April 9, 2024 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

• 1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. ROLL CALL: The Mayor calls the Study Session to order and the City Clerk takes the roll. (00:07:50)
• 3.1 Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program: Staff presentation, public comment, and City Council discussion on the CIP. (00:08:21)
• Recess: The meeting goes into recess before the Regular Session. (00:54:43)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / 3. ROLL CALL: The Mayor calls the Regular Session to order, followed by the pledge, roll call, and opening remarks. (01:00:11)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 4.2 and 4.3 are pulled for discussion. The Council votes to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. (01:01:58)
• 4.2 Suspension of All-Electric Building Requirements: Council discussion and vote on the pulled item regarding all-electric building requirements. (01:05:03)
• 4.3 Miramonte Reservoir Fence Replacement, Project 23-42-Various Actions: Council discussion and vote on the pulled item regarding the Miramonte Reservoir fence. (01:07:03)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS: Members of the public address the City Council on various topics not on the agenda. (01:08:58)
• 6.1 R3 Zoning District Update-Goals, Phasing, Subdistricts, and Location Criteria: Staff presentation, public comment, and initial City Council deliberation on the R3 Zoning District Update. (01:26:30)
• Recess: The meeting takes a brief recess during the R3 Zoning item. (02:20:04)
• 6.1 R3 Zoning District Update-Goals, Phasing, Subdistricts, and Location Criteria (Continued): The City Council resumes deliberation, conducts straw polls, provides direction to staff, and adjourns the meeting. (02:26:40)

Transcript

1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. ROLL CALL

[00:07:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Good evening everyone. I'd like to call this study session of the Mountain View City Council of April 9th, 2024 to order. May we have a roll call?

[00:08:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[00:08:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:08:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[00:08:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:08:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:08:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:08:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramos?

[00:08:12] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:08:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Matichak?

[00:08:14] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:08:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Showalter?

[00:08:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:08:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum with Councilmember Kamei absent.

[00:08:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Great. Thank you. Okay.

3.1 Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program

[00:08:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well, next is item three, which is a study session. 3.1 is the fiscal year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program. The purpose of this study session memo is to provide the City Council an overview of the capital improvement program and obtain City Council input to guide staff in the preparation of the recommended fiscal year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program. And tonight joining us at the dais, we have Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales, welcome Robert, and Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango. And they will present the item. Thank you.

[00:09:20] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Good evening. My name is Robert Gonzales, Principal Civil Engineer, and joining me tonight is Ed Arango, Acting Public Works Director. And we've got the screen up there. Great. The goal tonight is to provide an overview and to obtain council's input to guide staff in the preparation of the 2024-25 capital improvement program, typically referred to as the CIP.

[00:09:44] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: The CIP is a critical planning tool to maintain and improve the city's capital infrastructure. Fiscal year 2024-25 is the second of the biennial capital improvement planning cycle. During the second year of the cycle, review is focused on the following types of projects: projects that are scheduled to roll forward for funding in the fiscal year, modifications to some roll forward projects, amendments to existing projects, and a limited number of new projects.

[00:10:12] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: CIP projects are divided into two categories: non-discretionary projects are primarily annual and periodic infrastructure maintenance projects, and to preserve the city's significant investment in its infrastructure and facilities. Discretionary projects are those projects that do not fit in the non-discretionary category. There are currently 336 active projects in the CIP. Notably, 42 of the active CIPs involve pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and 14 involve park projects.

[00:10:44] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: As a brief overview, the city's CIP is funded from various sources, which are broken into five funding categories summarized here, each with specific parameters specifying how they may be used. The most flexible funds that generally can be used for any type of capital project are the unrestricted funds, making them extremely valuable.

[00:11:08] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: As a summary, the unrestricted funds, the available fund balance is 25% less than the previous year. For enterprise funds, the water fund balance is reduced due to inflation and cost increases coupled with the reduced water consumption. Transportation funding has declined from last year, and staff expects funding to remain at the current levels. Gas tax specifically has been impacted by the new hybrid work trends.

[00:11:51] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: The fund balance for the Shoreline Regional Park Community is higher than this year due to staff not programming high levels of spending from the previous year. The intent was to set aside a majority of the 23-24 balance for several future CIP projects in the North Bayshore area. Development activity is substantially reduced due to the economic downturn. One factor that affects CIP funding is a reduction in the community and public benefits, which have historically provided significant funding for transportation improvements.

[00:12:33] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Given the current funding situation, the staff recommends an approach of maximizing the availability of the unrestricted CIP reserves and CC tax funds for projects with no dedicated funding sources, funding the non-discretionary pavement projects off the top, prioritizing amendments to existing projects second, and using the criteria listed to the right to prioritize the remaining discretionary projects for CIP reserve and CC tax.

[00:13:02] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Staff has three questions tonight. Question number one, does council support or have any feedback on staff's recommended approach and criteria to determine which projects to prioritize for the CIP reserve and CC tax funds? I would like to give a quick update on the city's pavement program because it relates directly to the prioritization strategy.

[00:13:26] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: MTC conducted an evaluation this year, and their draft report shows that the current pavement condition index for the city is at 67. This decline was a result of previous staff resource challenges. So what are we doing about it? The city has accumulated $34 million for paving projects. Staff is currently addressing the backlog and the status of projects are as follows: three projects have been completed in the past 12 months or are nearing completion. Two projects will start construction this calendar year valued at $5 million. Five projects are currently in design with a combined value of $22 million. These five projects in design will start construction over the next two years. And five projects valued at $7 million have not yet started, but staff expects these to start in the next nine months.

[00:14:20] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Switching over to pavement investment and PCI. The teal bars that you see here show that the past investment in paving was in the $6 to $7 million per year range, which fell below to below $5 million and has rebounded since then to about approximately $5.8 million per year.

[00:14:48] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: The orange line shows that the pavement condition was in the low 70s until 2021. The 2023 assessment showed that, showed it to be at 67. The current baseline funding level of approximately $5.8 million per year, we expect that the PCI will continually continue to slowly decline. To maintain PCI levels, there will be a need to increase baseline funding to avoid further decline.

[00:15:16] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Approximately $8 million is needed per year to maintain the PCI, and $14 million per year for five years to increase the PCI by five points. As a result, staff is recommending to prioritize and continue funding pavement projects to support the city's pavement maintenance needs. Going back to our prioritization strategy, we start with consistent with the staff's recommendation, we start with non-discretionary pavement roll forward projects.

[00:15:50] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: We have 27 planned projects scheduled to roll forward. There are sufficient funding for non-discretionary projects including five project modifications for the reasons shown here. Moving to amendments to existing projects, there are 27 active CIP projects with recommended changes in the project scope or in funding. These amendments are recommended for funding to continue ongoing work and progress toward the construction and implementation. There are sufficient funding for the recommended amendments to existing projects.

[00:16:25] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: And finally, discretionary projects. There were 24 new discretionary projects scheduled to roll forward this year. As a result of applying the recommended criteria and due to the lack of unrestricted funds, this is where deferrals are being recommended. Therefore, staff recommends the following deferrals: five projects have modifications and are moving forward, and 14 projects are recommended for deferral predominantly due to lack of unrestricted funds and or staff resources.

[00:16:59] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: The North Bayshore discretionary projects are pulled out separately here for discussion. There are three that staff is recommending to close and or defer, as a result of current development activity having significantly slowed in the North Bayshore area. Staff did evaluate existing active projects to consider potential options for deferral. The best candidate projects are those that are using unrestricted funds and have just started design or have not yet started, as shown here.

[00:17:30] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: After evaluation, staff determined these projects do have warranted needs and staff does not recommend defunding one or more projects to fund a new discretionary project. Should council wish to have a project move forward, a currently active project with similar funding would need to be put on hold to free up both unrestricted funds and staff resources.

[00:17:57] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: And recommended roll forward discretionary projects. As a result of the recommended modifications and deferrals listed above, staff recommends four discretionary roll forward projects and five new discretionary projects. Question number two, does council support or have modifications to staff's recommendations for the fiscal year 24-25 CIP project recommendations including roll forward, modified non-discretionary projects, amendments to existing projects, modified discretionary projects, and new projects?

[00:18:30] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: I want to take a moment here to talk about the 1020 Terra Bella utility undergrounding project. In 2023, council redirected $1 million in community benefit funding and created a new CIP project 24-48 to underground utilities associated with the planned development at 1020 Terra Bella. Staff has just recently received an updated preliminary cost estimate showing a $2.7 million project cost. For the project to move forward, an additional $1.7 million in unrestricted funds will be needed by approximately June 2025.

[00:19:05] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Due to the decline in unrestricted funding revenues expected project projections of these revenues to remain low, and the continued demand for other projects without dedicated funding sources, staff recommends closing the project and redirecting the funds. Question three, does council support staff's recommendation to close underground utilities at 1020 Terra Bella project 24-38 and redirect the community benefit funds to active transportation improvements in the Terra Bella area?

[00:19:39] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Based on the direction provided by council in this study session, staff will be presenting the CIP to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Committee. Following this, staff will develop and present the recommended fiscal year 24-25 CIP to council and adopt for adoption on June 25th, 2024. That concludes staff presentation.

[00:20:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you very much. Well, since this is a study session, we'll start with public input. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this issue? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. And I think Albert Jeans would like to speak with us. Welcome, Albert.

[00:20:33] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: Thank you. Yeah, of course, you probably expected me to come to talk about this since I'm the one that pushed for this item originally. Next slide, please.

[00:20:44] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: Yeah, as you know, this has to do with affordable housing being built on Terra Bella and San Rafael. And similar to the Stierlin Reeder project at Shoreline Gateway, where they did underground the utilities, I thought it was a really good idea to underground these, since the ideal time to do it is when you're tearing up the street building a new building, right? I'm really shocked that, you know, the cost went up so much. And just as an engineer, I just don't see how it takes $2.7 million to bury a bunch of cables in the ground. You know, I know that's a preliminary estimate. Hopefully, they can get something cheaper because that just seems outrageous.

[00:21:26] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: But anyways, um, I don't think it's really fair to these future residents, of course, they're not here to talk to you about this, but you know this area is not that great. I mean, you can see the freeway overpass in the background, it's a kind of aging industrial area, and I think the city should really try to, you know, pretty it up for the future residents, especially since it's an affordable housing project, and I don't think they want to live in a place that they're not... they don't find, you know, nice to live in.

[00:21:57] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: And it's very ironic, I don't know if how this came about, but in the study session memo, the paragraph before this item talks about equity lens. You know, here we have a market rate complex just two blocks away where they underground the utilities and it's going to look great. And now we have this one and we can't, you know, spend the money to underground the utilities. Um, yeah, I know that you know the money is short and all that, but you know 1.7 isn't all that much either, because I understand it takes about a million dollars just to put in a traffic light. So I hope this council at least, you know, not close it, you know, at worst defer it, and at best, you know, keep it going, try to get the costs down and really, uh, make this a really good project, which it is. You know, this cooperation between, um, public storage and Alta Housing is really, you know, sort of a model development, so I think we should try to keep it going. Thank you.

[00:23:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, Alex Brown? Welcome.

[00:23:14] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Hey. Hey friends, it's so early. All right, I actually wrote things down this time. I know you love those. Uh, once again, I come to direct my comments to the mayor, to our fine city staff. Uh, these comments are going to function as a spiritual predecessor to my comments on R3, so look forward to that.

[00:23:36] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Uh, I'll try to focus my complaints on a pattern I've seen when it comes to study sessions and new business staff memos. It does not feel like the memos are intended to spark discussion or entertain new ideas from either council or the public. Uh, one way this sends the surface is that almost every question staff presents to council is of the form, 'staff recommendation, or anything else?' Uh, there's no work to I... that I can see to clarify, simplify, or empower readers to understand what levers are available to the city, or to give the public a means of voicing their opinion.

[00:24:11] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Imagine a report with questions like, 'Which of the goals would council like to proceed with, and with what priorities?' Or, 'Given the budget constraints, which projects would council like to de-scope, defer, or abandon?' Uh, I miss the days of the sticker exercise. I don't know if you remember 2019, that was fun.

[00:24:32] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Uh, to be clear, I don't like potholes either, but if staff can't imagine spending funds on anything other than slurry coating streets and maintaining status quo vehicle-centric infrastructure, that's fine. Uh, just leave room for our wonderful and imaginative city council members, who got elected based on their experience and vision for a more walkable, greener, and safer city.

[00:24:59] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Uh, I'll get into this more later, but for CIP discussion, I'd also like to protest the findings regarding the equity lens. Uh, it's absurd to say that investment primarily in helping people in cars is neutral, location is not everything. Uh, do you not think there's a demographic difference than those who drive regularly versus those who walk and use public transit? Uh, just seems negligent. All right, thanks.

[00:25:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: City Clerk, do we have anybody on Zoom?

[00:25:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes, from the list, Cliff Chambers.

[00:25:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Cliff Chambers?

[00:25:58] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: Hi. Uh, yeah, I'm Cliff Chambers and I'm speaking for myself. So, I understand the analysis that's gone in for the, um, cuts in unrestricted funding and the rationale behind it. What I'm not understanding from this particular council is why we're prioritizing pavement projects over active transportation projects pretty exclusively. Sure, there is definitely a need to have a balanced approach, we need investments in paving, street repairs, etc. But we're in the process of developing an active transportation plan and we're trying to increase the mode split for biking and walking in the city.

[00:26:41] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: So what I'm not understanding is, there's a really good description in the response to questions from council on the equity lens, but why aren't we also kind of evaluating how projects achieve broader goals that the council have, and active transportation is one of those. I think we need to take a step back and try to have a correlation between the CIP projects, and particularly ones that are going to be deferred, and have an evaluation process that evaluates the bigger picture.

[00:27:11] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: So I really hope that this council takes a broader lens in terms of the criteria and considers active transportation projects as a priority. One of the reasons we approved measure B was to have in the general fund transportation reserve, there was a whole item for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. So I hope we can think creatively to make these, these four critical active transportation projects that are planned to be deferred, and find a way to put them back into the budget, because we really do need to develop the active transportation network. Thank you.

[00:27:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And it looks like we have one more virtual speaker, Bruce England.

[00:27:46] Public Speaker Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. Uh, I support many of the comments that have already been made. I wanted to mention a few things that I spotted in the staff report. Um, one project that seems to me could be definitely canceled or deferred is the Crittenden field lighting upgrade, um, which is supposed to be done to be consistent with all of their lighted fields. And yet you're talking about a dark skies ordinance project or program, and that should come first. This seems out of step. I'm not sure what the thinking is there.

[00:28:26] Public Speaker Bruce England: And similarly, the Hope Street and Villa Street traffic signal installation is connected with a project along that stretch of Hope Street that is not on the table right now. And we don't need more traffic signals in my opinion. What could happen perhaps is close that section of Hope Street entirely to traffic and make it a greenway for pedestrians and bicyclists.

[00:28:55] Public Speaker Bruce England: So, there's some things in here about timing that seemed like it doesn't really include what the timing would be. So, for example, uh, it's a defer statement about the Shoreline Boulevard cycle track and bus line extension from Plymouth to Charleston. And it says in the statement, 'staff recommends deferring this project to a later year.' Without our knowing what the timing is, across the board, whether projects are deferred, delayed, or anything like that. It's an important detail to know, uh, in particular for you on council. And just repeat the message that we're seeing funding going to things like paving and roadwork, and when you talk about deferring, you're talking largely about active transportation projects. And, you know, we've been talking for a long time about emphasizing active transportation projects, and this report just seems to flip that around in a way that's really unfortunate. Thank you.

[00:29:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay, that brings our public comment to an end, and so I'll close the public comment and bring it back to council for questions first and deliberation. So who would like to ask a question? Councilmember Hicks.

[00:30:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have a question about... this is actually a, it's one of our written council questions, but I want a little more detail on it. So it was in the council written questions, it was question number eight, what's the status of the Robert Green hotel project and isn't the light at Hope and Villa tied to that? With the person asking it seems to be maybe asking if that can be deferred. So I'm wondering beyond the answer that was given, how is that being seen, if the hotel is not going forward, then I assume we don't do that project, or maybe I'm wrong?

[00:30:47] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Thank you for the question. Ed Arango, Acting Public Works Director. So the hotel project is on hold. It isn't, the project entitlements haven't expired, the development agreements haven't also been extinguished. Until that is determined, and the hotel project doesn't and the office project do not go forward, at that time then we would release the funds. But there's a condition of approval that the city is required to reimburse the developer for that signal intersection, as a result of the development project at Hope and Villa.

[00:31:21] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: And so that's what we would be waiting for. We would recommend holding those funds in place until that determination is made. And then at that time release the funds, because if the project does go forward, then it, we would need to identify the funds and having the funds in place in advance was the intent.

[00:31:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, depending on what happens with the hotel project, this may... this may stay here or may disappear. Is that what you're telling me?

[00:31:50] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Correct.

[00:31:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[00:31:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, I don't see any more council members... oh, yes I do. Councilmember Ramirez.

[00:32:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I only have a couple of questions. Uh, the first is, uh, during the briefing provided to council members, uh, we talked a little bit about the status of 555 West Middlefield, which includes I think a $1.9 million community benefit contribution. Um, and I was curious to know if you were able to look into the status of that project and see if we can use that funding in order to advance some of the projects that are recommended for deferral.

[00:32:40] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Thank you for the question. Um, we were able to evaluate the status of the 555 West Middlefield project. Um, that project had their entitlements in May of 2022. It was a two-year entitlement, so it is April of 2024. Next month it expires. They have submitted a request for an extension to their entitlements for two years. So it's, it's just recently been submitted, so we're processing that right now.

[00:33:09] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Um, and if they do receive this entitlement extension, then it would extend it to May 2026. And so within that time, they would have to pull a building permit, um, in order to keep their entitlements. And the way that the community benefit funding and the condition of approval is written, once they pull building permits, that's when they would pay community benefits. And that's when the funding would show up.

[00:33:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. I wasn't aware that they were seeking an extension. Um, and then I wanted to better understand... the status of one of the projects that staff recommends that we continue, fire station number three feasibility study and preliminary design. Um, I'm curious to understand how staff is thinking about the delivery of that work, right. So at what point do we anticipate having a complete design, and then do we have any ideas for how we would actually fund construction?

[00:34:11] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: So this one would be a multi-year effort, similar to what we're doing with the public safety building. Identify it, we first need to study what are the needs, we need to identify a preliminary plan. So this really initiates that effort. It starts studying the fire station, evaluating what the needs are, and then defining a scope of a project. And then we would continue moving that forward with council's authorization on a concept plan and then further developing the design and a funding strategy. So currently we don't have a funding strategy for the fire station three, but that would be a part of the study and design effort to bring on perhaps consultants to help us evaluate funding strategies.

[00:34:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Um, I'm... I'd like to better understand... I guess what I'm getting at is realistically, can we deliver this project anywhere in the next 5, 10 years? Um, I'm thinking, as an analogy, about the public safety administration building. So there was some feasibility analysis done many years ago, probably a decade ago I would imagine, I know that's something that's been underway for a long time. So if you recall, and I'm sorry to throw this question without prompting you, but did we have to go back and redesign at any point the public safety administration building because there was such a lengthy delay between the completion of the original design work and our ability to actually construct the project?

[00:35:48] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: I'm not familiar with the stages pre-2020, on the preliminary design during sort of initial concept, and then re-bringing it back. The analogy for the public safety building, you know, it is a much larger project. This fire station is a much smaller site, much smaller scope. So as we see, as we, the further we delay projects out, granted we need to come up with a funding strategy, the higher the cost that we're just seeing. And we're seeing this with the public safety building as an example.

[00:36:23] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: But that is a very much different project than this one. Um, but we would need to evaluate funding strategies and evaluate how to best be able to fund it and continue the momentum with the preliminary study, the design, and not delay the project so that we're not redesigning and losing opportunities to take advantage of time and cost of money.

[00:36:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This is a new building, right?

[00:36:44] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: The... the feasibility study would evaluate a new building, correct.

[00:36:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you.

[00:36:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Well, now I am not seeing any additional council questions. So we will move on to council deliberation. And let's, because these questions are pretty different, I mean, pretty distinct, I'm going to go through them one by one. Um, and then we'll, do a straw poll. So, the first question is, does the council support or have any feedback on staff's recommended approach and criteria to determine which projects to prioritize for the CIP reserve and CC tax funds? So, Alison, is that Lucas or... I mean Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:37:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Withdrawn.

[00:37:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, okay. Councilmember Hicks.

[00:37:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I have to say when I read the staff report, I was kind of of two minds. Um, on the one hand, I saw the need for... you know, because of the PCI index and it dropping below what our usual standards are, the pavement quality basically, I saw the reasons for prioritizing that and we certainly get a lot of messaging from residents on that subject.

[00:38:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: On the other hand, I did see active transportation projects be really kind of the losers in a lot of this. And I guess after... and this does tie into the questioning and criteria... I'm actually... so I'm thinking, because we have an active transportation plan and a biodiversity plan and a parks plan, I'm willing to not to defer those now, um, because they may become better after our active transportation plan and our parks plan. We may have creative changes in them, for instance, the intersection, the Castro El Camino intersection, I would love to see it become a scramble. Maybe nobody else will like that and I'm too ambitious, but that's an example of the kind of thing I can see becoming better after we do our active transportation plan.

[00:39:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm willing to go with this for now, but I would like to highlight active, not all of it, there are some things I'd like to change, but in general. Um, but I would... I do think we should focus for after, you know, in the future, we should focus on... I guess I'm... I would like to add an additional criteria for consideration in the future. And that is, I'm gonna kind of bounce off of the Mayor and the City Manager had our State of the City event recently where they talked about the Mountain View of the future. I'd feel like there's no criteria... I feel like a lot of these projects are preparing for the Mountain View of the future, but there's it doesn't say that, it implies it when it says to prioritize council work items. But it doesn't specifically spell out what a lot of our residents have commented on today. So I would like to add a criteria that says something along the lines of build towards the Mountain View of the future through active transportation, biodiversity, and city greening projects. That's my first stab, but I'd like to add something that prioritizes what a lot of residents have brought up during public comment. Thank you.

[00:40:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[00:40:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, actually I had a question. Sorry I'm a little late, it just popped up. But, um, it's regarding active transportation and I just pulled it up. But at MTC, I often hear or we see a lot of funding opportunities, and I just looked up that we have an Active Transportation Program funding cycle coming up. How, how often have we applied for those types of grants and been successful? And like, are we looking at this one? It looks like applications are due in May.

[00:41:15] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: So, for... we do apply for grant funding for active transportation projects. Some examples, the recent examples that come to mind are the OBAG 3 funding that we were successful in getting, two of the projects were complete street projects. One for Middlefield Road complete street project, and the other one was Moffat Boulevard complete street project. Again, this is really being able to identify additional bike and pedestrian facilities along both of those corridors.

[00:41:46] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Um, a third... I was trying to remember the third OBAG 3 funding, was the El Monte, El Camino, and Escuela intersection improvements. Again, this, you know, pedestrian, bike facilities at that intersection. Um, so we were successful in those three. Of the recent ones, we are always looking for opportunities to go after grant funds, and we try to marry them with projects that we already have in the pipeline. We know we have these projects, how can we best really facilitate identifying a project that we've already identified is more prepared and ready and identified in our CIP program. And then identify grant funds and go after.

[00:42:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Are we, I know in the past there's been challenges with going after grant funding because frankly it takes staff to do that. Are we in a position where we can do that, be more frankly aggressive because I do, I see these funding opportunities quite a bit and I've often wondered, you know, if we knew about it or if we applied. Um, yeah, I know we're a small city and sometimes we have to compete with the bigger ones, um, but I'd like to know, I guess if we are positioned to be able to do that to be able to hopefully fund some of these future projects.

[00:43:10] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you for the question. Dawn Cameron, acting assistant city manager, community development director. I asked our public works director for approval for me to speak to this since a lot of this goes back to my tenure. Mountain View has been amazingly successful and receiving grant funds from a variety of sources. Uh, when VTA put out the Measure B grant funding for bike and ped improvements, we outperformed every other city in this county and matched San Jose in terms of the number of bike and ped projects that we got approved for Measure B funding. We're still delivering on those projects. Like a lot of it's going towards the El Camino bike and ped improvements to fund the city's share, but there are a few other Measure Bs.

[00:44:03] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: We've had another situation where MTC put out and said that there's some federal money that's going to go for wanting because another jurisdiction didn't use it in time, and we stepped up and we got two grants through that process. One for the Shoreline pathway that is soon to start construction, um, on Shoreline Boulevard between Villa and, and going north, as well as for our, um, Stierlin Road, Shoreline bike and ped corridor that we're putting into place.

[00:44:33] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Um, as, as the public works director was mentioning, we received three OBAG grant awards on the last round and again in many ways have outperformed a lot of our neighboring cities. Um, one of the reasons we can do this and I this is why I appreciate the question is, we did, you know, increase our transportation planning team. They're very well staffed, they're very good at putting together these applications working with a variety of staff, our sustainability group has helped us in a couple situations. So we're, we are set up for it.

[00:45:08] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: The challenges for us is we've got to be strategic in which grant applications we go after. Because two things happen when you receive a grant. Number one, you have to produce matching funds. So we now have committed certain funding, which is why as was mentioned, we only try to go after projects that are already in the pipeline or planning to do. Because the second thing that happens is we get deadlines put on us. And if we are not meeting all of the deadlines for each phase of developing and delivering that project, like that other jurisdiction whose money we took, we can lose the grant funding.

[00:45:45] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So now those automatically become our highest priority projects, even if the community or you would like to see a different bike and ped project rise to the top. We're having to first say, well, we got to make sure we keep the staffing resources and our attention on the grant funded projects. So I, I know that was a little bit longer than you intended, but I want you to be aware of the balancing act that staff does as we determine which grant applications to go after, and of course we want to be successful so we always try to put our time and attention on the ones where we know we're going to do well.

[00:46:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So if we were to defer these projects, um, will we continue to seek grant funding for them and and put them back on active...

[00:46:31] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Absolutely. Um, our, our evaluation of when to go after grant funding it really is based on the grant funding opportunities that come on and then identifying projects that how can we be best successful in as... the acting, the title is so long I got to take a deep breath... assistant city manager and community development director Cameron mentioned, um, we really are always looking and want to be sure that we're in the best position. Um, but that does mean exactly the kind of the two criteria that she mentioned, does cause it to rise to the top.

[00:47:10] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Um, as as a result and I think this speaks to, this is related, where we did get behind on staffing resources. And, you know, the kind of reasoning that you heard and in the memo about staffing resources declining, particularly with those projects that deliver the pavement projects and the active transportation improvement projects. So then we really need to shift it, shift it and focus on these grant funded projects and other critical deadlines to make sure we're delivering those. Um, again, it's it is a balance that we're doing, but we are always looking.

[00:47:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Well thank you for that. Um, so uh, in light of all that uh, I do support staff's recommendation and uh, just hope that we can continue to be aggressive and and be successful in finding outside funding grants. Thank you.

[00:48:07] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I guess I have an initial comment which is, I think we're um, seeing now the impact of the state of the economy and changes that are occurring that um have an impact on the city's financials. And um, I think we all need to keep in mind that one of the things we're working on is a revenue measure. And um, I'm hoping that some of that can go toward uh, CIPs, because we, we do have a lot of work we want to do, a lot of work that's needed, and um I would like to see some of that money if it's successful um going to CIPs so we could have another chance to um re-prioritize if we have additional funds.

[00:48:47] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, I do agree with the prioritization that staff um, proposed. Um, I I do want to say you know I'm probably the one that's been the most vocal about the state of our roads. And I I don't want um, our roads to decline so much that it becomes more expensive to repair them because that does happen. And it also has an impact on bicyclists. Um, the number of emails we've received from people riding their bikes on El Camino and having their uh rims um, destroyed I guess is a word for it, um, is uh, it's not good, and I certainly don't want to see our roads um, become like El Camino Real.

[00:49:30] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, so I think it is important. It benefits bicyclists as well as people in vehicles, but frankly it also benefits runners because it's so much easier on your joints to run in the street than on the sidewalk. So um, I I do support uh staff's uh recommendation. Um, thanks.

[00:49:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with uh, the Vice Mayor's introductory remarks. I think this is um, an exercise in difficult decision making. Oh, there is not necessarily cause for alarm. Uh, you know we like you mentioned we're working on a revenue measure or two and I think that gives us an opportunity to restore some of the projects that may have to be deferred. Um, and so we'll have to work closely with our community to achieve those goals, but um, we also have to be prudent and mindful that um, probably the the days of 10, 20, 30 million dollar uh, fund balances um, are are over and so we we might have to be um, we might have to make some challenging decisions about which projects to prioritize.

[00:50:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and uh, I'm inclined to agree with Councilmember Hicks. I think what I'm I'm saddened to see uh active transportation projects that I think are are critical, uh recommended for deferral and if that's where we land, then I'll I'll understand and do what I can uh to help uh restore some funding to to bring those projects back, but um, I I wish we could find a way to rethink the criteria to better reflect the council and the community's prioritization for for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

[00:51:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I'm I'm not opposed to staff's recommendations. I do want to see um, I think some investment in time to figure out are there other ways of restructuring uh, future CIP schedules to allow us to prioritize active transportation um a little uh a little better. Um, understanding that that may mean we'll have to make some challenging decisions about other projects that are important to us.

[00:51:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, the other uh observation I'll make is I I'm inclined to agree with members of the community who um suggested that the equity lens uh probably could be made a little bit more rigorous. Um, and that I don't think that's an easy thing to do. Um, one thing that we might consider is having the uh race equity and inclusion subcommittee spend a little bit of time thinking about how to bolster the equity lens as part of the REI work plan that I think is under development if I'm not mistaken.

[00:52:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, because I I think it's it's it's not as simple as the questions that that are being asked. I think that's that's a fair starting point when we're introducing this concept to to the organization, but um, I think it's it's it goes much deeper. Um, and I I do think it would be worth spending some time over the next couple of years as we implement that action plan or work plan uh figuring out what what do we really mean by equity and how do we invest uh funding accordingly based on our desire to make sure that neighborhoods that maybe historically haven't seen the level of investment that we would like, get a little bit more attention and projects that help um underrepresented communities uh thrive get a little bit more priority.

[00:53:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so uh beyond that uh, I think for question one I'm mostly comfortable with um, the.

[00:53:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: the caveats that were described. Thank you.

[00:53:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And now we go to Councilmember Ramos.

[00:53:28] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, like my colleagues before me, I am mostly comfortable with, uh, the staff recommendation. I wanted to echo, uh, what Councilmember Hicks talked about with adding the criteria building towards a Mountain View of the future with the active transportation, our parks, how that all goes together.

[00:53:52] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, one of the easiest things for us to look at and then judge on like, oh, we need to fix that, was the PCI. And that's like a clear criteria. Um, and I'm sure we're not the ones that created it. Um, that was something that, that is, um, that is adopted, I don't know, state, nationwide.

[00:54:16] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, but I would love for us to take a look at similar ways to evaluate our criteria in ways that's, that's easier for us and the public to understand in that kind of way that if we hit below a certain thing we know we're in trouble, and then that's when we need to bolster it, kind of thing.

[00:54:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, I agree with the comments about the equity lens...

Recess

[00:54:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, happy to take it on in our REI work plan, uh, whenever we meet up as a subcommittee. Um, and I also agree with, uh, Councilmember Abe-Koga's comments of, um, going for the funding when we can. Um, it seems obvious, but I guess just to be more clear, um, the projects we have listed there, we want all of them. We understand there's a priorities, but we do want all of them. So if you get the shot to get all of them, go for it. Um, so, but yeah, those are my comments for question one.

[00:55:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Great. Um, well I'm going to weigh in and then start some, uh, straw polls. Uh, yeah, I, I really, uh, I thought that the theme that we had at the annual update about working toward, you know, the, the Mountain View of tomorrow, it really spoke to me. And I, I think that the El Camino Real, it's not our road, obviously, I mean, we know it's not our road. But I think it's really an example of how you take what's, starts out as a paving program and you make it into something that's really forward-thinking. And that's, I think that's really what we're all talking about. I mean, on El Camino Real, we're having paving, we're having bike lanes through multiple cities, yay for that. Um, we are, you know, we're improving the safety at intersections. Um, I, I hope there's also going to be canopy increases along, um, that. So, so, uh, all of those things, I don't think that they're, um, you know, I don't think they're incompatible. I don't think these paving programs are incompatible with working toward the Mountain View of tomorrow and I think you're, you know, you're hearing that that's, that's what everybody's interested in.

[00:56:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And, and I would just add, um, uh, I know in the question, I asked a, a question about the, the canopy. And it just seems that every time, um, you know, every time you look at things to improve the environment, it's plant more trees. It's always on the list. It doesn't matter what you're doing, it's always on the list. So I'm, I'm, I'm hopeful that as we work on this Complete Streets, um, program, we can make sure that we, we maybe find a way to, um, uh, combine that a little more with our paving projects as well, because it's, it's, it's part of the whole process. I mean, talking about running is obviously much better on a, uh, smooth pavement. Um, biking is much better on a smooth pavement. Biking is much better in a shady street. Walking is much better in a shady street. So all of those things, you know, work together.

[00:57:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. So, I think you've probably heard enough about question one. Um, uh, it's clearly a, a yes, um, related to, um, your general criteria, but I wanted to, uh, do just, um, some straw polls on two things. One, um, the idea that the REI subcommittee would look at the equity lens, um, maybe in the work plan. Is there a general, um, agreement on that? Can I see a show of hands? Okay, that's everyone. Um, and then, um, add one criteria prioritizing active transit and greening. That's another thing I think I heard almost everyone say. Um, can I see a show of hands on that?

[00:58:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sorry, what do you mean by that? Prioritize it when we have the funds or prioritize it now?

[00:58:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: When we have the funds. Okay. Yeah.

[00:58:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So when I brought that up, what I meant was, there are, and I don't have them in front of me unfortunately, but there's a number of criteria that staff is looking at when they decide which projects to fund, and it would just be one of those. So it wouldn't be the top one, you know, the only one, but it would be one of several that people would consider when they're, because that's not highlighted at this point.

[00:58:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you, that, that's helpful. So can I see a show on hands about that? Alright. Okay, everybody's in, in favor. So, now we'll move on to question two. Question two is, does the council support or have modifications to staff's recommendations for the fiscal year 2024-25 CIP project recommendations, including the roll-forward, the modified non-discretionary projects, um, amendments to existing projects, modified discretionary projects, and new projects? So, um, uh, I, uh, I think we'll just go use the same system. Uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[00:59:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So the one, um, the one item I was curious about possibly putting off and, uh, Mr. England, member of the public, kind of stole my lines here. But, um, uh, is the, the ballpark lighting for the, I guess it's the Callahan field. Because we're, I think going to do a dark skies ordinance, I would hate, and you can tell me whether or not you think the one would affect the other, but I would hate that we come, what I read is that we're doing it to bring it up to what the other, the state of the other ballparks, but I would hate to find out that our dark skies ordinance puts a new set of criteria.

1. CALL TO ORDER / 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / 3. ROLL CALL

[01:00:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: criteria and then we have to change it back or something. So that's the one that I was thinking of deferring until after the dark skies ordinance and I don't know if staff has any comments on that. Maybe that should have been a question, but that's my... that's my comment.

[01:00:28] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: So um it's the Callahan field current lighting upgrade um and it's on the table to be deferred.

[01:00:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, to be deferred, then I guess I'm supporting that. I'm glad I made it easy.

[01:00:39] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Made that easy, yeah, yeah.

[01:00:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Who would like to speak next? Okay, well, ah, Vice Mayor Matichak.

[01:00:51] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I actually had a question. Um when I had my briefing with staff um we talked about the Fire Station 3 um title. And I seem to recall that we modified that at a council meeting to include construction because we wanted to make it clear that we intend to actually do that. I don't know if you had a chance to go back and look and see.

[01:01:14] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: I did.

[01:01:15] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And?

[01:01:15] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Yes, um, your recollection is correct. Um, there was two clerical errors in the attachment one and it was related to Fire Station number three and the pickleball study. So um those weren't updated since the last update um but it is the intent um we will fix both uh project descriptions and information with the council um when council considers the adoption of the CIP in June. But it yeah it is correct we will include the construction as a title um for both projects and then reflect the appropriate funding for the pickleball study um project.

[01:01:52] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Um let's see, so actually I am...

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[01:01:58] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: supportive of um what staff um proposed for the question two. I didn't have any changes that I would recommend. Thanks.

[01:02:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Councilmember Ramos.

[01:02:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have no changes for question number two. Um, just that if you magically get more money, just add more to it. Thank you.

[01:02:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:02:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I would like to see if there is a pathway to restoring the active transportation improvements project. The planned or I guess the required funding would be a million dollars, so that's not going to be easy to make up.

[01:02:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I asked, um, well I've asked a couple of sticky questions, so I will understand if there is not council support for for any of these, but, um, if there was not agreement about, um, deferring one of the recommended projects, then I'd be curious to see if there's council support for tapping into the reserves.

[01:03:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This is a project, as I understand it, that's ready to go, um, for the most part. And the project, the specific project that's listed in the staff response is Middlefield Road from Rengstorff Avenue to Shoreline Boulevard.

[01:04:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And appreciating the level of growth that's occurring out there, I feel like this is pretty important and, um, hard for me personally to defer.

[01:04:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There are others I would like to save. Evelyn, the Middlefield Road sidewalk, and El Camino Real, uh, the protected intersection, that one's really tough, just given the cost.

[01:04:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, but this one feels attainable. Um, it will require some challenging tradeoffs. And the two that I would feel comfortable with and see if there's support from the council. I I am not at all opposed to the Fire Station Number Three feasibility study and preliminary design, but I'm thinking about realistically, what is the pathway to delivering a new building?

4.2 Suspension of All-Electric Building Requirements

[01:05:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: improve, maybe the voters will approve uh the the revenue measure and we can advance the project at that time. But unless staff tells me we have great confidence that we can deliver this building in the near future, it feels hard for me to justify spending a million dollars on design that we may have to modify and update 5 or 10 years down the road anyway, um, because state laws change, you know building codes change. Future councils may have different expectations of that building. So, if there isn't support for that modification, then I'd be interested in staff's opinion about the reserves, um, and also my colleagues' opinion about, um, either of these options. Thank you.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[01:05:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We're already struggling with the Public Safety Administration Building, and we're really counting on voter support to deliver that project.

[01:05:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, even though the scale of this project may not be at that magnitude, we're probably talking about many tens of millions of dollars where it would be difficult I think to find external sources of funding to leverage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[01:05:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so it feels a little, I mean optimistic or or at worst misleading to advance this project if there really is no pathway to finding the funding for construction, and it happens to be a million dollars.

4.2 Suspension of All-Electric Building Requirements

[01:05:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[01:06:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I wanted to just get clarification. I'm looking at the presentation, and you have two sets of questions. It looks like 2A and 2B. Are we not talking about those or...

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[01:06:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So we can deliver the active transportation improvements. Um, we can find a million dollars I think in other contexts. Maybe the budget projections will...

4.2 Suspension of All-Electric Building Requirements

[01:06:17] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Thank you for the, uh, keen eye on that. Um, we are down, we are, we are, we have three questions and question number two is not bifurcated. Earlier today we were not sure if there was going to be a recusal. So we put that as a backup slide.

[01:06:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay. That's me. Well, I did, I did have a question on the El Camino Real Castro protected intersection. I can't visualize it now, but does this have any interface with the repavement of El Camino Real?

[01:06:52] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: It does have, um, an interface. So, um, as you're aware, Caltrans is currently working on their El Camino paving project. We all want them to pave this summer and that's what they've identified as far as their schedule. Um, it really is, um, effectively a maintenance project. They're really just going to be repaving El Camino Real...

4.3 Miramonte Reservoir Fence Replacement, Project 23-42-Various Actions

[01:07:03] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Yes, they're putting in the bike lanes in Mountain View as part of that and they're putting in some, um, pedestrian crossing allocations at, uh, Pettis, Bonita, and Crestview at those three locations, but effectively the, you know, the major improvement is the pavement project.

[01:07:19] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Once they get to or at the Castro, El Camino intersection, it's effectively going to be what it looks like today with new pavement and the bike lanes leading up to it of the intersection on El Camino Real.

[01:07:32] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Um, so what this project's going to do is on the heels of that, it was intended to, once they pave, come in and put in some protected intersection improvements. So this is builds on the paving project that they did and then put in protected intersection improvements and then carry some, um, bike lanes into the downtown to Yosemite, which is effectively a, you know, block and a half, short blocks there, um, to lead into the downtown.

[01:07:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, this came up when I was listening to the Palo Alto discussion about bike lanes on El Camino. I guess I thought we were going to get protected bike lanes on El Camino. Are we doing that or is Caltrans paying for that or do we have to pay for that? Like the protected part. Not the paint, but the protected part.

[01:08:17] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Let me just confirm something, yeah.

[01:08:24] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Yeah, I just wanted to confirm. Um, the bike lanes will be protected where there is space. So the intent was identify protected bike lanes throughout the corridor, um, and then where there isn't space, um, provide some kind of painted buffer or other treatment or and a bike lane installed, um, throughout the corridor. So really is we really pushed hard to get Caltrans to provide protected bike lanes and we were pretty successful in in getting it for a majority of the corridor.

[01:08:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But we couldn't get them to do this protected intersection.

[01:08:55] Principal Civil Engineer Robert Gonzales: Right, it really was, you know, beyond the scope and they

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[01:08:58] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: it would require further delay of the project and we weren't interested in delaying the project. We really wanted to get that project through and identify the bike lanes which is a major. So that's why we identified the capital project that you see here for further building on it and we are paying for the bike lanes and the pedestrian crossings.

[01:09:17] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you for all that information. Um, going to the question two, the original question two then, uh, I, um, so I actually agree with you Councilmember Ramirez. Um, I don't agree about the station three. I think we need to continue to move forward, especially that station is um, very much in need of um, an upgrade and, and, and I think the more we can be ready the better because the longer it takes, the more it costs down the road. So, um, but I know and I think I'm assuming the question, whoever asked the question, I can guess who, regarding the reserves and the fund balances in our various reserve funds, was meant for the next question, three, but um, I, so having been around a while to see how we've created more and more of these reserve funds over time, which is great, um, I don't think they're set in stone though. So in particular the strategic property acquisition reserve fund, I remember creating it because we wanted to have some funding in case we could buy a property for a park or affordable housing I think. Um, but you know that fund actually is quite well funded right now and um, you know as you all, you mentioned earlier both of you, um, we are in lean times. Um, you know I kind of looked at it as well we're actually not the leanest. I remember years when we had no money to do any new projects so the fact that we have four is pretty um, you know, we're still doing well. But um, you know, I do feel strongly about these active transportation improvements. Um, you know, I would be open to looking at taking some funding out of the strategic property acquisition reserve for instance. Like that one to me makes the most sense to fund the CIP, that CIP project, and if I, you know, don't mean to jump the gun but if we're looking at question three, I'm assuming that was going to be the recommendation from my colleague, I would support that too. We have the money. I mean we have it. I don't see, you know, it'd be great to have it if we need to buy more property but I think at this time right now it's more important for us to keep moving on the capital projects because again the longer we wait the more expensive it gets. Thanks.

[01:11:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um, I think we've heard from everybody except myself and I wanted to weigh in and um talk about uh, I generally um really thought, well first of all I want to say I was just amazed every time I look at these budget documents, these CIP documents every year, I'm just blown away by the amount of work and effort that is behind them. I forget how many attachments there are, five or six, but you know, there's, I mean this is a big deal. You have done a tremendous amount of work and and I know you didn't do it alone. Um, many people helped you. So I just, I just want to mention that we recognize that and we appreciate that and we read it carefully, and that's why we've come up with all these questions and suggestions. So it's a joint, joint effort. Um, but it's a big deal. So thank you for doing all that work. Um, I uh, I wanted to talk about the dropping the Hope and Villa Street light. Um, I just feel like um, that hotel project hasn't moved much at all over the years and I know that legally we still have some time before it expires but um, if I were to be asked to put a bet on it, you know, anyway we're not betting, but but um, I just don't think that that's a wise use of money at this time when it's tight. I would prefer to um defer that. And I certainly think that these improvements um on El Camino and Castro are more important to the quality of life of our community. And really that's what this is all about, right? It's about improving the quality of life. So um, so it seems to me with that in mind, we have um, we have, oh, Councilmember Hicks has a comment.

[01:13:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So since I spoke I think first, I just wanted to comment on a couple of things that people have said that I was not able to comment on. The first is I was going to back up what Councilmember Matichak said, I don't know whether you said this in response to question one or question two, but I do think that paving streets is, it's for bicyclists and pedestrians as well. Particularly, I almost solely bike on neighborhood streets in the middle of the street, kind of like, not the exact middle, but um, you know, and I hope that some, I think those are some of the best places to bike and I hope that sometime they become shared and slow streets and more restricted from cars. So I see those, you know, as bike lanes as well. Um, so and then the second thing I was going to support, I do like a couple of things that people have brought up for freeing up money for active transportation projects. I imagine you'll be taking a straw poll, but um, both the Hope and Villa light and the Fire Station number 3 and looking at some of the reserves, all three of those are things that I'm open to. Thank you.

[01:14:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So let's move on to the straw polls then. Um, I think, can I see a show of hands for everybody who would like to have the active transportation improvements move forward if at all possible?

[01:14:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: May I make a, or ask a question about, so are we, are we going to pick a source of funding tonight or are we going to ask staff to evaluate the options and return with a recommendation?

[01:15:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That would be my personal preference. I think they can look at the big picture better than we can. Um, City Manager McCarthy, why don't you...

[01:15:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor. So, you could do it either way. We do have available fund balance and the strategic property acquisition reserve which has been noted. Uh, just note that we have identified future needs that we were planning to use that fund for, for the purchase of parkland. Um, but that fund balance is available if you wanted to put a million of that towards the active transportation projects. I think we could also look at some other potential sources uh, for some other projects that we may have. So if Council is comfortable, if you want to just give Council direction to come back and look at whether it's the SPAR or another fund, um, or a different project we could look at. It gives us a little bit of time until we bring back the final version to you all to do that. But if you give direction to, to find it, whether it's here in the reserves or elsewhere, I think we can do that.

[01:16:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay, with that in mind...

[01:16:32] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Can I add one more? Um, we would be looking to identify if I'm hearing interest in moving active transportation projects forward. If there's one of the projects that you're looking to move forward, getting consensus on that, um, rather, I'm not hearing across the board all these projects moving forward, but there may be one or more. And so that would provide staff direction.

[01:16:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I thought we were hearing the one about um the improvements at El Camino and Castro, is that correct or are there, there's middlefield? Middlefield?

[01:17:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, there are, there are two separate projects recommended for deferral. One is labeled simply Active Transportation Improvements which from the staff response appears to be, uh, or includes Middlefield Road from Rengstorff Avenue to Shoreline Boulevard. There is a separate project um, further down that list which uh, pertains to El Camino, the protected intersection at Castro and El Camino. That if I understood from staff, that has additional constraints even beyond the funding shortfall, right? There's also a staff resource implication, right?

[01:17:44] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Yeah, many of the projects that were identified for deferral really are sometimes a combination. It's funding restrictions or a lack of unrestricted funds as well as staffing resources. So the El Camino Castro protected intersection is, falls into this both category. Um, but again if um, give us an opportunity to evaluate and go back and see how we can find both staff resources and funding, but it would help us if you give direction on which projects you're looking forward to, looking to give direction to move forward. Thank you.

[01:18:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: City Manager McCarthy, are you, okay. Alright, well with that, uh, I think we'll just have two quick straw polls then, one about um, asking staff to see if they can find a good source of money for the one that's called active transportation in the list. Can I see a show of hands please? Okay, that's everybody, likes that. And then the other one is essentially the same thing for the El Camino Real and uh Castro improvements. Okay, and that is five, two. Okay. Alright, um, and then um, another straw poll I would like to have...

[01:19:02] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Excuse me Mayor, can we get a recount on that count?

[01:19:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, it'd have to be four, two, of course. Um, sorry, um the El Camino Real improvements, asking staff to find appropriate funding for them. We have three and two. Okay. Um, and then uh, another... Sorry, I am not good with simple math today. If I saw it correctly, I thought I saw four, two. I'm not counting myself, that's what's happening. Yeah, okay. Four, two, four, two. But anyway it passes, that's what really matters. Okay. Now let's move on to the idea of um postponing or dropping the Villa and Hope Street light. I um, I would like to suggest that we do that. Um, can I see a show of hands for people who would like to do that? Okay, that's a million bucks. Um, uh, the Fire Station 3 feasibility investigation. Who is in favor...

[01:20:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm okay with withdrawing that and having staff come back to us with an assessment. I know there are very compelling reasons to keep that and I think I might need more information from staff about that project.

[01:20:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's question two. So let's move on to question three. Question three is, does the council support staff's recommendation to close underground utilities at 1020 Terra Bella, project 24-38 and redirect the community benefit funds to active transportation improvements in the Terra Bella area. So, uh, Vice Mayor Matichak.

[01:20:56] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, so I appreciate Mr. Jeans being here tonight. Um, you said exactly what I was thinking. Um, from my perspective this feels like um, if you look at it from an equity lens perspective, um, we require market rate developers to underground utilities, but this is an affordable housing project and so obviously we're not going to require it. Um, but the people who live there, when they are on the outside area that's on the third floor, you know, the visuals show the utility wires are right in front of that area. Um, and so for me it feels like um, it's, it's kind of not fair. Um, and so I would like to see if we could find a way to fund that. Um, and I would leave it up to staff to come back to us with how we might do that, um, given the other changes that we're, we've talked about tonight. Thanks.

[01:22:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Councilmember Hicks.

[01:22:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I imagine this will be going to a straw poll, but I will be supporting what uh the Vice Mayor said.

[01:22:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[01:22:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. Yes, yes I support the Vice Mayor's uh recommendation as well. I think when another reason is right when we tear out the street for when we're doing construction is the best time to underground and so if we were to defer this or close it, I don't know when we would have the opportunity to do this, so we should just do it when we can. Thanks.

[01:22:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, I don't see anybody else, and my feeling about this is both of what you have, I concur with both of what you have said. I think it's much more efficient um to go forward with it, so it will cost less money in the long run if we do it now. And that's good, and it's much less uh disruption to the people that live in the neighborhood. And it produces a much better product, and it's certainly an equity issue. So yes, please um find a way to uh fund this. So I guess we should have a straw poll of that. Is everybody supportive of keeping moving um forward on this project? Show of hands. So that's um unanimous. Okay, um, so I think that brings us to the end of the discussion on this. Um, do you have everything that you need?

[01:23:39] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: Yes, thank you. We have direction, thank you for that.

[01:23:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, we will take a um a 10-minute break um and uh come back at 6:30. Thank you.

6.1 R3 Zoning District Update-Goals, Phasing, Subdistricts, and Location Criteria

[01:30:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right, I'm going to bring this meeting back to order. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Mountain View City Council of April 9th, 2024. Please join me, um, in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[01:30:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: 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.

[01:30:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um... Roll call?

[01:30:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[01:30:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[01:30:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:30:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:30:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:30:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:30:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramos?

[01:31:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[01:31:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Matichak?

[01:31:02] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:31:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Showalter?

[01:31:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:31:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum with Councilmember Kamei absent.

[01:31:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Great. All right. Um... Recently, the now, recently the, uh, city has been subjected 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 city code of conduct and the government code, will be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period. Um... With that, hopefully we won't need to worry about that. Um, I'm going to move on to item four, 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 would like to speak on this item or the next item, oral communications, on non-agenda 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?

[01:31:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. I'd like to pull item 4.2 please.

[01:31:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[01:31:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. 4.3.

[01:31:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. Okay. Um... So, given that, uh, Councilmember Abe-Koga, would you like to explain why you're pulling um, uh, 4.2? That is, uh, about adopting a resolution, um, to suspend the enforcement of all City of Mountain View local laws and regulations imposing all electric requirements.

[01:31:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Mayor, would you like us to first approve a vote on the rest of the consent calendar?

[01:31:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. I realized that, but... Okay, we can do that. Um, can I have a motion and a second? All right, I have a motion and a second for the remainder of the

[01:31:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Don't forget public comment.

[01:31:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh shoot. We we have to have that first. That's right. Okay, so this would be um, this is public comment only on item 4.1. And, um, Councilmember Ramos, you need to read the uh... the uh, the lit- okay, we can read it later. That's all right. Is there any public comment on this? Item 4.1? Um... Okay, Councilmember Ramos.

[01:32:03] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I move the balance of the consent calendar item, which is item 4.1, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure of parking lot 12 from 7:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. for up to 20 Sundays between April 14, 2024 and September 29, 2024 for use by the California Farmers Market Association, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[01:32:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And that's been seconded by, um, Councilmember Hicks. Is there any discussion? All right. Well, seeing none, I think we can vote.

[01:32:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That passes unanimously. All right, now we'll go on to the discussions of 4.2 and 4.3. Let's start with 4.2. And, um, Councilmember Abe-Koga, you, um, uh, pulled this. So, uh, I'm sure you have some reasons you'd like to explain.

[01:32:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Um, this is the suspension of our all-electric reach codes, um, and, uh, I'm very much aware of the court case that occurred in Berkeley and the legal challenges to this. Uh, I did actually I believe it was maybe I don't know earlier this year I can't remember in what context but I did ask staff if we were looking at alternatives um as other jurisdictions like the air quality management district that I serve on as well as local Valley clean energy has been following this and and trying to look at other ways to basically attain the same results. Um, and I guess my understanding, impression was that we would have something else in place before we were to suspend or salting this or repealing or suspending or salting this, these reach codes. And so my concern is that is that we have the suspension, but we don't have any, there hasn't been an exploration, I believe, either of what else we could be doing. Um, I know that at the air district we've passed a, you know, gas appliance ban, re replacement ban, based on the public safety or health challenges of gas appliances and the NOx emissions. And so, frankly I was looking for something along those lines. Um, so I just wanted to inquire, and then also see if there might be interest in directing staff, or we could talk about it at our sustainability committee, but having looking at whether what other options there are.

[01:32:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It looks like Ms. Cameron has a response.

[01:32:45] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, thank you and good evening. Dawn Cameron, acting assistant city manager, community development director. Um, council member Abby Koga really thank you for asking the question and I really appreciate the opportunity to expand on, um, staff's recommended next steps. So just to kind of go over what we're what we're recommending, uh, how we move forward on this is first off to let you know that even with this suspension of these reach codes, there are some state building codes in place that we will continue to enforce in the meantime. This includes that new construction be pre-wired for full electrical service for residential projects. It also includes that they need to continue to meet title 24 energy efficiency requirements, which can support electrification. Now, naturally, this is not the full extent of what we've been able to achieve with the reach codes, but wanted to let you know and assure you that the state building codes that are in place, we will continue to implement and do everything we can to set the path forward so even on these residential projects going forward that they can be fully electrified in the future. Now, in terms of our options for moving forward for other strategies to really promote all-electric and eliminate the use of natural gas, we have basically four steps or four strategies that we want to look at. The first one is to take an, uh, really examine and explore taking an energy performance approach such as the one margin or single margin. There are other jurisdictions out there that have either adopted it or are currently exploring something similar. Another approach to look at is as was mentioned by the council member about adopting an air quality type requirement such as a zero knocks and again this is something that a couple other jurisdictions have either done or are looking into as well. We also and these aren't necessarily one or the other there could be a combination of these. Some we might be able to do more quickly some might take a little more time. But another thing we can be looking at is to expand the requirement to pre-wire electrification. The state code focuses on residential but we could add to that with a local requirement that would also apply to non-residential projects. Again to preserve the opportunity for commercial development and so on to go all electric in the future. And then another strategy we would recommend would be to add to both of our federal and state legislative platforms to take a real active role in supporting legislation that will help promote and or require all electric construction. So we do feel a multi-prong approach to this would best benefit the city. Our proposed next steps would be that staff will further develop these options including exploring the type of studies and work that would be involved the approvals necessary. I understand a couple of these might eventually require some kind of review by the state before we can implement it. We'll look at all of that the timeline involved and we would like to bring that to the council sustainability committee by June to really go into detail about what it would take to pursue each of these items and from there get direction on which, you know, how best we're gonna move forward.

[01:33:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I know there's some other, I know there's some other options, you know, that some state legislation about trimming gas lines in neighborhoods if the neighborhoods agree to it. So, I mean, I I guess what I'm looking for is an opportunity to explore all these options. I think we're going to have public comment and there might be some other suggestions there too. So, um, I appreciate bringing that to June. Sounds like a reasonable timeline. Um, I'm kind of inclined to actually hold on this until June, but, um, I'll see what my colleagues have to say. Thank you very much.

[01:33:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Councilmember Ramos.

[01:33:46] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Uh, I have mostly a process level question especially after we got some wonderful ideas on on what will be coming forth. Um, so the the sub motion that we have here is the the pause of the our ordinances um but the the options of that um assistant city manager don don we'll just go with don um uh was giving us do we need to um vote on that to move that forward um i i had plans to to to touch on the federal state legislature platform because my understanding is that that's where the core of the fixes um do we need to make a motion here in addition to the the motion that was on the consent calendar or is that um or is there another mechanism on that.

[01:33:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you council member. Yes, that would be really helpful so you would just include direction for staff to move forward and explore the options that our assistant city manager just detailed and then we would bring that back to the Council sustainability committee at a future meeting.

[01:33:59] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. Thank you.

[01:34:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Hicks.

[01:34:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I wanted to thank Councilmember Abi Koga for pulling this one. And I do look forward to, I wanna make sure people know it's a suspension and that we're as Miss Cameron, um, describe we're looking into ways to, um, to to to continue to electrify and eliminate gas, um, and I look forward to looking over various options that Ms. Cameron described and also that members of the public may describe. At the same time, I would like to say, I'm, hoping in the interim that staff is still urging applicants to to go electric even though it's not required. I know when I worked in planning there were guidelines that I couldn't force anyone to follow and there were other, you know, standards that they had to follow. And I just think that it's important to continue to tell people, you know, whatever way you describe it, the gas is kind of the horse and and the electric is the car or maybe the gas is the car and the electric is you know, mass transit or whatever. Or the gas is the type right and the electric... you know, it's it's going away and I I I feel bad for people that I didn't say that to five years ago who didn't you know, got a gas stove and now wish they had an electric stove which I have. So I think it's important to just tell people that, to still encourage them even though it's not required and my understanding is that larger developers not single family home developers, it's it's cheaper to not do gas anyway so it's pretty easy to encourage them as my understanding and then the last thing I want to say is the other big reason that I want my house to go all electric is earthquake safety that you don't have to worry about you know, explosions and fires and so forth and for some reason that one is never brought up or not very much. Um, so now I I look forward to hearing what what what the public has to say.

[01:34:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so let's open the public comment on this period, uh, on this item. I see, uh, Nicholas Hargis and Bruce Carney, um, have, uh, put their names in, uh, please come forward. And, you'll have three minutes. Mr. Hargis, welcome.

[01:34:37] Public Speaker Nicholas Hargis: Good evening, council. My name is Nicholas, I live on California Street. While I think that it's unfortunate that a federal court prohibits a policy that is so important to Mountain View and to so many other cities across the country, I think that it's important that we not lose sight of all that we've accomplished in the last five years. We've prevented the emission of thousands of pounds of greenhouse gas emissions with our reach codes. That's amazing. In fact, I think that it's so amazing that our sustainability team should estimate exactly how much greenhouse gas emissions we've saved from entering the atmosphere when staff comes back with the report to the Council Sustainability Committee. Today, during this item, we have a juncture. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we're facing a setback or the death knell of electrification. And I think that it's clear that staff has identified this as a setback, but not the end of electrification. A couple of priorities that I look for in staff's report back to council are the incentivization of building above code. If an outright ban isn't going to work, then we need to somehow make it easier to build better. And when it comes to sticks, I think that we should look at several things that were mentioned, including Silicon Valley Clean Energy's model zero knocks emissions codes, and their single reach codes. I also think that there should be some sort of noticing requirement, like Councilmember Hicks mentioned, informing potential property owners and tenants about the health effects and the natural effects of, uh, the use of natural gas. And, um, I believe that we should implement this with all due speed. As a reminder, you all know that the housing element goal six sets out for the council to incentivize and assist going green in building, and so this is the perfect opportunity for us to accomplish one of our housing element goals and stay on track with our climate goals. Thank you.

[01:35:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Bruce Kearney. Welcome, Bruce.

[01:35:14] Public Speaker Bruce Karney: Thank you very much. A pleasure to be here. Um, Madam Mayor, members of the council, members of staff, I want to talk about two particular things. One has to do with process and outreach. So let's start there. I was one of the people who was instrumental in getting the reach code passed back in 2019. And it was at least a six-month long process of educating the public, of educating staff and council about the benefits. I seem to recall that Mayor Abby Koga's daughters were high schoolers at that time and they encouraged her support for this most necessary change to our building code. We only had five days to respond to the realization that the suspension of enforcement is before us, and I believe that that's inadequate, particularly when a week from now the Council Sustainability Committee will be meeting, members of the public will be attending and offering additional thoughts to the one that Ms. Cameron and other speakers have and will provide to you. Moving away from process to outcome. So Mountain View for quite some time has had a carbon neutrality by 2045 goal, and for over two years we've been contemplating accelerating that to 2035. Carbon neutrality means that there will be some sort of offsets that are allowed, but basically it means that we won't be emitting greenhouse gases in Mountain View in 2045. In fact, the amount we're allowing ourselves to emit is 15% of what we emitted in 1990. There's no place in 2045 for natural gas. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions that the city will need to offset in 2045 are going to come from the installed fleet of automobiles, from composting and the old landfill that's now Shoreline Park, from the solid waste and liquid waste that we deliver to recycling facilities. We have to get off gas. And at some point we have to tell people that this is the future. This is why Carbon Free Mountain View has had a goal for several years to encourage all of you to end the flow of natural gas in the pipes under our city streets no later than 2045. And I think this is the perfect time for you to step forward and adopt a resolution to that effect, so that everyone will know who contemplates putting gas into their building that in 21 years there will not be any gas coming into their building. If that were me, that would be a very strong disincentive to do gas, even if it's not legal to tell them not to do it. There are other ways that you can accomplish the same goal, but I urge you to be forward thinking, to be bold, and to take into consideration Mountain View's long history of being a climate leader. Thank you.

[01:35:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Hala Alshawani? Thank you for being here.

[01:36:02] Public Speaker Hala Alshawani: Yes, thank you. Hala Alshawani, Mountain View resident. Good evening everyone. Thank you so much council member Margaret Abigail and the council members that are supporting taking this out of the consent so that we, the public, give you some input on this. I think it's a really important topic. We worked for years on coming up with resolutions and recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the task force in 2017, 18, and after that and before that. In fact, I think it was Margaret that suggested that we put the exemption for the restaurants in the reach code, so that if this kind of lawsuit comes up that we would be prepared for that. But unfortunately it sounds like even with that we could be liable for not following the state law. Please delay this decision until, like some of the colleagues and some folks said, until the sustainability committee can meet, so that these suggestions that came from Ms. Dawn can be, you know, put in a timeline, a realistic timeline, so that we have actual replacements or some alternatives to banning the taking out the electric code altogether. I would like to also add, looking at other cities and what they've done, my understanding is San Francisco is standing firm on this, saying they already allow the restaurants to have their gas stoves and they care about the health and well-being of their residents so they're not backing down. Foster City had some other suggestions, so I would like to add that to what staff maybe can do for us. Look at what other councils and cities have done. And finally, please give incentives to people who are doing all electric. I've gone through two homes now, I've electrified two houses in Mountain View. It's still a very long and painful process, getting the you know the permits, all the paperwork. It is very expensive. There are some incentives by Silicon Valley Clean Energy and some other entities, but additional incentives from Mountain View, making the process easier, any way they can support that, please do that and put that on the list. It's very important. People like to save money, and doing the right thing and saving money is a great combination. So I urge you to do that. Thank you so much.

[01:36:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, let's see if we have any speakers on... Oh, we do, we have quite a few. All right. Um... Dashiell Leeds.

[01:36:37] Public Speaker Dashiell Leeds: Hello, uh, my name is Dashiell Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Lomaprieta Chapter. Uh, thank you Councilmember Abikoga for pulling this item for discussion and for the comments of this council and staff that support putting something else in place to achieve the intent of all electric new construction. Um, we're really glad to hear of the council and staff's interest in alternate solutions and in pre-wiring. Although we would accept a decision tonight that would delay the decision to pause enforcement of the reach code. Uh, I do want to bring up something, uh, that is is not normally discussed in the reach code, and that is the bird safe design component of the reach code. Um, this is part of the code, uh, that is also especially precious to me and I hope that, um, if there is a decision made that would pause the enforcement of this reach code, that certain elements of the code like bird safe design could also survive. Um... Uh, regarding the electrification component of the code, um, we do hope you include, um, in your motion tonight should you choose to make one, um, to direct staff to explore the Silicon Valley Clean Energy model zero KNX and single margin reach codes. Um, their validity and any legal challenges associated with them. And we hope we hope that included in this motion is a reasonable date certain for the report back of this information. Um, just to accelerate the timeline. Um, Foster City Council on March 18th directed their staff to do this exploration and the City of Menlo Park is also considering exploring a dual adoption of zero knock and single margin codes. Um, for simultaneous adoption for some legal redundancy. Um, I'd also like to support the points made today and in the email by Carbon Free Mountain View to City Council and made by Bruce Carney tonight. Um, which is to require, uh, that new buildings be fully wired to be converted to all electric. And, uh, a support for Council announcing its intention to end the flow of piped gas no later than 2045. Um, I also do like the concept of noticing, uh, residents about the health impacts of gas as was brought up today as well. Thank you so much for your time.

[01:36:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Bruce England.

[01:36:58] Public Speaker Bruce England: Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thanks for all the support getting towards addressing the need to get to zero carbon. One of the things that I think is important in this battle, as part of the education, is the fact that there are things that are important benefits that aren't necessarily climate based. I mean, the comments about having problems with people breathing the methane fumes in a gas stove, it's like 20% higher rates of asthma in children that are exposed to gas in their house, and 40% for asthma symptoms. So there's a lot that is out there, and we've heard a lot of good input. Bruce Carney and Dashiell and Mary. So I think the thing is we've got, you know, some good start to this. We need to follow through on this and drive it to the finish line, and thanks for the opportunity to speak.

[01:37:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Mary Dedio.

[01:37:06] Public Speaker Mary Dedio: Good evening. Um, first of all, I want to congratulate the city on 660 permits that are electric instead of gas. Um, that's a wonderful accomplishment. Um, I want to, uh, second what, uh, Bruce Carney has, has suggested, um, and what, uh, Dawn mentioned also about requiring pre-wiring for both residential and commercial buildings. Um, if that could be done, um, if you are going to suspend this or for when it's suspended, um, please do adopt a policy to educate and, uh, advise permit seekers to go electric. So I'm sure the sustainability team could draft up a great list of all the reasons, um, that could be, uh, shared with the planning department to pass out to anybody that's, um, unwise enough to be considering gas in new, new construction. And finally, um, my understanding, which may be wrong, is that the city is probably planning to purchase carbon offsets for not meeting future greenhouse gas reduction targets. So I would like the city to consider increasing permit fees for any new gas appliances in order to pay for all future necessary carbon offsets that those appliances are going to create for, uh, at least for the life of the appliance and maybe for the life of the building. Thank you.

[01:37:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Bruce Naegel.

[01:37:17] Public Speaker Bruce Naegel: Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and thanks for all the support. We're heading towards addressing the need to get to zero carbon. One of the things that I think is important in this battle as part of the education is the fact that there are things that are important benefits that aren't necessarily climate-based. I mean, the the comments about um, uh, having problems with uh, people breathing um, the methane fumes in a gas stove. It's like um, 20% higher rates of asthma in um, children that are exposed to gas in their house and 40% for for asthma symptoms. So there's a lot that that's out there and we've heard a lot of good input, uh, Bruce Carney and Dashel and Mary. So I think the thing is we've got, you know, some good start to to this, we need to follow through on this and and uh, drive it to the finish line. And thanks for the opportunity to speak.

[01:37:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, Robert Cox.

[01:37:27] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Hello members of the city council. Uh, I just wanted to echo my support for pausing this consent calendar item until there's an opportunity to get more information on alternatives to simply suspending the enforcement of our all electric ordinance. Thank you so much council member Aber Koga for pulling this item for public comment and for all the other speakers who have spoken before me who care about the future of our environment and our city. Thank you.

[02:12:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. But then the other question I have is someone mentioned that there were parts of this code besides just electrification and gas. I think it was... Yeah, the bird-safe design, that's right. So what's what's the status of that?

[02:12:53] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Thank you, Ms. Hagen. No problem. Lindsey Hagen, Assistant Community Development Director. So we do currently have some bird-safe design requirements in our reach code. And so this particular suspension is just speaking to the gas appliance. So it would not prohibit us from continuing to implement that. So that aspect of pretty much any other aspect of our reach codes would still be in place. It's just the natural gas appliances that would be prohibited under this suspension.

[02:13:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So in other words, what you've done is you've you've separated out the things that are impacted by this Ninth Circuit decision and left everything else in place.

[02:13:36] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Correct. The resolution in front of you is just limited to the natural gas appliance and prohibiting those. So this would just relate to those aspects of our reach code.

[02:13:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Thank you. Well, I I also would just like to say I I really appreciate everyone coming and talking about this and bringing forth ideas. I this is something that I was very proud of the City of Mountain View passing, and I think that as has been mentioned it's done a great deal of good. And it it seems like it's been very well accepted for most construction with the exception of remodels. And that's where I've heard you know some upset in our community about it, but in terms of new construction it is less expensive and a better product so people are happy to do it.

[02:14:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I wanted to mention that and I also wanted to mention that I think that the education aspect of this is really vital. When you are working to remodel your house or build a new building and you come to the city, the city is an ex- considered an expert, and people want they want expertise they want real good information, so you know it's very appropriate for the city to be supplying information about what are the impacts of various actions such as putting in gas appliances. And we would be really remiss if we didn't continue to educate people about better ways to do whatever they plan to be doing particularly electrification. Okay, with that, I see that Councilmember Ramos has her asked to speak.

[02:15:41] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: I had a question for staff. One of the suggestions so there were a lot of suggestions that we got. And my understanding is that sustainability the Sustainability Committee will be meeting next week.

[02:15:58] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: If I'm anticipating your question, they are meeting next week, but staff needs more time to prepare this, so it would not be on next week's agenda. I understand the committee's going to meet again either in May or June and that's the meeting that we would target to bring forward more exploration and analysis of these different options.

[02:16:20] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. And so with that in mind, one of the I believe Mr. Leeds asked for maybe having some sort of time certain to come back with a report on all these options. Would that be a good time for the Sustainability Committee well would when the sustainability comes back in the May or June meeting, is that an acceptable amount of time to to bring back a report on feasibility on on a number of these?

[02:16:48] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So that's that is our proposal and would suggest that that's the time certain is us bringing this report to the Sustainability Committee by June.

[02:16:59] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: All right. And then one of the things that um that were given in the ideas was the updating the state and and ledge platform which I don't think needs to go to the Sustainability Committee I think that could go straight to someone to bring back to us or add in. That could be pulled out, correct?

[02:17:24] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yes, Councilmember, if Council directs that be included in the ledge platform, we would just include it in our legislative platform.

[02:17:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Right, priority list.

[02:17:33] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Wonderful. I see that's the questions I have. I see we have a motion on the floor. I don't know if you want to add all that to the motions along with what we have to do with our...

[02:17:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, you what is the motion that you're moving, Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[02:17:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I was actually trying to write it write one out. I started I'm not quite done yet, but I'll just start it off and see if I can get some help. My motion was going to be to refer this item to the Council Sustainability Committee to develop alternative requirements or modifications to the electric reach codes to comply with the legal decision on the City of Berkeley's challenge and defer this item until the alternatives are crafted and will be brought to the Council at the same time. Thank you.

[02:18:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:18:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I'm I'm very sympathetic with the requests that we've heard from the community and and would like to continue to work on viable alternatives. I'm also heeding the the guidance and concern from the City Attorney about allowing provisions of the code that are preempted by federal law to remain in place, understanding that our staff are obligated to enforce it. I'm I'm I want to ask a question though, because we we had a similar conversation not that long ago about AB 101, which requires low-barrier navigation centers to be permitted by right in non-residential zones allowing sorry, non-residential zones allowing residential uses and then mixed-use zones. And staff at that time said that we don't need to update our code because state law clearly overrides our local land use regulations. And so our code is clearly in conflict with state law, but staff have shared that we will be implementing state law anyway. So I want to understand what is the difference. Why in one case, you know, does state law clearly over...

Recess

[02:20:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: prevail and we don't need to modify our code. But in this case, a resolution to suspend enforcement is necessary.

[02:20:18] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Our city attorney may want to weigh in on this, but I'll just start by saying that the example you provided is a state law, and it clearly supersedes any local codes and has to be taken into considerations.

[02:20:33] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: What we're hearing about today was a federal court case. It's not the same as a federal law. And this is where I'd like to invite the city attorney to talk about, um, the difference between a federal court case and how it relates to us being able to enforce our codes.

[02:20:59] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Miss Cameron. So I'm gonna take this first and then if our city attorney wants to weigh in. So I just want to make sure that council understands what's happening now and what the implications are with this item.

[02:21:15] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: We currently have applicants coming in on a daily, certainly weekly basis, asking us about the all-electric requirement. The folks that are coming in know about the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. They are saying to our staff, you cannot require me to only have all-electric, I know about this court case, and they're basically saying this is, this is not right.

[02:21:46] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So should the city not move forward with at least suspending that piece of it, I think we should expect reasonably that we will have applicants come in and if our staff have to enforce this and our staff say that you must comply with the current code, and the applicants know that the current code is, um, illegal, that the city could potentially face claims.

[02:22:13] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I just want to make sure that everyone understands that. And yes, other cities have done things differently, but other cities have set up their reach codes in a different way than we have. So I just want to make sure that you're all aware of that. And I don't know if our city attorney has anything more to add.

[02:22:28] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I don't have anything to add unless you do want clarification on the difference between uh Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and and state law. There there isn't that much of a difference. It's just the difference between case law and statutory law, um, both of which are binding on the city um in in different ways. So I I think this federal court decision is no less binding than than a statute.

[02:22:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I I agree with you. I I I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation for that very reason. I'm still confused about why in the one case the preemption means that we don't have to modify our code, and then in the other case it means that we do. Um, but I'm no legal expert, so I'll be supporting the staff recommendation.

[02:23:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor, uh... I think Margaret's next. Oh, Margaret, do you want to get back in the queue? I wasn't sure.

[02:23:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, sorry. I should have explained um a little bit more why I made the motion the way I did. My question frankly is why is this coming up today? My understanding is that the court ruled on January 2nd, or denied uh the rehearing, um, so it's been three months. Um, I guess that's what I'm questioning.

[02:23:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: If... I don't think we need to do this today. I think we have some time. And I would like to have, and frankly when I asked about this because I was aware of the um aware of this with my work on the air district, I had asked if we were going to look at alternatives and I believe the answer was yes. So that's why I was surprised to see this on the agenda with just a suspension.

[02:24:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And so that's what I'm I am trying to ask for is to a little bit more time for the sustainability committee uh to discuss it and for staff to work on alternatives and bring that back with the suspension.

[02:24:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I just I don't I guess I question the need or the the yeah the necessity of doing this today versus I mean it could be two weeks from now. But um that's what I'm asking for is that extra time for us to be able to to work on this a little further, which again I had expected staff was doing and then I was surprised that it hadn't happened.

[02:24:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I got an email from Clean Energy uh staff on the 26th saying that they do have these um alternative uh model ordinances on energy performance and um air quality, and I sent that to staff. So I guess I was expecting all of that to come together, and the fact that it hasn't is what frankly I'm most disappointed about, and so I am just asking to have more time to work on all that.

[02:25:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And I understand we probably need to suspend it, um, but we should have had a plan B. And that and I think we can still do that. I don't see the need to do this exactly today. Thank you.

[02:25:38] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Um, I just want to reiterate what the city manager said. We have a number of permit applicants that have been asking, that they've been saying they want to keep their gas appliances. As I understand it, some are currently under construction and they want to change their permit. Some are waiting for their permits to be issued.

[02:26:03] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: We've been stalling them, putting it on hold a little bit, 'til we know whether or not as staff we we tell them you must go all-electric, um, or we tell them that it's been suspended.

[02:26:18] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So if the decision is not made tonight, we're at the point where we've stalled so many applicants that basically we would have to take that as direction that you want us to enforce the reach codes, so that we can let these applicants currently under construction or wanting to get started on construction, cut them loose, give them their permits, and let them let them move forward, but we would be enforcing the reach code with them.

6.1 R3 Zoning District Update-Goals, Phasing, Subdistricts, and Location Criteria (Continued)

[02:26:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Then enforcement wouldn't happen until they actually build or remodel, wouldn't it? So there's time until completion, and we can't enforce anything until they actually have the gas appliances.

[02:26:54] City Staff: I believe it's part of their actual building plans that they submit that we issue the building permit that includes the details related to their energy service as well as where they're going to have gas appliances hook up. So that's what I meant by the ones that are currently under construction have been coming in and asking if they can modify their plans and their permit to retain the gas appliances that they had before they started the remodel, and while others want to pull a building permit that says that includes in the plans that they're going to have these gas appliances. And if you need further clarification, I'll invite Assistant Community Development Director Hagen up, and she's far more in the weeds on this than I am.

[02:27:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No, I don't need more clarification. It's really a question of why today on April 9th are we doing this. We should have probably done it, if you want to argue, in February. Or again, I don't see why we could maybe delay this for a few more weeks. That's my argument here. Thank you.

[02:28:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, City Attorney Logue?

[02:28:11] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I just wanted to help provide a response to your question about the delay and why now. So when this was brought to our attention early on by by Lindsay, and she's actually been working with Mitesh and myself, and we actually tried to think of ways to avoid suspension. So we were trying to come up with ways for staff to provide an exemption. We were trying to think of creating a document in which an exemption could be done without having to suspend the reach codes. And so we actually worked really hard to try to come up with another way or some other type of amendment that would have, you know, avoided the this suspension where we are now. And the pressure just grew more and more on the department and we realized that it was going to take more time for us to come up with an alternative, and so we got to this place where the suspension became necessary in order to provide relief for the building department and all the applicants. So that is the delay between January 2nd and now. We were actually trying to come up with other creative ways to avoid the suspension and could not come up with any that would allow, um, well prevent maybe an inevitable claim against the city for continuing to enforce or delaying a project unnecessarily. So that's where you, you had that. We actually did put thought into trying to come up with a way to avoid this.

[02:29:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I have a question as well. Um, sorry, is it okay if I jump in? Yeah. If we have this go through the Council Sustainability Committee and we have a meeting next week, it's not going to be on that agenda although I imagine we'll have some public comment about it. Um, and then we have another meeting in May or June. If we have the meeting in May, I can imagine that it could be something that was added onto a council, um, you know, a council agenda before we went into recess at the end of June. But if we have the meeting in June, I would think that that wasn't possible. So I would, um, I wonder as a compromise if we could get a date certain to go forward with the suspension today, but make sure that a new um uh ordinance is brought for us to um uh is brought back to us before the summer recess, if at all possible. Is that, yeah, could that be a substitute? Can I make a substitute motion as mayor? Yeah. Um, I'd like to make that as a substitute motion. Let's, let's, what's, what's your thought?

[02:30:46] City Staff: As noted, what we would be bringing to the Council Sustainability Committee more is an analysis of these different options and the steps and studies involved to put together an ordinance and bring it forward. Obviously if there are model ordinances or ordinances that other cities have done, we are going to look at them. But we don't see turning around an ordinance um before the council recesses in June. My understanding is, you know, I even heard that on at least one of them, there's a process by which we actually go to the state first with some technical studies and results, get their approval before we can adopt an ordinance. So we have to again explore the different steps involved that would allow us to adopt these ordinances.

[02:31:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, so what do you think is the timeline for getting an ordinance back to the council for approval?

[02:31:52] City Staff: Again, this is something that we would bring forward to the Council Sustainability Committee. Again, as part of the analysis, it would include what are the steps required, what do we have to do to put an ordinance in place with a proposed timeline. Staff, sustainability and building, are going to be working closely together and consulting with the city attorney's office to pull this report together for the Council Sustainability Committee and really really define a potential path forward with a timeline. But we don't have enough information to answer that tonight.

[02:32:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Vice Mayor Matichak.

[02:32:38] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So actually I was going to make a substitute motion, but...

[02:32:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, go ahead.

[02:32:43] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, do you withdraw yours?

[02:32:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I'm going to withdraw mine.

[02:32:45] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, so I'll make a substitute motion. Um, but I first want to say that um I understand the frustration around this topic. And um I do appreciate hearing that the city attorney's office along with others tried to figure out how we could address this. Um, I also appreciate all of the good suggestions on other things that should be looked at. Um, so my substitute motion would be that uh is the staff recommendation and I'll read the resolution, um, but the second part of it is um to include the paragraph that uh Councilmember Abe-Koga read about referring this to the Council Sustainability Committee. And you had a lot of other things that were part of that, um, is is that been captured or do I need to read them all as well? Or do you want to restate that? Or reread it?

[02:33:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Uh, I, to refer this item to the CSC to develop alternative requirements or modifications to the all-electric reach codes to comply with the legal decision on the City of Berkeley's challenge. But the other part was to defer the suspension.

[02:34:02] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, so no, it was just that part. Excluding the defer the suspension. Um, and then the first part would be to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View suspending enforcement of all City of Mountain View local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements for new construction or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances, including but not limited to City of Mountain View Code Sections 8.20.8, 8.20.9, 8.20.10, 8.20.12, and 8.20.14, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:34:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Second.

[02:34:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. Um, so is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Um, Councilmember Ramos.

[02:34:53] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: I wanted to second it but um, uh, I did want to add the um adding to our um legislative platform for a fix. I'm fine adding that to the motion. Thank you. And I'm happy to support it.

[02:35:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:35:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm also wondering whether the timeline can include some possibility of uh at least a quorum of council having a special meeting so that we don't have to wait until September or something to get this done. Would people support adding that as a possibility to the, see if that would work out?

[02:35:42] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. So I think that staff need to go back and understand just how long this will take. I would hate to give you all a time certain tonight and not meet that. I hear the urgency in this and so I I think if you can allow us to go back, look at the different options that Miss Cameron laid out, think about the timing of bringing it back to the CSC, which we'll do as soon as possible, and really determine when we might be able to bring it back as soon as possible, we will do that. I just think committing to a time certain now, given all the other workload constraints and also staff time off that's coming up, is just going to be really hard. So I don't want to commit to a time right now and then fall short of that. So I hear the urgency, we'll we'll definitely talk about it and try and bring it back to you all as soon as possible.

[02:36:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, that's good to hear. I just I um didn't want to rule out shortening the timeline in that way if possible. So if that can be a part of the discussion, I don't think it has to be part of the motion.

[02:37:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:37:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Vice Mayor for um trying to accommodate the concerns. Uh, I think I still stand on my concern about timing. To me this is very um, it's critical. Uh, you know, when we did this, we we were uh really I know we were setting a very um ambitious um standard, um, but I guess I also expected that everyone, our community, understood how critical this is in terms of our um our work to to combat climate change. And I I read just recently you know the the use of or the increase of electric vehicles is actually turning back um our GHG emissions. And um you know, I felt the same. My concern frankly is that, and and I understand um the single-family home uh remodels, uh you know, when we to be honest when we that came forward originally, I didn't expect that. But I thought you know well we need to really um you know, take a stand. Um, I guess I'm just not, until unless I see a a a certain timeline for this, I don't feel comfortable moving forward with the suspension. I again, I question why today we need to do this. Um, and um you know, and and for the future too, I you know, I appreciate staff if you were looking at alternatives, um but knowing that this had happened I, and you know this is happens at a lot of my a lot of my other boards, I know staff wants to just try to correct it or to you know, come up with a solution. And I appreciate that, um but this was something to me that you know I thought was very important, critical to our our us, our community, our and a priority for our council, that um I would have expected us to be able to have this discussion about how to move forward. And we didn't have that. So it's really at this point for me, I just need some certainty as to how quickly this is going to come forward. And I guess to be honest, that's why for me I want to table the suspension until we actually have that timeline to, you know, mark how important it is for me that we move quickly and and resolve the situation. So I will not be voting for this um motion. I appreciate the the the willingness to try to accommodate, but I guess I just really feel this is so this is so important that you know, above all of our other um priorities, we should be working on this first. And frankly it's just going to make it hard for me to approve more and more housing projects if I know they're all going to be if they're going to be gas and and that it's going to be detrimental to um to our environment. So, um, that's how important this is to me. Thank you.

[02:40:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:40:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'll be short. I won't be supporting the substitute motion either. Although I for similar reasons, although I I appreciate the the trouble that um, you know, with the applicants coming to you and I appreciate both sides of this question, but I just think I think the bottom line for me is that we're kind of doing a disservice to the applicants because I don't think we're going to be supporting gas over the long term. So I just don't think it's good for them and I think we need to give them a strong message.

[02:40:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Well then I think it's time for us to vote on the substitute motion. And I am going to be supporting it, and the reason really is because, um, I do sympathize with the um people who are um going through the plans with people. And um the lack of trust that I think that this kind of thing engenders when, you know, you can read in the newspaper that this is not legal anymore and we haven't figured out the way around it yet. So, um, I I'm going to be supporting it. But at the same time, I am going to be working very hard to make sure that we get an ordinance, a substitute ordinance in place as quickly as possible. And as your mayor, I will be willing to hold a special meeting if that is appropriate to pass this this summer. Thank you. So let's vote. I just have a quick question. So, um, a process question. It says the mover is Councilmember Abe-Koga and the seconder is Councilmember Hicks. Do we do we update that in the system or just verbally?

[02:42:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Um, either it's gonna be in the minutes either way, but if you'd like to remove them and put the new ones in, you can do that.

[02:42:18] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: I just wanted to make sure that the um mover and the seconder were correctly, yes. Okay, thank you.

[02:42:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, that passes four to two. Um, thank you everyone. And now we move on to uh consent item 4.3. And I believe Councilmember Ramirez pulled that.

[02:42:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. This is not nearly as important. Um, I have a couple of questions for staff. Um, I don't know if there is anyone present to speak to this item though. Um, Ed, are you... Okay, I'm sorry to put you on the spot. Um, I appreciate the staff responses to the council questions submitted in advance. I did want to clarify, we are, the staff recommendation is option two, which I understand is a hundred and thirty thousand dollars more than option one. Um, can you speak to the useful lives of each option? What are we getting for a hundred and thirty thousand dollars more?

[02:43:45] Acting Public Works Director Ed Arango: I just want to make sure my mic was on. I did have Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Au here tonight, so if I can confer with her.

[02:43:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And also, can you um just let people know uh what this is about because, yeah, the Miramonte Reservoir fence replacement.

[02:44:08] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Au: Sure. Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm Lisa Au, Assistant Public Works Director. So the two options that were presented to the residents and for consideration by this project, one, um, is the one that's not being considered, is the plasticized lumber with the composite posts. And option two that we're recommending to move forward with is the engineered lumber with the steel posts. So it's the steel posts that provides the foundation for the fencing, and um one of the reasons we need to replace the fence is because the wood fence we have is not durable. We've had panels that have blown over with the recent climate change and the stronger winds. That it's it supports that are not holding up the fence. So option two with the steel posts is the stronger, um, foundation for the fence. And that's why we're recommending that material.

[02:45:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Do you have a, it's probably difficult to say, um, but are we talking about extending the useful life of the the fence 10, 20, 30 years for 130,000 dollars, or is it a much more modest um, extension?

[02:45:22] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Au: I don't have the exact number between the two choices. We do know that this um the second option that we're recommending does come with a 20-year warranty by the manufacturers and so that um that gave us comfort in going with that option.

[02:45:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There's no warranty for option one?

[02:45:40] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Au: Um, I don't actually have that information with me for option one. But option two definitely did. And that was also the preferred option by the community members, the surrounding the site.

[02:45:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I have some comments, Mayor, but I'll wait until after public comment.

[02:45:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. With that, I will open the public comment on item 4.3, uh, the Miramonte Reservoir Fence Replacement Project. If any member um in the audience would like to speak, please come forward. Um, seeing none, uh I do see a virtual speaker. Uh, Bruce England.

[02:47:02] Public Speaker Bruce England: Yeah, I was waiting for the unmute button again. Uh, Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. Yeah, I just want to highlight something that came through a comment letter from Sarah Jaban about the this being a shared fence line and what is being considered for the other side of the fence, and having partial payment for that. He also raised a very interesting idea about putting solar panels over the reservoir space as part of the project. Anyway, I thought that was an interesting comment on his part, so I don't know if he's speaking tonight, so I thought I would bring it up myself. Thanks.

[02:47:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay, um, with that, I don't see any more speakers so I'll close the public comment period on this and bring it back to Council. Do we have a motion and a second? Lucas is a motion?

[02:48:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I probably won't make a motion for this. I will support whichever option is selected by a majority of my colleagues, but I'll share why I have some concerns and a general lack of enthusiasm. Uh, this is a restricted source of funding, so I'm not, um, it's not as critical as uh the sources of funding that we were discussing in the CIP schedule, but it's a non-trivial um added expense. And I think the frustration I have is, I I do appreciate that we reached out to um stakeholder groups, Los Altos residents who live nearby. Um, but they're not my constituents, right? It's our constituents who end up paying for this. And I would be much more comfortable with option two if I knew that we were getting significant bang for the buck. But $130,000 is significant. We have many water-oriented projects that we will be, you know, needing funding for as well. I'm not sure I've gotten enough information to say yes, option two is uh, you know, my preferred selection. Um, you know, I'll support it if my colleagues do. Um, but I would prefer some, you know, Mountain View stakeholdership. You know, a ratepayer who's represented. Um, I I just, you know, when when the staff report included information suggesting that the neighbors were partly responsible for the deterioration of the fence and we're paying 100% of the cost, I'm less sympathetic with their input, just putting it quite bluntly. Uh, especially when we've had um, you know, issues that come before the council where there are major implications for our own residents where we don't conduct community input like the zoning code amendments. So I'm I'm not going to make a motion, but I'll vote yes for whatever my colleagues support.

[02:49:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. So, um, I am sorry, I do not have this uh agenda. There's nothing to read. Okay.

[02:49:48] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I hear your concerns. Um, and I think it would have been better to have some Mountain View residents provide input. Um, I appreciate though deciding to go with a fence that is more long-lasting and um more stable. Um, and so I will move the staff recommendation.

[02:50:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And Councilmember Hicks has seconded. Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, um I uh will call for a vote. That passes unanimously. Great. Okay. Well that brings us to item five: 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 City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to a minute and a half during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the public joining us virtually in or in person like to provide a comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom uh or submit a blue speaker card uh to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first and each speaker will have 1 and a half minutes. Tim McKenzie, welcome Tim.

[02:51:41] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Hi all, I'm Tim, he/him pronouns, uh member of the Monta Loma community. I have a few comments which are only related insofar as they are not agendized tonight. Um, just recently was Easter, which happened to coincide with Trans Day of Visibility, and in light of that, I'd like to point out uh the men's bathroom still do not have period products. Um, doesn't impact me directly, but thought I wanted to raise that. Um, secondly, uh Prop 1 seems to have passed, which is moving mental health service funding from counties to the state. Um, not everyone's a public safety junkie in the same way that I am, but one of the things that we've really talked about a lot is the county-provided mental health services which have been reasons for why we as a municipality do not need to provide them. And now that the funding is moving away, I think that's something that's really important to consider, how can we as a city provide these services that are being lost. Um, and tomorrow will be I think the 26th year anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which is when there was an ethnonationalist religious conflict where people for decades were fighting and killing each other and then they decided not to do that anymore. Um, and I know I'm not going to bring up the World Central Kitchen workers who were were killed, but uh last last council meeting there was someone who said we need to listen to IDF soldiers. Um, and I think in light of that we should have a community screening of the film Israelism where there is a former...

[02:53:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. All right. Um, we also have uh we did have one speaker, but they jumped off, I think they're interested in the next item. Um, so I'm going to close the oral communications section. And we will move on to the next item. Unless, is there a desire for the council to have a break at this point, or do we want to go ahead? Okay, we're going to go ahead. All right. So, um, we are having another study session this evening. And this study session is on the R3 Zoning District Update: goals, phasing, subdistricts, and location criteria. Um, Chinese and Spanish translation services are available for this item. So we will now hear from our Chinese interpreter.

[02:54:25] Chinese Interpreter: 晚上好，欢迎参加今晚关于R3分区更新的市议会研究会议，提供中文和西班牙语的口译服务。如果您是通过Zoom在线参加会议需要中文翻译，请稍后点击屏幕上出现的地球仪语言图标，然后选择Chinese来收听中文口译。谢谢。Thank you.

[02:54:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And now we will hear from our Spanish interpreter.

[02:54:54] Spanish Interpreter: Si necesita interpretación al español, pulse el botón 'Interpretación' en Zoom y seleccione el idioma adecuado para escuchar la reunión en ese idioma. Gracias.

[02:55:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay, the purpose of this study session is to review and provide recommendations to the City Council on the R3 Zoning District Update, including project goals, phasing, subdistricts, and criteria for developing alternatives. We are joined at the dais by Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson and Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski, who will present the item. Thank you and welcome.

[03:11:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thanks for going to the trouble of putting together those slides for us. Next up is Alex Brown, and then after that, John Scarborough.

[03:12:08] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Hey friends, I thought it was going to get later than this. All right. So let's talk about the R3 process in the memo. I alluded to this earlier. I agree with many council members that seeing so many people get displaced for cookie cutter row home projects is really depressing.

[03:12:20] Public Speaker Alex Brown: I also agree with some council members that the zoning standards and their impact on development have been a limiting factor in addressing the housing crisis. And I'd love to have more locations available for small local businesses for a lot of reasons.

[03:12:32] Public Speaker Alex Brown: I do not think that the process has been run in a way that moves us closer to addressing any of these goals. As Eric definitely knows, I attended many community outreach meetings run by our city, staff, and Opticos.

[03:12:44] Public Speaker Alex Brown: As hinted at in the report, messy as it may be, these meetings focused primarily on means, not ends. As some have noted, the advertising tended to target already polarized stakeholders.

[03:12:56] Public Speaker Alex Brown: The exercise felt like it was designed to splinter the groups by focusing on mid-level mechanisms like height and parking limits, instead of trying to get a cohesive vision about what neighborhoods could look like after multiple parcels in an area have been redeveloped.

[03:13:12] Public Speaker Alex Brown: It seems to me like the entire project is increasing complexity in the zoning and not trying to find ways to simplify criteria or processes. Why are we making this so difficult for council and developers? Aren't form-based codes meant to be cleaner alternative to traditional zoning?

[03:13:24] Public Speaker Alex Brown: I also dislike the focus on doing a bare minimum to comply with state law and our housing element, acknowledging the need for housing and then deciding that real changes that could make that happen aren't valuable is callous.

[03:13:36] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Instead of letting fear rule us and embracing stagnation, let's guide the changes to serve the people of the city. We should be bold and imaginative, finding ways to blaze a trail to a brighter future.

[03:13:48] Public Speaker Alex Brown: I will acknowledge that the questions here have a bit more meat to them than the previous item, but are still mostly support or question mark, with two coarse binary options and a very open-ended one about criteria for the density and commercial.

[03:14:00] Public Speaker Alex Brown: Have you considered using more flow charts? I like flow charts. Also, D is still my favorite in its varied forms. Thank you.

[03:14:05] Public Speaker John Scarborough: Hello City Council. Nice to be here with you today. Thank you for all your hard work on keeping Mountain View a very nice place to live. And thank you for staff as well.

[03:14:15] Public Speaker John Scarborough: So I've lived in Rex Manor since I moved to Mountain View a while back. I like the diversity, the affordability, that it was inclusive, that it was close to Ames and that allowed me to work at NASA Ames and support environmental while they do all the cool stuff that the scientists and engineers do there.

[03:14:35] Public Speaker John Scarborough: Now my kids are in college and high school. So I've been able to raise a family here on a government contractor salary. So that's been pretty cool. I've always been in an R3 zone.

[03:14:50] Public Speaker John Scarborough: And that I think is important to maintain that density and increase it given that we have increasingly expensive housing and hopefully we can get something more affordable.

[03:15:00] Public Speaker John Scarborough: So I'd like to have this not just for me but for other folks who will help to keep our community diverse who are here already and who will be coming here in the future.

[03:15:10] Public Speaker John Scarborough: So I support increased density and keeping the city very nice with beautiful buildings, nice parks, and good infrastructure. Thank you.

[03:15:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Next is Chuck Muir, and then after that, Salim Demerja.

[03:15:33] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: Good evening Mayor and council members, appreciate your time. I do want to thank you guys for all the hard work you do. I work for a city and I know the amount of effort and time it does to serve the public, so thank you for that.

[03:15:50] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: So my name is Chuck Muir, I live in Mountain View and I've lived here for more than 30 years. I've raised two kids, my wife Julie and I. We have a home on Emily Drive and purchased it back in 1998 right before the big boom and so we were lucky to get in.

[03:16:12] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: The kids attended Castro Elementary School. They also attended Crittenden Middle School and then Mountain View High School. During that time we volunteered as, you know, parents to read to the kids, to volunteer to bring food.

[03:16:30] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: I helped out with Little League for softball, I was a coach there. And then also on PTA, my wife was PTA president at Crittenden Middle School.

[03:16:42] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: You might ask why I'm letting you know that. I just want to let you know that we are committed to Mountain View. We want to see it better. We want to contribute to it.

[03:16:56] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: So I wanted you just to get a little bit of background about kind of what we've done and how we've lived in Mountain View and how we actually love Mountain View.

[03:17:06] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: But I'm not here tonight to tell you about that. I'm here tonight to let you know that I am concerned about the possible changes to the city's R3 zoning.

[03:17:16] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: You see my home is actually in an R1 parcel. Actually it's half the block, half the block is R1, the other half of the block I believe is R3C.

[03:17:28] Public Speaker Chuck Muir: And as Mr. Anderson went through the slides, you could look at RC3 and I think it's like three maybe three...

[03:17:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you and we did get your email. Yeah. Okay. All right. Next Salim. And then after that we'll go to virtual callers.

[03:17:54] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: Um, I want to ask you what you think Mountain View should look like in 2060.

[03:18:00] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: 2060 is a far time away from now, but it's been nearly 35 years or it will be nearly 35 years since R3 was last updated once we finish this project.

[03:18:10] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: So another 35 years from now would be 2060. Will we finally close the jobs housing imbalance in 2060? Will we build walkable complete neighborhoods that are green?

[03:18:22] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: And will we have a city that's big enough that anyone can call it home? I really hope we do. And I really hope that when we think about R3, we're thinking about the long term.

[03:18:30] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: And that we have a vision that's bold enough to take into account the long term. I think it's great policy. It's also required by the housing element.

[03:18:37] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: So program 1.3A, as it's called out in the staff report says that we must revise, quote, standards in major districts including R3 to ensure projects can at minimum meet their allowed density and are economically feasible where possible through reductions of physical development standards.

[03:18:53] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: And we actually know a bit about what that would look like because there was amazing work done by Opticos when this project was first being taken through the process, and they identified six constraints that would have to be reduced in order for projects to pencil out.

[03:19:08] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: So the low growth option is not a live option. You actually cannot vote for a low growth option on Goal 5. And this means that the phasing idea is also illegal because the housing element does commit us to removing the constraints that have been identified by Opticos.

[03:19:27] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: So and I'd also like to remind you that economic feasibility actually determines whether we can meet Goal 2 or Goal 3. We cannot build a green walkable city unless we actually build.

[03:19:38] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: And so we need to make that possible. Um and again, like housing is expensive because building housing is expensive.

[03:19:46] Public Speaker Salim Demerja: And so one of the most important things you can do to ameliorate the housing crisis is to make it cheaper to build homes. Thank you.

[03:19:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay, so now that goes to our virtual speakers. And the first one is Bruce England. Welcome, Bruce.

[03:20:04] Public Speaker Bruce England: Thank you Mayor. Oh my button came up faster this time, so that's good news. Bruce England, Westminster Station Drive.

[03:20:10] Public Speaker Bruce England: Couple of things. One is there's a letter to you from MVCSP that Cliff Chambers authored, he might be speaking later. I support that letter, everything that's in there.

[03:20:21] Public Speaker Bruce England: I also want to support what a couple of speakers have already said about the future of Mountain View. Salim just talked about it and it was brought up earlier too by Albert Jeans.

[03:20:31] Public Speaker Bruce England: I think that's really important. I don't know, I feel like a lot of my comments going into the future are going to really raise that point with you.

[03:20:38] Public Speaker Bruce England: That we need to be thinking about the future and not just completing projects. So that means even thinking 50 years out, 100 years out.

[03:20:45] Public Speaker Bruce England: Completing the Hetch Hetchy right of way, you know, all the way through Mountain View. We can do that if we think long term and not what can we accomplish in the near term cycle.

[03:20:55] Public Speaker Bruce England: But a couple of things I do want to mention that are somewhat on the side of what can happen through R3. I'd like to see how an active transportation network could be supported through what happens with R3 zoning.

[03:21:06] Public Speaker Bruce England: And that includes removing barriers to moving across property lines as a pedestrian or cyclist.

[03:21:10] Public Speaker Bruce England: Some of the newer projects still have those barriers, fencing and things like that that really don't need to be there.

[03:21:20] Public Speaker Bruce England: That's one thing. And then lastly, it might be useful to highlight examples such as those across income types for both homeowners and renters,

[03:21:27] Public Speaker Bruce England: and to best accommodate those with disabilities, seniors desiring to age in place, and those raising families including young children.

[03:21:34] Public Speaker Bruce England: So not just the housing design and the density and all that, but what is this housing actually for? What are we trying to accomplish?

[03:21:40] Public Speaker Bruce England: And do the people who will be living in them actually need what's being offered? Thank you.

[03:21:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And the next speaker is Robert Cox. Robert?

[03:21:58] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Hello.

[03:21:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi, we can hear you.

[03:22:00] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Okay, Mayor Showalter, Vice Mayor Matichak and Council members, Robert Cox speaking for Livable Mountain View.

[03:22:06] Public Speaker Robert Cox: We thank staff for the insights at the beginning of the staff report. We agreed with staff that providing pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with a focus on building and property frontages is essential.

[03:22:17] Public Speaker Robert Cox: We concur that respectful transitions and buffers between new development and lower density neighborhoods and retention of tree canopy is key to retaining neighborhood character.

[03:22:27] Public Speaker Robert Cox: We encourage the development of local public serving retail. But we do question that all of this can be best done under the framework of a single R3 zoning district update across the entire city.

[03:22:38] Public Speaker Robert Cox: That's why we don't recommend moving forward with Goal 5. Immediate densification of our R3 area is not required by our commitment to the housing element.

[03:22:47] Public Speaker Robert Cox: We believe the council should first make the needed changes to our zoning to come into conformance with the housing element.

[03:22:53] Public Speaker Robert Cox: And then after that, recommend densification of new areas be done under the guidance of a general plan update, which should be only a few years away, and specific precise plan updates.

[03:23:04] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Moving forward with R3 densification will immediately have the following negative consequences. It will make residents who live in naturally affordable housing more vulnerable to displacement.

[03:23:12] Public Speaker Robert Cox: I counted over 40 concerns about displacement in the public outreach letters in Attachment 3. It's a serious issue.

[03:23:20] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Upzoning R3 areas will increase land value. This will make the acquisition of this land for new affordable housing projects and ownership through community housing increasingly unobtainable.

[03:23:30] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Beyond this, I will add a personal note and echo many of the residents that participated in the R3 public outreach saying that neighborhood character is still important to many of us who live here.

[03:23:42] Public Speaker Robert Cox: Mountain View has been a leader in providing new apartment building. I think we can still densify while maintaining neighborhood character. It's a worthy goal and I hope that you and the council also believe this. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

[03:23:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, next is Louise Katz.

[03:24:03] Public Speaker Louise Katz: Thank you very much Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. Um, I wanted to address the issue of the massive rezoning and density um with regard to an issue that's not really discussed very much, which is uh such massive density will also yield the uh parking problems.

[03:24:22] Public Speaker Louise Katz: We understand that there may be um requirements of no parking or there will be minimal parking. And as we should view the city in this fashion,

[03:24:32] Public Speaker Louise Katz: it will be that low-income residents who depend on pickup trucks, vans, and cars to earn a living will not really be welcome here.

[03:24:41] Public Speaker Louise Katz: Density will fill the streets beyond capacity. And we would basically be designing a city for those who can work from home, hop on a bike with a laptop and a backpack to go to work,

[03:24:53] Public Speaker Louise Katz: have disposable income for Uber, etc., food delivery and items like that.

[03:24:59] Public Speaker Louise Katz: We would not be accommodating, for example, your plumber who is not going to take a bus, even if there was one, to Home Depot to pick up sinks, etc.

[03:25:09] Public Speaker Louise Katz: and then somehow hop back on a bus and deliver to his customers and of course be carrying his tools.

[03:25:15] Public Speaker Louise Katz: Um, and if we no longer accommodate cleaners, painters, craftsmen, etc., who need cars for tools and for their work and need to go to cities all over the Bay Area,

[03:25:27] Public Speaker Louise Katz: Mountain View, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, etc. to work,

[03:25:32] Public Speaker Louise Katz: we will be negatively impacting the very residents that we're supposed to be caring about and who provide the diversity that our city values. Thank you.

[03:25:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. The next speaker is Cliff Chambers.

[03:25:50] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: Hi, I am uh Cliff Chambers and I am representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

[03:25:58] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: And I we we sent in a very detailed letter which I won't have time to get into.

[03:26:05] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: But between the break between the CIP and resumption I did have a chance to look at the um response to council questions, which were just excellent.

[03:26:17] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: The council asked extremely good questions, many of which are contained in our letter.

[03:26:24] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: And quite honestly the tone and substance of our letter would have been very different if that information had been included in the staff report.

[03:26:34] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: So somehow we need to resolve this. There's a lot of really good information that comes out on on uh like Tuesday's mid-afternoon that really needs to be incorporated.

[03:26:44] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: The bottom line for us is that um essentially density needs to be looked at as a as a tool.

[03:26:56] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: And the way the questions have been asked in the staff report really pits the YIMBYs versus the NIMBYs. And we we really need to um provide benefits of achieving progress towards complete neighborhoods with adequate park space,

[03:27:13] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: improved streetscapes, robust active transportation network, increased diversity of the type of housing products, and increased affordable housing,

[03:27:21] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: that we are really hopeful that the City Council will support related R3 development standards to achieve these benefits.

[03:27:29] Public Speaker Cliff Chambers: And then really quickly, we really need to change the type of public outreach and I've included some detailed ideas in our letter. Thank you very much.

[03:27:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you Cliff. Um, next is Tim McKenzie.

[03:27:43] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Hi all. Tim McKenzie, he him pronouns, happy to join as a disembodied voice after having been present together in the meat world with y'all.

[03:27:52] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Um I just I have been part of some of these study sessions and outreach things uh for the past few years.

[03:28:01] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: I want to echo and upraise what Alex Brown said who has actually been more diligent in keeping track of each of the different sessions and how they interrelate to each other.

[03:28:12] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Um I also want to raise up what Salim said. Salim grew up here and he's I've heard him many times speak about the difficulty of him and the people that he knew not being able to live here anymore,

[03:28:27] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: um and being thoughtful about how we can actually make our city a place where we can all live, even low-income people who may ride their bike to work like me. Um that that would be good.

[03:28:41] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: And I just I I want to highlight one thing given that this is related to SB 330 that that was part of it.

[03:28:49] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Uh gonna say this as I have any opportunity, it has been relevant. We should have a local version of SB 330 as I mentioned in non-agendized comment about Prop 1 passing.

[03:29:01] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Those uh services that might exist at the county or state level or the laws that might exist there are not necessarily always going to be the play in place.

[03:29:10] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: So we should as a municipality look to do things that we can help create a city for all as is the plan and the stated values and goals of Mountain View.

[03:29:21] Public Speaker Tim McKenzie: Um so I just want to highlight that as something that should be important and echo what a lot of uh a lot of previous speakers had said about uh being thoughtful and planning for the future not just taking things as they come but really having an integrated plan. Thank you.

[03:29:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And that um brings us to David Watson. David, are you available?

[03:29:48] Public Speaker David Watson: Yeah, uh, calling in just in time. Uh, I uh I I wanted to mention really quickly uh um uh you heard a terrific comment there from Salim and from Alex.

[03:30:02] Public Speaker David Watson: They uh I think they made very clear uh points about uh why uh why the R3 update uh needs to move forward in ways that are uh uh clear and uh straightforward uh and um we really don't want to violate state law.

[03:30:19] Public Speaker David Watson: Uh in response to a couple of the other speakers I heard um uh I'm not well I I think that park space is important.

[03:30:27] Public Speaker David Watson: I think it's it's also important to remember that increased density is what gives us the space to have more parks.

[03:30:34] Public Speaker David Watson: Uh where if we uh have uh everyone has lawns, that's not really shared park space.

[03:30:41] Public Speaker David Watson: The way you get shared park space is by building denser denser homes and by by redeveloping.

[03:30:46] Public Speaker David Watson: Uh you also heard about worries about parking. Uh there are cities that are have um less parking per person in them than Mountain View and they manage to have uh services just like plumbers, electricians, construction just fine.

[03:31:01] Public Speaker David Watson: Throughout the United States, it's the rich, not the poor, who are more likely to own uh multiple cars. So uh those are uh just two things to sort of uh quell any worries you might have about uh increased density.

[03:31:14] Public Speaker David Watson: Finally uh I uh in in discussions I've had around this, I I am excited about uh you know small scale small scale retail.

[03:31:23] Public Speaker David Watson: Uh I just think it's important to make sure that we find ways uh not to mandate that there are act actual retail locations, but that that the uh the frontage is where pedestrians are walking is nice.

[03:31:38] Public Speaker David Watson: So whether that's uh uh making things live-work compatible or uh architecture argids, something like that. Thank you.

[03:31:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay. So that brings us to the end of our public comment for this. So we'll bring it back to council for questions and deliberation.

[03:31:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I think we should start with questions to staff. Um does any um anyone have questions that they'd like to ask staff about this uh um council report? Um Council member Hicks.

[03:32:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I want a little clarification under um question four location criteria, the um I was gonna say which slide number that was but I don't see a number on it.

[03:32:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um that uh apparently the EPC added uh for under one of the criteria for increasing density, realistic density increases.

[03:32:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Can you explain that a little in a little more detail what did they what was what did they find to be realistic? there there must be some characteristics that they in their in their discussion about what what was a realistic place for density increases.

[03:33:01] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure, yeah, they focused on HOAs as a major impediment to redevelopment. So neighborhoods that have a lot of HOAs uh or are primarily HOAs.

[03:33:12] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um but they also talked about other um opportunities for redevelopment underutilized sites, larger parcels.

[03:33:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So some of it overlaps with the some of the other criteria. Um and then when it said along major corridors, I assume that means like wider streets, more auto oriented streets.

[03:33:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, I I believe there are specific criteria in the um in the staff report um I think it was like four lane uh corridors.

[03:33:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: But if if council has other input on what qualifies as a major corridor, uh feel free to.

[03:33:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then access to commercial and access to employment areas, that doesn't mean through transit, it basically means adjacent to it, adjacency or does it mean by transit or?

[03:34:08] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so uh let me let me get the staff report open. I think there's a a little bit of um clarifying language there.

[03:34:25] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sorry, are you referring to the increased density criteria or the commercial criteria?

[03:34:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: The um the it's location question four location criteria for um where higher densities could be.

[03:34:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. So um uh for example uh that would be like a 5 to 15 minute walk about 1,000 to 3,000 feet.

[03:34:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[03:35:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Uh Vice Mayor Matichak.

[03:35:03] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how your RHNA is determined, like what's the formula, and how much does um your existing zoning um and that capacity that it creates factor into that formula?

[03:35:23] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So it it's different every cycle. The um HCD and ABAG create a new methodology with new outreach every cycle.

[03:35:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so we don't know what it's going to be in the six years or seven years whenever the next cycle happens.

[03:35:40] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um for the last cycle, there was uh an analysis of existing zoning capacity that did inform the uh our RHNA numbers uh for Mountain View.

[03:35:57] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, and was that um like a major factor? Do we have any information on like the weight of that in determining our RHNA?

[03:36:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: It was a black box. Uh unfortunately, yeah, it was it wasn't it wasn't super transparent. Um yeah, I I couldn't possibly estimate the the weighting.

[03:36:17] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um and you said that typically the calculation or the formula changes every year... every cycle, sorry, thank you.

[03:36:30] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um do we have any indication of how it might change for the next cycle? Have they started working on it yet?

[03:36:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No. No, they won't start working on it until um yeah, just before the next housing elements are due.

[03:36:44] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um and I don't know if we know this, or perhaps it changes as well, but um do we have any idea of the consequences of not meeting your RHNA?

[03:36:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So uh when if uh projects are not developed up to your RHNA, the primary consequence of that is SB 35,

[03:37:13] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: which requires that um the city approve ministerially some projects depending on uh the amount of affordability that they provide and the depending on um whether the city is not meeting its RHNA in market rate units or in lower income units.

[03:37:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um so that's the primary consequence of not meeting your RHNA. Um there's the no net loss provision, which means that you haven't zoned enough land for your RHNA.

[03:37:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh and that can come into effect for example if um if the uh a sites a site in our site inventory proposes and then is approved for uh a project that's different than what's in our site inventory.

[03:38:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So there are major consequences of not having your um your sites inventory adequate for your RHNA.

[03:38:14] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh we would need to rezone within 6 months uh of of that happening. And uh if we don't do that then um you know there's there's all kinds of um negative consequences from the state.

[03:38:29] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So the SB 35 um where we have to approve some things ministerially, does that happen after this cycle is over? Or is it as you're approaching it, they see you're not going to make it and then it switches or how does that work?

[03:38:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are um there are touch points within the cycle at which they calculate it. And I believe the first touch point is four years into the cycle.

[03:38:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So right now our SB 35 status is based off of the end of our last cycle. And then four years in, they're going to do a new calculation on how far we are along in our uh RHNA and have we met half of our RHNA basically.

[03:39:10] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um let's see I think that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you.

[03:39:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um that brings us to the end of our questions. So we'll move into the oh, Council member Ramirez.

[03:39:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have no questions. I'm ready to begin comments.

[03:39:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Why don't you take your turn first. That's great. We are going to um go through this by dealing with question one initially and um sort of by itself and then we'll we we can um group the last three questions together. So I hope you will start out with question one.

[03:39:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I will do my best. Um thank you uh staff for responding to the many questions that were submitted in advance,

[03:40:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: um and then to members of the public who participated by email or uh in this meeting. Um this is a complex topic with um many moving parts.

[03:40:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I can appreciate how uh as we think about the physical evolution of our city over the next several decades, um why folks might feel passionately uh on on each side, as I do.

[03:40:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I personally this is uh the most important project on our council work plan. It's the the one I have spent most of the time thinking about over the past several years,

[03:40:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: um to the point where I think it's a little unhealthy, I'll say.

[03:40:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I will share that um I I think that the first question is challenging to answer in part because I I don't believe that we have been really well equipped to answer it.

[03:41:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I would suggest a a reframing. Um something along the lines, this is what I think we as a council ought to ask: what do we need to do to get what we want?

[03:41:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I've been thinking about uh an analogy that might help explain why I feel like question one is not quite the right question. Um and uh I'm sorry to recycle analogies but the one I thought about is the Public Safety Administration building study session,

[03:41:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: where we were asked what we wanted to incorporate into the building. What is the functional what is the utility of the building, what are the functions that that we need to meet uh the needs of our staff and then to provide the expected services of our community.

[03:41:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I think question one would be akin to asking in that study session, how much do you want to spend on your Public Safety Administration building? And there might be options, right, 75 million or 150 million or 250 million.

[03:42:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And that's a fair question to ask. Uh the cost is important. If we can't produce the cost then we can't build the building that we want. But it's an insufficient question because we don't know what we get if we simply ascribe a number, right?

[03:42:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 75 million, is that even enough to deliver the building? Uh much less provide all of the the services uh that are expected, right? A gun range, secured parking. Um there are a lot of things that we need in our Public Safety Administration building.

[03:42:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And if we're not really provided with how much those things cost or even what we need for the building to be successful, it's really hard to provide input on the cost.

[03:43:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I feel similarly about being asked about density. Um I think Mr. Chambers said it best that density is a tool. I would prefer to be asked what do we want to achieve and then to be provided analysis demonstrating how variations in density can help us achieve those goals.

[03:43:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And we have many goals. I wrote down just a couple. The production of diverse housing types including and especially stacked flats. We've been working hard to incentivize the creation of entry level ownership housing and that's hard.

[03:43:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um housing that's affordable by design. And right now the development standards as we've enforced them generally produce a particular type of housing, which which has utility, we've seen a lot of row homes created from this.

[03:43:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um but row homes are um not the best product type for everybody, right? They're they're going to be very challenging for folks who wish to age in place. Um they're going to be challenging for folks with young children, right? Sometimes two flights of stairs, it's um it might be good in some cases, but it's not going to meet the needs of everyone in our community.

[03:44:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I think when we prioritized this in June 2019, a part of the intent was to figure out how we get other types of housing that meet a greater range of needs.

[03:44:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um other members of the community have brought up uh the importance of parks and open space and tree canopy. Uh density can help us achieve those things too. Uh one thing to remember is when we have unit parity or a reduction in units as we've had with many R3 developments, we don't actually get any park land at all, right?

[03:44:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The Quimby act is triggered when you have a net increase in units. So if we aim for unit parity we get zero. Um and somebody asked, I didn't ask this question, there was an interesting question about bedroom count and there was an extraordinary increase in bedrooms.

[03:45:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So a lot more people who are not going to be served by parks because our park uh requirements are triggered by additional units not by bedrooms. Um I have a separate concern about increased bedroom count in row houses and that's, you don't usually get families, you get people like me who can't afford housing,

[03:45:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: um so I have friends who might, you know, four or five adults who live in a row house and that's great but they're denying a family an opportunity to live there. And each of those folks might have a car. Um and a row house typically does not include sufficient off street parking for every adult living in a four or five bedroom row house.

[03:45:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There are challenges with that product type. Um one of the other things that we've been working very hard on is the uh local replacement requirements once SB 330 sunsets. Um I actually disagree with staff, I I do think we need to be very thoughtful about uh the feasibility of those requirements,

[03:46:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: particularly if the state renders those requirements unenforceable if we can't demonstrate that there's some pathway to feasibility.

[03:46:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh we've also started talking about the introduction of new neighborhood serving commercial uses, which I think will be important, and again possibly only enabled with an increase in density.

[03:46:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then walkable attractive neighborhoods which um you could get with row houses but um sometimes you end up with auto oriented neighborhoods where you might have lovely stoops with, you know, stairways leading down to a sidewalk that are basically abandoned, basically a ghost town.

[03:46:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I think about um like I live near uh the Crossings, right? You walk down Showers Drive, no one's using those uh the front doors to their homes. People get out through the garage because they're driving somewhere.

[03:47:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um so I would encourage the council to uh think about not whether we want a uh a discretionary increase in density or not, but rather to provide direction to staff to think about what we can enable with tactical increases in density.

[03:47:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think that's a more important question. I think it's a more productive question. Um and I think you know without having the benefit of any of this analysis, um we're basically deciding how much we want to spend on the Public Safety Administration building without knowing what's going to go in it.

[03:47:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I have a lot to say about this. I don't want to uh dominate the time um but I I have literally rebuttals for pretty much every argument that we've heard. Um uh expressing concern about the density. But I'll I'll stop there um and uh would be happy to to talk more about this if we find that maybe there isn't quite council support for for the reframing. Thank you.

[03:48:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um Vice Mayor Matichak.

[03:48:13] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um I think your opening comment was interesting um about what do we need to do to get what we want. And I agree with that. Um but I probably have a different conclusion than you do.

[03:48:30] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um you know in the staff report it says the purpose of this study session is to reestablish project goals and provide direction on project scope.

[03:48:38] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And um I actually do support a lot of the goals um 1 2 and 3. Um but I'm not sure this R3 project is the best way to accomplish those goals.

[03:48:52] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um I think that um there are other ways that get more of what I'm looking for which is and I think a large portion of our community is looking for, and that is great neighborhoods with parks that are walkable um that are close to neighborhood serving retail.

[03:49:13] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um the things that I think are accomplished um and as some of the other members of the public commented on this, that's accomplished through precise plans.

[03:49:23] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And um I am not opposed to increases in density as long as the result is a great neighborhood with all the things that I mentioned.

[03:49:35] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um so I think you know we need to keep in mind that um the R3 project is not required in the housing element. And it isn't needed to meet our uh 6th RHNA cycle.

[03:49:48] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: There's still residential capacity in the general plan. And um implementing the state laws that uh were listed in phase one um will further increase residential capacity.

[03:50:03] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So um I feel pretty comfortable that um we can take more time on this. And and um I would suggest you know we do an update to the general plan.

[03:50:16] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And then identify the change areas much like we did the last time. And um those change areas then get precise plans.

[03:50:25] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Because I think those are the best that is the best tool for getting what I think the community is looking for which is a great neighborhood, a great place to live with a great quality of life.

[03:50:36] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um you know our current general plan was envisioned to uh serve us well through 2030, but a lot has changed. Um and it does take time to update the general plan.

[03:50:50] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I would suggest you know we do phase one and then we start updating the general plan. Um and as part of that as I said, you know, we are identifying the change areas and um yes it takes longer than what might be envisioned for this R3 update but I think it results in a better better plan for the city and for the neighborhoods.

[03:51:16] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um I do support goal four as I said before because we just need to do that, those are the requirements that we have.

[03:51:28] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um I am concerned about um goal five and um in that regard I feel like it it's saying um density for density's sake and I don't think that is a great way to plan a city.

[03:51:46] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And as we if we do more rezoning and if ABAG keeps the same approach to our next RHNA allocation in the 7th cycle, um and we are already seeing, you know, we're a little bit behind, not hugely behind, um for our 6th cycle, I'm concerned that we're not thinking about the long term and what it implies for the city.

[03:52:10] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um if we um either make this cycle or miss this cycle, but we've rezoned a lot, we might end up with another huge allocation in the 7th cycle. Um and I think that's going to be really hard for the city.

[03:52:26] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: And I I would rather set the city up for success um by having the plans in place for great neighborhoods um and some amount of increased density but not so much that we get another huge allocation uh for the next RHNA cycle and don't have anything else to rezone to meet that allocation.

[03:52:51] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um you know a lot of people mentioned tonight, but they probably had a different conclusion than I do, they talked about the long term, taking the long view of this. That's exactly what I feel like uh general plan and precise plans do.

[03:53:06] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um they also talked about um let's see. Um thinking about the future of Mountain View. I feel like that's what we're doing with the general plan and precise plans.

[03:53:18] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um there were some talking about nice parks and all those things that I feel like, yes that that's what we do when we do general plan and precise plans.

[03:53:27] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that would be the approach I would like to take rather than what's listed as phase two. My phase two would be a general plan and then precise plans. Thanks.

[03:53:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Uh Council member Hicks.

[03:53:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So we're I hear some agreement on some things. Um you know in terms of let's see question one...

[03:56:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor and thank you to my colleagues for uh your comments. Um I appreciate especially the Councilmember Ramirez your question about what do we want to get. And I was trying to remember the genesis of why we started down this R3 path. Um I remember for me one of the interests was um you know how do we get more stack flats or condos. Um and um I still don't know why we're not doing it getting that, but I actually don't know that this is going to answer that question either. Um so, so yes, so I guess that's really my question or concern is what are we trying to achieve with this, um now that we've talked about it and done community outreach um and so forth and gone through a certain a process.

[03:57:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um I, I do support some of these goals, um definitely. And you know, these are things that we've talked about over and over, time and time again. I think we overall, I think we all want diverse unit types, um well too, you know, better design. I, I think for me, and I agree with the Vice Mayor, um and actually Councilmember Hicks talked about building great neighborhoods. I mean that's really what I'm looking at. And I don't know if this is, is the way to achieve, I don't think this is the way to achieve it.

[03:57:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um I remember very early on when we started this conversation, um that was the question I had was how does this get us to having um pedestrian friendly, bike friendly, you know, bike lanes on the streets, where are the parks gonna go. Um we increase densities in R3 zones, but where, if we take a neighborhood, like we have done in the general plan update, at least we can look at holistically where these amenities will go, you know, the connectivity. And I don't see how that can be achieved with just upzoning or changing the zoning on R3 parcels because one, they're spread out all over and they're within existing neighborhoods that frankly are probably not, I don't think are gonna have many more opportunities elsewhere, like other parcels in that area for redevelopment.

[03:58:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So are we gonna look at some of these parcels, these R3 parcels, and say okay that's where parks gonna go? I, I mean how, I, I guess I can't visualize how this is gonna happen. So that's my concern and challenge with all of this. And going back to you know what type of units are we looking for, um yeah the stack flats I think are what we wanted but I don't see this achieving that. I know you've had, we've had discussion about the town homes or the row homes.

[03:58:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um something I noticed, and you know I've had, I spent the last year walking neighborhoods throughout nine, nine cities in North County and West Valley communities in Almaden. And what I noticed was, um there actually very few cities, actually no city has more rental units than Mountain View. I think we know this, the ratio to ownership to rental is the flip of what we have here. And then when I look at like the actual households, there are many households, like I think the average household in a neighboring city would have maybe four people, and in Mountain View it's more like two.

[03:59:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So you know, I think the, and I know this is getting a little off tangent, but you know I've always questioned RHNA and it's based on jobs and housing, but we go back to what are we trying to achieve, who are we trying to house. You know, where's the family in that equation, right? Because the children aren't working, so they need a place to go. So I think that's, you know, for me it's really kind of made me question like think about, yeah, what are we trying to achieve. And I go back to my, you know, from the very beginning that since I've been on this council, I want a diversity of unit types. I want to be able to provide for the single person or the couple, but also families. And my concern is what we're building is less and less so.

[04:00:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And so, um, how do we, that's what I'm looking for, how do we achieve that diversity of unit types. And frankly, I don't see, I guess I'm just concerned that doing this is really just going to bring in more rental, you know, high density rental part projects. And I'm not really interested in that anymore. So um, so that's where I have some challenges with this whole, this, this, this process. I say I, I would support goal one, two, three, four, um and I can even look at five, but I go, I would support or agree with the Vice Mayor and you know, it's not a m, it's not a surprise because I think we've been saying this for years. You know, our general plan is really the way to do it.

[04:00:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um I look at the timeline, we were talking about 33 to 44 months I believe to go through this process, that takes us into 2026. And this our general plan updated update is 2030 was sort of the end date, and we had actually extended that. Um the prior general plan was 14 years long old, this one would, would, would be from 2012 so 208 or 18 years. Um so we're actually really due for general plan update, and you know, we've talked about this. I think we talked about it when we were doing our council work plan, didn't get enough support then. You know, I won't be here next year, perhaps though, maybe the next council can talk about that. But I really think that that's the way we achieve what we're trying to achieve in terms of great neighborhoods that is inclusive of all the elements of a neighborhood, not just increased housing. Thanks.

[04:01:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Ramos.

[04:01:17] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: So how we are going forward is making me a little nervous, not, not because it makes me nervous because of how we do our study sessions. And staff has kind of laid out like, we want the answers to be structured in this way, and we clearly kind of blew that open. And so um, I don't think it's wrong that we blew it open because there was something like almost in the back of my head that was struggling with dealing with the questions as they were presented. Um I think about why we went down this road for R3 um and other council members have mentioned it.

[04:01:57] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Uh the uh staff questions ahead of time were uh really eye opening. I looked at question number four when it talked about the, the developments in the R3 district that were uh the demolitions. Um and that is, you look at these numbers, and I'm so offended, just you, you see that like uh 34 units demolished, new units 33 units. 59 units demolished, 50, replaced with 55 units. 20 units demolished, replaced with 15 units. And it's so like, it brings me back to that, and this was part of why we wanted to address R3 along with the stack flats, along with uh allowing more options of housing types.

[04:02:37] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Because uh when we saw from those developments, they were being replaced by town homes. And town homes are essentially like wannabe single family homes, except now people view that as luxury, which makes you the question of what would be, what would be uh compared to single family homes if a wannabe version of that is considered luxury. Um and so we, we, we went down this road of like, how can we, we, we expand that. And then we also had uh that question of uh how do we at least stop the, the bleeding of the units being demolished.

[04:03:17] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: And so uh we, we, it mentioned, it was mentioned in staff report that we are looking at uh that, that will hopefully come back to council soon, uh the replacement requirements. Um but that's supposed to go hand in hand with the R3 in my mind. Um and it's core to the R3 work in my mind. And I feel like the way we have been taking on R3 has been kind of going all the way around it. Um and, and I look at question number 21 where we were looking at the financial feasibility.

[04:03:57] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: And it, it, it is incredibly frustrating because um first we, we first everything, I understand everything kind of got delayed by covid, that was a major factor. Um the next thing um was oh we don't have to do anything because of SB 330. And then the next was, well we don't know what happens to SB 330 so we can't do anything anyway. And so we run into these, these, these loops of why, why can't we move forward with that vision of we can still do replacement requirements, make sure the tenants who are existing in these um naturally affordable housing, uh they are still protected while not preventing our city from growing.

[04:04:37] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Because if we don't plan for growth, we plan for exclusion. And it, there's that dichotomy of um I don't, I don't even call it like a YIMBY NIMBY D dynamic, there's a, I, I'm very proud that I consider Mountain View um a holy alliance city where uh you have people that fight for both more housing and for tenant protections together. And uh by taking up these items separately uh we have forced it to be pit against each other. Now there are other items that are also seem to be pit against it when we look at park space and all this stuff, and we want these to actually be looked at together, that they are supposed to be uplifting each other.

[04:05:17] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um we talk about I, I don't think, not, not everyone, but like I think most people would agree we don't want to increase density for density sake. I think yeah, even, even the most hardcore YIMBYs, um the reason why they want more density is because we want to build our way out of the housing crisis. I grew up in the Bay Area, uh I had three closest friends in high school, every single one of them have moved out of the Bay Area because they just couldn't afford this area. One moved to uh Seattle, greater Seattle area, one moved to Oregon, one moved to Phoenix.

[04:05:57] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um and so uh when we look at how we are inching our way through these um goals, I, I, I lead with that. So when we look at our, our draft goals, I'm, I'm curious in how you actually took all our staff direction. I, I'm hoping that you could read that back to us, um but I'll leave that up to the mayor to deal with that clarity. Um but I am supportive of all five goals, um but with the caveat that we, I, I, I don't like how that is, is set up. I guess that's probably, I don't know if even that's clear.

[04:06:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay I'm gonna take a um a, a, a stab at uh sort of consolidating what I've heard. Um we've heard that um everybody, I, I really appreciated Margaret you're talking about how did this get started. Um I remember my memory of this getting started is, was again the desire for stacked flats and to provide housing for the missing middle, to provide a less expensive entry into ownership housing, because as we all know Mountain View has the highest um uh percentage of, of rental units um of any city in the peninsula. And, and, and um we would like to have people um own property and stay.

Additional Content 1

[04:10:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: stay here longer as well. I mean, not that people who rent don't stay, but um, it's uh, it's it's harder to stay if you're a renter. So we wanted to have this, this entry point. And that was really the genesis for this as I understood it. And um, I really haven't heard anything against that, actually, in this discussion.

[04:10:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: We've heard we could describe it as stacked flats, we could describe it as more diverse building housing types, but um, I really think it comes back to um, uh, what we want to do is, is have uh, is either. And we want to discourage the um, construction of townhouses and rowhouses because that um, really creates serious problems with replacement units. That we see have tremendous social issues that um, uh, are are very damaging and we, you know, we don't want to produce them.

[04:11:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And we also understand that the creation of parks, open space, and tree canopy is vital to the city of Mountain View. I think that's one of the things that's become even more um, true to us during COVID and since COVID when we've um, when people people um, used our parks during COVID four times what they had done previously. I mean, we really um, revere and need our parks.

[04:11:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So how do we do all these things together? That's really the question. Um, and I think, so I think the the first four goals people are pretty reasonable with, happy with, but it's the fifth one, and that is that the density is what we want to hear about is what is the density that is required to meet the previous goals.

[04:12:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and we are, I think we are happy to hear, for most of us, to um, to uh, think about having higher density if we will meet those previous goals, but it's not an end in itself. And and then we have also, the uh, the concept of of moving into a general plan update has been brought up by two people as part of this, and I suppose that could be another goal. Would that be another goal or a way to meet the goals or?

[04:12:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I see that uh, um, Ms. Cameron has her hand up.

[04:13:02] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you, Mayor. I I appreciate it. And I appreciate hearing all the discussion tonight.

[04:13:08] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: And I want to start out by saying, you know, when council, when staff poses questions, it is our, our hope that it can help lead the discussion, but it doesn't mean council needs to be feel constricted by the question. And if council needs to reframe the question or wants to answer a different question, that works. As long as we can confirm as staff that we're getting direction that allows us to take next steps with the project. That that's our, that's our primary goal here is when we walk out of the room tonight, we know what we we are going to do as our next step to move this project forward.

[04:13:49] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Um, I want to share just a few observations about what's been said tonight and, and some concerns, um, that we be clear on what is possible to do for an R3 zoning district and, and where it's going to be more challenging. So, I'm going to, uh, you know, one of the first goals had to do with diversity of unit types, which we really heard a lot about, and I understand that that, you know, appreciate hearing that that was kind of one of the key impetus for starting this project in 2019 and even the concept of stacked flats, flats.

[04:14:28] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: And I have asked, um, staff and others over the last couple weeks, what, what is holding up getting stacked flats? What, what is it about them that we're not getting them? Because honestly, they can be done at various densities in terms of building form, what fits. You could choose instead of doing three-story rowhouses, you can do stacked flats that are three or four stories high.

[04:14:56] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So now it really seems to be a market-driven question. And one of the analysis kind of as a next step, um, that I was talking to staff about, is we really need to do some discussion with developers of why they're choosing other housing product types other than stacked flats, especially when we're dealing with ownership. Because one of the stories that our assistant community development director Belinski shared from her time with City of Sunnyvale, and she's going to, um, correct me if I get this wrong, but I don't know how many of you have been to downtown Sunnyvale, I have, they have all this nice new housing going up five, six stories, and when you look at it, a lot of that was originally intended to be stacked flats.

[04:15:44] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So you're getting the stories, you're getting the densities, and yet they've all been built as rental apartments. Is that, correct, or did you get some updated information?

[04:15:55] City Staff: So I don't know exactly, you know, I, I don't know about the ones that are currently under construction because that came as I moved over here to Mountain View. Um, but the, you know, there were two larger buildings, uh, near Target and the old Macy's that, um, were completely developed as, um, condo stacked flats. Um, and you know, they went through the pandemic, the market changed a bit, and once the developer came back to us to complete that project in Sunnyvale, they, they completely changed to apartments just based on, you know, market and what was marketable at that time.

[04:16:39] City Staff: Um, and we kind of saw that general change pretty predominantly in Sunnyvale. Um, and, uh, you know, we have, we went from a portion in time prior to, uh, the pandemic where we were seeing the these, um, types of stacked flat development, um, coming through our planning process and then changing into apartments. So, yeah.

[04:17:06] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: No, so that the point being is there are more drivers to it than potentially density. It that can be a factor. We totally understand that, uh, being able to do higher densities may make it more, uh, economically feasible, but there also appears to be other factors driving it and we're going to have to do more research into that.

[04:17:29] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Um, if I could just, okay. Um, the other items we're hearing about that, you know, in terms of what could be challenging with this R3, um, project to, to deliver on, is the extent to which the other goals that you're talking about in terms of planning for where parks are going to go or even the streetscape improvements and the design of streets.

[04:17:55] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Because R3 zones are dispersed throughout the city, some, there are some nice large areas that you can do some core planning around, but others are very well dispersed, and if you're only affecting a partial block or a partial area, um, you know, agree about the parkland fees are very helpful, but we also need to identify then where are the parks and open space going to go.

[04:18:27] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So it is a little more limiting, you know, in terms of what can be done with R3, but I'm not saying it can't be done for certain areas of R3. And, you know, one possibility short, I mean precise plans, general plans, they're always a, you know, definitely a possibility, um, but in terms of how far we can take R3, we're going to have to look at, um, you know, maybe there's some areas that are large enough that also have redevelopment potential because again we have the HOA areas, we have other areas that we're not certain are going to actually build or redevelop. So we we would have to explore that. Having said all of that...

[04:19:21] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: I really appreciate hearing that question of, what do we want to achieve? What are the outcomes we really want to see? So not asking about density for the sake of density, but to what extent could we be looking at density changes in targeted areas to help achieve these outcomes. And if that is something council would like staff to pursue, and that's the direction that you give staff, then what we're doing is we're not pursuing this in terms of no density increase or low or moderate. We will then pursue it towards what can help us achieve the most important outcomes that you're looking for, and look at alternatives, layouts in terms of, you know, I know it's form-based zoning, but those sub-district types give you a sense of scale, but then would be translated into form-based codes.

[04:20:35] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: And we could, you know, those I, I tended to call those puzzle pieces that you can set down in different parts of, of on the map to show how that relates. And that gets back then to the current last question that dealt with, are there particular criteria that you want us to consider as we look at where there's the best potential for greater density or certain criteria for where we try to look at, um, situating, uh, potential for commercial areas, because all of this is going to lead to staff going back and starting to put the maps together.

[04:21:10] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So I think there's a middle ground here, and the question of density or no density could be taken off the table if you want us to more focus on: staff, these are some of the outcomes we want, bring back various growth alternatives that try to achieve these outcomes. But I just I go back to what I said earlier, there are some outcomes we may still may not be able to give you just because of the very nature of how spread out R3 is and and, you know, we will do our best.

[04:21:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you, that was very helpful. Um, and I certainly, I think that sounds like a reasonable plan. Um, Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:22:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. There's a lot to respond to. Um, I, I agree with the summary that you are presenting, which I feel is largely compatible with what I think we've heard from uh the community development director. Um, so if if that's if that's where we land, I'm comfortable with that, but I did want to speak to a couple of things that are important to recognize um I think in conveying the direction.

[04:22:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so I really appreciate and agree with much of what you've shared, Councilmember Ramos, and pointing out the response to question four. And I think another way of saying that concisely is the status quo is not delivering the outcomes that we want. There is tremendous development pressure in R3 right now, and we've lost a lot of opportunity because the redevelopments have not produced the outcomes that we're talking about.

[04:23:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: 1555 West Middlefield, for instance, is five and a half acres. We lost 116 apartments, we got 115 rowhouses with no provision of public open space, there's no park fee contribution, there's no community benefit. It's just 115 rowhouses that comply with our standards.

[04:23:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, same thing with 570 South uh Rengstorff, we lost 70 apartments, we got 85 rowhouses on a site just under just under five acres. And it's you know, it's not going to be the type of outcomes that we're seeking. So in my mind the status quo is not an option because what we've seen produced by the status quo is clearly in my opinion detrimental to the community.

[04:23:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, which is why I think we're talking about changing the development standards and and seeing if we can we may not be able to achieve everything with just density and development standards, but we probably could achieve a lot more with different standards than we have in place today. And that's the analysis that I'm hoping that we can get back from staff.

[04:24:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, another component of this though is that we're not trying to facilitate transformative change overnight. This is not a these are not change areas, right? The general plan work was about identifying areas where the community is ready for a tremendous change. And precise plans really help facilitate that quite well, right? North Bayshore, uh, East Whisman, we're talking about massive change.

[04:24:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, and then other areas, you know, maybe maybe not quite that transformative, but San Antonio, my neck of the woods, you know, is quite different from how it used to be growing up. Um, and and El Camino as as well. I think the the reason why I wouldn't be comfortable with pursuing a precise plan is because I'm not looking to demolish the remaining R3 developments and displace those folks for something that's radically different.

[04:25:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Instead, as redevelopment occurs, because the development pressure is there, a lot of these buildings are approaching the ends of their useful lives, we want to make sure that what goes in its place is better than what was what's there now, and helps achieve community outcomes to the greatest extent possible.

[04:25:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so that's it's different from a precise plan objective in my opinion. I, I can understand why a precise plan is is a a really valuable tool, but the implication in my mind is we're we're trying to transform an area that I actually don't believe we're quite ready to transform.

[04:25:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and the last thing I'll share is that we we've gotten some feedback and I'm I understand uh the concern about sort of a a uniform approach, and that's actually what we're solving with a sub-district question later on in question three. Um, we're trying to get away from one size fits all development standards for everything zoned R3 and instead pursuing a context-sensitive approach as a replacement where some areas currently zoned R3 look different from other areas currently zoned R3 because we recognize that there are very different contexts, right?

[04:26:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: R3, I believe, in my neck of the woods, Del Medio, is probably a lot better for high-density housing than R3 in Veranda or Benita, right? So that's why the sub-district uh concept is extremely valuable and also why I think we're all eager to see some standards. We're all eager to see the forms that um that uh Councilmember Hicks has talked about. um which I hope we talk about more in depth in the in subsequent questions.

[04:26:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, that's a lot. I'll stop there, but I I do think that as if I'm understanding what you're saying, that feels congruent with what I heard from the Mayor and it's the direction that I would support.

[04:27:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, uh, Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:27:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, and I appreciate Ms. Cameron, uh, your comments. I what I guess I'm looking for is um the tools to achieve our goals. So I maybe, you know, please maybe I may have this not correct interpretation may not be accurate with this, but I guess I'm trying to liken it to our um change areas and, you know, how we upzone but then where we allow for higher FARs with um if they do certain community benefits. And I don't see that in here.

[04:27:45] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So this is, all I see here is let's just upzone. And how are, but so how are we going to achieve more park space, or neighborhood commercial, or frankly, you know, I what I'm re going back to what we wanted, the middle-income stack flat ownership housing, which is really what I'm interested in, how do we get that? And it's like well and my question is can we create some kind of mechanism where, you know, if you do that product then you get the density. But I'm going to say it again, I'm not interested in more luxury apartment units. I think we have way enough of those.

[04:28:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And so if that and I am unconcerned that this is going to lead to more of that. So, I would like to see that kind of mechanism like we did I think pretty well in our general plan, implemented in this process if we're going to move forward with this process. But if we can't do that, then that's why I say we go back to a general plan.

[04:28:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And frankly, I still think it's worth going and looking at where the change areas can be happened, but I think also in all reality, our city, we're running out of land. So we're not going to be able to necessarily transform any area like we have tried to do with North Bayshore and Whisman and San Antonio. Like, you know, and then I I mentioned this before, I'm interested in El Camino. I think has been successful and there's more room there for growth, I think, and that helps to support the transit we're trying to build.

[04:29:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So that's why I guess I'm really saying let's go towards the general plan, and it's not going to be, I really don't think it's going to be the four-year process that we did before because I think the vision and some of the goals can still stay, um, and frankly we just don't have as much land to work with anymore. So, yeah, so it won't be transformative, but I think it will help us to achieve the complete neighborhoods that we're looking for, and I just don't see how this is going to do that.

[04:30:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so we we we seem to have um, sort of two uh major viewpoints moving forward. And um, I think it's probably time to take a just take a straw poll about that. Um, and um, I would also say that I don't necessarily think that over the long pull the two of them are um incompatible. It seems like we really um are having development, although it's at a slower pace now, go forward in the R3 area and it's not producing what any of us are are wanting.

[04:30:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So we have a problem that we want to fix, right? And that's um, and that's the um, you know, the propensity of rowhouses and and the the um sort of not increasing the number of units but just slightly replacing them or maybe barely replacing the number of units.

[04:31:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, but on the other hand, in the long term, of course we have to redo the general plan. I mean that's, you know, that's a cyclical thing that has to be done in the life of a city and and um we're probably uh uh approaching that. Uh I personally see this as the um, we do the R3 first, it's it's it's not as big a lift. And then we plan for doing the general plan update in the next year or two, it's not it's not currently on our work plan, but we plan for getting it on there. And um so that's that's kind of how I see that they're you know they're not really at odds with one another. They really could be um you know could work together just fine. So that's what I wanted to share.

[04:32:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I thought you were going to take a straw poll on which one we wanted. Oh. But no, I'm not. But I didn't want you to do that actually because then you went, your next statement was that we should do both but sequentially, which is which is more where I'm leaning I think.

[04:32:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And a couple of of things, um, I liked what um, Ms. Cameron summarized things where she said density changes in targeted areas to achieve our goals. And I'm wondering whether that's really what we want and maybe I'm uh putting the emphasis more on targeted um like small targeted areas and see if we can get, see if the if the um if the uh form-based zoning can get us what we want or if maybe it's not the right tool but not everywhere.

[04:33:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um that's kind of where I'm leaning now and I'm also wanting to hear some feedback. Well I had a couple of other things to say. I I also I am sensitive to this is the other reason for targeted areas. I am sensitive to the argument, you know we're trying to do um community controlled housing and that if we increase density in lots of places that is that's less less feasible. So I kind of don't, that's why I said earlier another reason that I don't want to kind of paint it with a broad brush.

[04:33:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, but um and I also in the similar vein sometimes somebody on the dais tonight talked about uh buildings that are at the end of their useful life and I kind of don't see that's a concept that's worth thinking about, but you can also look at those buildings in a different way which is that when I worked with the well I live in a house that's over 100 years old. When I lived in Rome I lived in one that was over 500 years old, and I think that not that it was made out of more durable materials than most housing in Mountain View, but I think that when when I worked with the Land Trust in Berkeley and Oakland a a lot of the buildings that we purchased all of them I would say were ones that would often be looked at as if they were at the end of their useful life.

[04:34:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But when somebody owns it, my house also, you know someone might knock it down and build a a completely new one, but when you own it you have the option to not do that. And and I I actually think we can't continue to look at buildings as as throwaway items. I don't really like the concept of, I mean I think it's a useful concept in some ways um because developers will be tearing them down, but I think we as a community can also look at them in other ways as not disposable buildings.

[04:34:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I guess with that I'm saying that I like the the density changes in very targeted areas to achieve our goals and see whether we can achieve them, and then I'd like some feedback on uh what either the city manager or Ms. Cameron, whatever the title that's too long for anyone to be able to say, um ha what kind of what your ideas are on um the general plan. Is that too soon or good timing or or it's our choice so you have nothing to say.

[04:35:35] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Yes, exactly what I was thinking. Um, so thank you. Um, in terms of doing a general plan, that is a major undertaking and, you know, whether it would need to take five, four years or or less in this case if there's, you know, we can build off of the previous one more, but it is still a major undertaking, it um definitely requires significant staffing attention. So therefore with us now undertaking the Moffett Precise Plan and the Downtown Precise Plan, in addition to ensuring that we can fulfill all of our housing element um requirements, uh it is not something that uh the staff would be able to start in the next let's say three years.

[04:36:34] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, there is just uh, you know, way way too many other planning efforts currently underway. However, we will have to do a general plan update soon, and by soon I mean I I would say probably plan to start something in about five years at least because we're hitting 2030 and it takes time. So we do need to start planning for it, it's just not unlikely to be something we could undertake in the next three years or so.

[04:37:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, um, Vice Mayor Matichak.

[04:37:11] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I do have um a couple questions. Um, I am wondering um if we look at upzoning in targeted areas, how do we get what a lot of people mentioned, things like more parks, um nicer streetscapes, um more trees? I don't I don't see how you accomplish all that with form-based codes and upzoning. So how would we, what levers do we have and how would we get those things? I'm not sure who to ask.

[04:37:55] City Staff: Sure. Um, I'm not going to have a great answer for you tonight. I think, you know, it's a, it's a difficult question and it's one that Eric and I and Dawn have been talking about quite a bit. Um, you know, prior to, you know, some of our more recent state laws, you know, it was fairly simple to do incentive programs for residential um projects or precise plans or or area plans.

[04:38:23] City Staff: Um, I think it's still potentially possible to do that and that's something that we've been talking about a lot. Uh, the I think, you know, the other side though is then you may then see um the types of state density bonus waivers and concessions being used um to then, you know, waive from those items.

[04:38:53] City Staff: So it is a very delicate balance I think and not one that we at this point are are ready to answer um with great confidence.

[04:39:04] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: I I would add to this though that um besides you know the concept of targeting um densities where they can help best achieve some of the outcomes that we're looking for, you know really taking a look at the locations where there are larger parcels. Looking at the is there opportunities to get some parcels assembled to create a larger parcel, because you know one of the things that's talked about is if you allow taller, more dense buildings on a par project on a parcel, maybe you leave more land open that could be used for some open space or park.

[04:39:46] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: But that's not going to work on all the small small parcels that we have throughout R3, but there are some large ones and there may be an opportunity, you know, we got to do a lot of work here to see, you know, is there a way to encourage doing some assembling of sites, that type of thing.

[04:40:08] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So it might be a case as mentioned that when you look at that map and you see a large area of R3, if we do think a lot of it is potential to be redeveloped in the future, we do try for that area to get some um, start thinking more about is there a way to deal with the streets and the parks. May not be able to fully address through R3 but form-based zoning as I understand it can deal with it if you have a large contiguous area enough of one. So it it may have to be just more site-specific and targeted where we can try to make use of those opportunities.

[04:40:50] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if we did that, um I guess I feel like we're now kind of backing into, so what are the goals then? Are they different from what's listed here in the staff report? Um.

[04:41:05] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So um, kind of let's go back and quickly look at the goals and again I always invite staff to jump in because you're dealing with somebody with a long history of Public Works and has been doing a uh deep dive into land use over two months here now. Um, so create opportunities for diverse unit types including middle-income ownership and stacked flats.

[04:41:32] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Again, this is one we could try to achieve once we can understand the economics more of things like the stacked flats um, and if there's anything the city can do in terms of our standards and so on that could make them more attractive instead of doing rental apartments or rowhouses. Um, so you know, and then diverse unit types I'm also interpreting to mean size of the units too, whether theyre serving single people or serving families, we we want a nice you know, be able to serve our entire community. So it appears to me that's when we can strive for.

[04:42:18] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Uh, produce better design that reflects the community's vision through objective form-based standards. Absolutely we can do that, but as noted the um the ability to achieve this might depend upon the the size of the contiguous R3 area that has potential to redevelop. So again can work with the form-based standards to do the best to get the pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and you know the building in frontages and so on, all of that can be integrated in and it's just a question is you know how contiguous is it, you know how can we make it into more of a complete neighborhood uh would have to be looked at.

[04:43:03] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So and of course tree canopy and landscaping definitely are things that can be built in. Respectful transitions and buffers between new development and lower-density neighborhoods. This is definitely something that um you can work in with the form-based codes and so on, and really our only challenge then is um if they take state density bonus and do waivers and concessions, so what can we do to make it attractive to them to help provide for those respectful transitions uh that that we'd like to see.

[04:43:41] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So that's sort of how I'm looking at each of these goals of take them as far as we can with R3, but acknowledging we may not do um it may not we'll take it as far as we can. We just may not be able to totally deliver.

[04:43:58] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So doesn't the state density bonus law, as was mentioned by Ms. Blazinsky, um, it could prevent a lot of this stuff from happening because you could say well I'm not going to do um the transitions because um I don't have to, that's going to be one of my waivers or concessions.

[04:44:19] City Staff: So I think one of the points um that that Dawn made uh you know that is a good point is the larger parcel size you have, I think you have a greater ability to hopefully achieve what you want with these standards as long as the standards are done correctly.

[04:44:43] City Staff: So you could potentially still have a good transition with a maybe larger setback on your side that is adjacent to your lower density. Um and if the lot size was large enough, you know, there's potential that that's maintained. Um, you know also in those situations you you typically want to transition your heights. There's um potential for us to do that in ways on I think larger lots where you would allow a decent amount of density um to still encourage those building forms, and that could potentially be done maybe with some design standards as well.

[04:45:35] City Staff: Um, but you know, the answer is yes, there's potential to ask for concessions and waivers on a lot of these standards. Um, but I think generally we're always trying to be thoughtful in how we can still allow site redevelopment um and and hopefully within the parameters of the development standards that we're creating. And I think this the prototype analysis and some of the market feasibility study we're going to do will help us will help inform that.

[04:46:07] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think the EPC had a discussion, I watched their um meeting, and I did appreciate the uh questions and discussion that they had. Um I think they took a look at where it might be likely uh where it might be feasible and likely um to increase the density that sounds like a targeted area. Um are we thinking this is one, two, three areas? Do we have any idea, have you taken a look at the map to see where um this might be possible? I think the EPC identified one.

[04:46:45] City Staff: Yeah, I, um, the EPC certainly um commented about, you know, kind of finding areas where the the preponderance of sites are are developable and and create development opportunities. Um, I think the best way to approach this if this is something that council is really interested in is bringing back a few options where maybe we we look at an option where we have uh focus on different kind of neighborhood sizes or focus on different uh numbers of neighborhoods that we might be able to focus uh um uh really work on. Um and just look at those different parameters uh with council after we've heard from you about the criteria that you want to prioritize, which is a major input I think to this this process as well.

[04:47:47] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate uh your responses to these questions.

[04:47:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, uh Councilmember Ramos.

[04:48:01] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: I am really appreciating a lot of the conversation that is happening. Um I I I'm kind of hoping that at the end of all this conversation we do have a reback on what we are actually directing staff um because it it it it like I said it makes it makes me nervous what we're actually directing and it'll be by the time we get either the minutes it's going to be too late for us to change it, we can't change our vote apparently, there's there were a lot of issues with study sessions in general and I think I I read I I I ready gotten through that a lot.

[04:48:33] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um some responses relating to I think as we're looking through this um the R3 update we're trying to see how zoning limits what we want and then how can zoning incentivize. Now if zoning limits some of these goals that we want, that those limits should be gone, those those that should be quick, that should be uh I think something we should all be able to agree on.

[04:49:01] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Now how we use zoning to incentivize the things that we want, that that probably will require a little bit more wiggle room um and and thinking through. But um my understanding with some of the uh as we mentioned before, the projects that I found like really annoying and offensive and anger-inducing were that there were zonings that limited what we were hoping to get out of those. Um so that's something that I think should be addressed quickly.

[04:49:38] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um and then there's this question about buildings lasting. Um and and it'll run the gamut. So I uh I have lived in two apartments here in Mountain View uh since I have been here. Uh the first apartment I lived in, very well maintained by the landlord, those apartments will last forever. I'm pretty sure about that. They they do a lot of their renovations and what they need to do. very quick, they're going to they're going to last forever and be relatively close to market rate um at times 'cause just because they're old doesn't guarantee that they're going to be affordable.

[04:50:17] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um and then there's the unit that I'm currently in now. That is not as um it is not held in that same standard as my previous apartment. The first apartment was in a precise plan that had R3 zoning standards, the second one is in an R3 zone. Um and those have very I have more confidence in one lasting far longer than the other. So it it will vary. And one thing when we think about buildings lasting and and we should think about how we can essentially encourage buildings lasting for a very long time, um, but I know there's several buildings that we have that are in the R3 zone that aren't even earthquake safe right now. Well, ha. So like we we will have to eventually deal with that part, but um until we deal with that part, we we have that that possibility of buildings not lasting.

[04:51:14] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: And if God forbid something does happen, we do want to make sure that whatever replaces them um is is good is is something we want and not something that we didn't think through and we're now we're kind of stuck with it.

[04:51:29] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um, and I I actually have a a a broader view in terms of community ownership um not just for acquisition, but I would love for essentially uh those those um buildings that would go under community ownership to be able to redevelop as the community ownership. CLTs don't just acquire, they can also develop. And so I do I I do think there there there could be some more expansion in that and we don't want to we don't have to limit ourself uh with that uh concern too much. There is a concern, I I get that, I get but I I think it could be more.

[04:52:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right, and um, I think we're going on the second or third round for everybody, uh, Councilmember Ramirez, so we're gonna let's sort of try and tie up this question and move on to the other ones.

[04:52:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That will be challenging. I wish you all the best. Um, I have so a couple of things that have come up that I think are are again worthy of uh consideration and response.

[04:52:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the the parcel size is a um major factor that I um I think we I would encourage us to direct staff to think a little bit more deeply about. Um, small parcels in some respects are already taken care of under SB 684. We've we've lost our ability to do anything meaningful with them because now state law already allows 30 units per acre uh with ministerial approval with a certain set of development standards.

[04:53:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I actually like what um uh Director Cameron was suggesting about perhaps leveraging that reality to think about ways to incentivize parcel aggregation, which is a more discretionary process um and may allow us to achieve different kinds of outcomes on smaller parcels. Um, but the overriding consideration is where we have more discretion right now actually is where we have larger parcels.

[04:53:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I think that will factor more heavily in how we think about sub-districts in my opinion. We can unless we want to encourage radical change in sub-districts or in sorry on small parcels, which you know, as probably the most ardent and vocal proponent of the R3 update, even I wasn't contemplating, you know, necessarily uh 10 units ministerially on a 7,000 square foot lot, um that's the that's the reality.

[04:54:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So what are ways we can encourage uh those property owners to participate in a city-led process, a conventional process that helps yield different outcomes that we might want to achieve and that could include something like exploring incentives for parcel aggregation. But SB 684 is meaningless on large parcels and actually that's where I personally I have the greatest concern because where we've lost the greatest opportunity is precisely on those large parcels. Like 1555 West Middlefield which is 5 and a half acres, it's one of the largest um R3 zoned properties and now it's largely off the table for the foreseeable future.

[04:54:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I I do want to I think that's that's where I would want to direct most of our staff's time um if we're talking about targeting targeting areas, I don't think we should forget about small uh parcels uh because the community may actually want outcomes that are different from SB 684.

Additional Content 2

[04:55:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: but but actually, I think it's I'm more concerned about the long term um uh the the future of the larger properties where we have seen tremendous develop development pressure um materialize into things that are are really not achieving the goals that that we're setting for ourselves. The other thing I want to be very careful about is I think we should be planning for something. You know, I think planning in the affirmative is is really that's that's the fun part of this. And if we're trying to plan to prevent, I think 10 times out of 10 we're going to we're not going to succeed. So for instance, I'm thinking about if you look at the um the medium density residential land use designation in the general plan which caps out at 25 units per acre um and all we're concerned about is losing our ability to enforce development standards um because we have an inclusionary housing requirement of 15%, basically what we're telling developers is our standards are worthless, use the density bonus law. Right, we're constraining them to such a point where we're encouraging them to override our regulations because our regulations really don't mean anything anymore. So I I this is why I think the stakeholder outreach will be critical. You know, what is it that the what what makes market sense? Um what are standards and and densities that actually produce affirmative outcomes rather than trying to constrain developers to the point where we're really encouraging them to just take advantage of overrides in state law? Um that that's I'm I'm very concerned about about that's not planning in my opinion um and I I don't I don't think it's going to yield outcomes that that are supported by the community. Um, I hear you, Mayor, um I at some point we're going to have to figure out a way to turn this into something coherent. Um, I I I really did like the summary that you provided um with some of the caveats provided by Director Cameron and and if that could be restated that might be a worthy thing to consider a straw poll for.

[04:56:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Alright, I'll give it a shot. Um, there was general consensus on the uh, can you put the goals up again please? Thank you. There was general consensus on the desire to um increase the use of diverse uh increase diverse unit types, um to have better design, pedestrian friendly transitions, trees landscaping, we haven't talked about neighborhood commercial much so far but nobody objected to it. We'll talk about it later. And then the state and housing element uh requirements, we are all interested in um being legal, I think that that goes without saying. Okay, um on top of that though, there is a desire that um density changes um, density should be used to get um the desire, these desired outcomes. Density shouldn't be done just for density's um sake. We would like staff to investigate density changes in targeted areas to achieve our goals. Um, we uh are interested um more at this point in the changes to the large areas than the small because of the Senate bill that is controlling um in the small areas. And we um we we would like, I think that our goal is, one of our important goals with this is to increase the supply of housing. We in R3 we have suffered with replacement or just barely replacing, and we really don't want that as a community. We want to increase the supply of housing for a whole host of reasons, the housing crisis, it gets us park space, you know lots lots of reasons. Okay. Um and and we want to uh provide or consider a series of incentives that um will be attractive to developers to um to use instead of the density bonus. So I I really would think that that would be um kind of the uh sort of the focus of the outreach with the developers in the next few months or when you get to that stage of the outreaches. What would be the things that would incentivize them to um to uh to not go with the density bonus. And um there's also a strong desire, because it moves more small lots into big lots which we can do better things with, to encourage um parcel aggregation. So those are the things I have generally heard. Um, and I'd kind of like to see nodding heads or raised hands perhaps does that generally capture what we, okay. Alright. So, Vice Mayor um Matichak.

[05:01:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Welcome back from the break everybody. I think we needed that. Um, because we are uh after 10 o'clock I need a motion to continue.

[05:01:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So moved.

[05:01:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, and a second?

[05:01:16] City Staff: It's the same item. We don't have to...

[05:01:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, all right, never mind. Sorry.

[05:01:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Only is if you're going to start a new item after 10 o'clock.

[05:01:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. We're just starting a new question. Never mind. Okay. So, so we have um spent a great deal of time on question one, and now we have question two before us. If the council includes Goal 5 to increase densities, which essentially we have done, should the city phase the project to address the housing element and state law requirements and other related tasks first, or should the city continue with the full scope of the project? Option 1 is phased. Phase 1 is mandated um uh components and the timeline is approximately 15 to 20 months. And then Phase 2 is discretionary, and it would occur after uh Phase 1, and that timeline would be um 18 to 24 months. So that would be the sum of that, so as much as 44 months. And then Option 2 uh is it combines the phases, and that timeline is approximately 20 to 28 months. So, uh it looks like um Councilmember Ramirez is going to start us off. Thank you.

[05:02:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I'm anticipating that while I think there will be different perspectives on this question, it should be easier to answer, I hope. Um, so I'll I'll share my perspective. I think we need to proceed with the combined approach um for a couple of reasons. Um one, I I'm not seeing a great deal of value add from the redundant work that would be done with the phased approach. We would essentially be, staff would come back with development standards, and then they would come back with revised development standards, and uh they might be radically different, they might be, you know, substantially similar, we don't really know at this point. Um but it's hard for me to justify. Um at a certain point, we just have to retire this project. It's been in three consecutive work plans since June 2019. I'm reluctant, we're going to have to carry it into at least one more, and I'm reluctant to carry it into the subsequent two work plans uh even beyond the three that they that this project has been in. Um on top of that, I I'm not sure, I'm sorry?

[05:03:45] City Staff: Oh, no worries.

[05:03:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I on top of that, I think we can leverage, uh as um Councilmember Hicks had has referenced, I think we could leverage substantially similar work that has been done in uh comparable communities. So Opticos has prepared um form-based codes in other jurisdictions that we we may want to borrow pretty heavily from from, we may want to uh deviate from and and modify based on our own under our own uh neighborhood contexts but uh and our own goals. But uh we're not we're not reinventing the wheel here. Uh so I think we can proceed with the combined approach fairly expeditiously. I think that the outcome will be better than if we had proceeded instead with a very narrow scope. Um I don't like spending a lot more time and and staff money, or sorry, a lot more staff time and money than we really have to. Um uh and uh I think, you know, leveraging existing work will will help streamline the process pretty considerably. Um so I'll stop there, but uh I I'm hoping we can proceed with the combined approach.

[05:04:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Uh, Vice Mayor Matichak.

[05:04:58] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Actually I had a question for staff. Given how um we responded to the first question, I'm wondering if that changes the timeline for, well like on phase two, or the combined approach.

[05:05:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, uh, I mean I guess just focusing on the the key difference between um, or the the salient factor of how the council directed in question one, um may be the the targeted areas. Um I I don't think that substantially changes the time of the process. It just kind of it it limits um the the focus.

[05:05:54] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, as I said um to the first question, I'm supportive of the phased approach. I want to make sure we meet the deadline for the housing element, and staff has said there's a pretty good chance we would miss the deadline um with the combined approach. So I'm supportive of the phased approach because I do want to meet the deadlines. Thanks.

[05:06:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Um, I am uh I guess no one else has their... Councilmember Ramos.

[05:06:33] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Um, I I feel like a lot of the, with the way the first question kind of went, it kind of changes how we do this. But I am more in favor of the combined approach. Um, and I'll just leave it at that.

[05:06:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I I would like to say that I think that um what we've said before um kind of sharpens the focus and it may make it actually um easier, it may make the process faster than it would have um if it were broader. So I would like...

[05:07:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Kimbra. Well, while we do appreciate, yeah probably best if I, while we do appreciate um the direction we received that allows us to know where we need to focus our attention and and that will help us, we are not saying that that could make it a shorter timeline to deliver. Um, you know, some of the drivers that we are dealing with in terms of timeline is one is staffing resources. Um, you know, Eric's going to be taking some time off here soon for very good reasons. Um, and we have other staffing shortages we're working to fill. So, uh you know, we're going to need time to account for that. But also a big driver here is we're going to need to do an EIR, but we can't do an EIR, start the EIR until we have our defined project. To get to our defined project, we need to do the community outreach, we need to do the analysis, the and come back to you with um different um map alternatives and the form-based zoning. So all of this takes time to put in place and it's it's still going to take that combined process at least 20 months up to 28 months. Um, really do appreciate though the direction we received earlier because at least now we can focus the work scope and and and move forward. But it's really not necessarily going to shorten the timeline here.

[05:08:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Do you think it's possible that there may be some changes that you could recommend along the way um in the guidelines, if it became obvious that there were certain things that would really assist the situation? Or does it all have to come back to us as a packet? Anyway, I guess my personal feeling is, if you identify such things, we would like, I personally would really like to hear about them sooner um if that happens.

[05:09:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Understood. I think though you may more appreciate the comprehensive approach and I mean you're asking us to um work towards achieving these desired outcomes and goals, so we really need to bring a package back to you that shows how all these things do interrelate and work together.

[05:09:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I guess the analogy I would use is, if all of the, for instance, in in um improving uh environmental resilience, everything you work on on the list is plant more trees. So if there's something that everything you come upon is like that, plant more trees, and you can just come back to us and say, we know no matter which way we go you're going to have to do this thing, then let us know. Okay? That, that's sort of helpful. Alright. Um, we can take a straw poll for who... what? We can take a straw poll for the combined versus the phase effect. Um, how many people are in favor of the combined process? One, two, three, four. And how many are in favor of the phased? Okay, two. Alright. Thank you very very much. Okay, so now we can move on to...

[05:11:03] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, I'm sorry if I may Mayor, um appreciate the direction and that's how we will pursue it. Um, I just wanted to also acknowledge that because we will not be able to meet the housing element deadlines for those particular items, what we suggest as staff is that um one, we work with our community stakeholders in terms of, you know, getting them, you know, let them know what we're working to achieve and and their general support that it will, it will take 20 to 28 months, and if need be we also just talk to HCD and and say we're, we're, you know, we're working towards not only the housing element goals but overall general delivery of of what we're trying to achieve by meeting our housing goals and we need more time. And and you know, just work towards getting agreement, approval from them to have more time.

[05:12:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor Matichak?

[05:12:11] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: I appreciate that. I guess I'm wondering um given um it seems like it's quite a bit after the deadline, I guess I'm wondering how my colleagues think that's okay to not meet the deadline? Do you think HCD is going to say that's okay?

[05:12:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have an answer. Yeah, I'm anxious to hear it. Um, so uh like I said earlier I came up with rebuttals for pretty much everything I could think of and this is one of them. And the answer I think is uh provided by HCD in response to uh a question from staff about AB 2339 implementation, so you'll recall this is allowing emergency shelters by right in El Camino. And I'll just read it verbatim. Uh, so this is provided by uh David Ying, who works for HCD: 'HCD understands that on March 26th, the Mountain View City Council voted in favor of the concept of rezoning the entire geographical area regulated under the El Camino Real Precise Plan to allow emergency shelters by right, excluding any parcels that contain confirmed historic resources. HCD finds that this action once completed would adhere to the commitment made in the in housing element implementation program 1.1f.' And then there was a follow-up question about, well, the deadline was March 2024, that rezoning will not occur until 2025. And HCD's response was, 'HCD has not identified a violation at this time. The city appears to be working in good faith to complete the rezoning.' And basically acknowledging that there, things come up, um, and it takes more time sometimes than we had anticipated. So what I, what I take from this and staff please disagree or if please let let us know if you disagree, is that HCD provides reasonable accommodations when we can provide evidence of good faith work.

[05:14:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That is an important consideration and um uh I think the key there is good faith work. And um hopefully they will view this as good faith work. It certainly seems so to me. Um let's move to question three. Question three is, does the council support or want changes made to the sub-districts framework shown in Table 4 to be used in developing alternatives that staff will bring back for EPC and Council consideration at a later date? Uh would anybody like to make comments on this? Um, I I'm wondering if um we our consultant is here, if if he there are any comments um based on the uh discussion we've had to date in this meeting, does this seem in line with, seeing you shake your head but, okay, can you come to the podium please?

[05:15:30] Public Speaker Stefan Pellegrini: Thank you Madam Mayor. Stefan Pellegrini, Principal with Opticos Design. I believe the question was around the appropriateness of the sub-districts. Um I think what I've heard tonight is an emphasis on promoting stacked flats and being open to strategies that would encourage that kind of development. Um there's also been discussion about ownership versus rental prototypes, and I think sort of looking at those through this lens, uh the the process would provide an opportunity to do that.

[05:16:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Let's see if any does anybody else have questions for um our consultant while he's here? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So I'm not seeing any um any uh people raising their hands about that. So I suppose that that means that we could have a yes no vote. So um, if you feel that uh the council does support um and want changes to be made to the subdistrict districts framework as shown in Table 4 to be used as developing the alternatives, um uh please uh raise your hand. If your answer to question three is yes, please raise your hand. Or, um, so I see four in favor. Um if you are against using these forms, please raise your hand. Vice Mayor Matichak.

[05:17:21] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah I guess um it is more complicated than that, yes for me at least. I I would prefer to know which um areas we're targeting um before deciding on something like this. Um and so I feel like I can't really um say yes or no to it right now, it's just too early. Thanks.

[05:17:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. Um I agree I was thinking the same until I see where these locations are it's hard for me to decide if these are appropriate or not. Um I also wanted to just go back, so are we saying larger parcels, was that what we decided on? That we would focus on larger R3 parcels?

[05:18:19] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: In general that was what we heard in the summary is you know since they present the greatest opportunity we would focus on larger parcels and opportunities where smaller parcels could be assembled.

[05:18:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, I I've been looking at the map and you know scanning it, it looks like the larger parcels are actually you know the large Prometheus, I forget what it's called, Madrone, these are already developed. They're not going to redevelop anytime soon is my sense. So, it'll be interesting seeing what comes back um and that'll determine what kind of densities we should be looking at. Yeah, I I just look at the map you'll see there's not a whole lot available.

[05:19:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may, even though that might be uh where we'll try to target, like you know opportunities for more targeted density increases, it doesn't mean we're not going to look at the subdistricts for everything in in R3 including the smaller parcels. The intent here was to provide a framework uh for the range of subdistricts that can be considered and using that then to create uh some maps that show uh different opportunities for um where we might want to focus um some targeted uh growth area, increased density, you know how so these again almost become puzzle pieces that um just allow us to just start placing it and just gives us the range that we would be working with.

[05:20:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. So it doesn't mean we'd necessarily just be stuck with where they were put on the map at the first time, they could be moved around afterwards, this is just to be the general puzzle pieces that you would do the investigation based on. Yeah, okay that makes sense. Um, Councilmember Hicks?

[05:20:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So two things. First you took a straw poll but then councilmember Matichak made a comment and I'm going to switch my vote to it's too early to decide. I don't know that that makes really any difference but that's what that's what I'm going to do. Um, and then also in terms of this discussion about whether we're talking about mostly large parcels, I think our next question question number four gives us the opportunity to possibly um put some other locations forward. That's it.

[05:21:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um, Councilmember Ramirez.

[05:21:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so that puts us at a deadlock 3-3. Um, so I I want to make a pitch for the the concept of of subdistricts. And in my opinion more variety is better because more variety allows for greater context sensitivity. The problem with R3 right now is, if we had the map up there, it would all be orange, right? These are colors on the map. Um and that means that all of every parcel zoned R3 has the same set of development standards. And what these do is allow us to be much more precise and refined. So R3A might be appropriate for Veranda for instance, and R3D1 might be appropriate for where I live, right, right at the corner of Del Medio in and California, across the street from San Antonio uh precise plan area. So that's why I think the the concept of subdistricts is really important. If staff doesn't have the various colors, they can't create the map. Um so that this this necessarily has to come first because it allows staff to help us understand what the context sensitivity will look like. If we said we only want two subdistricts, that means we're only going to have two sets of development standards. If we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then we have a much greater ability to respond to very particular neighborhood contexts like we've been talking about, right? California and Latham is different from Veranda and Bonita, which is different from Walker, which is different from you know Rex Manor. Um so I I it may not be these five, but I think at the very least we need to help staff, we need to give staff some direction on how many different kinds of contexts do we want them to think about, and in my opinion more is better and five seems like a good number to start with.

[05:23:33] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, you were starting to talk and the mic wasn't on, but um I I can go now. I guess if we're at a deadlock, what what is a compromise that we are looking at so that we can actually give direction to staff on this? I don't...

Additional Content 3

[05:41:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, I think the conclusion from the, the discussion around question one is that many of those goals could be achieved by focusing on larger parcels. Um, and so that is, uh, um, I think on the left, that would be number seven, um, or number eight. Um, looking at the criteria as a means towards an end, right, the various ends being things like being able to achieve open space, being able to achieve transitions, being able to achieve community benefits and other leverage, uh, that the, the city may want to have over development.

[05:42:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: See open space on the list. So I, I would say... No. I would say open space needs to be added.

[05:42:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Are you saying you want to locate, uh, as a criterion, uh, density close to existing open space, or are you saying you want to have as a criterion areas that can, um, support the creation of new open spaces?

[05:42:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The latter. So for, if you could go higher, and that would mean, you know, you would have more open space around the, uh, the property, that's what I, I'm interested in. I'm interested in both. Yeah. Park space is, is definitely better. But open space is good. So, so that, that would be my opinion. Okay. Uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[05:43:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So in addition to the things we talked about, I think the ones that are, um, here it's listed as three and four, access to commercial areas and access to employment areas. I'm, I would say to me adjacent to those, often there's opportunity for more targeted density, I think, near commercial areas and near employment areas. So that's, and also along wider streets, I think, for, which is number five, along major corridors, which is kind of what we're doing along El Camino Real.

[05:44:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, uh, I mean earlier, uh, when that was described to us, it was described as within a certain walk or transportation, but I'm thinking like, you know, I'm thinking like right adjacent to, um, the San Antonio, I'm not looking at the maps, so this may not even be our R3, but like adjacent to the San Antonio Center is a place that... well, for instance, uh, Councilmember Ramirez, the, your neighborhood, which you said is, we'll just upzone your neighborhood. So, and then you won't be able to come to the meeting and talk about it. Um, so, yeah, those are the kinds of areas that I see as having possibility.

[05:44:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Any other suggestions? Uh, what about criteria for commercial? My feeling, um, we had several, uh, this was mentioned in several of the letters that we received, and um, a couple of group, people said just allow it everywhere. Um, and so I wondered, um, I wondered about that idea. What do people think about, I mean, anybody have comments about allowing it everywhere? Councilmember Hicks.

[05:45:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, one, when you try to make neighborhoods walkable and when you try to make commercial successful, often what you're looking for is a string of them so that, because that's what, when you cluster them, that's what makes, you know, you, that's generally one of the big things that make, you know, there's a restaurant district or a commercial district, and you walk to one, you're going to one restaurant, but you walk by a bunch of other stores or restaurants and say, maybe when we come back here we should go there. So, and the, the front window, when you walk along a walkable retail or restaurant street, you feel like you should be looking in the window. Whereas when I, if there is housing with windows right at the street, and I'm walking along it, I feel like I should not be looking in the window. It's somebody's private residence. So generally I think, I think is, I mean certainly you can allow home occupations anywhere, you know, somebody can be, I, I don't know, doing some, helping with your taxes or whatever, and you don't even know that they're in that house, could be in a single family neighborhood. You don't even know they're there unless you've phoned them up and arranged to go, you know, you're doing yoga in somebody's house or something like that. But I think there's a design, there's a physical form that you're trying to get often that's super important. And, um, and that's where it's, it's publicly accessible and welcoming and the building signals to you, and this is often, the building signals to you that you're welcome inside, that you should be looking in the window, that you should be walking down this street. Um, you know, that's what Castro Street does. And that's what, for instance, we haven't done successfully on San Antonio because we didn't face any of the windows for the commercial onto San Antonio. We built a blank wall, which doesn't invite you in. Um, so I think to some, I think we should be aware of whether, whether we're making walkable, and that's also something that, um, people in Livable Mountain View have called out and rightly so, that when along Castro Street we have a bunch of windows that face it and then suddenly we have something that doesn't, um, you know, like a, a, a cafe for the, in my neighborhood, and my neighbors complain about it all the time, a cafe that's only open to the people who work on the floors above. Then people stop walking there. They say, oh, I guess this commercial district is done. And they don't go inside or they don't keep walking down the street and find out that down the street is, are more restaurants and commercial. There's Amici's, it's not doing too well because nobody walks down there. Because it, everything stops after a certain point. So I think we want to be a little aware of making, you know, there are many ways of doing that. And, um, the place that I sometimes reference, my son went to University of Wisconsin, Madison, and they have this historic like, miles of single family homes with storefront windows on the front, with things going on inside and you're just walking and you're like, I wonder what's next? But it's because these are people's homes, but they historically, people were doing stuff in it. There's a chocolatier, there's a yoga studio, there's, you know, uh, somebody teaching music. So anyway, what I'm saying is it's good to locate them together in a string and give a physical, I mean, this is often the ground, this is why the there's often in design criteria is that the ground floor should be relating to the people who are walking by it. And putting up commercial, I mean, you can put commercial up on the top, but it's not, it's not giving you a walkable street in the same way. Okay. All right. Uh, Councilmember Ramirez.

[05:49:30] Councilmember Emily Ann Ramos: I'm thinking about how for commercial, I, I remember how it's actually really hard to get ground level commercial. Um, as long as we don't like mess it up and fake it with like office that commercial that's actually office space, I think that's what you were alluding to how there was like a ground floor cafe. Yeah, we, we don't want that. Um, but um, the kind of commercial that we do want is, is essentially like that neighborhood serving commercial. But that's actually, I, I worry that there are financial feasibility issues on that. So as we're looking at the criteria for allowing it, I'm open to allowing it, uh, very broadly because I think it's going to take more than just allowing the commercial in order to get that commercial. I don't, I don't know if that's gonna make, if that makes sense.

[05:50:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll try and marry the two. I, I agree with, um, and support, uh, what Councilmember Hicks was suggesting very strongly. I think you're, we're creating, uh, ecosystems where, where, uh, these kinds of neighborhood supporting commercial uses can, can thrive. And part of it is you're creating destination points that are visible and attractive and inviting. Um, at the same time, I don't necessarily want to preclude the possibility of something like the little Mariposa market, which I grew up near. So I think very fondly of, and, and kind of marvel that it's still there after all of these years. Um, when we were first discussing R3, that's what I had in mind, like not prohibiting that kind of use, which is, uh, extremely valuable for the immediate neighborhood. We would go there all the time when I was a kid. Um, but I hear what you're saying, Councilmember Ramos, and I also want to empower staff to come back with, uh, recommendations for not near, I mean, allowing or not prohibiting is a starting point, but how do we help, uh, encourage and develop a, a, a vibrant neighborhood serving, uh, uh, commercial, uh, uh, ecosystem in these areas where we haven't really had commercial uses historically. Uh, and I'm not clever or smart enough to discern what that is, but I, I, I would like to make sure that that remains a, a, a key focus of the work.

[05:52:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll just say one more thing that I should have maybe said earlier, but, um, one of the tools that we have to create walkable streets and yet not do what Councilmember Ramos was, uh, warning us about, mandating, you know, if we see a street that we don't know if it's viable for commercial or restaurants or whatever, um, is to do live-work, which is basically what I was talking about in Madison. This would be a housing unit that you can, you can live in and you can work out of the front and there's some physical signal, like an a window display, a physical signal that this is more than just a house. Um, so that's one tool that we can use in some places if we think commercial might develop, but we don't want to mandate it probably not everywhere, but one tool.

[05:53:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I know that live-work was mentioned in the staff report a couple of places, I think. But it isn't on this list. So would we want to add that to the list? Yeah, maybe it's like you're places that would create opportunity for parks, cra- places that would create opportunity for pos- for live-work. All right. So, um, everybody's had a round, I mean we've had an opportunity for a round and, um, uh, so I think that, uh, we, the general consensus is that these two lists are okay and we have added, um, uh, opportunity to create parks to criteria for increased density and we have added, um, live-work to opportunity to create live-work for criteria for commercial. Yes, and it was suggested that we, uh, change, um, three and four instead of being access to commercial areas, adjacent to commercial areas, and adjacent to employment areas. So, um, with that I think it's time for a straw vote. Does everyone who wants to vote yes for these changed, um, slightly changed lists, please uh, signify by raising your hand. So that's unanimous. We did it! All right. So, I think that that brings us to the end of this study session. And you know we always have to ask the question of did staff get what you need?

[05:54:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes we did. Thank you.

[05:54:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's wonderful. And, um, I would also just like to say this has really been complicated. And, um, I know that all many of us have been working for weeks on it. I guess staff has been working for months or years on this off and on, but we have been working for weeks on this. And and the EPC worked very hard on it several weeks ago. And this is very much a brain teaser. I mean a challenge, this was really challenging intellectually. So I'd just like to thank everybody for, um, really jumping in with both feet to analyze the information that was shared with us and to think about it and also to the, um, the commenters that we had both in writing and in, um, uh, in, in person here today for going to all that trouble. And, um, I think that this is really important because we have identified in our community a problem. And that's that, um, we're having developments occur that don't provide additional housing. And that really is what the community wants. So, just thank you for that. Okay, with that we can move on to the next item, and next item which I think is... Oh, all right. Now we have to have a vote to go to the next item. Um, I have a motion. Okay, I have a motion and a second. Can we have a vote, please?

[05:56:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. Um, there's always one. Okay, that passed, five to one. And um, so now we'll go on to item seven. Uh, City Attorney, do we have a report?

[05:57:09] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No close... Sorry, no close session report this evening.

[05:57:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Alright and then I think that brings us to, um, uh, committee and uh, committee reports. Council committee reports and information sharing. Uh, Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[05:57:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. Um, I've spend been spending the last couple of weeks quite a bit on transportation issues. Uh, one, I'll mention, uh, thank you to staff, uh, for helping to organize the Whisman station light rail noise, uh, community meeting. I think it was last Thursday, uh, with VTA staff to address the many concerns from the community. Um, it was a a bit challenging meeting at times, but I think in the end, uh, I thought it was positive and that I think the community had the opportunity to voice their concerns and I saw a lot of, folks saying thank you to staff and VTA staff, so I think it was positive. And we have some, um, follow up items. Uh, one is that we, uh, the, VTA is committed to another meeting in about a month to, um, to do an update on some of the, um, item, uh, suggestions on how to make some improvements. So, uh, I, and I thanked VTA staff at our board meeting last Thursday for, um, they had seven staff people there, so they took this seriously and I think, uh, and our staff did of course, and Dawn did an amazing job facilitating. So, just thank you all around on that. Um, you all may have been reading in the paper or hearing on the news, uh, well one, we're doing our regional housing bond measure. We have a meeting tomorrow and I'm not sure if we're voting on the final language, but that's moving along. But, um, we're also, uh, there's also been discussion starting about a regional transportation measure in 2026. Um, there's uh, enabling state legislation that's being, uh, that's been proposed, uh, by Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Aisha Wahab. Um, it's really was supposed to be to help with the fiscal cliff that some of our transit agencies are going to be approaching in the next two years. Um, but uh, Senator Wiener proposed a legislation to address that, but uh, Senator Wahab had proposed a bill about consolidating all 27 agency, transit agencies into one, which is really quite a heavy lift. Um, and that, those two bills have been combined. So, uh, I, I'm now on the Caltrain board and we discussed it there, and the board took an oppose unless amended position. And then VTA that evening met and I don't have a vote there, but the board unanimously voted to oppose unless amend this, um, as well. And, um, MTC will be bringing it up on Friday in their legislation committee. And MTC is a co- or sponsor of the bill. So, um, we'll see what they decide to do. But the, the big issue for our count is that we're a self-help county and we already have four sales tax measures in place. And, um, this regional measure, if it were to move forward, the amount that they are proposing would not be enough to replace any of those four existing measures which will expire within the next 30 years. So, um, even with amendments, I actually don't think it's going to be enough for, um, our county to be able to support, um, and, and that's going to be a challenge if they want to make this a regional measure. So, um, lots of issues, lots of things to be, um, to talk about, but, um, that's where a couple of our agencies have landed. Um, so yeah. If you have any questions, happy to answer offline. Thank you.

[05:58:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Vice, um, Mayor Matichak.

[05:58:48] Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just two things. Um, on March 28th, we had a meeting of the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission that I participated in. And we finalized the update to the San Jose Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Um, and we also finalized the work plan for the coming year. And on March 28th, there was a meeting that I participated in of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority. And we approved the budget for the coming year. And given the pressure that a lot of cities are facing in terms of their budgets, um, including Mountain View, um, SVRIA is keeping the cost similar to last year. So actually Mountain View's contribution is flat versus last fiscal year. Thanks.

[05:59:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Ordinarily I don't have anything to report, but um, this is for the regional body I serve on, um, this is probably an important thing to elevate to my colleagues. Uh, I serve, uh, on the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority board, um, and there is a discussion about including Los Gatos. Uh, so adding them to the JPA, uh, which has, uh, major implications for this small organization, and I understand that I believe this will have to go to each of the city councils in addition to that board. So I, I, uh, I'll, you know, leave it to staff to explain, uh, the implications for the City of Mountain View, but I we should anticipate, um, that question going before this body I think relatively soon. I don't know if, um, well, it sounds like maybe it hasn't been elevated to staff, but um, the Los Gatos is interested in joining fairly expeditiously, so um, at some point we'll, we'll discuss that.

[06:00:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Very good. Well, um, with that, I will adjourn the meeting, um, until April 23rd, 2024. Thank you very much for your attention tonight.

[01:37:31] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: to explore all of these options I I think we're going to have public comment and there might be some other um suggestions there too. So um I appreciate bringing that to to to the committee in June sounds like a reasonable timeline. Um I'm kind of inclined to actually hold on this until June but um I'll see what my colleagues have to say. Thank you very much.

[01:37:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[01:38:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Uh I have mostly a process level question especially after we got some wonderful ideas on on what will be coming forth. Um so the the set motion that we have here is the um on the consent calendar item is the the pause of the our ordinances um but the the options of that um Assistant City Manager Community Development Don um we'll just go with Don uh was giving us do we need to vote on that to move that forward um I I had plans to to touch on the federal and state legislative platform because my understanding is that that's where the core of the fix is. Um do we need to make a motion here in addition to the motion that was on the consent calendar or is that um or is there another mechanism on that.

[01:38:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I want to thank Councilmember Abe-Koga for pulling this one. Um and I do look forward to um I want to let make sure people know it's a suspension and that we're as Ms. Cameron uh described we're looking into ways to um to continue to electrify and eliminate gas. Um and I look forward to looking over various options that Ms. Cameron's described and also that members of the public may describe. Um at the same time I would like to say I I'm hoping in the interim that uh staff is still urging applicants to um to go electric even though it's not required. I know when I worked in planning there were there were guidelines that I couldn't force anyone to follow and there were other standards that they had to follow. And I just think that it's important to continue to tell people you know whatever way you describe it you know the the gas is kind of the horse and the electric is the car or maybe the electric is the mass transit whatever or or the gas is the typewriter and the elect you know it's going away and I I feel bad for people that I didn't say that to you know five years ago who didn't you know got a gas stove and now wish they had an electric stove which I have. So I think it's important to just tell people that to still encourage them even though it's not required. And my understanding is that um you know larger developers not single family home developers are it's cheaper to not do gas anyway so it's pretty easy to encourage them as my understanding. And then the last thing I want to say is the other big reason that I want my house to go all electric is earthquake safety that you don't have to worry about you know explosions and fires and so forth. And for some reason that one is never brought up or not very much. Um so now I I look forward to hearing what the public has to say.

[01:41:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so let's open the public comment on this item. I see uh Nicholas Hargis and Bruce Carney um have put their names in. Oh please come forward and you'll have three minutes.

[01:41:36] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Mr. Hargis, welcome.

[01:41:38] Public Speaker Nicholas Hargis: Good evening council. My name is Nicholas, I live on California Street. While I think that it's unfortunate that a federal court prohibits a policy that is so important to Mountain View and to so many other cities across the country, I think that it's important that we not lose sight of all that we've accomplished in the last five years. We've prevented the emission of thousands of pounds of greenhouse gas emissions uh with our reach codes. That's amazing. In fact, I think that it's so amazing that our sustainability team should estimate exactly how much greenhouse gas emissions we've saved from entering the atmosphere when staff comes back with a report to the Council Sustainability Committee. Today during this item we have a a juncture. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we're facing a setback or the death knell of electrification. And I think that it's clear that staff has identified this as a setback but not the end of electrification. A couple of priorities that I look for in staff's report back to council are the incentivization of uh building above code. If an outright ban isn't going to work then we need to somehow make it easier to build better. And when it comes to sticks I think that we should look at uh several things that were mentioned including Silicon Valley Clean Energy's model uh zero NOX emission codes and their single reach codes. I also think that there should be some sort of noticing requirement like Councilmember Hicks mentioned uh informing potential property owners and tenants about the health effects and the natural effects of uh the use of natural gas. And uh I believe that we should implement this with all due speed. As a reminder, you all know that the Housing Element Goal 6 sets out for the council to uh incentivize and assist going green in building and so this is the perfect opportunity for us to accomplish one of our Housing Element goals and stay on track with our climate goals. Thank you.

[01:44:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[01:44:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Bruce Carney. Welcome Bruce.

[01:47:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[01:47:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um Hala Alshawani?

[01:47:36] Public Speaker Hala Alshawani: Yes thank you Hala Alshawani Mountain View resident. Good evening everyone. Um thank you so much uh Councilmember uh Margaret Abe-Koga and the council members that are supporting uh taking this out of the consent so that we the public give you some input on this I think it's a really important topic. We worked for years on uh coming up with resolutions and recommendations for uh reducing greenhouse gas emissions uh through the task force in 2017 18 and and after that and before that. Um in fact I think it was Margaret that suggested that we put the exemption for the restaurants in the reach code so that you know if this kind of lawsuit comes up that we would be prepared for that but unfortunately it sounds like even with that we we could be uh liable for uh not following the the the state law. Um please uh delay this decision until like uh some of the colleagues and uh some folks said until the Sustainability Committee can meet so that these suggestions that uh came from Miss Dawn can be you know put in a timeline realistic timeline so that we have actually replacements or some alternatives to you know banning the uh taking out the electric code altogether. I would like to also add looking at the other cities and what they've done my understanding is San Francisco is standing firm on this saying they already allow the restaurants to have their gas stoves and they care about the health and well-being of their residents so they're not backing down. Um Foster City had some other suggestions so I I would like to add that to what staff maybe can do for for us look at what other uh councils and and cities have done. And finally please give incentives to people who are doing all electric. I've gone through two homes now I've electrified two houses in Mountain View. It's still a very long and painful process getting the you know the permits the all the paperwork. Um it is very expensive. There are some incentives by Silicon Valley Clean Energy and some other entities but additional incentives from Mountain View making the process easier you know any way they can support that please do that and and put that on the list. It's very important people like to save money and doing the right thing and saving money is a great combination. So I I urge you to do that. Thank you so much.

[01:50:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[01:52:27] Public Speaker Bruce England: I am. It's the unmute thing just came on so there was a delay. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. This is really quick. I just want to support um what's been said so far. Understanding the reasons why um these changes need to be made, however encouraging staff to do what they've already said they would do to look for creative ways to work around this and um and still get to the goals that we we want to get to. So I'm I'm feeling hopeful and I'm interested in hearing what others have to say as well. Thank you.

[01:55:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And I think that brings us to the end of our public comment for this. So I'm gonna close the public comment period.

[01:55:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um I have a question for uh staff. Um one is uh what happens if we don't suspend this? I mean we can't enforce it at the moment because of the um of the the the court decision right? So what happens if we don't suspend it?

[01:56:10] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you for the question uh City Attorney Jennifer Logue. If you don't suspend it the ordinance will remain in full force and effect and staff would be required to to enforce. I reviewed the code again today the code provisions again today and unfortunately they do not provide staff with discretion to provide exceptions. There are some cities that where their code their reach codes did actually provide staff to provide exceptions and therefore they were able to do that more easily without suspension of their their code provisions. But ours does not. There is only one exception identified and that's for restaurants and it's just an an exception that is provided upon a showing of the need for a a gas stove as opposed to electric. So they if you don't suspend they will remain in full force and effect and staff would be required to enforce.

[01:58:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Um thank you. Well I I also would just like to say I I really appreciate everyone coming and talking about this and bringing forth ideas. I um this is something that um I was very proud of the City of Mountain View passing and I think that as has been mentioned it's done a great deal of good. And um uh it uh it seems like it's been very well um accepted uh for most construction with the exception of remodels. And that's where I've heard you know some um uh upset in our community about it. But in terms of new construction it is less expensive and a better product so people um are happy to do it. So um I I wanted to mention that and I also wanted to mention that I think that the education um aspect of this is really vital. When you are working to remodel your house or build a new building and you come to the city, the city is um an considered an expert. And people want um they want expertise they want real um good information. So you know um it's very appropriate for the city to be supplying information about what are the impacts of various actions such as putting in gas appliances. And we would be um really remiss if we didn't continue to um educate people about uh better ways to do to do whatever they plan to be doing particularly electrification. Okay with that uh uh I see that uh Councilmember Ramos has her um has to speak.

[02:01:32] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So that's that is our proposal and which suggests that that's the time certain is us bringing this report to Sustainability Committee by June.

[02:01:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. Um and then uh one of the things uh that um that were given in the ideas um was the updating the state and and ledge platform which I don't think needs to go to the sustainability committee I think that could go straight to someone to bring back to us or add in uh that could be pulled out correct?

[02:02:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, Councilmember, if Council directs that be included in the ledge platform we would just include it in our legislative platform our priority list.

[02:02:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Wonderful. I see um that's the questions I have. I see we have a motion on the floor. I don't know if you want to add all that to the motions along with what we have to do with our motion.

[02:02:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes um you what is the motion that you're um moving Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[02:02:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. It was actually trying to um write it write one out um I started I'm not quite done yet but um I'll just um start it off and see if I can get some help. Um my motion was going to be to refer this item to the um Council Sustainability Committee to develop alternative requirements or modifications to the electric reach codes um to comply with the legal decision on the city of Berkeley's challenge and defer this item until the alternatives are um drafted and will be brought to the council at the same time.

[02:03:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um uh Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:03:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Um so I'm I'm I'm very sympathetic with uh the requests that we've heard from the community and and would like to continue to work on uh viable alternatives. I'm also very um heeding uh the the guidance and concern from the city attorney about uh allowing provisions of the code that are preempted by federal law to remain in place understanding that our staff are obligated to enforce it. Um I'm I'm I want to ask a question though because we we had a similar conversation not that long ago about um AB 101 which uh requires low barrier navigation centers to be permitted by right uh in uh non-residential zones allowing sorry non-residential zones allowing residential uses and then uh mixed use zones. And staff at that time said that we don't need to update our code because state law clearly overrides uh our local land use regulations. And so our code is clearly in conflict with state law but staff have shared that we will be implementing state law anyway. So I want to understand what is the difference? Why in one case, you know, does state law clearly prevail and we don't need to modify our code, but in this case a resolution to suspend enforcement is necessary.

[02:04:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Our city attorney may want to weigh in on this but I'll just start by saying that the example you provided is a state law and it clearly supersedes any local codes and has to be taken to considerations. What we're hearing about today was a federal court case. It's not the same as a federal law and this is where I'd like to invite the city attorney to talk about um the difference between a federal court case and how it relates to us being able to enforce our codes.

[02:05:12] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Miss Cameron. So I'm gonna take this first and then if our city attorney wants to weigh in. So I just want to make sure that council understands what's happening now and what the implications are with this item. We currently have applicants coming in on a daily certainly weekly basis asking us about the all electric requirement. The folks that are coming in know about the Ninth Circuit court ruling. They are saying to our staff you cannot require me to only have all electric. I know about this court case and they're basically saying this is this is not right. So should the city not move forward with at least suspending that piece of it I think we should expect reasonably that we will have applicants come in and if our staff have to enforce this and our staff say that you must comply with the current code and applicants know that the current code is um illegal that the city could potentially face claims. So I just want to make sure that everyone understands that and yes other cities have done things differently but other cities have set up their reach codes in a different way than we have. So I just want to make sure that you're all aware of that. And I don't know if our city attorney has anything more to add.

[02:07:11] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I don't have anything to add unless you do want clarification on the difference between um Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and and state law. There there isn't that much of a difference. It's just the difference between case law and statutory law um both of which are binding on the city um in in different ways. So I I think this federal court decision is no less binding than than a statute.

[02:07:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I I agree with you I I I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation for that very reason. I'm still confused about why in the one case the preemption means that we don't have to modify our code and then in the other case it means that we do. Um but I'm no legal expert so I'll be supporting the staff recommendation.

[02:08:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Vice Mayor uh Oh. Margaret are you do you want to get back in the queue I wasn't sure.

[02:08:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes sorry I I should have explained um a little bit more why I made the motion the way I did. My question frankly is why is this coming up today. My understanding is that the court ruled on January 2nd or denied the rehearing. Um so it's been three months. I guess that's what I'm questioning if I don't think we need to do this today. I think we have some time and I would like to have it I've sent this to sustainability but frankly when I asked about this because I was aware of the um aware of this with my work on the air district I had asked if we were going to look at alternatives. And I believe the answer was yes. So that's why I was surprised to see this on the agenda with just a suspension. And so that's what I'm I am trying to ask for is to a a little bit more time for the Sustainability Committee um to discuss it and for staff to work on alternatives and bring that back with the suspension. I just I don't I guess I question the need or the yeah the necessity or of doing this today versus I mean it could be two weeks from now. But um that's what I'm asking for is that extra time for us to be able to to work on this a little further which again I had expected staff was doing. And I was surprised that it hadn't happened. I got an email from Clean Energy um staff on the 26th saying that they do have these um alternative model ordinances on energy performance and um air quality. And I sent that to staff. So I guess I was expecting all of that to come together and the fact that it hasn't is what frankly I'm most disappointed about and so I'm just asking to have more time to work on all that and I understand we probably need to suspend it. Um I just would like to do that with alternatives at the same time. Thank you.

[02:55:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Community Development Director Amber Blizinski, who will present the item. Thank you and welcome.

[02:56:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you so much.

[02:56:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Thank you, Mayor Showalter, City Council. My name is Eric Anderson. I'm joined by Amber Blizinski, the Assistant Community Development Director. And this is, as you said, a study session regarding the R3 Zoning District Update.

[02:56:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The R3 zoning district is the primary district in the city for apartments, condominiums, and rowhomes. It covers approximately 15% of the city's area and includes about half the city's dwelling units. It also covers nearly every rent-stabilized unit in the city.

[02:56:54] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The area of the district is currently made up of about half apartments, 37% rowhomes and condominiums, and about 9% single-family homes and duplexes. The remainder are made up of churches, parks, childcare, some commercial uses, and a few vacant properties.

[02:57:50] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This project started back in 2020. Since then, it has gone through several rounds of outreach and study sessions, with the last study session in 2021. In addition, the project has been put on hold several times to address other city priorities, such as the displacement response strategy and the housing element.

[02:58:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The displacement response strategy is a related project led by the housing department, because rent-stabilized units are a key focus of the strategy, and the R3 district contains the majority of rent-stabilized units. Council, back in October, directed staff to prepare a replacement ordinance that would go into effect when SB 330 sunsets.

[02:58:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This slide is a reminder of the obligations that the city must consider with this project. Housing element programs include prototype analyses, updating definitions, lowering development costs through the reduction of standards, addressing state laws, allowing for live-work units, and incorporating some R2 areas. Relevant state laws include the state density bonus, which is frequently updated; SB 478, which sets limits on the city's floor area ratio standards for smaller projects; SB 684, which creates a ministerial pathway for projects on small sites starting in July; and of course, SB 330, which includes a replacement requirement for rent-stabilized units and a prohibition on downzoning through 2030.

[02:59:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: One more comment on the state density bonus. Most projects that use it will be eligible for waivers and concessions of development standards that the city has little control over. Therefore, the R3 project cannot realistically anticipate everything that can be built, even if densities are not increased.

[03:00:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Since this project has not had EPC or Council input since 2021, and staff has conducted extensive outreach since then, staff is seeking direction on the draft project goals, which are based on public input during outreach as well as Council direction from previous study sessions. The first draft goal concerns opportunities for more diverse unit types. The second articulates key features of the community's designed vision. The third reflects the community support for neighborhood-serving uses. The fourth reflects the city's statutory requirements.

[03:01:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The last goal is about growth, and it has the most significant consequences on how the project is carried out and the remaining questions in this study session. As a reminder, the decision on how much to, or whether to increase densities is under Council discretion and is not required in the housing element except for some R2 areas.

[03:01:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Some considerations for increasing allowed densities include that increasing densities may also create more opportunities to support other R3 goals, such as increasing the diversity of unit types or supporting more commercial customers. Also, there was disagreement in the community regarding the amount of growth this project should include. For context, staff estimates that the current capacity of the R3 zone is a net increase of about 1,000 to 2,000 units.

[03:03:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: There are several ways to think about increased densities in R3. Under a moderate or high growth scenario, the city could increase densities in some or all areas without decreasing densities anywhere. Under a low growth scenario, the city would target density increases to fewer areas than the moderate or high growth scenario, and may reduce densities in some areas based on the density criteria, but could still result in an overall increase in development capacity. Or the council could choose not to increase densities anywhere. In that case, the existing general plan will be our guide for densities.

[03:04:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The first question for discussion is about the five goals and receiving specific direction on Goal 5, including the growth options to study. The EPC supported the first four goals, but rejected the last one by a vote of 4 to 2, with one abstention. Most of the commissioners who recommended against this goal were not necessarily against additional density. They mostly felt like there are better ways to increase density than by wholesale updates to the zone.

[03:04:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The second part of this study session is about project phasing and is relevant if the council supports Goal 5. One option would be to take a phased approach to the project, addressing the mandated items such as the housing element programs first. The city would then start on the discretionary items, the density increases, and the required environmental review. Phase two would have to include any growth option, including low growth. The total time for both phases would be about 33 to 44 months.

[03:05:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Another option is a combined approach, where density increases and required elements are done in the same process. This may reduce some duplicated efforts, but we would not be able to meet the deadline for the housing element requirements. This timeline is estimated at 20 to 28 months.

[03:06:18] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Here are the benefits of each. The phased approach allows the city to complete the housing element and state requirements more quickly. The growth-related changes can be conducted more slowly and intentionally, with more analysis and outreach if necessary. In addition, there may be some density changes associated with implementing the replacement requirements, and this would allow these processes to happen concurrently. The combined approach may reduce duplicated efforts and could result in lower overall costs and a shorter timeline to increasing densities. But it would not meet the housing element deadline. The EPC recommended the phased approach if the council does support some version of Goal 5.

[03:07:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The second question is to receive direction on whether to phase the project or to go with the combined approach.

[03:07:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The third question in the report is about the framework for R3 subdistricts. For context, here are the existing general plan designations that are in the range of current R3 zones. The medium density residential general plan designation covers about 70% of the existing R3 zone. And the medium high density residential general plan designation covers about 28% of the existing R3 zone. Most of the remaining 2% are high density.

[03:08:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff has proposed a five subdistrict framework. Once Council provides feedback on the growth and density assumptions, the project will continue developing a form-based code for this R3 district. This code will be based on building types that are illustrated in the Council packet, Attachment 5. Each of the proposed subdistricts is associated with an approximate density range. These are tentative and subject to change. These density ranges are also equivalent to an existing general plan designation. This helps provide a framework for decision-makers to understand what could result if no density increases are proposed.

[03:09:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These are potential images of the R3-A zone, including neighborhood multiplexes and neighborhood townhomes. Buildings in this subdistrict would be two to two and a half stories, and about 15 to 25 units per acre. This zone could be appropriate for increasing densities in some R2 areas, as required by the housing element. It, however, may be a reduction in allowed densities relative to the current R3 zone. So it should only be used in existing R3 areas if there are density increases in other areas.

[03:10:06] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These are potential images of the R3-B zone, which would be roughly equivalent to the medium density residential general plan designation. It includes building types such as neighborhood townhouse, neighborhood courtyard, as well as smaller core multiplexes. Buildings in this subdistrict would be three to three and a half stories, and about 25 to 35 units per acre.

[03:11:09] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These are potential images in the R3-C zone, which would be roughly equivalent to the existing medium high density residential general plan designation. It would include building types such as core townhouse, core multiplex, and core courtyard. Buildings in this subdistrict would be three to three and a half stories, and about 35 to 50 units per acre.

[03:11:33] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And these are potential images in the R3-D1 zone, which would allow block-scale buildings up to four stories, and about 50 to 75 units per acre. It is roughly equivalent to the existing high-low density general plan designation, and it would include building types such as the core courtyard and mid-rise.

[03:12:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: These are potential images in the R3-D2 zone, which would allow block-scale buildings up to six stories, and about 75 to 110 units per acre. It's roughly equivalent to the existing high density general plan designation, and it would include building types such as core courtyard and mid-rise.

[03:13:28] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The third question in the staff report is seeking comments about all five potential subdistricts and if the council supports the subdistricts framework. While the majority of EPC did not support Goal 5, they did express support for the subdistricts framework, and they also recommended that the council, if the council wants to include R3-D2, it should replace R4.

[03:15:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And these are potential criteria for where to locate commercial uses. The EPC did not have any comments about these criteria. The final question is to ask if Council wants to add or eliminate any of the criteria listed.

[03:16:16] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The following are upcoming tasks for the project. Based on housing element requirements, the city will update the R3 prototype and feasibility analysis, prepare R2 sites analysis for Council direction, and begin developing form-based code, which will include a pattern book of architectural forms. In addition, the project team will prepare alternatives for the distribution of densities and commercial based on Council direction at this meeting. Once the project description is defined, our environmental review can start.

[03:16:49] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: In conclusion, these next few slides include summaries of the questions before Council. Here's a summary of Question 1, and a summary of Question 2. And Question 3. Question 4.

[03:17:43] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: This concludes our presentation. We're happy to answer any questions you might have. Also available for questions is the project consultant Stefan Pellegrini, the principal with Opticos. Thank you so much.

[03:17:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will have public comments first. And, um, we're going to start with two minutes for everyone. Um, uh, if you would like to speak, please come forward. I, I, I have some speakers listed. Albert Jeans is first.

[03:18:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Welcome back.

[03:18:25] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: Hi. I have a couple of slides here, I think.

[03:19:15] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: Okay, yeah, we can just go to the second slide. I'd just like to lobby for not increasing the density wholesale in the R3 district. Um, the reason is, well, this is sort of the poster child I put up here. This is Shoreline Gateway, 101 North Shoreline. Where the original developer, Calvano, bought a bunch of lots there, consolidated them, I think he paid about $40 million for about nine lots, put a building on it, and promptly sold it. But he sold it for $170 million to Sares Regis I guess. And so he walked off with a $100 million profit, and now we're stuck with higher property values. And which you know, say, oh what's wrong with that? Well, next slide please.

[03:20:01] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: We have a, you know, real shortage of park space, especially north of El Camino and even more north of Central Expressway. This gives the park area ratios where I have included the city-owned parklands. And instead of the sort of nominal three acres per thousand people, you know, we're down to like in Sterling Estates, you know, we're down to 0.4 acres per thousand people. You know, about a tenth of what the goal is. Next slide please.

[03:21:12] Public Speaker Albert Jeans: And so if you overlay that on the R3 district, next slide please, you'll see that, you know, where a lot of the R3s are is where there's a real shortage of park space. So if you upzone, land gets more expensive and it'll be even more harder, harder to get the necessary park space that we would like to get. So I think rezoning, I mean, increasing density should occur either in precise plans or the general plan...

[05:23:56] Councilmember Emily Ramos: deadlock, what what is a compromise that we are looking at so that we can actually give direction to staff on this? I don't...

[05:24:04] City Staff: I don't know if we have a compromise we can present. It is very similar to what Councilmember Ramirez said and what I was trying to say, which is the location of where they will go, you will see as the next step in the process, um, because staff will, with your next question dealing with criteria plus the outcomes you and goals that you told us about, we, if there are five subdistricts, which are a range of, you know, building sizes and forms and density, um, then those are the five that we would work with to place on maps that, based upon criteria and the outcomes, and there could be two or three different scenarios of what these look like. And bring those back to council, and get direction. And at that time if you feel they're not in the right location or you're not comfortable with R3D2 in, in, because of its size or something, that's when you could let us know that. But we need a place to start. And we're suggesting that these five subdistricts would be what we would start with to try to come up with some proposed maps for you to look at.

[05:25:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll change my vote back.

[05:25:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Let's move on to the next question. (laughs) Um. That is question four. Does a council wish to add or eliminate any criteria for where to locate higher densities or commercial uses? Um, and uh, there are, there's two columns here. Um, one is criteria for increased density. We talked about that quite a bit, um, with, uh, with the, uh, discussion for, um, question one. And I'm trying to look through there and see if there are other things that, um, I don't see open space or provides supports open space or, um, what were the other, uh, staff, what were the other goals that, do you feel that all the goals are reflected in these criteria based on our discussion?

[05:28:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The latter. So for, if you could go higher, and that would mean, you know, you would have more open space around the, uh, the property, that's what I, I'm interested in.

[05:28:20] City Staff: Open space or park space?

[05:28:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm interested in both. Yeah. Park space is, is definitely better. But open space is good. So, so that, that would be my opinion. Okay. Uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[05:28:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, in addition to the things we talked about, I think the ones that are, um, here it's listed as three and four, access to commercial areas and access to employment areas. I, I'd, I would say to me adjacent to those. Often there's opportunity for more targeted density, I think, near commercial areas and near employment areas. So that's, and also along wider streets, I think. Or, which is number five, along major corridors, which is kind of what we're doing along El Camino Real. Yeah, uh, I mean earlier, uh, when that was described to us, it was described as within a certain walk or transportation, but I'm thinking like, you know, I'm thinking like right adjacent to, um, the San Antonio... I'm not looking at the map, so this may not even be R3. But like adjacent to the San Antonio Center is a place that... well, for instance, uh, Councilmember Ramirez, the your neighborhood, which you cited as... is, you know, just opposite. And your neighborhood is... so, and then you won't be able to come to the meeting and talk about it. (laughs) Um, so, yeah, those are the kinds of areas that I see as having possibility.

[05:30:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Any other suggestions? Uh, what about criteria for commercial? My feeling, um, we, we got several, uh, I suppose mentioned in several of the letters that we received. And, um, a couple of group, people said just allow it everywhere. Um, and so I wondered, um, I wondered about that idea. What do people think about, I mean, anybody have comments about allowing it everywhere? Councilmember Hicks?

[05:30:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So when you try to make neighborhoods walkable, and when you try to make commercial successful, often what you're looking for is a string of them, so that, because that's what, when you cluster them, that's what makes, you know, you, that's generally one of the big things that make, you know, there's a restaurant district or a commercial district, and you walk to one, you're going to one restaurant, but you walk by a bunch of other stores or restaurants and say, oh, maybe next time we come back here, we should go there. So the, the front window, when you walk along a walkable retail or restaurant street, you feel like you should be looking in the window. Whereas when I, if there's housing with windows right at the street, and I'm walking along it, I feel like I should not be looking in the window, it's somebody's private residence. So, generally, I think, I think it's, I mean certainly you can allow home occupations anywhere, you know, somebody can be, I don't know, doing some, helping with your taxes or whatever, and you don't even know that they're in that house, it could be in a single family neighborhood, you don't even know they're there unless you've phoned them up and arranged to go, you know, you're doing yoga in somebody's house or something like that. But I think there's a design, there's a physical form that you're trying to get often that's super important, and um, and that's where it's, it's publicly accessible and welcoming, and the building signals to you, and this is off, the building signals to you that you're welcome inside, that you should be looking in the window, that you should be walking down this street. Um, you know, that's what Castro Street does. And that's what, for instance, we haven't done successfully on San Antonio, because we didn't face any of the windows for the commercial onto San Antonio, we built a blank wall, which doesn't invite you in. Um, so I think to some, I think we should be aware of whether, whether we're making walkable streets, and that's also something that, um, people in Livable Mountain View have called out, and rightly so, that when along Castro Street we have a bunch of windows that face it, and then suddenly we have something that doesn't, um, you know, like a, a, a cafe for that's not... that is in my neighborhood, and my neighbors complain about it all the time... a cafe that's only open to the people who work in the floors above, then people stop walking there, they say, oh, I guess this commercial district is done, and they don't go inside, or they don't keep walking down the street, and find out that down the street is, are more restaurants and commercial. There's Amici's, it's not doing too well because nobody walks down there, because everything stops after a certain point. So I think we want to be a little aware of making, you know, there are many ways of doing that, and, um, the place that I sometimes reference, my son went to University of Wisconsin in Madison, and they have this historic like miles of single family homes with storefront windows on the front, with things going on inside it, and you're just walking, you're like, I wonder what's next? But it's because these are people's homes, but they historically people were doing stuff in it, there's a chocolatier, there's a yoga studio, there's, you know, uh, somebody teaching music. So anyway, what I'm saying is it's good to locate them together in a string, and give a physical, I mean this is often the ground floor, this is why there are often in design criteria, it's that the ground floor should be relating to the people who are walking by it. And putting commercial, I mean you can put commercial up on the top, but it's not, it's not giving you a walkable street in the same way.

[05:34:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Alright. Councilmember Ramos.

[05:34:51] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I'm thinking about how to thread the needle here in a way that respects what Councilmember Hicks has correctly pointed out about agglomeration, right, you want sort of commercial activities in adjacent to one another. Uh, but I also, to back up a little bit, as a foundational premise, I absolutely support mixing uses. Right, this is where R3 sort of falls down as well, R3 historically had no commercial whatsoever. Uh, and I think one of the lessons of the last few years has been that allowing and encouraging these little neighborhood commercial uses is a phenomenal thing to do for 15-minute neighborhoods. Right, if there's a market within walking distance, it's a huge benefit to the neighborhood. If there isn't, you have to get in your car to get a quart of milk. So in order to, to provide for those walkable neighborhood destinations, uh, that Councilmember Hicks was correctly pointing out, are really valuable, especially for commercial. I think we need to give staff some direction to think about a physical manifestation that does what Councilmember Hicks has suggested, right, it signals to people walking past the window that you can come inside and get a cup of coffee. Uh, so if that means allowing that explicitly and pointing to some sort of design guidelines where if you want to have that ground floor commercial, I I remember how it's actually really hard to get ground level commercial. Um, as long as we don't like mess it up and fake it with like office, that commercial that's actually office space, I think that's what you were alluding to, how there was like a ground floor cafe...

[05:36:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, we, we don't want that.

[05:36:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, but, um, the kind of commercial that we do want is, is essentially like that neighborhood serving commercial. But that's actually, I, I worry that there are financial feasibility issues on that. So as we're looking at the criteria for allowing it, I'm open to allowing it, uh, very broadly, because I think it's going to take more than just allowing the commercial in order to get that commercial. I don't, I don't know if that's gonna make if that makes sense.

[05:36:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll try and marry the two. I, I agree with, um, and support, uh, what Councilmember Hicks was suggesting very strongly. I think you're, we're creating, uh, ecosystems where, where, uh, these kinds of neighborhood supporting commercial uses can, can thrive. And part of it is you're creating destination points that are visible and attractive and inviting. Um, at the same time, I don't necessarily want to preclude the possibility of something like the little Mariposa market, which I grew up near, so I think very fondly of, and, you know, kind of marvel that it's still there after all these years. Um, when we were first discussing R3, that's what I had in mind. Like not prohibiting that kind of use, which is, uh, extremely valuable for the immediate neighborhood. We would go there all the time when I was a kid. Um, but I hear what you're saying, Councilmember Ramos, and I also want to empower staff to come back with, uh, recommendations for, not I mean allowing or not prohibiting is a starting point, but how do we help, uh, encourage and develop, uh, a vibrant neighborhood serving, uh, commercial, uh, uh, ecosystem in these areas where we haven't really had commercial uses historically. Uh, and I'm not clever or smart enough to discern what that is, but I, I, I would like to make sure that that remains a, a key focus of the work.

[05:37:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm sorry, I have one more thing to say.

[05:37:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Councilmember Hicks.

[05:37:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll just say one more thing that I should have maybe said earlier, but, um, one of the tools that we have to create walkable streets and yet not do what Councilmember Ramos was, uh, warning us about, mandating, you know, if we see a street that, we don't know if it's viable for commercial or restaurants or whatever, um, is to do live/work, which is basically what I was talking about in Madison. This would be a housing unit that you can, you can live in, and you can work out of the front, and there's some physical signal, like a window display, physical signal that this is more than just a house. Um, so that's one tool that we can use in some places, if we think commercial might develop, but we don't want to mandate it, probably not everywhere, but one tool.

[05:38:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I know that live/work was mentioned in the staff report a couple places I think, but it isn't on this list. So would we want to add that to the list?

[05:38:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, maybe it's like your parks. Opportunity... places that would create opportunity for parks, places that would create opportunity for possible live/work.

[05:38:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: For live/work. Alright. So, um, everybody's had a round, I mean we've had an opportunity for a round. And, um, uh, so I think that, uh, the general consensus is that these two lists are okay, and we have added, um, uh, opportunity to create parks to criteria for increased density, and we have added, um, live/work to, opportunity to create live/work, for criteria for commercial. Um, and right, we did... Yes, and it was suggested that we, uh, change, um, three and four, instead of being access to commercial areas, adjacent to commercial areas, and adjacent to employment areas. So, um, with that, I think it's time for a straw vote. Does everyone who wants to vote yes for these changed, um, slightly changed list, please, uh, signify by raising your hand. So that's unanimous. We did it. Alright. So, I think that that brings us to...

• ← Previous
• Next →