meetings, which many businesses will put in their storefront windows or not only DBA meetings, but activities of the DBA. So you can certainly talk with the chamber and the DBA about making it a little more accessible.

[02:18:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. And, you know, I don't think this requires trouble. I just had comments that there's a lot of good work happening and so the more we can share those resources. You know, I think the upcoming, it says, um, there's going to be a neighborhood association and community member, you know, monthly meeting. There's a free tool kit on social media use. There's so many resources. And I think it's just a great way to try to, aside from just the flyer with maybe an email if people click on it while they're walking by could be really great. I just wanted to add that. Thank you, vice mayor.

[02:18:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, and then I was also going to remind everybody. We got a, um, we got a comment during, um, public comment, you know, oral communications that I think was really associated with this one. from Mr. Singh, about, you know, really wanting to do something to pick up business on Mondays and Tuesdays, which are slower days and to have kid focus activities. And so that I just was going to remind everybody that comment had come in, and I hope we can, you know, really associate it with this item. Moving forward. Okay. So with that, we have a mover and a seconder. So I'll call on Council member Ramirez to read the necessary language.

[02:19:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Great report, great work, and great comments. And with that, I will move to approve the staff recommendation, including adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, approving the annual report of the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area, number one, and declaring its intention to levy assessments for 2024 to be read entitled only, further reading waived, and set a public hearing date of November 14, 2023, and adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View, approving the annual report of the downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area, number two, and declaring its intention to levy assessments for 2024 to be read entitled only further reading waived and set a public hearing date. November 14th, 2023.

[02:20:11] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. So I think that means that are there any more comments?

[02:20:16] Unknown Speaker: I guess I would just like to make a comment. I think that, you know, our city and the Chamber of Commerce have had a long standing, very positive collaboration, and I want to thank Mr. Lang for continuing it on the Mountain View staff, and Mr. Katz, who's in the who's in the audience, for being here on a regular basis, and working with us on so many things. It does make our community richer. And, um, we, you know, we appreciate that. So let's hope.

[02:20:59] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: The motion passes unanimously. So with that, I think we can welcome Mayor Hicks and council member Abi Koga back, and I will move over.

[02:21:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, now we can move to item number seven, which is new business. In particular, 7.one, an amendment to education, an amendment to the education enhancement, reserve joint powers agreement. Assistant city manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg will present the item.

[02:22:12] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I'm here tonight to seek authorization to amend the Education Enhancement Reserve Joint Powers Agreement, which is also sometimes called the EERJPA, and that exists between the Shoreline Regional Park community, which is sometimes called the Shoreline Special Park District. and the Mountain View Wisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos High School District. The 1st Education Enhancement Reserve JPA was entered into in 2006, and it provided a $400,000 annual payment to Mountain View Lisman and Mountain View Los Alto school districts. In 2011, in response to an economic town turn and budget challenges being faced by the school districts, that payment amount was increased. And that higher payment amount was continued in a new agreement that was executed in 2013. In 2019, the agreement was in 2019, the agreement was amended to enable the school districts to receive their full tax rate allocation on the assessed value from all new residential property development in the North Bay Shore area. And that was a program that was set forth in the 2017 North Bay Shore Precise Plan, which envisioned development of up to 9,850 new housing units. Earlier this year, a one-year agreement was executed to continue the current level of payments while the parties are engaged in negotiating a longer term success or agreement. The current agreement, which expires on June 30th of 2024, includes a minimum payment, an adjustment payment, and a one time additional payment. The minimum payment is $5700000 for Mountain View Wisman School District, and $360000 to Mountain View Los Altos District. The adjustment payment is equal to the rate of growth in the property tax revenue as applied to the minimum payment. And then the one time additional payment is 10% of the adjustment payment. Last month, staff heard from Mountain View Wisman School District about a communication that they had received from the County Office of Education regarding the seeking of assurance for future education enhancement reserve JPA payments. As background, all school districts are required by the state to submit their budgets, including a two-year forecast, to the county Office of Education for review and approval. The County Office of Education raised a concern to Mountain View Wisman School District, about the Education Enhancement Reserve, JPA payment being included in the district's forecast, which is 2 years beyond the current term of the agreement. To rectify this concern. The County Office of Education has asked the Mountain View Wisman School District to provide a letter of assurance or a new agreement from the shoreline district regarding these future payments. As an alternative, Mountain View Lisbon school district would be required to submit a revised budget and forecast to the county Office of Education. The district wishing to avoid impacts to schools and students, has requested that the city provide this assurance. To support this, and of recognition of the fact that the shoreline regional park community has a continuity of payments to the districts for almost 20 years, and also in recognition of the fact that mountain view's quality of life is greatly benefits from the shoreline community support of the school districts. Staff does recommend providing this assurance. And doing that in the form of amending the current education enhancement reserve JPA. This amendment would extend the minimum payment and the adjustment payment, growing the sum of each of these payments each year by the extended term of the extended term, rather, by the rate of growth in the property tax revenue year over year. The term of the agreement would be until June 30th, 2027. This is a three year extension to provide the assurance for the two year forecast, as required by the county Office of Education, and also to provide an additional year of certainty, which Mountain View Wisman school district has requested, in order to assist them with their forecasting needs. Stack recommends providing this certainty as part of the city's and shoreline park districts, ongoing commitment to schools, and as an integral, as mentioned as an integral part of Mountain View's high quality of life, and our ongoing partnership with both school districts. If counsel approves staff's recommendation tonight, we will draft the amendment and we'll take this document through the approval process. The process includes going to the education enhancement reserve, Joint Powers Authority Board, which consists of the Mountain View Wisman and Mountain View Los Altos superintendents, and also with the city manager acting in her capacity as the shoreline manager. The action of the education enhancement reserve, JPA board, would be to approve the amendment for recommendation to each of the entities governing bodies. We expect that we could complete this process and bring the amendment back to you before the end of December of this year. And also to the 2 boards of trustees. In the meantime, we would continue to negotiate the successor agreement as expeditiously as possible. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[02:28:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. Do any council members have questions? Well, I'm waiting for possible council questions. I want to say that the next section of this agenda will allow members of the public joining us virtually or in person to provide comment on this item, and if you'd like to make a comment, please click the raised hand button in Zoom, or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in person speakers first, and I'm seeing no council questions. So in person speakers. I'm also seeing no in person speakers. I do, though, see a virtual speaker. Uh, Devin Conley?

[02:29:26] Devin Connolly: Good evening, Mayor Hicks and honorable council members. My name is Devin Connolly. I'm a member of the Mount View Wisdom School Board. I wanted to thank you for considering this item this night. You received a letter from our board president. Um, that addresses this request, and I just wanted to reiterate some of the points that were made in the letter. Um, there was an alternative suggested in this uh, report that was presented, and that suggested that our Estimates for AV growth were too conservative. We work with school services, which is a statewide organization that provides fiscal, um, services to school districts up and down all over. They do excellent work. They help us develop our budget assumptions. And um, make projections about future AV growth. And they've projected 3%, 3% and then 2% for the 3rd year out. If you look at MBALA's upcoming budget, which was, uh, recommended as a possible alternative for budget assumptions for our district, they project 5% for their budget. Um, they have a larger catchment area than Mountain View Wisdom school district does. So we have a more volatile tax base to a certain extent because it's so small in terms of what it encompasses. And when we look at our overall budget, if we were to cut out the amount of money that is coming from the shared shoreline GPA, um, in order to replace that within our budget, it would require an estimate of it 12% AV growth, which is completely unrealistic, so we would be facing budget cuts this coming year. Um, If, if disagreement is not extended so that we can meet the county's requirements. So again, thank you for considering this tonight. We really appreciate it being brought forward. And I appreciate all of your time. Thank you very much.

[02:31:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: So this is a last call for comments. I also see a comment from Laura Berman.

[02:31:50] Laura Berman: Good evening. Can hear me?

[02:31:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: We can hear you, yes.

[02:31:54] Laura Berman: Thank you. I just have a brief comment, dear Honorable Mayor Hicks and council members. I submitted a letter yesterday, and I just want to reiterate my appreciation for, uh, you including this amendment to the education enhancement reserve joint powers on the agenda tonight. These annual payments benefit our students and provide crucial programs and services, as we embark on the negotiations of a long-term agreement for shoreline, the assurance that the city is providing about our continuity of the current minimum payment and adjustment payments given to given the Santa Clara County superintendent of schools, the information they need to deem our budget is fiscally solvent, we appreciate your support so that MVWSD can avoid any negative budget consequences. Thank you very much.

[02:32:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So this is the last call for comments. I say no additional comments either in person or virtually. So, um, I'll now bring the item back for council deliberation and action. I see a motion by council member Ramirez, and a 2nd by council member Abbe Koga. I also, would you like to, with the mover, like to speak? Okay, the mover would like to, are you moving the staff recommendation?

[02:33:30] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I'm moving the staff recommendation.

[02:33:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Totally different. Okay. Council member Mattachek.

[02:33:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. You know, the sky is falling strategy that the school district is using just really cannot continue. Uh, the sky is not falling. And I really hope that the ad hoc committee can change the narrative and come to an agreement that works well for all. I'm very hopeful of that. I think we're all on the same page when it comes to wanting the same things for our community. Great quality of life, great education, great parks, and so much more. Um, it seems like we should be able to work this out. Thank you.

[02:34:18] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, Vice Mayor.

[02:34:21] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I would just like to comment that, if we do this, this really constitutes a very strong act of good faith in these negotiations. And, um, it seems to me that we have been on the giving end of a lot in this process. We've given field care, crossing guards, beyond the bell, after school funding, safe routes to school, assistance, bicycle training, the list goes on. What, you know, and that's, we've been generally happy to do that. Because we understand that these kids are our kids, and we want to have a good quality of life. But at the same time, we want to be appreciated for that assistance. So it was important to me that, um, the president of the board today started out by thanking us. I do think that that is really appropriate under these circumstances. Not that there won't be, and there are many times that we should also thank the school district. But we should be thanking each other. That's part of acting in good faith. So I just want to really highlight that because, um, that's how we have to move forward and be successful is everyone has to act in good faith. So one of the things I would also like to ask the school district to do, or is with an act of good faith, is to take down their objectionable flyer. And maybe there's some other acts of good faith that they've thought of, that they know we would really like to do. I just really, I think it's time to see a bit, you know, a bit of action on that side. So I'm happy to support this, but I do want to identify it as an act of good faith, and to say that, all of the parties need to be carrying out acts of good faith. Thank you.

[02:36:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Kameh.

[02:36:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um, I... I'll be voting for the motion tonight. Um, but I did want to share a couple thoughts. Um, since I don't sit on the ad hoc committee, which are, That my approval of tonight's motion is to clean the slate, to move forward. Um, I think that there has been discussion, particularly when we all met, um, a few weeks ago about the different numbers that each of uses, um, you know, tonight, this is about, uh, revenue valuation. My understanding is that the property tax growth that Mountain View Wizman uses is about 3% while Mountain View Los Altos is about 7%. I would love to try to find some common, common ground so that we can start using the same numbers. And I think this came up when we all met prior. So, my approval tonight is in that vein of a fresh start, an act of good faith as the vice mayor was saying, and also an opportunity that perhaps past practices are not the best way to move forward, including how we budget. We've been very fortunate to be in Mountain View, where our budget has been stable. And it's been stable for decades. So, um, I really feel like that's a testament to our entire community, um, and really want to use that as a focal point in our process going forward. Thank you, mayor.

[02:38:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: So are there any additional comments with the 2nd or like to make a comment or is a 2nd enough? Okay, in that case, we'll take a vote. Passes unanimously. So we'll now move on to item number eight, which is council staff committee reports. Council member Ramos.

[02:39:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick announcement. I went to the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority board where we, the major item that we had was evaluating the executive director, and giving him a raise. Thank you.

[02:39:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Vice mayor.

[02:39:29] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to report that last Thursday night. We had a council neighborhood meeting for the Springer Cuesta Phyllis area, and it was lively. Oh, my goodness. There were many presubmitted questions. I kept a sort of non scientific tally of, and there were about 80 questions that staff answered, which is a lot. Um, and, uh, so I just wanted to appreciate all the staff that took part, and all the people who came out. We had over 50 residents who came to ask questions, and I think that, um, uh, they, uh, I think they, we all learned something, and, um, I always learn, I'm always surprised at, even, you know, being on council for, for years, there's just so much more to learn about specific projects and things. So it was an opportunity to do that. And I also think it's just really interesting how, um, people are, are very impressed by the knowledge that our staff has and asks answering the questions. And that was really evident that night, too. Also, another thing I do to kind of try and make it a little more fun is I keep a tally of who answers the most questions. And it was definitely Lorenzo Lopez that won the prize this time. He did a great job. Everybody did. But anyway, I just wanted to mention that. Thank you.

[02:41:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbott Koga.

[02:41:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of report outs. Uh, I share a ad hoc committee at the VTA on grade separation projects for Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and ourselves, and, um, we made about a meet quarterly to get an update on our projects. I'm very, as you all know, our projects, our 2 projects are moving along quite smoothly. We're really the kind of the 1st ones out of the gate on the corridor or definitely in Santa Clara County. So we're a bit of a guinea pig on some things, but I'm just very pleased to see how things are moving along, where you still have a funding gap to fill, but we're looking for grant opportunities. And I just want to, thank staff, especially our public works director, Don Cameron, is just an amazing work on these projects. So, thank you, Don, and all of the staff. We also had a ETA board meeting, and you may have read, um, the big issue there was the placement of 200 tiny homes on one of um, ETA parcels on the Cerrone, uh, yard station. It was controversial for a couple of months, but one of the issues that came up was that the mayor had asked that the VTA lower the cost, so lower the price of the parcel, um, below market value. And that actually made me think since we had the Evelyn site and we purchased that, you know, I just wanted to make sure that whatever happens is equitable across all of our cities and all of the VTA sites. So part of the motion was to bring back an inventory of all of the sites that are available. And then I think eventually come up with some kind of formula to on the pricing of these parcels. But, you know, I always want to make sure that we have equity here. So, I ask that that be looked at. So they will be bringing that back. We had a council sustainability committee meeting with the mayor and vice mayor. And then I just wanted to announce and invite folks, um, on behalf of our fired fighters, their annual pancake breakfast that was put on hold during COVID is back. So it will be this Saturday from 8 to 11 AM at fire station number four. I think a lot of people have been anticipating its return, so hopefully we'll see a big crowd there. Thank you.

[02:44:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, council member Mattachek.

[02:44:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just a couple things. I participated in the Bay Area Waters, planning conservation agency board meeting on September 27th, and as you all know, it was a great water year this past year. And the head Chechi system is still at incredible capacity, 95% of the capacity. And that's as of September 25th. Um, It is amazing. And also, we had a council transportation committee meeting on October 2nd, and we reviewed 2 projects that will come to the council. One is the changes to the intership. intersection of grant and sleeper, and the 2nd is the pilot of protected bike lanes on California. And remember, we expanded it, so it is from shoreline to showers. Thanks.

[02:45:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you, council member Kameh.

[02:45:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Well, I don't need to report on CTC or Compassion Week, because we already heard those today, but I did want to report that on Friday, the city of Mountain View. We hosted the Peninsula Division. They had a mental health forum and just want to thank city staff for a really incredible event. People were, we had the governor's office. We had, um, some of them are Pellerin, um, supervisor, Samidian, and council member Eddie Flores from South San Francisco, all talking about mental health and the different resources. I think there's going to be a lot coming forward that hopefully the our city and other cities can capitalize on. And then, um, I am like forgetting one other thing that I wanted to share. It will come to me. Oh, the last week, last weekend, the weekend before, I think, was the teen wellness retreat. It's the 3rd year that the youth have put that on. It was another sold out year full of activities. And I just want to thank the council. Today is actually World Mental Health Day, and we as a council prioritized this in 2020, and we're seeing the fruits of our labor, and seeing the youth take this on and make it an annual event. I think really shows council's responsiveness, to youth wellness, to mental health. And I just wanted to share that as the chair of the youth council committee. Thank you.

[02:46:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Vice mayor, you have a 2nd round.

[02:46:39] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I did. I jogged my memory. It's been a really busy few weeks for all of us, actually. Anyway, I got to welcome the Spanish Leadership Academy, and I imagine we'll all get to do that once, and it was really fun. It was the public works time, so I went to that and talked about the value of civil works to have a civil society. You know, you can go on and on with that. Anyway, um, that was great fun, and, uh, then, I, um, I also welcomed the, uh, the teen wellness retreat, and it was a sold out crowd, and there it was at 9:00 on a Saturday morning, and, you know, the, um, the redwood room at the community center was really packed with brought, you know, teenagers who were wide awake. I thought it was amazing. and seemed to be having great fun. And then, on a more serious note, on Thursday night, I attended the screening $100 a day, which is a documentary about, um, about a gentleman who was incarcerated for, I think it was 17 years, for a murder that he didn't commit, maybe it was 10, anyway, because incarcerated for a murder for many years that he didn't commit. And, um, it turns out that, until recently, you, um, If you got out of jail, because you didn't commit something, if you were exonerated, you got no immediate assistance at all. I mean, you literally leave jail with pretty much with the clothes that you wore when you went in. And no money. And so it's very, very difficult for people who have not only suffered the horrible experience of going to jail for something they didn't do, but their trip back into society. Anyway, Joseph Midian, when he was in the assembly, carried a bill to get the funding for this gentleman through, kind of at literally at 2:30 in the morning of the last night of the session. And so that's what this documentary was about. And then, there was a panel discussion afterwards, with a gentleman who had served many years for another murder, he didn't commit. Um, and, uh, and then, two, the heads of two non profits who work on these issues. And it was just, you know, it was just really kind of, heart wrenching in many ways. One, that there were just these mistakes made. And, um, it was well meaning people, um, mistakes were made that were very serious. And yet, on the other hand, it was very heartwarming, because there were these grassroots organizations, or there were individuals who took it upon themselves to, you know, to really see through getting these people out and getting them the support they needed. So anyway, it was very interesting and heart wrenching. And it was also a good, such a good use of our second stage. I know that, you know, our center for the performing arts has two stages. And I think much more in terms of what we do in the grand stage, you know, we plays and that sort of thing. But the second stage is really a place that's very good for just a whole variety of activities. And this was one that was a very good use of it. So I wanted to share that with you.

[02:50:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez.

[02:50:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have nothing to report, but I am curious about an item 8 request from quite some time ago. There was a request of staff to look into the feasibility of allowing alternates on appointed bodies. And I think we were going to also use that as an opportunity to establish formally by resolution, advisory bodies that have an ambiguous administrative history. And I'm curious to know if there's any update on, it's not the most important thing in the world, but I just, I don't want to forget about them.

[02:51:18] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Council member Ramirez, that is still on my docket to complete and, um, and I'm coordinating with the city clerk's office on the, um, cleanup of the, the, the documentation for, um, the advisory bodies and we'll continue to keep you posted on the the timeline for that. Can we decouple the two? Or do we, is there still work to be done, or is it just, we're swamped? And we can't bring everything to council. Speaking for myself, it's just been a matter of being swamped and getting that up to the top of my docket.

[02:51:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[02:51:55] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. You don't have a third round, do you? Okay.

[02:52:05] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay, so, um, I uh, chaired the council sustainability committee, where we talked about, um, the greenhouse gas inventory for city operations, which was, which is basically good news, we're ahead of schedule. And we also talked about a resilience plan for upcoming expected, but hopefully not, heat events, flooding events, fires, and other global warming related events, planning for that. And I guess we can go out on a happy note, you mentioned Lorenzo Lopez winning your most questions asked. He was also had a very complimentary letter to letter to the editor at the San Jose... Roadshow. Yeah, in Mr. Roadshow. So, um, and I know that because my mother sent it to me. at, like, 6:00 in the morning, so... So, um, yeah, I thought we could end on good news.

[02:53:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: And with that, if there are no other council staff or committee reports, um, we're on item nine, closed session report, City Attorney Lowe, do you have a closed session report?

[02:53:23] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No, there was no closed session report this evening. Thank you.

[02:53:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, then we move to item number 10, which is adjournment. The next city council meeting will be held on October 17th, 2023, to conduct applicant interviews for the rental housing committee and the Environmental Planning Commission. This meeting. is adjourned at 819. early.

• ← Previous
• Next →