April 22, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

• 5:00 P.M. - STUDY SESSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Roll call for the Study Session. (00:00:00)
• 3.1: Study Session: Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Land Use Alternatives and Streetscape Priorities. Includes staff presentation, public comment, and council discussion. (00:00:32)
• 6:30 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER: Call to order for the Regular Session, Pledge of Allegiance, and Roll Call. (02:26:15)
• 3. PRESENTATIONS: Proclamations for National Volunteer Week and National Wildlife Federation Wildlife Habitat Certification. (02:27:09)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Public comments on non-agendized items, taken out of agenda order before the Consent Calendar. (02:35:45)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of routine items 4.1 through 4.8. Item 4.7 discussed regarding parking fees with a registered no vote. (02:44:45)
• 4.9: Pulled item: Approve a Support Position for Senate Bill 457 (Becker) - Housing Element Compliance. (02:53:35)
• 6.1: Public Hearing: Mountain View 2025 Water System Public Health Goals Report. (03:01:45)
• 7.1: Council Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 Work Plan Project Prioritization. Discussion on natural gas flow, design standards, and pickleball solutions. (03:15:15)
• 8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS: Reports from Councilmembers regarding committee assignments and recent events. (04:55:00)
• 9. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned in memory of former Mayor Matt Allen. (05:00:30)

Transcript

5:00 P.M. - STUDY SESSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER

[00:00:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right everyone, good evening. Happy Earth Day. Uh, thank you for joining us for our study session. We'll begin with roll call. The Assistant City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[00:00:15] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Clark?

[00:00:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:00:17] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Hicks?

[00:00:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:00:19] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember McAlister?

[00:00:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[00:00:20] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:00:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:00:22] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Showalter?

[00:00:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:00:24] Assistant City Clerk: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[00:00:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:00:25] Assistant City Clerk: Mayor Kamei?

[00:00:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:00:27] Assistant City Clerk: Thank you. We have a quorum with all members present.

[00:00:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you.

3.1

[00:00:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, uh, we begin tonight with a study session, item 3.1 is our Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Land Use Alternatives and Streetscape Priorities. Mandarin and Spanish translation services are available for this item. We'll now hear from our Mandarin interpreter.

[00:02:17] Mandarin Interpreter: 大家晚上好。今天晚上关于莫菲特大道精准规划的研究会议，我们提供现场和通过Zoom的口译服务。如果您是在现场的话，您可以—我们提供耳机。如果您是通过Zoom参加会议的话，您可以稍后点击在屏幕下方出现的地球仪的口译语言图标，选择您想要的语言。谢谢。Thank you.

[00:03:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. We'll now hear from our Spanish interpreter.

[00:03:31] Spanish Interpreter: Muy buenas tardes. Si necesita interpretación al español, pulse el botón Interpretación en Zoom y seleccione el idioma adecuado para escuchar la reunión en ese idioma. Gracias.

[00:03:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So the purpose of this study session is to review the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan Land Use Alternatives and provide direction on a preferred land use alternative as well as streetscape priorities. Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski and Community Development Director Christian Murdock will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, now is the time to submit your blue speaker card to the Assistant City Clerk now. And we'll begin with a staff presentation.

[00:05:00] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Good evening, Mayor Kamei, members of the City Council. My name is Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director, and with me on the dais is Aki Snelling, who's the project planner for the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan. The Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan will be a new Precise Plan that will serve as the zoning regulations for the area shown in blue. Similar to other Precise Plans in the city, it will include development and streetscape standards for the area, and implement guidance from the General Plan, Housing Element, and latest Council Work Plan. The most recent Council hearing on the project was November 19, 2024, when the Council provided direction on the Visioning Framework and potential strategies for the Moffett area, and designated four adjacent areas as Future Study Areas, shown in tan. For these Future Study Areas, new development standards would be limited, and no change in allowed land use or densities would occur at this time.

[00:06:37] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: The City, in conjunction with our consultants, have conducted extensive community outreach since last year's EPC and City Council study sessions, and previous outreach efforts, which included: an event table at the February 23, 2025 Mountain View Farmers Market; visits to businesses along Moffett to announce the March 3rd Community Workshop; a Community Workshop on land use alternatives and streetscape improvement concepts was held on March 3rd, where 85 attendees participated in group discussions on the land use alternatives and provided input in a live survey to rank streetscape improvement concepts. Additionally, the City conducted an online survey that ran between March 7th and April 6th, where 144 responses were received regarding the land use alternatives and streetscape improvement concepts.

[00:07:27] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: At the previous study session, five vision themes and potential strategies were presented. City Council provided direction to update the themes and strategies as shown on these slides. Vision Theme 1 is: A unique identity and community for residents, businesses, workers, and visitors. Vision Theme 2 is: A thriving hub of economic activity and uses for the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Vision Theme 3 is: A revitalized neighborhood that embraces a range of housing, business, and community amenities and uses for the neighborhood and surrounding areas. The language underlined in yellow was modified from its original form based on EPC and Council input.

[00:08:52] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Vision Theme 4 is: An accessible, pedestrian and bicycle friendly multimodal corridor. And Vision Theme 5 is: A unique place with engaging and unique activities, events, and opportunities. And as mentioned in the previous slide, the language underlined in yellow was modified based on EPC and Council input.

[00:09:12] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: There are two main questions for the City Council to provide direction on tonight. The first question for City Council consideration is in regard to the land use alternatives for the Precise Plan. As a result of previous EPC, Council, and community input, three land use alternatives are proposed. One is a medium-intensity mixed-use plan. Two is a higher-intensity mixed-use plan. And three is a focused mixed-use plan. These alternatives are not meant to represent the only possible approaches for land uses, character, heights, and densities. They are intended to offer various ways of looking at the corridor that can be mixed and matched to create the preferred alternative.

[00:10:37] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Alternative A is a Medium Intensity Mixed-Use proposal applying housing density per the City's adopted Housing Element, and encouraging (but not requiring) ground floor non-residential uses. This alternative allows a base housing density of up to approximately 75 dwelling units an acre, and maximum building heights of around 4 to 5 stories.

[00:11:37] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Alternative B is a Higher-Intensity Mixed-Use plan, but would require a ground floor non-residential component on Moffett Boulevard. This alternative allows a base housing density of up to approximately 100 dwelling units an acre, and maximum building heights of 5 to 7 stories.

[00:11:57] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Alternative C is a Focused Mixed-Use alternative that includes two nodes for commercial activity along Moffett Boulevard at Central Expressway, near the Transit Center, and between Central Avenue and Cypress Point Drive where walkable commercial activity is likely. This alternative allows a base housing density up to 100 units per acre in specific commercial nodes, and a housing density of up to 75 units per acre outside of these node areas. This would correspond to maximum building heights of 4 to 7 stories, with the taller buildings focused in the nodes where the base density would be higher.

[00:12:32] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: The EPC did not have a clear majority on land use alternatives. Three of the six commissioners recommended Alternative C, which is the focused mixed-use. A majority of commissioners expressed support for a focused approach in general, but there was disagreement about the details and specific boundaries of the nodes. Key issues that were discussed included: the ability to require ground-floor non-residential uses given state density bonus law; higher density at 100 Moffett given that it's newer and not likely to change in the near future; Alternative B densities and commercial requirements, whether higher densities are appropriate on the west side of Moffett between Central and the mobile home park; and recognition that Alternative B is the best for housing production. Community input included a wide variety of responses, particularly regarding density and maximum building heights. Opinions varied and spanned the range of densities proposed in these alternatives. For non-residential uses, some said not enough commercial was being proposed and commercial should be required. Participants also asked for more opportunities for walkability and bikeability, and highlighted parking as an issue, though state law limits our ability to require on-site parking.

[00:15:02] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: The first question for the Council is: Does Council prefer land use alternative A, medium-intensity mixed-use; B, higher-intensity mixed-use; or C, focused mixed-use as the preferred land use alternative?

[00:15:17] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Now we'll move on to the second part of our focus for tonight, where I want to say that it will be important to note that the process to determine final streetscape design will require further study to consider items such as right-of-way street width, ability to accommodate improvements near utilities, existing capital projects, a flexible approach to vary along the corridor, traffic modeling and vehicle trips, ability for pedestrian and bicycle continuity, the Transit Center Master Plan, and cost and funding for improvements. That being said, there are six options on the next slides detailing the potential use of the limited space in the right-of-way. We are seeking Council input on the priorities among these six options, because they cannot all be accommodated in the limited right-of-way.

[00:16:42] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: The options include: wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities; buffered or protected bike lanes—buffered bike lanes are separated from the vehicle lane with markings, while protected bike lanes are separated from the vehicle lane with improvements such as curbs or landscaping. Other options include a landscaped boulevard with medians; maintaining the current vehicle roadway capacity with four vehicle lanes; and on-street parking. A key aspect of Council's consideration of streetscape improvements is the likely need for trade-offs due to that limited space within the right-of-way. Therefore, understanding the priorities within the limited right-of-way is important at this stage of the planning process.

[00:17:22] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: There are three streetscape improvement priority rankings from the EPC study session, the March 3rd community workshop attendees, and respondents from the online survey. EPC recommendations include the following priorities: All six commissioners present prioritized wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities; five commissioners prioritized protected bike lanes; three commissioners prioritized on-street parking, but two of those were more concerned about addressing loading needs such as deliveries than residential or commercial parking needs. Workshop participants ranked priorities as follows, from first to last: wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, landscaped boulevard with medians, on-street parking, and four vehicle travel lanes. In the survey, the priorities ranked as follows: wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, protected bike lanes, landscaped boulevard with medians, buffered bike lanes, on-street parking, and four vehicle travel lanes. Other comments from the workshop and survey expressed the need for improved traffic calming measures, better landscaping and more lighting, improved bicycle facilities, and green spaces. All three groups ranked wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities as a first priority and protected bike lanes as a second priority.

[00:20:02] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: The second question for tonight is: Does Council agree that the priorities for streetscape improvements to be studied on Moffett Boulevard include: wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities; protected bike lanes (instead of buffered bike lanes); a landscaped boulevard with medians; and studying the feasibility of preserving on-street parking with a "road diet" to less than four travel lanes, which is likely necessary to accommodate active transportation improvements?

[00:23:47] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: In terms of next steps, based upon Council's preferred alternative, the project team will begin the environmental review process and begin drafting the Precise Plan. Staff will also conduct additional focused outreach and hold additional EPC and Council discussions.

[00:24:02] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: This slide shows both questions that staff would like the Council to provide response to and concludes our presentation. Also in attendance are the following City staff: Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson, who is joining us virtually due to jury duty; Community Development Director Christian Murdock; Public Works Director Jennifer Ing; Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango; and Senior Civil Engineer Chang Hong. Additionally we have Dan Amsden from our consultant team, MIG. That concludes my presentation, we're happy to answer questions.

[00:25:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. Since this is a study session, we'll begin with public comment. So, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? Hopefully everyone has submitted their blue speaker card. And let's see how many are in the queue. Okay. So, why don't we do two and a half minutes and then I see it says April Webster on behalf of group 10 minutes, so you'll be able to identify everyone. Great, thank you. April are you here? So April will begin and when her time is up then we have Sergio Barajas, Mark Christensen, Alex Brown and then we'll move on to virtual. So if anyone else in chambers is looking to speak, please submit your blue speaker card. All right, we'll just wait till the timer comes up, April. It should be right here. Yeah.

[00:27:12] April Webster: Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here tonight to share a vision for Moffett Boulevard. A vision shaped by community input through two rounds of public outreach. What emerged was clear: residents don't want another pass-through corridor. They want a people-first neighborhood: safe, walkable, vibrant, and green. This is about aligning the plan with the values we already committed to as a city. Next slide please. This is what Moffett looks like today. Actually this afternoon. Right now, Moffett isn't designed for the future we say we want. It's built for cars, not for people. Four lanes. Fast-moving traffic. 40 miles per hour. Faster than ECR. Narrow sidewalks, and a few trees make the area feel basically dangerous, hostile, and hot. Not a lot of people walk along here; they walk along the neighborhood streets instead. It's also one of the city's main truck routes and some... and this is not compatible with creating a vibrant neighborhood. The good news is, we know how to do better. We've done it before on Castro, we're doing it on California. Next slide please.

[00:30:02] April Webster: What we heard from community through two rounds of outreach: we heard from people who live here, work here, and visit often. Over and over again, we heard the same hopes: wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes, shade trees, plazas, linear parks, pocket parks, paseos, gathering spaces, and mixed-use development. People want a neighborhood, not a street. One resident put it perfectly: they want to have a hard time choosing what to do, not a hard time finding anything to do. Next slide. These are just some of the examples of the quotes I pulled. I took photos during both of the outreach meetings and also recorded what people had to say. So it just gives you a sense. You know, there's a lot of... people asking for local businesses. They wanted somewhere to gather, to meet their friends, to sit down. A lot of talk about coffee. You heard green over and over again. People want a hard time picking something to do, not a hard time finding something to do. And someone even shouted out: "Close it down like Castro!" And I just want to point out that Castro used to be a four-lane road as well. Next slide please.

[00:32:07] April Webster: From the second outreach meeting, there was live polling done. And there were approximately 61 to 71 participants who responded to each poll question. I took photos of the last state of each of these questions. There are two colors on this chart. The dark green are people who really liked the concept. The light green said it was worth considering. The other two categories were "don't like" and "not sure", but there you can see from the results, very few people weren't interested in any of these five amenities. And you're voting on some of these today. Wider sidewalks with trees and a pedestrian amenities were overwhelmingly popular with everyone across all the groups in both meetings. Protected bike lanes were much more popular than the buffered bike lanes. Everyone wants parks, again, and paseos. People want a really livable neighborhood. Next slide please.

[00:33:47] April Webster: And you saw this in one of the presentations from staff, where the public stood on keeping the four travel lanes. The red is to indicate that people really didn't like it. 70% of people, of that 61 to 71 participants who were there live, they didn't want the four lanes on Moffett kept. Basically they're rejecting a car-centric approach. This is really, when you think about it, there's only so much space in the streetscape; they want all of those amenities and they want... they don't want those lanes of traffic. They want that shut down for a road diet. There's really strong support for repurposing excess asphalt into space for people. And we hear this over and over again through various meetings, BPACs, EPC, precise plans, this is what people want. Next slide please.

[00:35:32] April Webster: In terms of our shared priorities, I fed this through ChatGPT, all the comments and the images and the video. These are basically the priorities that people want. And basically the image again and again is clear and is unified: Prioritize people over cars. We want people-first, human-scale design. Green corridors. We want safety in the streets. Create welcoming spaces that foster community life. Next slide please. And this is really about honoring the investment we've already made in the area. Transit, active transportation, downtown vibrancy, and extending those benefits to this neighborhood. Let's not miss the chance to build the future our community is asking for. Thank you so much. I cede the rest of my time.

[00:37:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Assistant City Clerk, do you mind reading all of the people that are represented in that?

[00:37:16] Assistant City Clerk: April spoke on behalf of Bruce England, Cliff Chambers, Celia Pamer—forgive me for my pronunciation—Sergei Dorko, Kian Chean, Deb Henningson. That was it.

[00:37:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, next in the queue is Sergio, then Mark, then Alex, if you don't mind queuing up and coming to the podium that would be great. Thank you.

[00:39:21] Sergio Barajas: Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers, and community members. My name is Sergio Barajas and I'm a representative at the NorCal Carpenters Union Local 405, which covers Santa Clara County. As you consider the next steps in the Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan, I want to express our support for a vision that doesn't just shape the future of this corridor, but also strengthens the community that builds it, literally. Mountain View has a unique opportunity to lead by example. By including strong labor standards in the implementation of this plan, you ensure that local construction workers who are vital to making the vision a reality are treated with dignity, paid fair wages, and given access to healthcare and career pathways. We're not just talking about buildings; we're talking about community investment. Labor standards means stable, middle-class jobs for residents who will live, work, and raise families here. It's how we make sure that the growth we're planning for isn't just for some, but for all. We urge you to move forward with this study session by signaling your commitment to responsible development—development that reflects Mountain View's values: equity, inclusion, and sustainability. That begins with protecting the workforce that's bringing this plan to life. Thank you for your leadership and thank you for your time.

[00:41:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Next is Mark Christensen.

[00:41:43] Mark Christensen: Good evening. Uh, I want to express my concerns about the planned development for 400 Moffett Boulevard. I have been living at 440 Moffett since 1988. While I do not expect things to remain as they are, I do expect consideration of the impacts of new development on surrounding neighbors. New development should not exceed the current maximum height of the local area. The 400 Moffett proposal includes a six-story height for the entire footprint with a relatively short setback from Moffett Mobile Home Park property. This exceeds the current maximum height of four stories for the block bounded by Moffett Boulevard, Central Avenue, Sterlin, Shoreline, and Middlefield Road by two stories, and is three stories higher than the Hampton Inn next door at 390 Moffett. The proposed development would cast a very long shadow over the mobile home park. There are 143 units and while I do not have population figures, assuming an average occupancy of four persons per unit, approximately 600 people would be affected. I should note that the shadow plots in the developer's proposal during summer are misleading. The sun does not hover around zenith all day, even during summer. I request serious consideration of either a height cap of four stories or a step-back design with four stories nearest the property line with the mobile home park, increase to five or six stories on the Moffett side to alleviate the shadow issue. And regarding the treatment of Moffett Boulevard, I am in general opposed to road diets. We already have congestion in this area and it's going to increase when you put hundreds of more units along that corridor. And I'm already dealing with congestion at some times. So I'd just rather keep access to Central Expressway and to Middlefield and the freeways not restricted more than it is. Thank you.

[00:44:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alex Brown, and then Mario Martin.

[00:44:27] Alex Brown: Hi friends. I feel an extreme sense of deja vu. How many times has this come up? Anyway, Moffett is a good opportunity. I think that we have a lot... a chance right now to set a standard for the extension of downtown in a way that it grows to support Mountain View, to support the residents not just who are here now, but in the future. And I don't think that we should be compromising on that. I don't think we should compromise on the future of the area. I like B. I've been to a lot of the sessions. Most of the tables I've been at have supported more housing because we recognize there's a need for it. Uh, I do think that I would oppose unnecessary setbacks or step-backs, but I do want wide sidewalks or arcades, things that are human-focused. And I think that if we can do that... you saw the YIMBY letter, I think James had a lot of good examples. I think that we could set up that area for future development that is supportive of all the people and I think it would be great. Should have gone with 90 seconds. I don't need 2.5 minutes. Thanks.

[00:45:32] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Additional technical and other challenges with other segments in the precise plan area including sort of the the broader city-wide and regional circulation network that may um provide different opportunities if you will um that need to be studied further in the future.

[00:45:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so to sum up, do I get that we can make some kind of notes on them even though we're not going to plan them at this point?

[00:45:57] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that's right. I think that's in fact what staff's envisioning to try to provide that uh description of what those public areas should be and that interface so that if city projects come along or incremental development on those sites we can at least get some of the way towards aligning with the precise plan and the framework and the objectives uh until the point in time when those sites trigger some sort of future study area um revision to the plan uh that's a a deeper more focused planning process.

[00:46:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[00:46:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Mario.

[00:46:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[00:46:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I have a few too. Um first of all I want to thank the staff for being so um good about answering all of the council questions. We really threw a lot at you this time. And um and I'm amazed at how quickly you can get the information together for us. So thank you for that.

[00:46:38] Mario Martin: Hello. I'm one of the residents who lives in the kind of central Willowgate Horizon neighborhood. So I've lived there, oh, 15 years now, raising my family. Just recently built a brand new home there from my little small home that I had previously. It's a bit distraught in the process to see where this is all going, especially with this new future study area. It seems very kind of... you know, not a lot of answers around it. What's going on? It's, you know, where you're saying you're not going to do anything to affect the land use, but it just seems interesting, you know, how and where we are, why it's being studied, what does that mean. And when it comes to deciding on the heights, you know, I just would hope you guys would take in consideration that you're talking... everyone's talking about the community, you know, people enjoying the area, the space. There's, you know, most of the people in my neighborhood there, those 25 homes, they've had those homes for close to 100 years. Different families have passed them down and, you know, that is our community. And we enjoy walking downtown, enjoying the downtown community. So, you know, it's just difficult to hear all these people say, you know, 'Hey, let's build these massive buildings and cast you in a large shadow so that we can create this great community.' We have a wonderful community. We enjoy it. Um, you know, I'd like to raise my family there and continue to live there. It's very concerning to think soon, you know, I'll have, who knows, maybe a four-story, maybe a nine-story, maybe a seven-story building beaming down on me. So, anyhow, I just wanted to speak on that behalf. There's a lot of my neighbors, I know I don't see them here, maybe they're online, I'm not sure where they are. A lot of them are older. I've told them to bring them here, but they're unable to come. But anyhow, I just wanted to bring a personal voice from the neighborhood. I know, you know, the world of development is what it is, and you know, I'm one voice, but I wanted to bring that voice to you in person and just let you know that there is a lot of concern. So, thank you.

[00:46:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm going to share um one of them with just with the public because I think it's important. And that was the one about at at this point really what we're doing is we're sort of setting the stage for what is going to be studied in the CEQA document.

[00:47:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And uh I think that's important because um that uh the um well well would you want to talk a little bit about why that's important? How about that? You could talk about.

[00:47:17] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Sure. So we have to pick a you know, we have to pick a preferred alternative to study, you know, environmentally because we have to know, you know, what our maximum densities are that we are studying so that we understand what the impacts of those maximum densities are on that, you know, area and the the community.

[00:47:37] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um so really picking the preferred alternative, you know, is letting us move forward with that study that will then inform the future decision that we make on uh you know what the density is.

[00:47:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Right. It doesn't mean that we're going to necessarily go with what's studied in the EIR. It just means that we're going to study it in the EIR so we have information about it.

[00:47:57] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Sure. A different and and you know and and we will study alternatives also to this preferred alternative and um you know the council still has opportunity to to to you know adopt a different density level at the end.

[00:48:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So you could st- you sort of study the a bigger envelope and then you you winnow it down to what really works for our community. That's kind of the idea.

[00:48:20] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, you usually choose at least, you know, two to three alternatives and they have different, you know, densities or total units assigned to them and then you can kind of see the differences in impacts between those alternatives.

[00:48:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you. I think that's, you know, very important about where we are in the process. And then the other one I wanted to talk about a little bit and this is a more asking you to philosophize a little bit is that, you know, we've talked a lot and heard a lot about how we're interested in the connection to downtown. And we want to make this of um, you know, we want to make this a neighborhood that's really well connected to downtown.

[00:48:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And that and we do. That's very important. But another thing I think about is the connection to Moffett Field. You know, Moffett Field's been there a long time and you know it changes, it's it's always changing, but um but it we expect it to still be there. So I wanted to hear you talk a little bit about um how are you considering the connections to Moffett Field?

[00:48:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I see my colleague and I think... I'm so sorry Mario. I think my colleague has a question for you. Councilmember Hicks.

[00:49:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: What neighborhood do you live in?

[00:49:08] Mario Martin: I live on Horizon Avenue. So between Central Avenue, Willowgate, and Santa Rosa and Horizon.

[00:49:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You said Horizon? And it's called the Willowgate community pretty much?

[00:49:17] Mario Martin: Yeah, the area that says the future proposed study. And so that's one of my other concerns is what does that future study mean? Is it going to be, you know, where I won't be having a home soon? So, thank you.

[00:49:21] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I'm not sure if Eric has anything he wants to say. He's probably the most informed on kind of how the plan has been thoughtfully presented.

[00:49:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, anyone else in person wishing to speak? All right, not seeing any, I will move on to virtual public comment and we have Robert Cox, then David Watson.

[00:49:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Hi Eric.

[00:49:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Hi, thank you. Can you hear me?

[00:49:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:49:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Great. Uh Eric Anderson, Advance Planning Manager. I apologize for my absence. Um so um you know the the previous discussion around the boundary for the project which council provided uh put the the kind of northern terminus of the of the project area at the Stevens Creek Trail.

[00:49:45] Robert Cox: Hear me?

[00:49:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:49:47] Robert Cox: All right. Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and members of the Council. I am Robert Cox speaking for Livable Mountain View. On the land use questions, while we are concerned with the impact of all the alternatives on the surrounding neighborhood like the previous speaker, we support Alternative A that would meet the requirements of the Housing Element by upzoning the area around Moffett to 4 to 5 stories base. We note, however, this could be 8 to 10 stories if the state density bonuses applied, and under such circumstances we don't see how an appropriate transition to adjacent neighborhood could be designed, and we're concerned about that. On the streetscape priorities, while supportive of providing wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, we caution that retaining and attracting new businesses to Moffett Boulevard will require adequate parking to ensure the businesses thrive. To give one example, last time my car was in a collision, I took it over to the collision repair shop on Moffett. I needed to park my car on the street so they can come out and look at it to give me a ballpark estimate of what it would cost to repair. Take away the street parking, the business operation is challenged. So one possibility is to leave parking on one side of the street. Another possibility would be a parking garage and a business-funded parking district. In any case, I hope you come up with a good way to ensure that the parking needed to keep businesses thriving remains in place. Thank you for your good work on this and we look forward to the next steps. I yield my time.

[00:49:57] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So we are looking at um the the types of uh connectivity needs that are there uh between the kind of core of the precise plan area and uh other regional transportation networks like the Stevens Creek Trail. Uh certainly those connections can help promote uh additional connections to Moffett Field.

[00:50:21] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um but uh as far as kind of finishing that connection and going all the way across 101 that's that's not currently scoped as part of the project.

[00:50:31] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah and I think I'll just add I think to my knowledge the extent of the technical information we have in terms of transportation may include some intersections up to 101, but we haven't expressly done more focused planning work about those connections um as Eric noted given the the boundaries established by Council.

[00:50:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well well I think that makes a great deal of sense but I just wanted to bring that up because there's sort of like they're the external some of the external um things that will take into account when you're investigating not the things that were will be inside the study area but they'll be things that you know we know are coming out into the study area and going out of it from.

[00:51:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I think it's important to kind of consider all those adjacent uses and um so I want to I just wanted to bring that up as as kind of part of the whole um and also because when I when I've heard people talk about this area the changes that seem people seem to be really concerned about are related to transportation and they're related to housing. And um those are the the big themes. Also more more local business. But but but the transportation is really big here. So I wanted to I wanted to talk about that. Thank you.

[00:51:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. No no problem. And I and I think my understanding is that Public Works is already thinking about the connection as well. All right. Any other questions from colleagues?

[00:51:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks, your time is up. David Watson.

[00:52:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, Councilmember McAlister.

[00:52:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Mine are um be patient with me the rest of the council members because you've been working on this for four years and so I'm getting back on this one when we look back years ago. Um all we're talking about is all hypothetical. No one's going to develop anything, they're not required to develop anything. So what we're doing is just if somebody comes along we have a plan.

[00:52:05] David Watson: Hi, David Watson. I don't live exactly in this area but I live not that far from it and walk through it to get to downtown right now. Mountain View is on track to be far behind our promises to the state. The areas near the train station are the ideal location for higher density residential. If transitions are a concern, we should zone nearby areas significantly higher as well as a transition. It's civic malpractice to have such a low density of homes within a walking distance of the train, a train station when the state is spending billions of dollars to improve train service. Shade itself is not something that's going to destroy people's lives, destroy people's homes. I think back to a protest I saw against new taller density, new taller homes with people holding up signs opposed to the shade that would be created by the new homes while standing across the street from the new homes because there was more shade across the street. The fact is shade should not be considered as a significant impact. Some people might have other complaints that are worth discussing but all I've heard here or most of what I've heard here are complaints about shade. And the fact is I would like more shade. I would like, as I said in the meeting, I would prefer if the city also worked on architectural arcades that would provide continuous shade to pedestrians rather than just during some parts of the year. Thank you very much.

[00:52:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think as with every planning document we're setting the vision and the conditions for future development and public and private investment. So I think it's perhaps more than hypothetical but uh this plan is not going to itself lead to the development uh of any particular site necessarily.

[00:52:45] Councilmember John McAlister: And in your notes you mentioned that we already have a uh fairly new apartment complex there. We also have the uh Mountain View education there. We have a mobile home park there. With the lots being so narrow do you anticipate um a particular design height over narrowness so what what do you see if you allow this to go along considering that there are narrow lots.

[00:53:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um I think I'll start by saying um one of the objectives is to try to encourage um lot consolidation recognizing uh the limitations of many of the small lots in the planning area. Um I don't know if any um modeling or visualizations have uh occurred yet in terms of types of development that would be constructed but if so perhaps Dan Amsden could come up and speak to that.

[00:53:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Yes you can come up to the podium. It's red when the mic is on and if you don't mind speaking directly into it and introducing yourself for those who are joining us virtually.

[00:53:48] Dan Amsden: Hello Mayor, Council, Dan Amsden with MIG. So we've done some initial just massing models that was part of the land use discussion with the community. But as we get more feedback from council and uh direction tonight we do have as part of this process creating um architectural design guidelines, development standards and more detail as we go through this process.

[00:53:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Daniel Hulsey.

[00:54:05] Daniel Hulsey: All right, can you hear me now?

[00:54:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:54:09] Daniel Hulsey: All right. Uh, so I don't live in this area but I'm a Mountain View resident and I bike through here from the train station to get to work at Moffett Field. And I really, you know, I support option B in terms of maximizing density of this area. Why not? But I also want to really emphasize the transportation value of this corridor for both bicycling as well as shuttles. Given that we're closing off the Mountain View Transit Center, already have half closed it off to buses as well as shuttles through the Moffett intersection, it may be necessary or very helpful for us to consider this lower portion of the Moffett Boulevard corridor as a logical extension of the Transit Center in order to do transit operations better. And so I have a whole idea put out in a letter as a part of public comment. I just want to emphasize the importance of using this as an extension of the Transit Center rather than say have it be primarily private vehicles. I also want to support along this whole corridor green, complete streets, traffic calming, things that are going to get people to want to walk around, enjoy the environment. You know, I think a really good example of a place like this would be like Cal Ave in Palo Alto where you have very close proximity to a transit stop and a very nice pedestrian experience. So yeah, that's my comment. Thank you.

[00:54:12] Dan Amsden: Um so as uh Community Development Director mentioned uh parcel consolidation is a a key strategy but there's also a nuance that we're looking at from feasibility or how much development capacity could occur in this area based on parcel sizes as well. So it wouldn't be one product in every single part of the corridor, it'd be uh a function of the sizes of the parcels as well.

[00:54:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Have you determined the capacity? Did you just mention that you said you looked at the capacity that's available?

[00:54:43] Dan Amsden: Yes. So that's in each of the alternatives they have a range of uh dwelling units as well as ground floor non-residential.

[00:54:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh thank you. The other question I have is so with the new development by Prometheus hypothetically if they're seven stories tall and someone across the street where the adult education is um and they put in a seven story tall. Do we look at a canyon effect? I mean is that a consideration that you know if we build all along here since the lots are pretty narrow that we have a canyon effect and that would be a detriment?

[00:55:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I think we will be looking at the totality of what could be constructed there and if there are issues identified such as canyon effects or others I think we would strive to include standards that would um seek to avoid that or to minimize those kinds of impacts.

[00:55:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Um the concerns of the gentleman on Horizon. Uh are we able to address if hypothetically something goes in there the transition? Because if something's as tall as seven if you take a four story and go with a builder density you can go up to seven and that's that's going to be looking in a lot of neighborhoods so there have there been any thought to the transition or does that come in a future study.

[00:56:01] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So I think once we obtain council's direction on the alternative um that they would prefer um included in this is an analysis of trying to determine appropriate um compatibility and adjacency standards um things like step backs or setbacks uh and the like that would try to manage that interface as effectively as possible given some of the practical constraints of the the lot pattern and design.

[00:56:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Earlier today I asked you about the mobile home park and that we have certain restrictions on the mobile home park. Um is the understanding is that that's very hard to change its zoning?

[00:56:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any others wishing to submit public comment? All right, we will bring the item back for Council and this will be, we'll start with Council questions. So if colleagues have questions, we'll do that first and then we'll move into discussion and provide feedback on the two questions from staff. Any colleagues have questions? Councilmember Hicks.

[00:56:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I've not had a chance to look into that question further. Um I would say generally it's challenging. Um there's a combination of local and state components to um such a change in use for a mobile home park.

[00:56:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And about businesses, so uh I asked the question about businesses and being required and we've had issues on San Antonio. This section of road ever since has always been a uh problem child that people just don't go over there because of the the lure of downtown. So we're not expecting the businesses or the community space going in here to be competitive let's say. Just is that a safe safe uh question or statement?

[00:57:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Excuse me, my mic is falling apart. Yeah, so I have a question about kind of the interaction between state legislation and the various options, you know, A, B and C that we're looking at. So, and I know state legislation is always a moving target, you can't tell me what it's going to be by the end of the year. But my understanding is, one, that there's a good possibility that or some possibility that all the area near the transit, near the train station will be upzoned to some degree. And then also that there's state density bonus at this point, which means that whatever we set, developers may be able to opt to go higher. Now, at the same time, I've heard that for developers the sweet spot is kind of seven stories. So I'm wondering if we were to choose B, if that allows us, gives us more likelihood, although I know with constantly changing legislation you can't guarantee anything, more likelihood that we could enforce standards such as, say, ground floor uses, because they would not want to go much over seven, they wouldn't want to go over seven stories anyway, so they would have, if they did seven stories, they would have to comply with our standards. Is that a likely scenario or am I imagining this or what are your comments?

[00:57:26] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think what we've seen in the analysis done so far with the existing conditions work is that uh a certain type of commercial use is more likely to succeed in this location given its geographic uh location and the proximity of other competing commercial areas including downtown Mountain View.

[00:57:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so part of our identification of appropriate commercial land uses will be informed by that study in order to try to create um a use table that includes uses that are most likely to be viable. Um in addition um trying to incorporate some of the direction from the economic vitality strategy um creating flexibility and adaptability in the ground floors um by perhaps allowing a variety of active uses other than commercial uses or not exclusively commercial uses.

[00:58:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um could be one of the approaches to try to manage potential commercial vacancies um allowing those spaces to be built in a way that would be suitable for commercial use if and when um that's uh sustainable from a market standpoint but not necessarily requiring that um right out of the gate if if market conditions don't support such commercial use.

[00:58:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Commercial use includes office space?

[00:58:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We haven't done the analysis of what those potential ground floor uh non-retail uses might be but I think all options are on the table from our perspective unless council directs to take certain options off of the table at this time.

[00:58:49] Councilmember John McAlister: And could I get some clarity on the question that Councilmember Hicks asked about that if you allow to go so high the person wouldn't use builder density and therefore the ground floor I was just trying to grasp that a little. Could you explain by going so high they're more likely to put ground floor versus one or the other?

[00:59:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So it's a it's a complicated conversation and one I think for which we're not able to provide all of the answers definitively. So with that caveat I think the general approach that we're trying to explain is that um ground floor commercial use is likely to be more feasible um if we provide enough economic value in the residential component of the project.

[00:59:33] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: In other words allowing greater density and height to provide an offset for what is sometimes characterized by developers as a uh a loss leading component if you will um a a financially um detrimental component in some cases to construct and operate the ground floor commercial spaces.

[00:59:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And so we're trying let me rephrase potentially if council supported a higher density option it may provide more of an economic incentive to keep that ground floor commercial space as opposed to providing less economic value in the residential component which might lead a developer to um obtain a waiver or concession for the ground floor commercial space uh in order to improve project economics.

[01:00:14] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: I'll start and then I'll let Eric and Christian add whatever they'd like to. Of course, yes, these are all, you know, what we're listing and talking about are base densities, right, and then developers can choose to use state density bonus to go higher. You are correct that what we hear right now is the sweet spot is around seven stories. Of course, you know, construction types are ever-changing and that could change, you know, and definitely may in the life of this plan. I think that I think, you know, even if a project doesn't choose to, you know, build to the max they can have on state density bonus, they are often still entitled to waivers and concessions. So you may find that even though someone maybe doesn't go to the fullest extent that they're allowed under state density bonus, they would still be eligible to waive things like ground floor commercial or other development standards. And so I don't know that it's a perfect correlation to say that if you went with Alternative B, you would avoid those factors. And I'll let, you know, Eric or Christian add to that if they have.

[01:00:16] Councilmember John McAlister: And if we threw in the bonus density that would sounds like they could have their cake and eat it too if they did the and therefore there's building more doesn't incentivize them it sort of with the builder density they can eliminate more get more waivers no uh parking no green space and so forth.

[01:00:33] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh generally yes I think you're you're generally characterizing that the way I would understand it.

[01:00:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[01:00:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay thank you. Seeing no others in the queue I have a couple questions that I'd like to ask staff. So um I was looking at the uh existing conditions memo and I was trying well maybe can staff help share at what point or as we're discussing um the precise plan will we be talking about um how to um help our existing business businesses.

[01:01:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It wasn't listed in the existing conditions memo uh the economic vitality strategy was mentioned a couple future considerations but I didn't see anything related to preservation of existing retail so may staff share with me where which when that component comes into the mix? That'd be great. Thanks.

[01:01:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure thank you Mayor. I think you've touched on a challenging issue which arose in an earlier council discussion related to housing element program implementation that there are few direct options that the city has to try to support and retain specific existing businesses. Um we can strive to encourage developers to uh come to terms uh and make arrangements for such existing businesses uh but we're not aware of any um great tools in order to do that you know directly as a city policy or program unfortunately.

[01:02:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Not even in the economic vitality strategy? Would that like could that be woven into what we're doing with the Moffett um precise plan?

[01:02:21] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Well I think the main component of the economic vitality strategy on that point that I remember is the suggestion of direct financial support from the city uh for which we've not identified a funding source. And so in the absence of that uh we'd be looking at regulatory interventions uh and those are particularly challenging in terms of specific business retention.

[01:02:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. I think all I'll add to that initial response is I think anecdotally we have reason to believe that a developer may be less likely to invoke state density bonus law to waive or obtain concessions for items of importance to Council, like ground floor retail, if we're providing them the height and the density they may already desire. And by doing so, we make it economically more feasible for them to construct ground floor retail, for example. I'll also share anecdotally, you know, having met with various developers recently, a number of them desire to have ground floor retail in their projects to provide amenities and quality of life enhancements to the tenants of those spaces. And so it's not always the case that we would expect them to get out of commercial requirements on the ground floor, but there may be other incentives or reasons for them to want to invoke state density bonus law. As noted, private open space is perhaps another example, things that can add cost to construction of a project.

[01:02:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um other options that uh we've been considering are trying to facilitate relocation elsewhere within Mountain View. So they may not be able to stay in the same space but can we make a bridge with another commercial property owner to at least keep them in the community? That's one of the approaches that we're exploring for the variety of rezoning and redevelopment scenarios we're contemplating currently.

[01:03:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So and and I I've been kind of thinking about this a lot because when we're looking at the different land use um preferences A B C I'm does staff see a way for us to weave in opportunities for retail preservation in any of these alternatives? The one that I yeah.

[01:03:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: If it's the same answer that's okay. I I I think I'm just try- one of the things that was in the um the documents was with redevelopment may come increased rent and that could affect the existing small businesses. I don't know if aside from what staff mentioned with the stipend if there's any I don't know if staff had any other thoughts that they wanted to share related to that issue.

[01:04:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think our our work and our thinking is ongoing. We don't have ready-made solutions to those very to those very important and very challenging uh issues.

[01:04:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And as the thank you to staff for doing the uh the two walks uh business walks did that issue come up with the businesses that participated and engaged? I think there were eight businesses who actually engaged with us which is I think great considering last time it was zero so did did they bring up maybe preservation or could could you maybe share I was trying to go through the documents to see a little more detail I was just curious.

[01:04:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So that's, that's a strong maybe, I think. Okay. And then another question is that, uh, as we go... I mean, you can probably tell from the line of my questioning that I'm strongly interested in making sure that we have ground floor accessible use, it doesn't have to be retail, but accessible uses to the public. I'm also very concerned that we have a public realm, you know, the streets and streetscaping that is very attractive to people. So as we go up higher, how does that change the... the way you... another vague question, I'm sorry. The way you think about the streets. Is it less likely that you can reduce the number of lanes or... or what are the... what do you see as the impacts on what we can do, the flexibility of what we can do with the streets?

[01:04:35] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Sure sure. Um in my earlier walks um that I did and talked to some of the business owners I think it was a Mexican restaurant and grocery store so um yes there are concerns obviously that um with redevelopment of the site can they be there so I think that was kind of one of the questions that they they had they did have that raise that concern as well.

[01:04:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. Okay. Um and then uh just a question as we were looking at the um different community outreach so all that community outreach is unique or is it the same individuals and businesses? Can staff share?

[01:05:16] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I would say that it's you know what we've been doing with this particular precise plan has been you know trying to target a lot of the residents that are nearby and also the business owners that are within the plan area. Um and so we are getting some unique perspectives and then of course there's always you know um people who are just interested in development or possibilities in Mountain View in general and so you know we have that that population as well that's you know consistent for an- all of our outreach efforts.

[01:05:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right but so mine is is just trying to disaggregate the data a little bit so we is staff then unclear if it's this like uh you 350 plus unique um interactions or it could be maybe some duplicates of people who came to community meeting one and then community meeting two it it's kind of all mixed in is that my understanding? Okay. Under understood.

[01:06:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And then um could staff share and I tried to find this was there engagement with the neighborhood associations and groups? Did I I know that there was the community outreach and the surveys and the other but I know that I know Willowgate has a community um neighborhood I don't know if there were others.

[01:06:27] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I'll I'll defer to Eric on that one.

[01:06:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We uh you know sent out a a mailing kind of letting them know about sort of the the um the last decision by council on the last study session. Uh we did receive from some feedback from um members of that neighborhood uh based on that mailing. Uh we did try to schedule some meetings uh with them uh but uh I think they were uh the um you know the primary contact that we were speaking with was kind of just more interested in in communicating by email.

[01:06:52] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Hi, good evening. Jennifer Ing, Public Works Director. Thank you, Christian, that was a great introductory remarks for this. I think all I'll say at this point is, can't give you any definitive answers right now today. It definitely needs to be studied. There are a number of tools in our toolbox that we can use to look at how we might be able to achieve multiple priorities that the city wants, such as a slimmed down street, you know, nice greenways adjacent to pedestrian facilities, wide pedestrian facilities, nice bike features, etc. But it all... there's different tools that we can use to have those all play together, but it's going to mean pretty robust analysis. So we're not saying no. Um, soft maybe. How's that?

[01:07:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um we are still absolutely open to meeting with uh anybody who uh wants to uh meet with us, talk in more detail about uh their concerns about the process and um kind of where the process might go from here.

[01:07:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay great thank you. And then I guess just one point of clarification then for the the community is uh we have the precise plan, we'll answer the two questions and then how might the community next engage obviously with the uh Collaborate Mountain View and then will be there will be more community outreach that people can participate in? Is that my understanding? Before the final comes to Council?

[01:07:47] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah I'll go ahead and let Eric answer that as well but but yes.

[01:07:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So the there will definitely be more outreach. Um I will say that the the bulk of the kind of broad community outreach has been done. We are uh we are through the visioning process, we're through the kind of major land use vision uh process. Uh there will be opportunities uh to uh do more targeted stakeholder discussions uh with uh businesses, developers, property owners, surrounding neighbors, uh other neighborhood groups.

[01:08:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh as we get more detail um as we kind of uh vet and refine uh individual uh standards and policies uh that will be an an ongoing part of the process. And of course we these study sessions uh will always of course be another opportunity for people to weigh in.

[01:08:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Soft maybe, okay, great. Um, and then let's see. Oh, so my last question is about the Future Study Areas. In particular, I'm thinking of like the Shenandoah area, which is not even in the city, so... and may or may be at some point in the future, may or may not be. Can we... I think I've asked this before and I'm just always asking the same question. Can we, although we won't plan it extensively, can we add some kind of notes to it that stipulate that whatever is developed there adjacent to the street, it should have a more public face, be more public facing, have a more public facing realm? And I am, I think if I'm reading it right, so for example if there were a school there, they might put the theater there because they usually try to attract the public to a school theater as one example. And not a blank wall. Can we stipulate some of those things or make some kind of notes? One. And then can we also extend the streetscaping to those, to that area or those areas?

[01:08:46] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And outside of those formal opportunities um we have staff primarily Senior Planner Aki Snelling who's available at any time to answer questions from the public.

[01:08:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Perfect. Great. Thank you. Well those are my questions so I'll bring the item back for discussion and to provide feedback um to staff. So I have been um told if colleagues can speak directly into the mic I heard that people have been having issues hearing us and then we may have to do straw polls and when we do straw polls if you could raise your hand high and proud um people are not always able to see your head nod or anything else so we need to make sure that we're just being extremely clear for the record so just would appreciate that. So um City Attorney Logue.

[01:09:37] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I am sorry to interrupt, Jennifer Logue, City Attorney. Could I actually request that we get verbal responses for straw poll because when I watch the video sometimes it pans to just two people and we don't know when it's panning and not so we might not see hands raised down at the other end.

[01:09:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh okay see so people are hearing the the issue here. Okay no problem. So we'll need to get verbal confirmation on all the all the straw polls so um I'll probably just have to call on you if we have to do the straw polls is that correct? All right. Okay. So uh why don't we start with question one and then we'll go to question two we'll just uh

[01:10:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think there's two separate discussions so one is question one on the land use and then we'll move we'll we'll go through that and see what happens and then we'll um move to question two which is more about streetscape improvements and I believe there we need to confirm the rank and order with which the consensus or the majority of council would like staff to evaluate. So um question one, Vice Mayor Ramos.

[01:10:41] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So I'll take the first part first. I think you've hit on exactly one of the key considerations for the Future Study Areas and trying to incorporate them in the Precise Plan area today. Not knowing what the future development might be on these various Future Study Areas, but not wanting to miss the opportunity to try to integrate those areas within the cohesive roadway and streetscape design. And similarly, to try to capture any incremental development or changes to make incremental improvements to that public interface between the private property and the public right-of-way. As to the second part, I think really we're focused for prioritization tonight on the Central Expressway to Middlefield portion of Moffett as having the greatest opportunity for study and potential future improvements to reimagine the streetscape. There are some...

[01:10:47] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. I will go with Alternative B.

[01:10:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:10:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Uh I was faster than I was expecting. Uh so I I also support Alternative B for the reasons uh described in the staff report. Um I also want to uh second strongly um your suggestion Mayor that we focus on uh business preservation as uh an ongoing component of the precise plan development.

[01:11:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think that that will be uh an integral component of of achieving the vision that um we've heard from the community. I had the opportunity to participate in both of the uh community outreach uh meetings which were very well attended. I think the staff did an excellent job in arranging them and um our consultants as well. Uh I I got a lot of uh valuable insight from just hearing what folks in the neighborhood had to say uh and and retaining existing businesses was uh was elevated pretty high in in the uh the list of priorities that were heard.

[01:11:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I the only other thing I want to suggest for question one is uh that we request of uh staff um there's there's no deadline associated with this but uh you know to to the extent this is something that um that could be incorporated into existing workflows um I think an analysis of the State Density Bonus Law how it works um what the limitations are what the city's limits are but also what the developer's limits are would be really important for us.

[01:12:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That this comes up time and time again in our discussions um and I think um the the council would be well served by uh a really uh thorough and comprehensive uh analysis and understanding of what the State Density Bonus Law allows for and and doesn't allow for uh and also incorporated into that analysis what are the waivers and concessions that have been requested in Mountain View.

[01:12:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There have been a number of density bonus projects so we know um and and many of the density bonus projects include uh a commercial or ground floor element including The Dean which I live near and then another Prometheus project on Moffett that's that's currently under review. Um so that I would hope that the the council would consider incorporating that direction uh in uh the discussion tonight. Thank you.

[01:13:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: City Attorney Logue.

[01:13:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Sorry thank you uh City Attorney Jennifer Logue. So we can definitely work with um CDD staff to develop that type of analysis. It will take some time to do that so I would seek clarification on when you would like that or are you wanting that back with the next time this item comes or is that a memo we would prepare separately and provide to Council so a little clarification would help and then timing also.

[01:13:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Off agenda memo whenever staff has capa- capacity to prepare it.

[01:13:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And then um City Attorney Logue that would be an item that we need to take a straw poll on? Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. I just want to mark it down now. Okay. Councilmember Ramirez is that Okay. Okay so I'm writing off agenda memo as soon as staff can. Is that right? Okay. Councilmember McAlister.

[01:14:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Um I'm going to uh go with uh Alternative A. Um concerned about because a couple reasons I want A, the bonus density is a concern because people are going to take waivers and if you give them the max then what else are they going to go for. Um I am not a big believer in uh building at all limits because it doesn't build community, it builds silos so I'm always concerned about what you're building over there.

[01:14:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Um also concerned about that the strip of land is narrow and that open space to me is very important, parking trying to get people off the street parking is always important to me and if we have these new requirements that we have to reduce our open space and we have to limit parking where are these people going to park but on the street. So we need to keep it somewhat realistic on what we're trying to build here.

[01:15:08] Councilmember John McAlister: It is not a large uh swath of land and to go to the extreme or to the max as uh Alternative B does I don't think this is the right place for those kind of projects. We have some other properties in our areas in Mountain View where the bigger projects would be better served. And again the the survivor of the survival of the businesses there they've always been struggling.

[01:15:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh in fact every time you do something over at the History House that affects the businesses there because they take up all the parking and it's really tough there so we th- this is a unique area as far as I see it. I also see that the traffic is sort of in in some sense Moffett Boulevard is a dead-end street because there's no traffic going across from Castro used to be a big feature and everybody that would probably use it they'd be coming off of Central and either they'd be going to uh 85 or 101 down Middlefield so I look at this as as again a unique piece of property and it doesn't deserve the maximum type of development that's being uh suggested.

[01:16:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[01:16:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So uh as you could probably guess from my line of questioning I'm I'm leaning towards or I will endorse um Option B. Um because I think it gives us although not definitely the ability to enforce um design standards and and uh ground floor uh uses I think it gives us a much better chance and I'm I'm really I also concur with uh the Mayor and Councilmember Ramirez that one of the main things when we're looking at land use is um finding a way to support the legacy businesses.

[01:17:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um in in my own neighborhood downtown the Rose Market it's not exactly in my neighborhood but it's across the street a- across El Camino it seems to be doing pretty well so I would like you know we have in our next agenda or last agenda item um we're talking about spending a lot of money on a lot of different things. And I think so I think that some program for legacy businesses is something that would be really important. I think it's probably more important to a lot of people than some of the things we're currently spending money on.

[01:17:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um I won't target any particular one but I do think it I do think it's it's um really important. And um also I I would like to have public facing uses not ground floor offices. Um but I would be open to live work on the ground floor as that's um you know maybe something that mixes housing and uh and uh and a a public facing use. So anyway B.

[01:18:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter. Oh so hello.

[01:18:13] Public Speaker: Can't tell the truth about the city? Which you're 50 years I've lived, no damage?

[01:18:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you we we are not gonna.

[01:18:25] Public Speaker: If you arrest me! If you arrest me! I don't care! If you arrest me!

[01:18:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We we did public comment on the item already. We are in council deliberation. We're doing two questions. We uh if this is about the Moffett study session item we're already in deliberation.

[01:18:50] Public Speaker: Just tell the truth! Just tell the truth!

[01:18:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sir sir we do have public comment on non-agendized public items. Can you please have a seat and you will be able to speak. You will be able to speak in public comment sir. Please just have a seat. It's public comment on non-agendized items. It'll be once our meeting starts after 6:30. Thank you.

[01:19:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Thank you. So after that point of order we'll go back to Councilmember Showalter.

[01:19:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. I'm going to go with um uh uh B as well and the reason I'm going with B is because I really think it's valuable to study the biggest envelope. Not that we'll necessarily go with that eventually but we'll have the information to study it and I think that's a wise move.

[01:19:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um so I'm going to suggest that. I I wanted to also um mention um I mentioned it before a little bit that that this is a you know the transportation issues are really front and center in everybody's mind making um this a people friendly place where um it's nice for people to walk and bike is very very important. But another thing that was mentioned um which I think is quite valid is the connection to the train station and how there's a need for shuttles to be there. So that that's another thing I hope will you know will consider moving forward. And that's it. Thank you.

[01:20:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh City Attorney Logue you're still in the queue. Are you? Okay. Uh Councilmember Clark.

[01:20:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um I agree with what um what Councilmember Showalter said. I think in this case um it's it's a good idea to study the the broader envelope um especially given the the State Density Bonus Law and then um that doesn't mean we have to support that or those densities along the entire corridor once we've studied it but I think understanding the implications of that level of density and its interplay with the memo and other things around State Density Bonus Law will be helpful. So um I think studying B is is um is appropriate at this point and then we can make adjustments down the line once we know the uh the implications of that.

[01:21:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. Uh I'll weigh in since all colleagues have on question one. So I was most um I think most people know I lived in this area for seven years so I am thrilled that we're having this discussion. It's too bad that we weren't able to have it we when we talked about 555 Middlefield but here we are now. Um and and because of that because of my lived experience talking to old neighbors being in the area I'm most moved by Alternative C.

[01:21:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think um one of the really unique things about the Moffett ar- yes C. I said I said C. Um was the I think the really unique thing about this area is the small businesses. And while I think others might see it struggling I think it shows resilience. I have seen people reinvest in this community um in terms of there's a yoga studio that opened not too long ago Crave Yoga. There's the um music um uh store that does instruction. There is a gym, there's a legacy floral shop. Um there's the auto auto shop that uh one of our public speakers um but yes but most importantly it has a grocery. And I think those of us who've done EPC and Land Use know how difficult it is to ever get a grocery.

[01:22:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um and I really want to make sure that that survives and thrives um and I feel like having the um focused mixed use might help in terms of I think the price point in rents so I'm I'm really concerned about as we see redevelopment that we might create some options for the the businesses to be reintegrated. And I think an example that Councilmember Hicks brought up is the development on El Camino and how Rose's Market the tailor shop others were put onto the ground floor and then we had mixed use on top right with the um the apartments um and the residences so I'm my my hope is that we'll be able to see that and I hope that if we were to do something like C that would happen.

[01:23:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um but I hear that there is uh a majority for B. Um and I did hear two other things that I'd like to just take straw polls on. So does staff need a formal vote on B? I heard five so I don't I don't think we need one. Right? Okay. Great. Okay I'm seeing a seeing a head nod. That one's okay? That head nod's okay? Yes I clearly heard five. Okay. All right. But I do want to take straw polls on two items that I heard raised um just to get clarity on consensus.

[01:24:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So the first what I what I heard was kind of a how to retain our small businesses as we're looking at the alternative and then also analysis of State Density Bonus Law um and having an off agenda memo come to Council as soon as time permits. Those are the two items that I heard so I'll just take them in turn if that's all right. So I think we need to do voice votes. Um so shall uh City City Clerk can you help me do the voice vote? Okay great.

[01:24:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So um if you uh are in favor of um retaining preserving the the small businesses as part of the alternative.

[01:24:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[01:24:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[01:24:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:24:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:24:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:25:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:25:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:25:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:25:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:25:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:25:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[01:25:07] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:25:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[01:25:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. Okay so that was unanimous. The second straw poll will be about the analysis of the State Density Bonus Law.

[01:25:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[01:25:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[01:25:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:25:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:25:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:25:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:25:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:25:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:25:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

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

[01:25:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[01:25:27] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:25:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[01:25:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. Okay great. And both are unanimous. Thanks colleagues. We'll move on to question number two. So this one has to do with does council agree that the priorities for streetscape improvements should be studied on Moffett Boulevard and then they include let's see one two three these these four and then this is also the priority order correct to staff?

[01:25:52] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Um so these are what has been prioritized by the outreach efforts and the EPC however you could prioritize them in a different order if that um if you choose.

[01:26:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. But these are ranked in priority order. That was my understanding. Correct. Correct. Right. So it is not only does council agree with these four priorities but it's also if we wanted to reorganize them in a different four order way then that would happen tonight correct.

[01:26:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct and with the reason being the potential trade-offs that may need to be made uh as we design this further.

[01:26:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So hopefully colleagues understand that component as well. All right. First in the queue Councilmember McAlister. Oh um maybe I'm there. Oh. Well maybe after you speak you can You can delete yourself. I tried. No no. Take me out of the queue. I couldn't I couldn't ex you out maybe the Assistant City Clerk could help us. I couldn't get couldn't clear you.

[01:26:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So was that a would you like someone else to go first sir? Yes please take me off the queue there please.

[01:27:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: So the um the priority order I'm I'm mostly okay with a few exceptions in there a few things I just want to make sure that we we capture for consideration um if if others are in agreement. Um I do think that um wider sidewalks and the pedestrian amenities are are key in this area because we want we want folks um you know who are migra- you know frequenting this area or or migrating to downtown or from downtown across from two or from the train station or to whatever is is built here to have a really nice experience much nicer than exists today.

[01:27:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um so I think the prioritizing that is is number one makes sense. I think number two with the um especially with the train station and people coming to uh to and fro especially maybe someday with the um with the underpass uh the the bike and ped underpass having the protected bike lanes instead of buffered bike lanes is really important.

[01:28:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: I recognize that maybe the entire corridor can't be protected bike lanes there may be areas where it has to switch to buffered and back but I do think that is a uh an important um number two.

[01:28:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then um I think where I might differ a little bit would be um I like landscape boulevards with medians. I think they they make everything look less um just more inviting. But I would prioritize preserving some on-street parking um but uh over that uh but even more than on-street parking I think we're going to be in a world in we're talking about five ten years in beyond and so I really think what's important is not only that we have um maybe some on-street parking more importantly probably some sort of centralized parking solution um but also loading zones.

[01:29:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Because I think what we're going to experience is you know there might be restaurants and other things on the ground floor that not only serve the folks who are in that vicinity but um as we've seen with our downtown businesses who utilize delivery services and you know there's no end to the number of you know DoorDash Uber Eats whatever cars that you know pull in take a parking spot do whatever they need to do and then and then go and it would be really great to have them utilize loading zones instead of parking spots for those things.

[01:29:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so I think thinking ahead to where those sorts of services can uh either pick up food drop off humans um pick up humans do whatever they need to do um and not take up a parking spot to do that would be would be really great. Um and then also for loading unloading of you know folks who are going to the transit station. So um I I would prioritize that over over landscape medians although I do like landscape medians.

[01:30:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um and then we talked about centralized parking. Um the other two things um if you look at uh I just pulled up the street view just to confirm uh once you get if if you're going from Central Expressway down Moffett um toward um toward 85 when you get to Jackson uh the utilities are no longer underground. They're above ground and those utility poles are in the sidewalk.

[01:30:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I, hopefully with wider sidewalks we can... it would be nice to eventually underground those utilities maybe project by project as we as has been done in the past. We have the same issue on Calderon where there, you know, there are just utility poles in the middle of the sidewalk, and if you're not careful you'll just hit one if you're not paying attention.

[01:30:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so I, I think that should be something that we think about along with the streetscape and the sidewalks. And then finally, with respect to the neighbors, I talked a little bit about loading and centralized parking. You know, I think we're, we may need a neighborhood parking permit program for that area because if we don't have sufficient parking and because it's so close to transit we can't necessarily require, um, parking standards, which is why we might want to look at a centralized parking facility.

[01:31:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. I have a couple questions. So the one and two sounded the same, and then for your number three I wrote centralized parking slash loading zone. Does that sound right?

[01:31:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I would I would prioritize...

[01:31:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Or do you want it to... or do you want to do... do you want your three to be setting the feasibility of preserving on-street with the road diet less?

[01:32:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, I think people will, if we don't have some sort of permit program, will end up parking in the neighborhood, um, more than, um, more than those neighbors would would like and some of those streets are actually quite narrow too. So, um, I know that that there's a process or there will be a process for that hopefully, but I just wanted to bring that up as something that we should think about as part of this.

[01:32:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. So I I kind of lump centralized parking into number four, so basically number four would be above number three for me. As long as number four is expanded a little bit. Yeah.

[01:32:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. And then you added a five and six.

[01:32:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, neighborhood parking permit... neighborhood... I don't think we need to add neighborhood parking permit. I think that's just keep in the back of our minds. We're gonna have to think about that. I think, um, and then underground utilities is probably just something we'll think about as part of the streetscape. I don't think it needs to be a a goal. I think we can stick with the same four as long as...

[01:32:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So they're just comments. I just wanted to make sure. Are they comments or are they straw poll? So I just...

[01:32:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. And others can chime in if they agree with some of those, but I don't think we need to reinvent the list.

[01:32:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. And then just related to the neighborhood parking program, can staff remind us one that's coming back to Council? I think it's the... what is it... R P P P P? The residential parking permit program.

[01:33:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor. So the neighborhood parking program or the residential parking permit program is included in a CIP project. And so that will be in the next item... in the next uh...

[01:33:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, thank you. You got it? Okay. Yeah, thanks. I knew it was... By next item I mean next meeting. Yes, I knew it was somewhere in the queue, so thank you very much. All right. Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:33:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I feel like this is trickier to respond to than question one since, um, I I feel like the Council would benefit from, uh, more analysis by the staff of what the the possible configurations of the roadway might be. Um, and it's also tricky because I think the first three feel like, you know, desirable outcomes and the fourth one doesn't quite fit in into the, you know, what what it is that we're we're ordering here.

[01:34:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so like I I would say, you know, my... I I'm still having trouble parsing that fourth component, but but I if I am understanding it correctly it would probably actually be my my first choice. And it's not so much, you know, preserving on-street parking so much as rethinking what the roadway could provide for the community. Um, so the the preservation of on-street... I I appreciate Councilmember Clark's, uh, remarks and I think that's that's forward thinking, you know, anticipating how people will be using that the roadway and and, you know, the recognition that there are a good number of people who utilize the, um, you know, those kinds of DoorDash-like services.

[01:34:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, but I'm I'm more interested in how can we, uh, ensure that the future of Moffett Boulevard is oriented around pedestrians and, you know, bicycle and pedestrian safety and and comfort and convenience. So that's that's the end goal. Um, and I think that will require most likely a a reduction in in, uh, vehicle lanes. So that's why I feel like four is, in in my mind, the most... that would be the highest priority item, but it's not... it wouldn't be the way I've that that it's written here. It would be more, um... I guess what I'm asking for is for for staff to come back with some various options more than anything about what what could be done with the roadway presuming that there is a reduction in the number of vehicle lanes. Um, I can clarify that later if that's helpful.

[01:35:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, but but the the other things I think are are great. Uh, wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities would be, uh, highly desirable and I would hope that we can, um, achieve that in the, uh, uh, implementation of the precise plan. Um, and protected bike lanes have have been a a priority for for for many years. So I... I'm gonna do my best to be clear. So, um, I would say I think priority one for me would be, um, yes, but with with the the nuance that it's more about reducing the number of vehicle lanes so that we can maximize bicycle and pedestrian safety. Um, so there's the almost a presumption that there's going to be a red... rather than studying the feasibility of of a road diet, which is how it's phrased here, it's a presum... an operating presumption that there will be fewer than four vehicle lanes.

[01:36:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Whether that's, you know, two and a central turn lane or or something. I I don't want to presume there's a best outcome, but presuming that there are fewer than, you know, two lanes in each direction, then protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, and then last would be landscaped boulevard with medians.

[01:36:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So just to clarify for number four because I'm... others might feel compelled to rework four. So it's for staff to study maximum...

[01:37:07] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, can I take a stab at this? So so I think it's just reworking how it's worded, and it really is trying to get at the, uh, rethinking the the vision of what Council and the community wants the roadway to be, which is reducing the number of vehicle lanes to maximize the number of, uh, or maximize the ability for people to bike or walk. Which is a road diet, but it's kind of rewording it in a in a way that really tries to capture I think the vision of what Council and the community is looking for.

[01:37:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, that's helpful. It's I think the the challenge I have with four is it there's a lot in there and it's it, you know, it includes the preservation of on-street parking which I I think, you know, Councilmember Clark spoke to very very well, but but my the part of number four I would want to elevate is the road diet and that's because the road diet will be necessary to achieve the higher priority goals, namely bicycle pedestrian safety. Thank you.

[01:38:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. Councilmember Showalter.

[01:38:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I'm gonna sort of follow on from that. Essentially the road diet gives us the room to put in the bike lane and the wider sidewalks and some of the trees. And, um, that's really what we I think I'm hearing that we all want. So we want, I I mean my feeling is yes, go ahead and figure out what the best, um, configuration of it is. Um, and I I don't really want to go much further than that with direction. I kind of want to give staff, um, uh, the latitude to use their expertise to provide green infrastructure, uh, good stormwater protection, shade, um, bike lanes and wide sidewalks, and also a reasonable space for cars because we, you know, we do need cars to move back and forth there, but, um, uh, we don't I don't think we need four lanes of traffic. So so that's kind of my feeling of it. It's it's like a whole package.

[01:39:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so your priority would be number four as your number one? And then...

[01:39:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So that's really my number one, but but it's sort of like 1, A, B, C, D. Yeah. It's kind of inclusive.

[01:39:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So the the the question is is if you're okay with the priority with which staff has laid out, but if you're prioritizing something else then we need to get a Council majority. So that is...

[01:40:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, but really, uh, I I was just so pleased to see all of the thought that had gone into this. And, um, uh, you know, the the the way that people have really carefully thought through it and given us a lot of ideas. But I guess what I'm saying is that, you know, take these ideas and and based on what we geographically have available to us give us come back with the best options. Thank you.

[01:40:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[01:40:34] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes. Okay. Um, I'll I'll actually go with the, uh, the original setup. Um, uh, I I will prioritize, uh, first priority wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities, second priority protected bike lanes instead of buffered bike lanes. Now, um, I understand how the weird feasibility thing is. I I would move that for three just for like the sake of the easiness. It's not the on-street parking that I I I really care about. I if you can make the wider wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes without a road diet, that's that's cool.

[01:41:19] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, you don't have to do that work, but, um, I I I'm starting to think about how that that might not actually be possible without the road diet. Um, I am, um, uh, supportive of how, uh, Councilmember Clark was talking about like in the future looking at drop-off zones. Um, because, um, I I actually live off of the exit the Moffett exit of 101. So if I want to walk to downtown or bike to downtown, I go through that area. And I am learning how to bike. It's not going well. Um, but, um, I'm I'm just kind of like waddling the bike everywhere and I kind of get demoralized by the time I get to that bus stop in front of the mobile home park and then head back. Um, and then drive downtown.

[01:42:24] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, so I uh I think just by having a better experience just getting uh biking and and walking downtown and so many people essentially north of the the uh the Caltrain line, they they go that route to get to downtown. And I think it will be something that will be really powerful, especially if we want to do some placemaking there. It's kind of all together. Um, so I would prioritize, um, what the basically out of here, one, two, I'll move the fourth one to my third choice, landscape boulevard to my fourth choice.

[01:43:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I hear two colleagues for that, which is 1, 2, 4, 3. Councilmember Hicks.

[01:43:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I generally like the things that other Council members have said and the the direction we seem to be moving in. Uh, like Councilmember Showalter, I'm not sure that ranking the the the points are really going to... I mean I can, but I'm not sure that I'm I'm not sure that's going to be the best explanation of how I would sum up my thoughts and what I've heard from heard and learned from other Council members. Um, so I think the thing that most, um, made me think most was when, uh, residents I read some resident feedback and they said the they found the area something along the line of brown and bleak or brown and barren.

[01:44:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I I think maybe that's the thing the thing that we haven't talked about quite enough as other Council members have have talked... I mean the word landscaped is in here and we've said trees, but I really think it's about more than making it safe for pedestrians and allowing cars... although I do want to think about cars and parking. But, um, I think making it a place you want to be and that I would elevate, uh, trees and greenery above what our conversation has uh our dialogue so far has elevated it. Um, I also really liked what, um, Jennifer Ing told us earlier tonight when she said... I think I took notes right... she said we have a number of, uh, tools that play together.

[01:44:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And that's why I can't rank them easily because maybe I think Councilmember Showalter, maybe Councilmember Ramirez said this, that I'm really looking forward to a study of how all these tools can play together. For me a road diet is about more than just reducing a lane, although I think, you know, now that you don't cross over to Castro anymore, there's really room for studying and reducing the number of lanes, but also possibly narrowing the lanes, you know, they they seem pretty wide. Um, and there are also other tools like, um, uh, sidewalk level bike lanes that don't add more width but allow you to, um, fit in a bike lane more easily. Um, and then there's also, uh, what, um, one of our residents Mr. Watson talks about and his mother who's an architect, um, which is, uh, arcades, encouraging building arcades or cantilevers to widen the sidewalk.

[01:45:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just think there are a lot of tools and just pointing to two or three are, um, are n... not enough. We can also do parking like we do like we used to on Castro Street that alternates with trees, even something more lush. So I don't think the way we've described it in this list doesn't lay out all the tools we have available to us. And I would like a study that really looks at where the traffic is going and and looks at all the tools we have to make this a nice place for people to be, not just a corridor. And yes, highlights pedestrians and bikers. Um, in addition to that, I, um, strongly agree with Councilmember Clark that we have to think about parking and loading and drop-offs, um, whether it's through, uh, you know, like like I said maybe on-street parking that alternates with landscaping, whether and the neighborhood parking or residential parking permit program, you know, those are all or some standalone parking, uh, I don't know, I'm not a big fan of parking structures, but maybe. Um, so I do think we have to think about parking and loading and and so forth. Um, so do you want me to number them?

[01:47:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I think I think the the struggle and the difficulty is that staff, um, as our Community Development Director mentioned, there's tradeoffs and these are the four that elevated to the top in the community outreach. So I'm just asking colleagues to kind of play within these tools or play with these toys that are in this box because that is what the majority was heard in these meetings. And I think, um, you know, the the nuance and how they thread together to create like cohesion... I think staff understands that. But I think given the tradeoffs right in the study, obviously there's going to be I think a cost and I think there's also going to be, um, as we answered question one, that's going to be a factor into what we can do with our streetscape. I mean I don't looking to staff I think that's why staff is really looking for input so that they can... And I think the goal is to bring this back to Council in a timely fashion. So, uh, I don't know if you have anything more to to to share.

[01:48:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you, Mayor. Um, having not heard all Council members yet, I think what I can distill from the discussion thus far is that, um, no one thus far has prioritized a landscaped boulevard with medians. And so we can put that in the fourth position. Beyond that, uh, it seems like there's general support for the road diet and looking to maximize active transportation opportunities like wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and a very, uh, aggressive program of landscaping with trees and other greenery to try to really beautify and make the space welcoming, uh, along the corridor so that people want to be there and to, uh, patronize businesses as well as, um, use that as a way that they get to and from downtown and elsewhere in the city.

[01:49:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I can give you a number. That sounds like a good summary. I can give you a number. Number one is greening and placemaking. Number two is wide sidewalks with pedestrian amenities. Number three is, uh, protect... Number three is, uh, protected bike lanes. Number four is, uh, road diet and, uh, thinking about parking.

[01:49:27] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Right. And Mayor, um, I did leave out the then looking to achieve, um, various parking strategies with on-street parking, uh, perhaps permit parking, centralized parking location, a variety of parking strategies as well.

[01:49:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember McAlister.

[01:49:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, it's good to have the last word because I get the benefit of listening to everyone. And, uh, I'm sort of leaning towards, uh, Councilmember Showalter because to me the wide streets with trees and pedestrian amenities is the top thing. So I always sort of put that in and worked backwards to say okay if we put the wide streets in what do we have left to work with. So that's my number one priority. Wide sidewalks. No I'm not... okay. The wide sidewalks, thank you. So the wide sidewalks. So number one is my number one priority. After that if you do that then you figure out what's left and make sense. That's what I would go with.

[01:50:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So it's sort of a abstain I don't know what Council... I thought Councilmember Showalter said the same thing. Sort of put in one thing and see what trans... you know cascades down. Um, but I also agree that if one of our goals is business, uh, retention, parking is a huge thing and we do need to look at parking on there. The road diet, if you're going to reduce the the parking, just look at what we've done on El Camino already as an example where we took out parking and and it's a little early to figure out what the effects are but it is going to affect businesses and they are struggling right now and the businesses on Moffett have been struggling for a long time. So that's a concern.

[01:51:07] Councilmember John McAlister: So wide streets, trees, pedestrian amenities. Anything that you come to Council with me further on and you want wide sidewalks, I'm there. So, uh, just for future reference. But the other ones, do the wide and then cascade down what's available what space is available and works best. So, uh, I'm one and done.

[01:51:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, I difficult to summarize but I think that the Community Development Director had had uh that summary. Maybe we can just I don't know if we have to take a a vote on on that. Um, but uh but summary. But I do I will say, um, I for the colleagues who did do their ranking of 1, 2, 4, 3, I I'm most compelled by that. I think that this can dovetail nicely into the comments that I had in alternative uh or the when we were discussing the alternatives in terms of, uh, bringing more foot traffic to whatever small businesses we're able to retain. So I think that many people in the neighborhood, they that is their grocery store, they walk and if you forget something you go there, right? Um, or that's what I used to do.

[01:52:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think that anything we to we can do to encourage, um, a walkable bikeable community to the businesses that exist there so people don't feel like they have to go out of the community is something that would help us meet, you know, our our VMT and SOV target goals in terms of just like reducing, um, those types of trips. So, uh, does staff have what they need? Do you need a vote on this?

[01:52:57] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think that that no one really talked about the landscape median so I do agree that that doesn't need to be included.

[01:53:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay, great. So how about how about we'll read it in and then, um, Assistant City Clerk will just go through and do a voice vote. Thank you.

[01:53:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So, uh, no median. And then, um, Council support for the road diet, uh, which will provide opportunities for active transportation, um, to be optimized by staff but with a priority towards wider sidewalks with trees and pedestrian amenities as the first, and then protected bike lanes, um, as the second. Uh, looking at robust landscaping. And then trying to find opportunities, uh, for various parking solutions including potential on-street parking where possible, loading zones, permit parking, uh, and potentially a centralized parking location as well.

[01:53:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. We'll do a voice vote. Yes, no.

[01:53:52] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Clark?

[01:53:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[01:53:55] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:53:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:53:57] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:53:59] Councilmember John McAlister: No, because I wanted the wide streets and then worked down instead of the road diet straight ahead. So, no.

[01:54:06] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:54:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:54:09] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:54:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:54:11] Assistant City Clerk: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[01:54:12] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:54:13] Assistant City Clerk: Mayor Kamei?

[01:54:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:54:15] Assistant City Clerk: Thank you. All right, so that passes 6-1.

[01:54:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think, uh, this concludes the study session item. So we'll take a brief recess. We'll convene at 7:05 for our regular session.

[02:06:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Good evening everyone. Um, again, Happy Earth Day. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Mountain View City Council of April 22nd, 2025. If we could start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

[02:06:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. We'll move on to Item 2. The Assistant City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[02:06:54] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Clark?

[02:06:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[02:06:56] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:06:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:06:58] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember McAlister?

[02:06:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Here.

[02:07:00] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Ramirez?

[02:07:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[02:07:02] Assistant City Clerk: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:07:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[02:07:04] Assistant City Clerk: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[02:07:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[02:07:06] Assistant City Clerk: Mayor Kamei?

[02:07:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[02:07:08] Assistant City Clerk: Thank you. We have a quorum with all members present.

[02:07:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move on to Item 3, Presentations. Please note these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. And so I'll make my way down to the, uh, podium, and first up is Item 3.1, our National Volunteer Week Proclamation.

[02:07:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So tonight we are happy to be joined this evening by Gayatri Ratnam to accept this proclamation. Gayatri was generously did dedicated her time and expertise to instructing the Sewing with FabMo program at the Mountain View Public Library as a volunteer. Over the past three years, her commitment has positively impacted the community by fostering creativity, skill development, and a sense of togetherness through program attendees. The program she leads not only equips individuals with valuable sewing skills but also provides a welcoming space for community growth and engagement, a place where participants can express their creativity and build meaningful connections. Gayatri has had had an exceptional volunteer making selfless contributions that have enriched the lives of many through her enthusiasm and craft making. So we have a proclamation here for you to accept. And just read a little bit of it, which it says... the proclamation reads... whereas the residents of Mountain View demonstrate an unwavering commitment to volunteering by building bridges across communities and uniting people with different perspectives and experiences to work toward common aspirations, and whereas volunteering empowers individuals to develop new skills, expand their horizons, and find fulfillment in making a positive impact on others and their community, and whereas the City of Mountain View expresses its sincere gratitude to the individuals and organizations who have generously volunteered their time over the past year at Deer Hollow Farm, the Mountain View Public Library, Shoreline at Mountain View, the Mountain View Center for Performing Arts, the Rengstorff House, the Mountain View Senior Center, the View Teen Center, and City-wide Special Events, as well as through programs such as Junior Leaders and Lifeguards, Cool Block Leaders, Police Explorers, Kindness Ambassadors, and Emergency Response Team. And now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim April 20th through April 26th, 2025, as National Volunteer Week. Would you like to say a few words?

[02:10:05] Gayatri Ratnam: I've lived in Mountain View for 20 years and I found this community to be a safe and supportive space. I am so grateful to the library staff for giving me this opportunity to pay this forward. And thank you for your nice words. It's always nice to be appreciated. Thank you.

[02:10:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We're gonna... We'll take a... We'll take a picture with the City Council. Um, but also I think that we're having our volunteer fair this Saturday. Is that right? We have a volunteer fair this Saturday at our Senior Center? Or at our Community Center. 10 a.m. to noon. And so we'll have many wonderful volunteers. And you're right, the power of a thank you. So make sure you thank a volunteer this week. We'll just take a quick picture.

[02:11:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, and we have one other proclamation tonight. Item 3.2 is National Wildlife Federation Wildlife Habitat Certification for Charles Chuck Percy Proclamation. And we're happy to be joined this evening by Chuck... by... sorry, Chuck Percy to accept this proclamation. And will you join me at the lectern? And... We're just looking for your proclamation. No, no problem. Okay. I think... No, no. No, the... his actual proclamation. Maybe it's at my desk, sorry. Well, uh, we will get it to you. But we're here to recognize you. And that I'll just read your full proclamation in in its stead and then we'll turn it over to you if that's all right. So, uh, thank you for rolling with it, Chuck. Um, so your proclamation when you receive it will read: Whereas the Mountain View resident, uh, Charles Percy is making a difference to protect wildlife by successfully creating a certified wildlife habitat at his Mountain View home, and whereas the National Wildlife Federation, America's largest wildlife conservation and education organization, recognize your efforts to create a garden that supports birds, butterflies, bees, frogs, and other local wildlife, and whereas the yard at your home is maintained in a sustainable way that incorporates native plants including fruit trees, conserves water, and does not rely on pesticides, and whereas your actions in creating certified wildlife habitat demonstrate how to restore a wildlife habitat right in one's own yard and community, and whereas your efforts contribute to the City of Mountain View's biodiversity goals to enhance and sustain the urban ecosystem for the long term. Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the Council, hereby congratulate and recognize you for creating a certified wildlife habitat in Mountain View. And I can't wait to hear more about it. So please feel free to share.

[02:13:31] Chuck Percy: Thank you. Um, I've been a resident in Mountain View for 30 years and the whole time I've been working on the, uh, same house. Um, we face a global crisis of biodiversity and ecosystem health. In my lifetime we've lost three quarters of wildlife diversity and it's a crisis. If the earth fails, we fail. Each one of us can contribute to reversing this by actively curating biological diversity on whatever patch of dirt or set of containers we can get access to. It's critical. Doug Tallamy wrote a great book that I read recently on how to do this, um, that captured what I've been doing the whole time I've been here. It's called Nature's Best Hope. I recommend reading it as it shows how we can turn this around from our very own backyards. What each of us does matters. I'm thrilled to receive this proclamation, but I hope next Earth Day you have to read a hundred, uh, because many more do this in their own backyards. Thank you.

[02:14:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well, even even though we don't have the proclamation, can we take a picture with the Council? Wonderful. Thanks.

[02:15:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Would any member of the Council like to say a few words on the proclamation?

[02:15:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:15:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I would just like to say that um, both of these proclamations were very appropriate for Earth Day. And I think it was really obvious about the one for um, Charles Piercey but it maybe not so obvious for FabMo. But one of the reasons for having FabMo is to keep fabric out of the landfill.

[02:16:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And so they collect the ends of designer bolts, and they um, share them with uh, creative sewers to make into really amazing um, products. And uh, they have a sale a couple times a year and you can uh, it's fun to go see the creativity. But I just wanted to mention that Earth Day connection because that's what it is. Happy Earth Day everybody.

[02:16:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other colleagues like to provide comment on this item? All right. We'll now take public comment for the presentation items. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda?

[02:16:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I am not seeing any. So I'll close public comment and then I will open um, our oral communications, as I mentioned, we'll move it to this portion. Um, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda.

[02:17:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Speakers are allowed to speak on any top-- topic within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the Assistant City Clerk now.

[02:17:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think we have two people in the queue. So first is Gene Lee. And then we have Ray Martel.

[02:17:37] Gene Lee: Um, I'm here to request that the Council revisit an item that was passed, I don't know, 20, 30 years ago. Um, at one point the Council with the Los Altos School District entered into an agreement so that the school district could purchase property at San Antonio Shopping Center where Kohl's used to be. That was for the purpose of opening a sc-- a new school.

[02:18:02] Gene Lee: Um, the terms of the contract included a transfer of development rights from that site to another site in Mountain View, and the developer there paid 23 million dollars to the school district for those rights that would help fund the new school. Uh, Mountain View itself entered into an agreement where there would be a park built at that site and shared with the school. So the 23 million dollars went directly to the school district.

[02:18:36] Gene Lee: At the time, the agreement stated that the school was to be a neighborhood school, either K-6 or middle school, or a charter school could be th-- put there if there was Mountain View students in the student body. If there were. And that was many years ago, and I think the institutional memory of Mountain View has kind of faded.

[02:19:04] Gene Lee: I don't know if any Council members here today were involved with that uh, decision. But recently, there has been a lot of press in the Los Altos School District um, about the turmoil in trying to make a decision about what to put there. And from everything that I've been able to ascertain, they plan to put the charter school there, and the charter school doesn't want that.

[02:19:26] Gene Lee: But the school district has not ever seriously considered putting a neighborhood school there, as the Mountain View City Council at that time of the contract wanted. It is appropriate now for the City Council to perhaps revisit that agreement and issue a statement to the Los Altos School District, re- uh, re-emphasizing the desire of Mountain View to have a local neighborhood school on that site and not the uh, Bullis Charter School that I think Los Altos School District wants to put there.

[02:20:10] Gene Lee: Now, you may want to review the decision to the degree that you agree with it. And if you do, you want-- I I request that you re-emphasize Mountain View's position to the Los Altos School District so that Mountain View is not ignored. It's a very common practice in these kind of agreements to list one, two, three things and have only the intention to implement number three.

[02:20:36] Gene Lee: And ignore the other possibilities, but they're in there. And the agreement is very vague in its wording. I think it would behoove the Council to make your position, Mountain View's position, clear to the school district.

[02:20:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Ray Martel. And then Peter Katz.

[02:21:01] Ray Martel: I have been a resident of Mountain View for 50 years! For 50 years! I've been robbed! I've been [unintelligible]. I've been robbed a dozens of times. I've called the police. They work only for the rich people! They work only for themselves! And this is how it's been for the 50 years that I've lived here!

[02:21:21] Ray Martel: This is a city of-- the police are corrupt! And if you don't know what they're doing, then you're not doing your job. And you need to be all out of here! I-- am I angry? Yes! I am fucking pissed! I am fucking pissed!

[02:21:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No profanity, please. No profanity.

[02:21:38] Ray Martel: Go ahead! Hate me! I don't care! I don't give a fuck! Plan the damn--

[02:21:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Peter Katz. We're moving on. Peter Katz.

[02:21:44] Ray Martel: --thing.

[02:21:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Please. You're disturbing our meeting now. We don't we don't tolerate profanity in our meetings. Thank you very much. Next is Peter Katz.

[02:22:12] Peter Katz: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. Um, I'd like to make a public comment tonight on the use of Measure G funds. Um, particularly relevant as we're going to be talking about the work plan later tonight. With the passing of Measure G last November, the City now has additional funds available for a variety of needed projects and initiatives.

[02:22:35] Peter Katz: The Chamber notes that between 5 and 15 percent of these funds could specifically be used to support small businesses, which we clearly uh, encourage. The Chamber has sent Council a few recommendations that we feel would have sig- significant positive impact and I'd like to share three of those. First of all, subsidize tenants while waiting for permits so they aren't paying rent space they can't use.

[02:22:55] Peter Katz: This is a significant cost for businesses as they are losing money twice. They are paying rent and they can't generate revenue because the building's not open. Um, secondly, fund more standard city services, especially for downtown, such as maintenance, street cleaning, trash collection, even fresh flowers in the uh, dividers in the boxes.

[02:23:17] Peter Katz: At present, all of these are limited due to funding and capacity. Well, let's fund them. The more attractive our streets are, the more attractive they will be to residents, visitors, and shoppers alike. Third, help with ADA compliance. Our businesses want to welcome every patron and ensure that their facility meets all federal safety and accessibility requirements.

[02:23:39] Peter Katz: However, many do not know if they are in violation until it is too late and a lawsuit is filed. Sometimes the solution could be as simple as lowering a table, but if the suit is filed, tens of thousands of dollars will be needed to settle the case. This can be devastating, especially to very small businesses.

[02:24:01] Peter Katz: A few years back, our city instigated a preventative program where a Certified Access Specialist, or a CASp, went out and did a quick assessment, thus giving owners a chance to fix problems before they were sued. These funds can be used to resurrect this program and maybe even enhance it by paying for a full CASp inspection and services and possibly offer other financial assistance for repairs. Thank you very much.

[02:24:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. I am not seeing any other in-person public speakers on oral communications and I don't see any hands raised online. So I'll close oral communications from the public and move back to our Consent Calendar.

[02:24:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: These items will be approved by one motion unless mem-- any member of the Council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the Consent Calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. If you'd like to speak on these items, please submit a blue speaker card to the Assistant City Clerk now.

[02:25:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Would any member of the Council like to pull an item? Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:25:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I would like to pull item 4.9.

[02:25:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAlister.

[02:25:23] Councilmember John McAlister: I j-- I just like to comment on 4.7.

[02:25:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Any other colleagues? Councilmember Showalter?

[02:25:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'd I'd like to make some comments as well.

[02:25:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So item 4.9 is pulled, and then I can take comment on the remainder. Is that correct? From Council. Okay. All right. So Council member-- whoever would like to comment first on the remainder, the balance of the Consent Calendar minus item 4.9?

[02:26:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Looking at the two who said that they wanted to comment. Councilmember McAlister.

[02:26:06] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm going to comment on 4.7. Actually, I'm also going to register a no vote on 4.7. There's one item on that particular request of theirs is...

6:30 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER

[02:26:15] Councilmember John McAlister: ...to defund the parking. And when I... I was on Council at the time and I actually approved this project at least five, six years ago.

[02:26:25] Councilmember John McAlister: I still believe in the project being a great project, desperately needed for the City.

[02:26:30] Councilmember John McAlister: But waiving the fee for parking... we're always talking about parking in downtown Mountain View, it's a concern right now, and the impact on the community and the local residents... or the current residents in there would be an especially large burden for them.

[02:26:46] Councilmember John McAlister: And going forward with any project, and hopefully that we can do a parking structure that would help alleviate that.

[02:26:53] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm doing this to bring a specific attention to the parking, and if we can resolve it with co-funding a parking structure that would be great.

[02:27:04] Councilmember John McAlister: But I think that's the reason I'm going to vote no on it, on that one particular item.

3. PRESENTATIONS

[02:27:09] Councilmember John McAlister: I encourage that they find a solution and hopefully get it built someday.

[02:27:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[02:27:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, as is my custom I just want to talk about some of these projects that I think are important that, um, maybe get glossed over. A couple from the Public Works Department. We, um, we have, uh, three related to our sewer and water supply, um, system and piping. One is a Amir Amani pump station.

[02:27:38] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and that's really needed to keep our, um, our water supply system in good working order. It provides important water pressure for, um, us all to enjoy. And it's also an example of something that was postponed due to the pandemic and became a little more, um, expensive due to construction cost inflation.

[02:27:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then, um, San Antonio area, uh, sewer main improvement. That's another long-term project that's very important. Um, uh, that we... it's very important that we keep our sewer in good working order and that we upgrade it so that the development that we have had going on is, um, is... the demand from that new development is taken care of. And, uh, so I want to thank Public Works for that.

[02:28:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And also the annual water and sewer main replacements. Again, Public Works, um, they concentrate on these systems so you and I don't have to. You know, um, as I was talking to an engineer, uh, the other day and she was saying, yeah, if we do our job, then, um, nobody notices because everything is working. And that's exactly what these things are. But it's a lot of work. So I want... and it's also a lot of money.

[02:28:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I want to bring it to people's attention that we are taking care of our water and sewer systems. And and that is very important and I thank the staff for doing that. Um, the second one, the, um, the the annual sewer and, um, main replacements, many of those are turn out to be in the Cuesta Park neighborhood. Um, and, uh, so in the Cuesta Park neighborhood and in San Antonio there will be a few, um, traffic issues, but they'll be short-lived and, um, you'll you'll be able to get through.

[02:29:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Then the other one I wanted to comment on is 4.7. Um, I want to thank the Housing Department. Um, affordable housing on Lot 12 is something we've been working on for many years. The staff and the developer have had to persist through all sorts of, um, project problems with this, um, because of of how things have changed over the time. And, um, affordable housing is a dire need. So I just want to say we wish you the best in winning the tax credit race so this project can go forward.

[02:29:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Um, would... yeah, maybe a a motion and a seconder for the balance of the consent calendar? And I think we need to, uh, do the public comment for it. So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to comment on these items? I see a few in person. None virtual. So, uh, for comment, um, is it Jaime? Jamie? Jaime? Vasquez? And then Alex Brown.

[02:30:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, apologies. I just saw the number. Thank you.

[02:30:44] Jaime Vasquez: Uh, good evening Mayor and City Council. My name is Jaime Vasquez and I'm a... on behalf of the NorCal Carpenters Union, I'm a field rep for Local 405. And, um, just want to make a comment for the Lot 12 Affordable Housing Project that has a potential to become a great project. One that only, um, not only addresses the urge of housing much needed, but also gets strong example of how development should be done in Mountain View, right?

[02:31:10] Jaime Vasquez: Uh, as a project moves forward and hopefully receives the funding it needs, I urge the city and development developers to commit to hiring responsible contractors. Uh, contractors who, um, not sometimes but all the time pay their workers a livable wage. Um, provide benefits and, uh, respect the standards of, um, the trades. Even on projects with prevailing wage requirements, we still see issues like wage theft and misclassification. These are not minor concerns. These are serious injustices that harm workers and undermine the integrity of the public investment.

[02:31:38] Jaime Vasquez: Um, that's why it's essential that this public... this project not only creates affordable housing but supports good local jobs with strong labor standards. Uh, we urge the that the affordable housing it desperately needs, but let's make sure that the workers who build it can afford to live here too. Uh, let's ensure that this, uh, project is a win for the entire community. Not from those who will call it home and those who will build it with dignity and security. Thank you.

[02:32:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. I am not seeing any others on the balance of the consent calendar. So I'll bring this item back for Council action and note that a motion to approve the Consent Calendar should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to the Consent Calendar items 4.2 and 4.3. Uh, Councilmember Clark.

[02:32:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I'll move the balance of the Consent Calendar, which is everything except 4.9, which is will consider separately. And it includes Item 4.2 to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View adopting a list of projects for funding to be allocated during fiscal year 2020-25 through 2020-26 from Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:33:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: And Item 4.3 to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View appointing Peggy Huang, uh, to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Appointing, uh, Sean Foreman and Marisol Melara to the Downtown Committee. Appointing Antara, uh, Bhardwaj and Valerie Fenwick to the Performing Arts Committee. And appointing, uh, Donna Castillo and Cassandra Magana to the Senior Advisory Committee. To be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:33:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. That was seconded by Councilmember Showalter. Let's vote.

[02:33:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And that passes unanimously noting that Councilmember McAlister voted no on Item 4.7. So now we'll bring Item 4.9 back and I'll turn it over to Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:33:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, do you want me to speak or should we do the public comment first? Do you have a preference? I'll go ahead. Um, I I have a lot to say.

[02:33:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, uh, so first I want to, uh, express my appreciation to staff for, uh, giving the Council an opportunity to, uh, weigh in on this bill. Um, I'll start by saying our residents benefit when the cities in our neck of the woods do their fair share. When they build their fair share of housing.

[02:34:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And what I struggle with with this bill is that it would, uh, if approved, essentially empower bad actor cities to, uh, take actions that would, uh, allow them to avoid contributing their fair share of housing. Uh, notwithstanding a severe housing crisis and the fact that I think State Law is intending to, uh, help push cities to, uh, work in good faith to contribute their fair share of the housing that our region desperately needs.

[02:34:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The way that the bill would empower bad actor cities is on two fronts. One, uh, with a presumption that with adoption the housing element, uh, is, uh, compliant with State Law. Uh, this is often referred to as self-certification. A number of cities up and down the State of California did this including the city I work for.

[02:35:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, which continued, uh, to assert that even though, you know, HCD had not found the housing element to be in compliance, that HCD did not certify that housing element, the city nevertheless said that, well, we made findings that demonstrate that our housing element is in substantial compliance with the law. And for a number of months essentially refused to process builder's remedy applications that were submitted following the adoption of of the housing element. And I think...

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

[02:35:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Even more egregious that the City Council, after adopting the housing element that HCD refused to certify, never had the opportunity to weigh in on that housing element again. The council in San Jose reviewed the housing element only once.

[02:36:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I'll say, you know, Mountain View in contrast, the council had many, many opportunities to talk about the housing element. Multiple study sessions and and ultimately we we adopted it after, uh, I believe it was after HCD had found us, uh, compliant.

[02:36:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So what I struggle with is by saying cities can essentially self-certify, um, and then they will be essentially compliant until they're found not to be, many bad actor cities will do what San Jose did and say, 'You know, great, we're compliant.' We'll make findings to demonstrate that we are in compliance and, uh, there they'll the law will essentially say that's okay.

[02:36:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, and it would it's even more frustrating to me is the second allowance that, uh, a builder's remedy project would have to have a complete application before, um, uh, in order to to basically, uh, proceed into review. The the the problem I have with that is a number of bad actor cities play games and continuously ask for information.

[02:37:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So so I think many of us have a good friend who serves on a, uh, a bad actor city, Cupertino, which did this with the Vallco project. Essentially saying, 'You know, we're not going to deem the application complete until you answer multiple bad faith questions.' So it it it's basically says good actor cities like Mountain View, um, will, you know, continue to work in good faith, but bad actor cities like San Jose and Cupertino and Palo Alto and many others, uh, will will basically avoid to suffer the consequences or deal with the penalties of of not complying in good faith with housing element law.

[02:37:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the other thing I think we need to consider is recent state law actually has addressed I think the bulk of the challenges that this council has, uh, expressed about the builder's remedy. Last year, uh, the governor signed into law Assembly Bill 1893, by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, which I think addresses the most concerning element, which is, uh, the previously allowable, uh, unlimited density of a builder's remedy application.

[02:38:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There were no development standards in state law that limited builder's remedy applications, which is how you get like the Sunset project in Menlo Park. Um, but state law now imposes reasonable development standards. So that that type of builder's remedy application is illegal now, is no longer possible.

[02:38:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And there are a number of other the the, um, analysis provided in the, uh, staff responses to council questions I think is is, um, is pretty short but I think the analysis also recognizes that this is a very complex law and might maybe if if there are still questions about what the builder's remedy looks like post implementation of AB 1893, might be worth asking staff, but I think the key point is projects like the one that we approved on Tyrella are no longer possible under state law.

[02:39:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And the other thing is AB 1886, which also was signed into law last year, essentially codifies all of the things that would be undone with this bill, uh, SB 457. So I'm I'm I I personally I'm not I don't think that this bill is likely to get past the legislature and be signed into law by the governor since the legislature and the governor already signed into law that the parameters that ensure that there are meaningful accountability measures for cities that do not act in good faith and do not, um, uh, submit, uh, housing element applications, uh, or or housing element documents, uh, in a timely manner.

[02:39:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I I'm I'm not I'm I have a hard time supporting this law and and in fact because I feel so strongly that we want to see bad actor cities, uh, have some accountability measure imposed imposed on them, I would actually move that we adopt an oppose position for Senate Bill 457, uh, and and and instead take into consideration the, um, uh, the reforms that were previously adopted by the legislature and, uh, and signed into law by the governor. Uh, so I'll I'll go ahead and move that and then I'm happy to respond to Oh, yes. Thank you.

[02:40:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, um, thank you for letting us know your thoughts on item 4.9. Uh, is there any other council discussion before we bring this item, um, for public comment? Councilmember Clark and then Councilmember McAlister.

[02:40:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so just wanted to provide a little bit of background obviously hear from other colleagues. So I was, um, I attended on the Mayor's behalf the Legislative Action Committee of the Cities Association, um, where, um, this bill took up the majority of the time.

[02:41:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, my my impressions were, um, my impressions were that I think this bill came from a well imperfect came from a good place. Um, I think we learned some things through this housing element cycle that can be improved. And I think what Senator Becker is trying to do is improve some of those things, um, based on learnings from that whole process.

[02:41:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: So for example, um, you know, one of my concerns and I raised this at the meeting was, you know, what is to prevent a city from, you know, submitting a, you know, a a half-baked housing element self-certifying just to stop the clock, right?

[02:41:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, and I I think I think the intent or at least the discussion in hearing from their representatives were that, um, you know, that that wasn't necessarily his intent and they're and you know, they were looking for thoughts and ideas around amendments to this to make it, um, to to make it better and that was one of the things that that I suggested.

[02:42:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think, um, there were other things like having an unlimited kind of 90 day multiple 90 day clocks that just kind of never, uh, where where there's a a back and forth for an unlimited period of time kind of addressing that. Um, and so kind of what I came away the the committee ultimately, uh, voted to recommend to the Cities Association that they adopt a support position. I don't know what the Cities I didn't stay for that meeting so I don't know exactly where they came down on that.

[02:42:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: But my impression coming away and my own personal thought was, you know, it it was a bill that I could support if it were amended, um, and I think the Cities Association at least when I was on it before has taken those support if amended, um, positions before and suggested specific amendments. Um, I understand the the concerns. I don't think the current state law really addresses some of these other things that we've had.

[02:43:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: I mean, there ideas for amendments for example would be, you know, if you're a pro-housing city and you've been a a a, you know, you've been acting in good faith the entire time, then maybe you have the benefit of a doubt to I don't know if it's self-certify but, um, or maybe the timeline is changed to where everyone has to submit by a certain period of time and HCD has a very specific clock that they have to respond by well before those deadlines.

[02:43:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Maybe all the deadlines are changed and the builder's remedy only kicks in in certain situations. But I agree with you that there are, um, you know, I I think there needs to be there needs to be consequences for cities who aren't acting in good faith. But I also think that, um, um, I also think that there are elements of this bill that have merit and if it's amended in a proper way I think it's I don't think it behooves us to take an oppose stance at this point without providing, uh, substantive feedback to that office. I think a support if amended position for example is probably a more productive approach, but that's just my own personal opinion.

[02:44:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Did the, uh, City Attorney have a chance to review this and and do you have any thoughts on this particular bill?

[02:44:20] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I did review the fact sheet but I don't have any thoughts in general other than my own personal opinions which I don't think would be helpful this evening. But no, I mean I I think that this is really a decision for the council to make, um, you know, based on your thoughts and feelings with regard to the builder's remedy, uh, provisions and whether or not you believe, uh, amendments, um,

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

[02:44:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, so I have a question for Councilmember Clark. So, when they had your discussion in your government affairs, did it did the consensus that this bill is not finalized, it will go through discussion, more amendments?

[02:45:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: It was we had a presentation from I think it was CalCities but it was very clear that this wasn't the final version of the bill and they were still receptive to feedback. And just so you know, like, there were some cities at that meeting who thought it didn't go far enough and that things should be retroactive, which I'm not even sure is legal, but you know, yeah, there were definitely folks on the other side of that that thought it should be stronger and who were I think very um felt very bitten by the the prior process or um aggrieved by the prior process.

[02:45:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think there were some of us at the meeting who who thought that, you know, there there really still needed to be consequences in certain situations, but that there were there were ways to amend this bill to address some of the remaining items that weren't addressed in the last legislative session that um would be helpful, I think, um given our experience with this to address.

[02:45:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, you know, whether you whether the council ultimately wants to take an oppose position and still provide feedback or support if amended, um, I I personally appreciate that Senator Becker is attempting to address some of these things because I think it comes from a good place. Um, but I understand there there probably feelings are I to me it comes it comes down to strategy and what is the most effective way to influence legislation, um, which is why I I probably lean more in the support if amended camp as opposed rather than the oppose camp, but I that was more than answering your question, sorry. Uh, does that help at all?

[02:46:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um, thank you, because that's what I was hoping to I was getting clarity on it. Um, I will not support the motion because if people remember uh two weeks ago how they were all disappointed that this one project was going forward and that uh they wish something was done, here's an opportunity to be part of the solution and not just walk away and say, no, this isn't what we want.

[02:47:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I would uh appreciate what Councilmember Clark said about let's let's give them some options, put in our concerns and build a bill that we're quite aware of the consequences of not getting your housing element done and that we're getting these projects in Mountain View that do not fit the neighborhoods. So, um, I will not support the motion on those reasons why.

[02:47:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:47:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I liked the way Councilmember Clark started off his uh his statement that um we learned some things this time around uh that can be improved. I think most if not all of us think that. Um, so I I also should say that, you know, I've talked to various residents who are in livability advocacy groups in in Mountain View and said who say they don't support builder's remedy and I I have told them, yes you do support builder's remedy because um, you know, what the law in its ideal form would do would um would push uh not good actor cities to be better actors and, you know, from the time I was mayor when we were working on the housing element there certainly are a lot of cities that um have have little um desire to add housing to.

[02:48:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, but I think I'm in the camp that Councilmember Clark is in, which is I would feel um I would feel more comfortable doing a support if amended uh make a making a support if amended statement. Thank you.

[02:48:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. I'd like to comment before we go to public comment. Thank you. Um, I see Councilmember Ramirez in the queue, but I also wanted to add, I think um just some items to note. So, um, appreciate the robust discussion. I think um in the press uh release about the bill, uh, Senator Becker calls out Mountain View um in as a reason for authoring a a bill like this.

[02:49:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, and it states uh 'Cities like San Jose, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View are facing growing pressures to increase housing density while ensuring that new developments align with transportation, climate, and infrastructure plans.' Um, and then went on, if you look in his news and in the news cited an article about how Mountain View looks to back new legislation curbing builder's remedy and cites the Tyrela project and our frustrations about that as one of the reasons he authored the bill.

[02:49:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think uh would just look to my colleagues that um perhaps just uh you know, Senator Becker's been such a a champion for us, including uh support for Lot 12, uh which was desperately needed. Um, so I align with colleagues that I I'd be interested in a support if amended or perhaps a Watch. Uh, it's a bill to Watch and so maybe a compromise if um the motion maker and seconder would be in would be amenable to it would be uh taking a Watch position on it and seeing what the implications could be.

[02:50:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm I'm interested in your comments Councilmember uh Ramirez on how there may be other bills that are coming in um into um action um that may supersede what happens with this bill. We also was going through the bill process, right, it's in committee right now. So I think it's ripe for for other um comments. So if you would you and the mo seconder would entertain a a Watch, I think it could have implications for us either way. So uh I would I would ask that.

[02:51:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, um, I'm not seeing the votes for this. I'm I'm okay with a Watch as a as a compromise. Um, but just to to the reason why personally I would prefer Oppose is this bill doesn't actually help Mountain View. Um, it it the the specific problem with uh builder's remedy not fitting into the neighborhood I think is addressed more effectively by the Wicks bill that was previously signed into law that that makes a project like Tyrela just not possible anymore.

[02:51:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I I feel like that that was an important reform. It makes the sting of the builder's remedy go away entirely, right? It's far the the stakes are far reduced I think. Um, but the other thing is Mountain View never self-certified. We we when we got the feedback from HCD, we took more time, right, and we we addressed those concerns and then once HCD gave us the okay, we adopted it. So we actually did it the right way.

[02:52:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This bill, if it is approved as it's drafted, basically would would do what Councilmember Clark was suggesting, right? We will adopt a housing element and it's the burden falls on somebody else to show that it's it's not it's not compliant with the law and in the meantime there is no penalty, right? No one could submit a builder's remedy application to say actually you're doing this in bad faith because you submitted at the last possible minute and now, you know, there's another clock that's set where HCD has to review it and then, you know, make some determination and then they can do what San Jose did and never bring it to council, right, just say they can make changes as the San Jose staff did and bring it to HCD.

[02:52:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: HCD doesn't look to see if how, you know, if a city council or the community is being kept in the in the loop, they just look at the document that's submitted to them. And so it what it means in practice is there there will be no penalty for a bad actor city. We didn't do it that way. This bill would never have helped us and that's why I'm I'm frustrated by the I I'd be curious to hear what kind maybe this is like a conversation um offline but I I'm not certain that there are amendments that would actually have helped Mountain View because we never self-certified in the first place. But I will amend the motion to take a Watch position.

[02:53:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I I appreciate that compromise and I would say um I know that the Vice Mayor and I will be participating in the City Summit, the League of California Cities City Summit, uh this week in May.

4.9

[02:53:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: comment where the entire purpose is to meet with our legislators and have discussions on bills that could affect our communities and I think this will be something taking a watch position where we can discuss further with him um and and understand and I I understand as well the concerns that you're raising Councilmember Ramirez but it's not an adopted law, right? So I the implications you're referring to to me are in the theoretical, they're not in the actual because it's still moving through the committee process. Um, and while stating that the Wicks bill would have helped us with Tyrella that also we are not seeing the benefits of the Wicks bill uh yet. So I think um, you know, given when bills um get enacted and then so, you know, get uh their their timeline starts is is different but um, Councilmember Showalter and then uh we'll move it on to public comment.

[02:54:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, if I I'm really glad to hear that you're going to be involved in talking about this and um there's just two things that I I'd like to hope that you'll talk about. One is the concept that um there should be some advantage to being a pro-housing city going forward. Um there aren't that many of them and um we worked hard to get there so I think that should be part of it. And then the other thing about this, you know I was really excited about this concept when I first heard it, I thought, oh this is great, you know? But but then the more I learned about it, the more I thought, well wait a minute, is this exactly the bill we need? And I think that's the question. Nobody thinks that the builder's remedy is a great program. Um, uh I don't think. Um, but but uh I'm not sure this is the bill we need. But another thing that I feel really needs to be um tightened up is the definition of a complete project. And I feel like it maybe HCD needs to be the one that decides that um and not the city or not the developer because um I think that that um would allow uh people to I think that would allow shenanigans to go on that we aren't happy about. Thank you.

[02:55:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, great. Thanks colleagues. Um we have two people uh in person for public comment. Uh Alex Brown then David Watson and then we'll move on to virtual.

[02:56:04] Alex Brown: Hey friends. I wrote it down this time. All right. If you object to builder's remedy projects, the correct solution is to be more proactive and bolder in the housing element so as to be found compliant early. If we as a city had worked better with impacted communities and the HCD we wouldn't have to worry about these development proposals. Throwing a tantrum after the fact and trying to legislate away the consequences isn't aligned with being a pro-housing city. Removing the teeth from the housing element process helps bad actor cities which further increases the burden on cities who are acting in good faith. I I swear I wrote this before your comments Alison. I but but yeah, I agree. Thanks.

[02:56:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: David Watson.

[02:56:44] David Watson: I didn't pre-write any so this is gonna be really messy. Uh yeah, um, the the uh we've we've uh done the right we did the right thing we we uh did a housing element we didn't self-certify uh and uh the the fact is um we've this pro-housing designation and uh I I think that the the the damage that um taking away any teeth from uh the uh the from HCD uh or taking away a significant part of the the teeth from HCD enforcement uh is that would be done by this is significantly worse than the the if we weren't uh uh within our city uh getting getting homes built, right? The the the effect of a you know state level bill is across the entire state and I think as Lucas kind of already uh uh covered uh this probably wouldn't affect us or wouldn't have affected us at all and uh going forward it's certainly uh you know I think that that next for the next uh allocation we're we're gonna be on uh completely on time and there won't be any builder's remedy uh period ideally. Uh so it won't won't affect us but uh even even if uh even if it did this I I I think it's it's clear that um this this is our opportunity to get some credit for doing things correctly and uh we we shouldn't be uh in favor of something that helps the the cities that were pretty clearly flouting the law and telling them okay you should go ahead and and do more of that in the future. We you know that the the state created the the original uh setup for for a reason and the uh Wicks Wicks bill uh what uh 1893 I believe uh I I think that it already does a lot to address uh the the issues that council had with our own uh issue. That that's the bill if you wanted to uh have been out there uh in favor of a bill I'm not sure if we publicly stated that we liked uh AB uh 1893 but that's the bill that did what you wanted uh that that put uh limits on uh on builder's remedy projects. So anyway thank you very much.

[02:58:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. We'll move on to virtual public comment. First up is Robert Cox.

[02:59:03] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[02:59:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:59:05] Robert Cox: All right. Um Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, members of the council. Uh thank you for taking up the question of Senator Becker's bill which modifies key elements of builder's remedy. Mountain View is one of only two cities in our county designated as a state pro-housing city. Our city went above and beyond what the state had asked for upzoning in its sixth cycle housing element not only in its first proposal but the second. However a time consuming back and forth process with continual external objections caused us to miss our housing element deadline subjecting our city to builder's remedy proposals. We saw the worst of these proposals at the council meeting on April 8th. Any changes to the builder's remedy policy that would enable pro-housing cities to avoid its consequences is a step in the right direction. Our city is a good actor in housing policy. We should be treated accordingly by the state. I'm somewhat disturbed to hear uh some of the talk in the council and in public comment with uh a with a reaction which I would say sounds like let's just do nothing. This there's a this is a bill that's been put forward as the Mayor noted. It's in committee now. There is a robust discussion about ways to improve it. Let's give it a chance to go forward and make builder's remedy which is necessary in case of bad actors a something that will still have that teeth while allowing pro-housing cities like ours not to be slapped for it. Thank you very much.

[03:00:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Edie Keating then Daniel Hulsey then John Scarborough.

[03:00:55] Edie Keating: Thank you. So I like my housing elements to have teeth. And when I first learned about housing elements a long time ago um I was told you can get a little bit of good out of them but not too much. Don't expect much out of a housing element. And it seemed true. And a little bit of history. Uh in 2012 Menlo Park was sued because it had not updated its housing element since 1992. I mean how's that for meaningless and having no teeth if you don't even have a updated housing element. I don't want to go back to those that era of the housing element being meaningless. And what has made uh the change? It's the builder's remedy. That's what's in the newspaper.

6.1

[03:01:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: ...and we don't know how many uh cities, jurisdictions would have pending housing elements still if there wasn't the threat of Builder's Remedy. So, I'm sorry that Mountain View is uh had to approve some um you know developments, Builder's Remedy that don't really fit, but it will be housing.

[03:02:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And uh across the state and across our region, having those that threat of the Builder's Remedy, um I think really does make a difference and is important. And otherwise you'd have cities just doing a meaningless housing element and having it not uh come to fruition and not come to housing.

[03:02:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And so thank you to the council for all your comments on this. Um, thank you to uh giving me adding to my reading list. I got to go read AB 1893. And I like the idea that HCD should weigh in on when a development proposal is complete.

[03:02:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I would be fine if you voted no on this, but uh not approving it uh is acceptable. And uh you know, I'm looking forward to finding out what limits there have been already put on uh Builder's Remedy projects.

[03:03:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And seeing this on consent calendar was kind of a jolt. And caused me to, you know, quickly review this. And I think it does have uh too much uh removal of the risk of Builder's Remedy and I don't think it's the right bill as is. Uh, thank you.

[03:03:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Daniel Hulsey.

[03:03:38] Daniel Hulsey: Can you hear me?

[03:03:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:03:43] Daniel Hulsey: All right. Uh, yeah, so I think uh Councilmember Ramirez made a a lot of great points. And so I I think opposing this bill is the best option because it's not really for us.

[03:03:58] Daniel Hulsey: Um I think the other thing is that uh a lot of our problems with the Builder's Remedy would just be avoided next time around by us getting the housing element in on time. Uh I know having engaged with this process that we were told over and over by people both on council as well as city staff that, oh, it's not that important to get it in on time.

[03:04:28] Daniel Hulsey: Oh, uh it's just kind of a paper pushing process, you know. It's it's not that big of a deal. I I think what the Builder's Remedy gives us and the lesson that we have learned is that it is actually important to get it in on on time and maybe even have a safety margin so that you can go in back and forth.

[03:04:53] Daniel Hulsey: I think that lesson has been learned. I don't think next time around that removing the incentive to not do that is good. I think it's better to just learn the lesson and do it right the next time. Uh and so absolutely oppose this bill.

[03:05:12] Daniel Hulsey: I don't think it was really had very good intention behind it. And I think it was a misread of just kind of the political environment right now. Uh so that's my comment.

[03:05:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: John Scarborough.

[03:05:28] John Scarborough: Oh, hello. Thank you for the uh bringing this up. And I like that Mountain View is so serious about putting in housing when so many of our neighbors are not. And I think removing the teeth of the Builder's Remedy is not a good good thing to do and it appears that this bill would do that.

[03:05:48] John Scarborough: And likewise, it is not good to punish cities like Mountain View by getting things we don't want if there is a minor problem but we're eventually doing what we should be doing towards getting houses. So we've got to have something that moves the other cities along.

[03:06:07] John Scarborough: I don't believe we can do this all by ourselves. And I don't want to see us punished. So I would oppose unless amended. And if the best we can do at this point is to say we're going to watch it, I would support that. Thank you.

[03:06:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. Seeing no other um people in the queue, uh let's uh vote. So it is a uh watch position on this item.

[03:06:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And that passed unanimously. So now we will move on to Item 6, our public hearing. Item 6.1 is our Mountain View 2025 Water System Public Health Goals Report.

[03:07:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez and Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Au will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the Assistant City Clerk now. And we'll begin with the staff presentation.

[03:07:23] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Thank you, Mayor, members of Council. Mike Vasquez, Utilities Services Manager. Uh with me tonight, we have Lisa Au, Assistant Public Works Director. And we have a short presentation on the 2025 Water System Public Health Goals Report.

[03:07:47] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: All right. To start off, we will go over a couple of key terms. The first being Public Health Goal or PHG. So these are non-enforceable goals that are set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Uh these goals are conservative in nature and they do not take into account things such as feasibility or economics in their development.

[03:08:12] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Uh as an example, for cancer-causing chemicals, PHGs are set so that not more than one person in 1 million drinking the water daily for 70 years would develop cancer. Next we have Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL. So these are the water quality standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board.

[03:08:38] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: These are the legal limits that water systems must abide by. And exceeding an MCL can result in a water quality violation, public notification, or other penalties. So in terms of PHG reporting requirements, California law requires water providers serving more than 10,000 connections to report every three years if there's a PHG exceedance.

[03:09:03] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Uh so for this report we have tonight, uh this will cover calendar years 2022 through 2024. And in the previous three-year cycle, we did not have any PHG exceedances, so we were not required to file a report for those years.

[03:09:18] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: In terms of water quality monitoring, city staff sample over 2,000 water quality samples annually. Uh and it covers the full spectrum of water quality monitoring including uh primary health-related standards, secondary aesthetic standards such as taste, color, odor, etc.

[03:09:40] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: We also do disinfection monitoring to ensure treatment systems are working correctly. And we even take samples that are for unregulated contaminants to help our regulators set new standards in the future. Now for about 600 customers within the City of Mountain View, uh they receive water from Cal Water.

[03:10:00] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Uh the city does not operate or regulate Cal Water's water system in Mountain View. Uh but we do provide links to Cal Water's website on the city's water quality page. Cal Water while not regulated or operated by Mountain View, they do follow the same water quality regulations as Mountain View's water system and do post their water quality information on their website.

[03:10:27] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: So again, this report does cover calendar years 22 through 24. And in that three-year period, we did have one PHG exceedance and that's Hexavalent Chromium, also known as Chromium 6. This is a heavy metal commonly found in low levels in drinking water.

[03:10:45] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Potential sources include uh historic industrial leaks. And most likely the case for Mountain View, it can be naturally occurring in rock formations and it's often associated with groundwater. Uh Chromium 6 is linked to health issues such as cancer when ingested.

[03:11:06] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: And in regular groundwater and I'm sorry, in regular monitoring of the city's four groundwater wells, we did get results of 0.36 to 1.6 parts per billion. And that was over the PHG goal of 0.02 parts per billion. And um the MCL for Chromium 6 is which is the water quality standard is 10 parts per billion, which our results were well under.

[03:11:35] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Now it can be hard to kind of wrap your head around what a part per billion is. So a common example we use is uh a part per billion is about equal to one drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. So we are talking about uh very small concentrations in this.

[03:11:51] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: As part of the PHG report requirements, we are required to identify the best available technologies for treatment. The US EPA did identify anion exchange as the best available treatment technology for Chromium 6. Based on our results, we would need treatment at each of our four groundwater wells.

[03:12:13] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: And putting together some high-level estimates, we would be looking somewhere in the order of $48 million for construction and around $9.6 million for annual operations. And it's also worth noting that the studies we used to put these estimates together, these were primarily focused on meeting the MCL.

[03:12:33] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: So to meet the much lower threshold of the PHG, uh there is some uncertainty in terms of feasibility and also the cost implications of those uh low numbers.

[03:12:46] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Now the results uh of the city's Chromium 6 um monitoring are below the MCL. So there is no recommended or planned follow-up actions. But I do want to reiterate that the city's water meets all uh water all regulatory water quality standards.

[03:13:05] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Um I'd add also that all of the water quality monitoring information that we we uh take in is compiled into our annual water quality report. We also call it the Consumer Confidence Report. We produce these every year and put them up on the city's website. And the next water qual annual water quality report will be coming out this summer. That completes the presentation and happy to take any questions.

[03:13:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. Does any member of the Council have any questions? Councilmember Showalter.

[03:13:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um I first of all, I thank you very much for this report and this work. Um uh I uh I think that, you know, this is just this is so important for government transparency to um to collect this data, to make sure that our water supply is safe and and to share it with people. It's just really, really vital. It's a wonderful service.

[03:14:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But I wanted you to talk a little bit about um uh what we use those wells for. And why do we have these wells? And um uh how how is that water used?

[03:14:22] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Thank you for that question. Um the four groundwater wells that we have in service in the City of Mountain View are are a pretty vital resource. While they only represent about 2% of the water we actually use within the city, uh if there is ever any issues coming about with our imported water, which is the vast majority of the water that comes into the City of Mountain View, those those wells become our lifeline.

[03:14:52] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Uh those are the last remaining sources. They're completely under our control and they are local in nature. So we're not we're not reliant on extensive pipelines or other agencies to provide it. And it it provides us the the necessary resiliency in in in crisis or other issues in the system.

[03:15:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So for instance, if we were to have a major earthquake or there was to be a major earthquake that disrupted the imported water supply that we...

7.1

[03:15:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: we depend on. We would have this water supply while that was being repaired.

[03:15:20] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: That is correct.

[03:15:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And that's really what it's for, right? Okay. Then my other question is, why do we run these on a regular basis if we only need them when there's a real emergency?

[03:15:33] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Another great question. So we run each of these wells very sparingly. We do not run them very often, about once a week for three to four hours. But we run them to make sure that they're going to be ready when we need them in service. The worst case scenario is you let these sit off on the side, don't exercise them at all, and when something unfortunate takes place and you need them, they aren't ready to function correctly. So we ensure that these are always ready to go and if we need them, they will serve the public.

[03:16:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you, that's a great answer. Um and uh we have to have public comment right? Okay. But yes I thank you. Councilmember McAlister.

[03:16:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Um one of the 600 that you're referring to. So is there any tie in that if our 600 loses whatever we have we have access to the Mountain View water?

[03:16:35] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: We have opportunities to partnership with Cal Water to provide water to the customers within Mountain View that receive Cal Water water. But also we have tie-ins with other neighboring agencies. The region, in terms of sharing water resource, is very close together. We have different operational opportunities, whether that be inter-ties that exist and can be operated or whether that's sending field staff out to find hydrants to connect. But at the end of the day, our goal is to keep everybody in service and we find creative ways to get that done.

[03:17:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Could those creative things be done in a day or so in case of a major emergency like like an earthquake or something um?

[03:17:24] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: There's a lot of variables at play at that point in time. However, in terms of emergency response, our field staff are highly trained, very specialized professionals that we come out to get the job done. And we don't, irrespective of what is going on, we are here to ensure that Mountain View residents receive service. But also let's let's remember that we have another service provider that will be responding as well.

[03:17:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Just also want to add from time to time even for fires, um when a Cal Water customer, if there's a fire incident and there's not enough water, the Fire Department will start to look for hydrants in the city system to help fight the fire for those residents.

[03:18:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Well so that's my sort next question is the fire hydrants where I live are they Cal Water or city water?

[03:18:24] Utilities Services Manager Mike Vasquez: Specifically I don't know however they're very easily identified Cal Water hydrants are yellow and the City of Mountain View hydrants are silver.

[03:18:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh okay. Thank you.

[03:18:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Any other Councilmember questions? All right, not seeing any. I'll open it up for public comment. I'm not seeing any cards. I'm not seeing any hands. So I'll bring the item back for Council deliberation and action. And I see a motion by Councilmember Showalter, seconded by Councilmember Hicks. And I believe we can vote.

[03:19:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, and that passes unanimously. Big thank you to staff, really appreciate it. All right, we'll move on to item 7. Item 7.1 is our Council Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 Work Plan Project Prioritization. Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg and Principal Management Analyst Laurel James will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the Assistant City Clerk now. We'll begin with the staff presentation.

[03:20:40] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: My apologies for the delay. Um uh I am Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg and I am joined tonight by Principal Analyst Laurel James. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the other members of the team supporting this process. That includes Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager; Lindsey Hagen, Assistant Community Development Director; Amanda Rotella, Acting Economic Vitality Manager; and Lindsey Wong, Senior Management Analyst. The purpose of today's meeting is for Council to discuss and act on staff's recommendations for projects for the Fiscal Years 2025 through 2027 Council Work Plan, which will come back for Council's adoption with the budget in June.

[03:21:45] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: This slide illustrates the process and timeline for Work Plan development and for check-ins on the implementation of the adopted Work Plan. We are at step 4. At the last meeting on February 25th, Council affirmed the existing seven Strategic Priorities and put forward 16 possible projects.

[03:22:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Staff analyzed the projects in accordance with the criteria approved by Council on January 28, which was step 1, as part of that report's description of the Work Plan process. These criteria include: alignment with the seven Council Strategic Priorities; feasibility within staff capacity, including lead departments, support departments, and upfront and ongoing legal support; the need for additional budget appropriations for capital investment, contract costs, or staff; whether the project was discretionary; whether there were dependencies on City obligations or other City efforts; and the estimated duration and timeline to accomplish the scope of the project. As part of this analysis, staff developed a proposed scope for each project to estimate and describe what could be completed within the two-year Work Plan cycle. This analysis is discussed in the body of tonight's report and summarized in Attachment 2 in your packet.

[03:24:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: All projects contribute in a significant way to one or more Strategic Priority. This chart shows the count of projects and their primary Strategic Priority. All priorities are represented, most with one or two projects. The Strategic Priorities with more projects are Organizational Strength and Good Governance and Intentional Development and Housing Options.

[03:24:30] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: No new staff are needed for Fiscal Years 2025-27. Most projects are anticipated to require a medium level of staff capacity. Some projects will take a rather large share of staff time, with some ultimately requiring additional staff, such as the increase in pavement project volume required to increase Pavement Condition Index to 71.

[03:25:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Of the recommended 16 projects, seven will require additional limited period funding in the Fiscal Years 2025 through 27. Most of this, or 875,000, would be recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2025-26, and an additional 200,000 would be recommended for funding in 2026-27. Other projects have funding appropriated already or don't require capital contract or staff costs above and beyond current staffing. In addition to these short-term funding needs, some projects will have significant fiscal impacts beyond the two years of the Work Plan. These include the End of Gas Flow by 2045, the increase of Pavement Condition to a PCI of 71, the complete design and construction of the Stevens Creek Trail Extension, and the implementation of a Citywide Broadband Network. Staff also considered the remaining evaluation criteria and determined that all of the projects are discretionary, including a project to achieve a certain PCI, even though pavement projects in general are considered non-discretionary. Half of the projects have dependencies on other plans or grants. For example, the Housing Element's relationship to the R3 and Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Ownership projects, and the Valley Water grant for Smart Water Meters. As for duration, it has been possible in the most part to develop scopes that staff anticipates can be completed within the two-year timeframe.

[03:28:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: In addition to the analysis by staff, members of the team I mentioned at the outset of my presentation met with each of the Council's ten advisory bodies. The 16 projects as moved forward by Council in your February 25th meeting were provided to the bodies. Each member was asked to indicate what they considered to be the top three projects. Attachment 3 shows the number of commissioners who included each project in their top three as well as comments on themes. The slide shows the seven projects that were selected most frequently.

[03:29:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Staff considered all of the information generated in consideration of the criteria and also the overall approach approved by the Council on January 28th. This overall approach has been referred to as quality over quantity. Hallmarks of this approach are being able to deliver on the highest priorities by, first, considering and aligning the Council Work Plan projects along with other projects and ongoing work as a comprehensive perspective on how the City is working to achieve the Council's Strategic Priorities. It also is supported by right-sizing the Work Plan to match available staff and fiscal resources. The target, as communicated throughout the process, has been to adopt a Work Plan of 10 to 14 total high visibility projects, depending on project size and lead department. While staff's recommendation is two more than this upper range, at 16 projects, more than half of these are existing projects. And where possible, all projects have been scoped to be feasible within two years.

[03:30:45] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: This slide shows the 16 staff recommended projects. I'll note that these have different numbers than came out of the February 25th meeting, and there were also some slight changes in the titles for these projects, and they've been amended for brevity, clarity, and to fit with the proposed scope. I would also note that the numbering doesn't have any bearing on priority order. And, you know, as I mentioned in the previous slide, you can see here which of the seven projects are new.

[03:31:45] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: The purpose for tonight's item is for Council to approve by motion the projects and scopes for the Work Plan as listed in Table 4 or with other Council direction. Staff's recommended process for Council's discussion of the projects is to focus first on three projects for which there is considerable context and different possible ways to scope the two-year work. These projects are: the End of Natural Gas Flow, Citywide Objective Design Standards, and Pickleball Solutions. Councilmembers would then identify if there are other projects from Table 4 that they wish to discuss. Next, I'm going to summarize the context and scopes for these three projects that have been suggested as one area of focus.

[03:33:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: First, the End of Gas Flow by 2045 will require converting all City-owned and private natural gas dependent buildings, systems, and appliances. This would result in extensive costs for the City as well as for residents and businesses. As yet, no path has been charted, including by the other jurisdictions who have adopted such a goal, to address technical, legal, and financial challenges associated with enacting a prohibition, making infrastructure upgrades, and funding new systems and appliances. In addition, the capacity of the electric grid is uncertain. As stated in Table 4, the recommended scope for Fiscal Years 2025 through 27 is to adopt a resolution stating the City's commitment to achieving end of flow by 2045; working with SVCE to conduct legal analysis and peer research of feasible options; studying electric grid capacity; and preparing a resiliency study with strategies to support resident electrification, and by that I mean electrification of resident buildings.

[03:35:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: The development of Citywide Objective Design Standards involves research, engagement, analysis, and drafting to define the desired standards. Engagement includes direction from Council and input from residents, design professionals, the development community, and City committees and commissions. New standards will require City Code and Precise Plan updates for consistency and enforceability. Standards for all development types and locations would be a multi-year project requiring significant contract resources and staff time, potentially additional staff. Consequently, staff is recommending a phased approach. Phase 1 would focus on multifamily and mixed-use development types. It would benefit housing and affordable housing production, and it would be consistent with advancing other City goals such as green spaces and walkable residential areas.

[03:36:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Finally, pickleball, in Mountain View as in other places, is a popular and growing sport. The sport of tennis is also growing. It is very challenging in a fully developed city like Mountain View to meet pickleball player needs in balance with other community needs for active recreation, such as tennis, and open space. In the interim, there are, unfortunately, no quick solutions to satisfy the needs of both tennis and pickleball players. There is a feasibility study underway, however, for permanent court options. Staff has met with representatives of the Pickleball Club and the Tennis Club and have heard their shared interest in what the Pickleball Club is suggesting to expand the footprint of the existing Tennis Center into a portion of Cuesta Annex. Staff recommends adding this Cuesta Annex space as well as the City-owned San Rafael property to the feasibility study. Staff also recommends expediting the study, which depends on streamlined community engagement and the ability to receive Council direction on the selection of a site in the fall of this year. The focus on tonight's meeting, however, does not include site selection or site layout. Even with an expedited process, it is not possible to complete pickleball court site selection, design, and construction in the remaining eight months of 2025. However, staff does anticipate being able to start construction within the two-year Work Plan cycle. Since it is not possible to identify and construct both new permanent and interim courts in an expedited manner at the same time, relying on the same staff and the same funding, staff recommends a modest increase in the number of pickleball play hours at the Rengstorff Park in the interim.

[03:37:09] Mike Rogers: Thanks for your time. Uh we're going to talk about recreation, uh pickleball and tennis. Uh I've spoken to the Council before I submitted my drawings for the courts at the Annex at Cuesta. Can you hear me? Is that better? Can people online hear me? Um, you know I actually drew up the the drawings that add the pickleball courts to the existing hardscape at the ends of courts 6 and 12 on the north side of Cuesta when um the proposals the RFP was first started there was a drawing on the City website before the RFP was decided upon for the contractor to come up with a proposal um that showed six courts taking out the um dog park which is probably the best dog park in the South Bay let alone Mountain View. Um so I thought that was kind of tragic given that we had these parts of the courts on the north side that aren't really used as bleacher areas so a third of the space for eight courts is already hardscape. We're not taking the out you know that much of the open space to add a lot of courts really quickly. And as I looked at the scale drawings as I looked up the size of courts and looked at the other parts, the part of the Annex just adjacent to courts 5 and 6 looked pretty opportune as well because we have a shortage of tennis courts as well. Um if we had two courts that had dual use we'd have an additional two courts or an additional eight courts. And a large portion of that space is actually taken up by three or four very large old Oleander bushes which have been uncontained growth and haven't been trimmed in decades. Um and take they're toxic to humans and they're hyperallergenic to humans uh as well as um they don't really not indigenous at all. Um so I think the opportunities are interesting um but I did that as a draft submitted it some number of times. Um now we've been having the pickleball community and tennis community meet and we all agree it's taking way too long. This issue is 10 years old and Palo Alto, famous for being really slow, already has 15 dedicated permanent courts. Sunnyvale has 16 dedicated courts looking at adding more. Other communities, Stanford has added courts. We don't yet have any permanent pickleball courts. And we have hundreds of people that are waiting on a weekly basis, on a daily basis, waiting for pickleball courts often for hours just to play their first match. I'm a tennis player. I don't play pickleball but I love the idea that we have a large community, very social and need to be serviced. And I think we need to look at what the implications are. They've not been paying for their courts, we pay for courts uh the tennis courts. Um we've always had a different model. The historical model in Mountain View was called the Community Model long before equity and inclusion became common political terms. 20 years ago we went through three or four RFP processes before we finally convinced the City to use the Community Model to decide on the tennis operator which then became Mountain View Tennis after Tim Foley left um after John Sevely left. But we were unique. We had to impart on the City that we don't want to benchmark what the other cities are doing. We're different. We've always been had the most diverse uses of courts when Todd Dissly had run been running Mountain View Tennis for a few years he goes, Mike you know there's 38 different functional uses of the courts for the community here at Cuesta. We have the high school, USTA, junior leagues, we have the Catholic league championships, all kinds of things right? Rengstorff Park has almost as many probably the second most functional uses so we've really had a great loss. Mountain View Tennis has lots of programs have been greatly compromised right? But we've got agreement with the City, I mean with between the clubs about what makes sense for an interim solution. What we ask is that you move as quickly as feasible with the City staff's recommendation and approve something for finality to to get some number of pickleball courts uh available to the pickleball community as soon as possible. Thanks for your time and attention.

[03:39:20] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So that concludes staff's presentation. The recommendation before you this evening is to approve the recommended projects and scopes as stated in Table 4, and to incorporate into the Fiscal Years, which would be then incorporated into the Fiscal Years 25 through 27 Work Plan for your adoption in June. Staff also recommends that you provide direction to staff and affirm the scope of the Work Plan for the three specific projects which I discussed.

[03:40:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I now will open it to Council questions. And staff is seeking confirmation of the recommended project scopes in Table 4 or other directions. The suggested process is that we'll do Council questions now and comments after the public comment to focus discussion on the three projects mentioned in the staff presentation and any other projects Council wishes to discuss. So do any members of the Council have questions about the process for the discussion and the approval of projects? I see Councilmember Hicks first and then I can go to you.

[03:40:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm just clarifying the process, which you just did to some degree. So we're asking clarification questions now, which is what I'm doing. And then the public will comment. And then we'll do project questions. And then we'll do the three steps separately here? Discuss the three projects, then identify other projects to discuss, and then finalize. Okay.

[03:40:55] Cliff Chambers: Uh, Cliff Chambers uh and I'm here on behalf of the Mountain View uh Pickleball Club. First off I'd really like to support the Pickleball Solutions Work Plan that staff has uh crafted. I think it really hits a home run in terms of what's needed. Um, remember uh Councilmember Showalter uh nominated this project because of health interests not only physical but the emotional well-being of of Mountain View residents as you keep that in mind please as you uh go through your deliberations. The pickleball community and the tennis community have had several meetings uh and correspondence over the past month and we agree on a lot of things. We really support strongly support what Mike Rogers just talked about that is the 16 court facility at uh Cuesta Park right adjacent to the existing courts. Uh it's a very exciting potential for a complex. We really do support the San Rafael Park consideration. We support we both clubs really support all of this the the public-private partnership if it helps to facilitate uh the uh the building and funding of the courts. We'd really like to see something expedited and actually built in 2026. Hopefully you can make that as a strategic objective. We are really amenable to working with the tennis community. We've had some really good meetings in terms of crafting a new hours plan for courts 3 and 4 at Rengstorff Park. I think we can do that in fairly short order so staff can focus on the permanent solutions. And the permanent solutions, there's no easy solutions. You've gotten a lot of email correspondence about it. Nobody's going to be completely happy. And I hope you you know that's why you have City Councils so you can make these tough decisions. Thank you.

[03:41:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Correct. Yes. And I will work with staff to make sure I'm taking note of everything, but we thought it might be... We try to find a way that might make most sense. And our public has been waiting patiently, so giving them the opportunity to comment before we get into things is probably best, right? Okay. So, let's see. So if you have a process question, now is the time. If not, we'll go straight into the public comment and then we'll go into questions, discussion, deliberation. Yes, Councilmember Hicks, did you need a clarification?

[03:41:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. We can do Council questions. No problem. Go ahead.

[03:42:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. I was saying, I want to sincerely thank you for including a volunteer policy in your Council priorities and for directing staff to move forward on it. This means a great deal when we help the Girl Scouts create a butterfly garden at Heritage Park we were turned away several times not because of the project but because the City didn't have a policy in place. It ended up taking nearly four years and only succeeded thanks to the Kiwanis Club's $4 million insurance policy. Most volunteers don't have that kind of backing but they do have the passion to help. This policy opens a clearer more inclusive path for community members to contribute to projects that serve the public good. Uh recently I was honored with an excellence in historical preservation award from the Daughters of the American Revolution and that recognition supports our next steps creating a virtual tour of Heritage Park and Immigrant House and the launch of a third grade field trip program that connects students...

[03:43:05] Daniel Shane: Good evening. Uh appreciate the opportunity to uh share my thoughts about uh the uh one of the City's uh projects. Um, item 10 which is the uh City Code Cleanup, which I assume are updates to the municipal codes and ordinances. Um, the uh we'd like to ensure that the scope of the Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan includes updates to the City Municipal Code and development review process to incorporate and provide urban forestry, highway vegetation barrier and biodiversity criteria for private and public lands. The criteria should be used to evaluate new projects. Secondly it should include standards that protect existing forests, highway vegetation barriers and biodiversity hotspots. There needs to be a correlation between the work that's being done ongoing project the Urban Forestry, the Biodiversity Urban Forestry Plan and updating the municipal codes. We need to ensure um that uh and I'm specifically talking about Municipal Code 41 which is the Parkland Dedication or fees in lieu thereof. Um, it's important that um when we update this code we should update this code to protect existing and important natural resources. Um I think we can all agree that our precious urban forests, natural urban forests and their complex ecosystems are something that we need to protect. We can do this through the Municipal Code Chapter 41 Parkland Dedication. Um, I also understand that the Biodiversity and Urban Forestry Plan can also uh inform this Municipal Code update. I also want to...

[03:45:15] Katie Zoglin: Good morning, good morning. Uh good evening all. Um, first I'm I'm talking about the pickleball um issue. Um, first um I completely support City of Mountain View building more pickleball courts. It's a very popular sport. However I think Cuesta Park is the wrong place for them to be built for there's a number of reasons. Um one includes I strongly oppose paving over any green space that we have. We have such a limited amount. Um number two I take walks in Cuesta Park almost every day. I I've lived in the Cuesta Park neighborhood for over 20 years. I take walks there almost every day. I love the peace and tranquility of the park. Pickleball is a noisy sport and I I really think it would have a huge negative impact on on the environment and the park. Second I encourage um City Council to ask staff to broaden the scope of the feasibility study to consider additional locations. So I I appreciate the fact that now um the San Rafael Avenue property is on the list. Um I think that's great. Um there was reference in Staff Report to some private public partnership. I don't know if that has to do with additional private property that's being considered. It was a little bit unclear. But I don't know if there's other areas that also could be considered that would not mean paving over um green space such as there's huge parking lot areas across from Shoreline Amphitheatre that that could be a location. Um an another location might be some of the other parks that that were mentioned in the initial study. You know some of these may be good ideas, some might be bad, but I think at this point that the feasibility study should be broader as opposed to narrow in scope so that a good location is selected. Third, I think outreach, I I think it's fantastic that the Pickleball and Tennis community been speaking with with each other, but there's two significant areas that have been completely left out of these discussions.

[03:47:25] Bruce Karney: Thank you. I bring you Earth Day greetings and I would like to reflect on two recent losses, former Mayor Matt Allen and Pope Francis. Thinking about their lives, reading their obituaries, I think all of us need to consider what will our legacy be. Will we in fact leave the world a better place than we found it or not? And it's pretty clear to me that my life is dedicated to trying to deal with the climate crisis as best I can and I appreciate that you have joined me in that quest by voting unanimously to make End of Flow by 2045 one of your seven priorities, sorry one of your Strategic Priorities. You may recall that you received over 20 individually written emails from various members of the community asking for you to vote for this priority back in February and I'm sure they're all delighted that you did so. One of the things uh of concern of course is the large amount of money that will be spent by somebody in order to accomplish End of Flow. But I want to put the big numbers in the report in the context of the LA fires from January. According to the Los Angeles Times damages from those fires will exceed $250 billion dollars or approximately $25,000 for every person in all of Los Angeles County. That's 10 million Los Angeles County residents. In Mountain View, since we have about 2.2 um residents per household that would be $60,000 per household in damages if we were damaged by a fire of the of the kind that hit um Pacific Palisades and Altadena. So yes, it will cost a lot to protect our environment but it will cost a lot if we lose it as well. And I I'm sure that you will do the right thing in this Earth Day meeting. Thank you.

[03:49:25] Gene Lee: Um the tenants of the Community Model of Mountain View is unique. No other city in the Bay Area if not the country operates tennis the way Mountain View does. It developed from the tenants uh from Don Schafer's efforts to um guide tennis in its infancy in Mountain View. Um in fact we named a park after Don Schafer next to McKelvey for his contributions to Mountain View Tennis and Mountain View Recreation. So what are the tenants of the Community Model? The first is that camaraderie for the tennis players. You can sit there, chat with the people who play, hassle them, whatever. Um you need this understanding of the Community Model in order to design the facility properly to conduct to to enhance this kind of association. And I'm afraid that well and I'm hoping that the pickleball community will be run by Mountain View residents and not by a um an outside association. Also many outside companies will come in and try to run the tennis courts and you have to be wary of that because they will take the money and not give back to the city. Under the Community Model we have given back more than a million and a half dollars to the City in court fees. Um this is a very unique thing that I think the City should be proud of and try to continue that model for the pickleball community. Thank you.

[03:51:55] Steve Everett: Hello, my name is uh Steve Everett. Um a Mountain View resident. Along with the tennis and pickleball communities, I strongly support the consideration of building pickleball courts adjacent to the Cuesta Park tennis courts and also uh consider the City property on San Rafael Avenue. To expedite building, we support a public-private partnership if it results in building sooner. As an interim solution, please increase the pickleball hours on the shared courts. Thank you.

[03:52:00] Lani Horton: Sorry about that. Hi, I'm Lani Horton. I'm a Mountain View resident and member of the tennis community. I'm speaking in strong support of the proposal to build a permanent pickleball facility at Cuesta Park next to the tennis courts. This is a true win-win solution for both the pickleball and tennis communities. It also has minimal impact on other park users and on neighboring homes. I think this can become a model of cooperation between our communities for the larger Bay Area. I also urge the Council not to approve any further cannibalization of the tennis courts at Rengstorff, which will greatly reduce access to the second most widely used tennis courts in the city and jeopardize the continuing viability of the Mountain View Tennis Club. The Rengstorff courts should be reverted to 100% tennis use upon completion of the pickleball facility at Cuesta. Thank you for your time.

[03:54:55] Jeremy Chen: Hi, my name is Jeremy Chen and I'm a resident of Mountain View since 2001. Honorable Councilmembers, I am here to show my strong support for the proposal brought forth by Mike and Cliff for the construction of permanent pickleball courts adjacent to the tennis courts at Cuesta Park. First I want to look back a little bit. Looking back, in 1972, Mountain View's population stood at approximately 51,000. That same year the City inaugurated the 12 lighted courts at tennis at Cuesta Park. And six years earlier in 1964, eight lighted courts were established at Rengstorff Park. So in just six years, Mountain View added 20 tennis courts demonstrating foresight and dedication to community well-being. Fast forward to today, our population has grown to approximately 82,000, a 60% increase since 1970. Despite this growth, the number of public tennis courts has remained largely unchanged. Meanwhile the popularity of pickleball has surged leading to the addition of the three dedicated pickleball courts at Rengstorff Park, with plans for more. I firmly believe Mountain View has the capacity to support both communities without compromising one for the other. And I believe the City of Mountain View has the capacity to expedite the building of these permanent pickleball courts. Let's aspire to match the vision and efficiency our City's exhibited in the 1960s by investing in facilities that serve all residents. By doing so, we honor our history while embracing the diverse recreational needs of our growing community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[03:56:45] Mary Dateo: Um, good evening. Um regarding setting End of Flow by 2045, this goal seems more concrete than our current carbon neutral goal. We can see this in the list of challenges that staff has identified such as specific City buildings currently using gas and Eagle pool. For that reason I strongly support this goal. One note is that I've heard that San Jose may be backing off on their gas ban for new buildings because of the court ruling in Berkeley. So that's something we want to keep an eye on to make sure that we don't go backwards. I also strongly support the Citywide Objective Design Standards especially if these will be used to transform our El Camino Real and San Antonio areas into grand boulevards rather than just expressways with housing. I believe that we should be able to have higher density housing that is also beautiful and creates a sense of place. I also wanted to mention another project I support that is on the list of projects considered but not recommended and that is the biodiversity strategy. While we are waiting for a full strategy to be developed, I hope we can move forward with some pieces of it. For example, the Parks and Rec Commission has recommended that we transition to 70% native plants in our landscaping. And I believe we can start doing that now even before we have a full biodiversity strategy. I also support the idea of having a staff person dedicated to sustainability and biodiversity as we move forward with our climate adaptation plan. Thank you.

[04:00:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I think it's important we do adopt this goal so that we start the necessary planning and conversions, and so that other property owners in Mountain View are motivated to begin planning as well. Regarding the costs, I recently saw that 20 to 50% of post-earthquake fires are caused by gas leaks. So removing gas from our city will reduce the risk of future costly fires.

[04:00:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Regarding pickleball, I urge the Council to remove the request to annex as an option. In the past when development has been proposed in the Annex, there have been a large number of people who have spoken about how important the Annex is as an undeveloped open space. Walking in the Annex is quiet and peaceful in a way that we can't find elsewhere in Mountain View, and because pickleball is so noisy, it would ruin one of the things that makes the Annex so special. Thank you.

[04:01:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Todd Disley, then Bruce England.

[04:01:18] Todd Disley: Hi, can you hear me?

[04:01:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:01:20] Todd Disley: Hi, my name is Todd Disley. I was here last time. I'm the operator at Mountain View Tennis. I'm super excited about the future of racket sports. It's great to see such an awesome collaboration between the pickleball, the Mountain View Tennis Club. The community-oriented operating model that Gene Lee talked about, the Mike Rogers plan, it's super great.

[04:01:43] Todd Disley: I love play, I love people active. And it's been an amazing time in the racket sports industry. It is booming. Tennis, pickleball, padel, everything is going crazy with racket sports. I love that you're giving everyone a voice. Green space is super important. This is one of the most beautiful parks in America. I've been around the country, it's gorgeous. You've got to pay attention to the space that Gene Lee talks about, but this is Silicon Valley, this is Mountain View.

[04:02:14] Todd Disley: These sports have people that love it. It's a great athletic thing for families. It brings community together. Let's be the cutting edge. We need something quick. Tennis is booming, pickleball is great, but there's not enough courts. This takes the least green space, the least, the temporary solution, but you can dream bigger. The tennis facility hasn't been touched since 1972 when it was built. It's falling apart. We're trying to keep it together. This is an amazing opportunity. I love this community. I hope that you guys can make something happen. Thank you.

[04:02:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Bruce England.

[04:02:58] Bruce England: Thank you Mayor. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. Also a member of Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, GreenSpaces Mountain View, and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. The comments I want to make really have to do with our paving over our city for any reason at all. And the Cuesta Annex is an important part of the city that has been discussed historically many times over the years. People are very adamant about protecting it.

[04:03:31] Bruce England: All the proposals that have come along to use it by paving or building on it have been soundly rejected by the community. So nothing against pickleball, but building into the Annex for that project doesn't make any sense to me. And the PCI index up to 71, my major concern about that one is that as far as I can tell so far, you don't have data that tells you what the trade-offs are between the cost of repaving up to PCI 71 and what you gain through freeing up funding for other projects, including active transportation projects.

[04:03:57] Bruce England: We absolutely want to see active transportation projects funded, but if it costs more to do the work that frees up funding, then that just doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. And I think you really need to know that information in order to make a sound decision on that one. Thank you.

[04:04:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, any other public comment in person or virtual? All right, I am not seeing any others. So I'll bring the item back to count for Council deliberation and action. So, why don't we start with if there's any questions on the projects? And then we'll go into the three specific projects after that. So this is just for the others. Councilmember Showalter.

[04:04:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I have a question about the index numbers. The PCI index numbers. It seems to me that there was some bill that meant that you had to get a certain PCI score in order to get funding. And I'm wondering, is there such a bill? Is there any state requirement that we maintain our roads at a specific PCI level?

[04:05:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: It's on.

[04:05:25] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Oh, thanks. Hi, Jennifer Ng, Public Works Director. So I think what you're referring to, Councilmember Showalter, is 2016 Measure B funds. And what those are predicated on is that when a jurisdiction has a PCI of less than 70, those funds may only be allocated towards pavement restoration. Once you achieve the PCI goal of 70, then you have a little bit more flexibility on how to utilize those funds. But I think that's what you're thinking of and what you're referring to.

[04:05:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That is what I'm referring to. What is it again?

[04:05:57] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: 2016 Measure B funds.

[04:05:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: 2016 Measure B funds. Okay, that's definitely it. And that's essentially a Santa Clara County thing or a Bay Area?

[04:06:09] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Um, yeah, it is definitely one of the funding sources that we utilize for paving and it's common all the cities in this area get an increment of Measure B.

[04:06:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right, thank you. Yes, that's what it is. So that is really one of the inspirations for choosing 70 as what we're going to shoot for, right?

[04:06:32] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: My understanding is that there was a prior understanding that staff was working under prior to me getting here that Mountain View's goal in general was to keep a PCI of 70. And so that is a goal that the staff has been working towards already.

[04:06:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I think that's true and I think it was related to those Measure B funds. Thank you, that's what I was confused about. Appreciate it.

[04:07:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other questions? All right, so there's already three projects, the End of Natural Gas Flow by 2045, the Citywide Objective Design Standards, and the Pickleball Solutions that we've identified for discussion. I'll ask if Councilmembers have any other projects they wish to discuss that they'd like to add to this list. Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:07:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Number 9, 2026 revenue measure, and number 13, pavement condition index increase to 71. Thank you.

[04:07:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember Hicks.

[04:07:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, okay. Uh, Number 12, pedestrian mall vacant storefront activation program. Um, and uh, the autonomous vehicle pilot, which I am not going to ask you all to vote for, but I'm just going to make a statement on it.

[04:08:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think that's zero.

[04:08:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Number zero or number 17, whichever number you want to give it.

[04:08:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I like that, zero. Okay. All right, so I have 9, 13, 12, 0. Councilmember Showalter.

[04:08:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I would also like us to discuss a little bit the low and moderate income home ownership project. And just a little bit about our priorities.

[04:08:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So looking to staff, perhaps it might make... which, how should we do them? What order shall we do them? So where's the three that we already had identified? And then now I have five others that have been identified. So shall I take them in numerical order? Did you want to go over the three that were already identified?

[04:09:09] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: How about those three first?

[04:09:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. All right. So colleagues, we'll go, we'll do the pulled items after we do the three that were already identified. So the first that we'll discuss, unless anyone has anything else? You want to pull something else?

[04:09:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, no, no, I'm ready to talk about end of flow.

[04:09:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, okay. So the first of the three projects, we'll just go in turn in the order that is listed on my agenda here. We'll end of flow natural gas by 2045. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[04:09:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. So I put this on my list of projects to move forward largely due to, I was largely inspired by a lot of the young environmental activists to really look into our future and see what can be. I know that it is kind of a heavy lift and a lot of it really does seem daunting.

[04:10:03] Councilmember Emily Ramos: What I'm asking staff is to view this as a North Star. Move forward, take a look at what it actually takes for it to get done. I do feel like the direction is going in a general way that I like, but largely I do want us to think about this as, I don't want it to be an empty goal, but I want us, it's going to be... none of us are going to be here on this dais when this deadline comes around.

[04:10:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So there could be so much that could happen in that period of time, so much in technology, so much in the world. I'm very optimistic about our future sometimes, most of the time. And so that's why I really want to push forward in it and I don't think it's as daunting as some of us might be afraid of.

[04:11:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[04:11:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure, I'll just follow up with that. It was also on my list. And I think setting a goal for the end of natural gas flow is just setting the goal and outlining a general plan of what it takes to get there, which is basically what staff recommends that we do in the next two years. So I was very pleased with that.

[04:11:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: This is really an aspiration. And as time goes on, we can make informed decisions about what actions to take and how we'll pay for them. And as Vice Mayor Ramos said, there's going to be so many changes in technologies and circumstances and that sort of thing. But we would like this to be I think a North Star. That's a good descriptor.

[04:12:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[04:12:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, yes. I also like this as an aspirational goal. I think that, you know, 2045 is a ways away. And there are other cities that have more near-term goals. So I like it as an aspirational goal, not as something we panic about and spend a billion dollars on.

[04:12:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have to say some of the main things that will make this happen are individual homeowners and apartment owners, but especially I'm thinking of homeowners changing their, you know, their water heaters and so forth to non-gas appliances. And I think it's good to have this goal. I know a number of people who've done remodels and they just don't seriously look into the non-gas appliances unless there's something really steering them in that direction.

[04:13:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And we also, for example, have a fireplace store downtown which actually it's a very good one, but they sell a lot of gas fireplaces when they should really be switching to electric. So to a large degree, I think it's having this North Star gets the word out that we want people to go in that direction. And that's a big piece of kind of publicizing this. That's a big piece of what I would like to see.

[04:13:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember McAlister.

[04:13:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Um. I was reading the staff report, and when the 'B' started showing up, the billions of dollars, it was a concern. And it is a heck of a goal. But as we go with this goal or aspiration, we need to be very transparent about the true cost of what this is going to cost to the community, to the residents. I mean we're talking for the city alone to redo all the pipes or to take the pipes out, I mean it's billions of dollars and a lot of time.

[04:14:17] Councilmember John McAlister: It's going to be major disruption. I know it's out in '45, but people need to know what's going to be really expected at that time. Hopefully, technology will come along and there will be a substitute for natural gas or propane. I understand there's one or whatever there is. But to dismantle, if I understand they're going to take, you know, dismantle the underground pipes and so forth and the electricity needs to be upgraded, it's very important that people realize that right now if they were to do it, it's going to cost them thousands of dollars.

[04:14:51] Councilmember John McAlister: And as our population ages in this area and it will change over time, a lot of folks will not be able to afford it. And I'm sure the apartment owners need to get a head start of really letting them be part of the solution because it's going to cost them millions of dollars and you're going to get a lot of pushback. So just make sure that as we go with this, we keep a running tab of here's an expected cost so it's not a surprise that when you get closer to your goal, 'oops, we got to do it' and people are going to... so please be transparent, please look at alternatives.

[04:15:27] Councilmember John McAlister: And I was glad to see that you were including looking at the electric grid because if the grid's not there, you know, we don't want more blackouts. But that's my thoughts on that.

[04:15:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Clark.

[04:15:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I agree with those comments and what staff has recommended in terms of the scope and setting the goal and the North Star. So following, conducting the legal analysis at an appropriate time, I think some of that is still unsettled. There's been some, there was a big setback and then there was movement hopefully in a good direction, but not all of that has been litigated to the highest levels and then once it is, then legislation, you know, there needs to be legislative activity to respond to that.

[04:16:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so I think following that as well as the peer research makes sense. The two other items, studying the electrical grid, which I agree with. I think the electrical grid will naturally respond to increases in demand. We're seeing that now with data centers and other things. And then the resiliency study makes sense too. I think the latter two probably fit within, I want to take advantage as much as possible of the decarbonization plan, the existing work that's going to go into that.

[04:16:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think that thinking about this holistically, it should be one of our North Stars and one of our goals and a really important one, but I think it needs to also fit into the broader decarbonization strategy too. And so I hope that some of this effort can be done as part of that strategy so that it's integrated into our broader decarbonization strategy instead of kind of orphaned on its own and a totally different process.

[04:17:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[04:17:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: To be fair when I submitted this project, I said as part of the decarbonization plan. So I'm hoping that staff kind of took that as part of the direction. But yeah, it is the hope that a lot of our projects, they kind of interact with each other, they kind of rely on each other and it's, we're relying on staff to slot them all in the right places.

[04:17:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And I think just my comments are, you know, as this moves forward, just being able to understand what other municipalities are doing, right? Our peers are doing. Would be really great for us to understand, and then what might, what implications may or may not be coming from the federal government. I feel like there's always things changing there and not sure how that might impede any of this goal.

[04:18:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, do you need a vote on this?

[04:18:14] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I think there's going to be a motion at the end regarding the total list and scope. So I didn't hear any change to the recommended scope, unless I misheard.

[04:18:27] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: It might just be easy just to take them as they go for the three items. And then once you do your final recommendation, then we know what your direction is.

[04:18:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That's what I was thinking. Is that okay? Yeah, and I think I'll just do voice votes against Assistant City Clerk. Just, I want to just make sure because we have these three and then we have an additional five. So I think just going project by project might be the way to... and then I think that'll give staff the clarity they need. Okay, great. So all those in favor of this project, we'll just be a voice vote.

[04:19:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:19:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:19:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:19:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:19:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:19:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:19:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:19:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:19:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:19:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:19:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:19:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:19:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:19:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. Great. So we'll move on to the next item, which is our Citywide Objective Design Standards. So I believe this was proposed by Councilmember Hicks, is that right? So I don't know if you want to speak to it first and then if colleagues have anything they'd like to add if you want to queue up.

[04:19:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So yes, I was actually super happy to see that among the committees and commissions this one got kind of by far the largest number of votes. Because I was enthusiastic about it but I didn't know that so many other people would be. And we've gotten, if you read our email as public, if you've read our email we've also gotten a lot of support for it there.

[04:20:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And what I was, and I think people have... so there's a question from staff about exactly what we're including in this and whether it should consist of two phases. I do think it's a large, if done well, which I want it to be, it can be a large project. So I'm fine with putting it in several phases as staff has recommended.

[04:20:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I think it was, correct me if I'm wrong, it was mixed use and apartments first. Multifamily, and mixed use. Yeah. So that seems fine. What I'm, I have to say the public comments that we've gotten, so I'll say a couple of reasons that I put this forward. One is that I think if we have good clear design standards, that helps us streamline how we work with developers.

[04:21:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You know, that we can just tell them, I guess one of the things I've said to developers is if we told you everything you built had to be painted blue, you would do that. Most of them don't really care that much as long as they know in the beginning what they're supposed to do. Usually, unless it's something very costly, they'll be willing to do it. So that's kind of my purpose to tell them up front rather than in a drawn out way.

[04:21:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Also because when I worked for the City of San Jose we did have design standards and I found them useful in talking to developers to be able to pull them out and say 'this one and that one applies to you'. But people have brought up, so it's for streamlining and getting better development and clearer communication. But members of the public have pointed out something that I'm glad they did because they were more focused on it than I was, which is upgrading the public realm, the way that development interface with sidewalks and with the street.

[04:22:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Which I think is one of the most important things we do. You know, we don't tell people how to do their interior decoration, thank God. But the streets are all of ours. They belong to all of us and we do want design standards, in particular this reinforces our active transportation plans and also green streets and ground floor activation, which is why I think staff put the mixed use building first.

[04:23:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So ground floor activation so that when you're in a mixed use area of town, the ground floor is kind of speaking to you and welcoming you. So those are all the things that I wanted to do. I'm a little more as the public has pushed us in this direction, a little more focused on how the buildings we're talking about interface with the sidewalk, you know, how the public feels welcome, what makes you want to walk, where you find room for street trees or pocket parks or those kinds of things.

[04:23:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And making the ground floor, the floors that people can see better as they walk or bike by, really the ones that we focus on in terms of design and materiality and so forth. And punched out windows, which is something we've talked about before. So that's what I'm looking for. And I don't know if there's anything else that staff feels they need to hear regarding this.

[04:24:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: No, thank you.

[04:24:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No. Okay.

[04:24:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So seeing no other hands in the queue, I think we could just do a voice vote. If you are in support of this new project for Citywide Objective Design Standards.

[04:24:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:24:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:24:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:24:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:24:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:24:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:24:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:24:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:24:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:24:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:24:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:24:52] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:24:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:24:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. Great. So we'll move on to the next item which is Pickleball Solutions. And I'll turn it over to Councilmember Showalter.

[04:25:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I was delighted that the tennis and the pickleball community are collaborating together and they seem to support staff's recommendation and so do I.

[04:25:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Other comments? Councilmember Hicks.

[04:25:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: The only thing I would add is just, there were maybe, I don't need to add this, but there were some specific places, all good potential near-term places. And I wonder if a line of just any other sorts of places that might come up and be available in the mid-term, or mid-term, near-term. You know just making sure that... I mean these may be the final and best places, but if any place else comes up I would not want to close us off to that.

[04:26:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[04:26:50] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, I'm glad that the war between tennis and pickleball has come to a good armistice. I'm hoping there is another player in this game as we have looked at finding a solution. Now we have open space advocates that are concerned about the paving over of open space land. I'm hoping that we can find a good solution for everyone involved.

[04:27:19] Councilmember Emily Ramos: It's going to be, I'm glad that we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel kind of thing. I am happy to see that San Rafael is an option. San Rafael, right? Yeah. Is an option. There has been always this hesitancy on the Annex and just tread, tread cautiously. And we can study it, but I think just be careful on that.

[04:27:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:27:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I'm, I didn't... I'm happy to support advancing this through the process. One thing that some members of the council may want to think about is from time to time we establish ad hoc subcommittees to delve deeply into a topic like we did with the revenue measure last year or the year before. And I wonder if, given the complexity of this issue and the challenge in synthesizing input from different constituencies who have sometimes opposing perspectives.

[04:28:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: For members of the council who have more energy than I do to maybe work with staff through an ad hoc subcommittee and just really work through some of these sticky details before this comes back to council because I love public input and you know I read all of the emails I can, but I feel like this is one where it's going to require I think some political thought and clear strategic thinking with staff before it comes to the council where we might struggle if we haven't had some eyes and ears on the topic before it comes to us for final approval. So I'm not suggesting that that be something that we determine tonight, but I would love for members of the council who have been working with the community more closely than I have on this issue to think about whether that might be a way to work through some of the challenges before the council revisits this topic. Thank you.

[04:29:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember McAlister.

[04:29:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Councilmember Ramirez, could the Park and Rec take on that task?

[04:29:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well they did. And they voted on a proposal that hasn't come to us because the community wasn't... there are different perspectives in the community. And I think the reason I say a Council subcommittee is because I think the Parks and Rec Commission probably has felt like they've done that work for us. And their perspective is just going to be a little bit different from what we might get from Councilmembers.

[04:30:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. I'm just going to turn this over to the City Manager and also staff who I know have been working on this for quite some time.

[04:30:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor. So I appreciate what Councilmember Ramirez is saying. I believe that staff is pretty far down the road on this to study it. And I would like to invite our Community Services Director to come up. You're welcome to talk a little further about where staff is at with this. And that might provide a little more context for Council because I'm not sure that you all would need an ad hoc committee, so maybe our director can provide a little more feedback.

[04:30:58] Community Services Director John Marchant: Thank you City Manager McCarthy for the opportunity. John Marchant, Community Services Director. So as you are aware we have started a feasibility study looking at certain locations. Some of the locations that were discussed tonight have been looked at already and were not moved forward, but if any others do come up through the process we'll add those to see if they're feasible and look at those.

[04:31:27] Community Services Director John Marchant: And so as far as the process, we have gone to the Parks and Recreation Commission. They had recommended the dog park area within Cuesta Park based on community feedback. We were looking for other options other than just that one. And so we do have the consultant on staff to work with us in an expedient way. And so we'll be able to get through this and I think as we go through the process we can determine if a Council ad hoc committee may be helpful through that process as we go through it and listen to the community feedback.

[04:32:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Did you have more Councilmember McAlister? Okay great. All right, so I'm not seeing any other hands in the queue. So I think we'll just put this forward and I believe this is the staff recommendation for this item. Correct? All right.

[04:32:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:32:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:32:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:32:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:32:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:32:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:32:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:32:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:32:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:32:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:32:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:32:41] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:32:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:32:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. Great. So we'll move on to the next item. Rather than going in numerical order of the number of the project, I'll just go in order of our colleague who pulled the item. So we have two from Councilmember Ramirez. So we'll just take them one at a time if you don't mind. So I believe it was the project 9, the Revenue Tax Measure 2026.

[04:33:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity. So I don't have a lot to say about the 2026 revenue measure proposal. I'm not opposed to it. I think it has merit. But before we go too far down that road, I think it's important for each individual member of the Council to determine whether they have the capacity and interest in being the champion for the measure. I am not going to do it. So if I'm not going to do it and no one else wants to do it, before we spend $200,000 of city funding exploring a measure that will be orphaned on the November 2026 ballot, I think we would want to think about whether this is politically viable.

[04:33:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I'm going to support it, but I think before we go too far someone really needs to step up and say 'I'm comfortable fundraising, building community support, talking to folks who might be skeptical, and ultimately securing the majority that we might need for this'. And if it's a bond measure especially, that two-thirds threshold is very high. So something to think about. Thank you.

[04:34:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You have a volunteer, Councilmember McAlister.

[04:34:17] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, I was just praising Councilmember Ramirez. So my question is, you're saying don't go down the path, but shouldn't we, since you've done this before, you're a great asset, should we get what we're going to put on that ballot before we start asking people? And would this process get us that information of what we want to put on that ballot?

[04:34:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I guess it depends... so it could, but it depends on your level of comfort with spending money on something that no one in the end ultimately will invest time and effort running a campaign for. We don't know what the community sentiment will be until we do polling, but polling requires an expenditure of public funds. So even if we find, hey there's a path to victory, we find 55% of the voters might support it and we only need a simple majority, that still requires effort. So I would say before we get to a stage where we start polling and figuring out where the public sentiment is, someone needs to say yes, I'm willing to step up and run a campaign.

[04:35:24] Councilmember John McAlister: But shouldn't they know what they are advocating for?

[04:35:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It's your... I'm going to vote yes on this. No, I'm just, you've been through the process, I haven't. That's why I'm asking. If we go ahead with this, is this going to determine some items that would be on the... money for parks, money for public safety, that's what I was asking.

[04:35:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes. And I see Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews coming up, but I think from my perspective it was very helpful to be a member of the ad hoc subcommittee that looked at this, and I chose to run the campaign because I was comfortable championing what ultimately came out of the work of that subcommittee. So you're right, it could inform one's willingness, but if everyone feels like they're just not interested in doing that work, then that's something I think the council should think about sooner rather than later.

[04:36:14] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor. So to provide context for how this really unfolded, the Council Finance Committee served as the Revenue Ad Hoc Committee as well, which is how Councilmember Ramirez and former Councilmember Matichak I think became leads for the revenue measure. So I would be looking at the three members of the Council Finance Committee, of which I know Councilmember Ramirez is one of them. But that's typically what would happen. So just to provide further context. So I understand the sentiment. I'll also say that for many years the city has talked about doing a potential TOT or a transient occupancy tax measure, but there are certainly other options that we may want to explore which would come out in polling. So I think the sentiment is certainly well taken. We will need a champion or two.

[04:37:25] Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews: And if you'd like I can just add further context to timing. Aside from the valid concerns of the Councilmember, we would likely be coming before you with a study session in the fall, probably November. That would be followed by a recommendation to form an ad hoc committee. That committee would start meeting December, January, February. Based on the deliberations at the ad hoc committee, we would then look to bring on a pollster that would start looking at polling in the March-April timeframe. Final development of ballot language would come before you in the May-June timeframe. And so you would be looking at expenditures for a pollster sometime around March. Thank you.

[04:38:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I think to add some context for the concern that Councilmember Ramirez had, we have a neighboring jurisdiction, they had two ballot measures. Literally what we were looking at doing, a revenue measure and a charter amendment measure, and both of them failed because the work it takes for to have a leader pushing it through. I think the charter amendment, they thought because they thought on the basis that it made sense, it would just go through. But it takes campaigns to win things. And that's probably why Councilmember Ramirez has a little bit more concerns about that. The good news is that the people on the Finance Commission don't have to run for anything in 2026. Because that was the reason why I wasn't really a co-chair in the campaign, even though I was on the CFC. I think this is probably something we can move forward, it's just something to think about when it does finally come forward to the rest of the council.

[04:39:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm just curious how it was arranged on council. I was not on council then, but some of you were. When you did the business license tax, because was it the Finance Committee and who on council was associated with that? And the reason, one reason I ask, I think at least three Councilmembers were on council when that happened. One reason I ask is that I was actually, I was running for office then for the first time, and I was actually on the, it was like a citizens committee and Megan Fraley was the chair and I was a person on it. And so that seems like... did you all at that time just hand it all off to Megan Fraley?

[04:40:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No? You don't remember. How was that arranged?

[04:40:17] Councilmember John McAlister: The members were Chris Clark, myself and former Councilmember Lenny Siegel. And so we were actually... the item was... we were going back about the TOT and this one, and for whatever reasons, and Chris will probably have more detailed knowledge than I would, that this came out ahead. And because people were sort of saying, hey, there's Google, they got some money. And we figured that was a fair way, not necessarily Google but to all the other ones, a fair way of getting the money. So it just evolved. We did have the three of us. Lenny I thought was leaning a little more than I was, and then Chris was probably leading the whole group. He was stealth at the time but he was doing it. And I don't know how Megan came along but maybe he can remember.

[04:41:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's varied over the years. When I in 2008 I ran and lost, and part of it... you want to be more involved in the community right? Help us with this UUT tax. And so I was like the citizen person. But then there's usually a group of Councilmembers who help draft the ballot statements and all those things that is done by committee but and then there have been cycles where some poor soul ends up doing the majority of the work and the rest of us drop literature, do you know whatever it is. But it's varied over the years. But usually there's a core group of Councilmembers plus a lead and then there's usually some citizens who are willing to step up and help too with some of the burden. It's varied over the years, I guess is the long way of saying it.

[04:42:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Well if there are no further questions or discussion, I think the project is to develop, I think Assistant City Manager Andrews walked us through what the timeline and the process would be. I would say appreciate the notes of caution Councilmember Ramirez. I think that I feel supportive of this because we are a very ambitious council with very ambitious residents and we are looking at a very tight budget. So being able to meet all of those are things that we're going to need to get extremely creative on. Therefore I feel like the cost of exploration is worth it so that we can honestly meet the needs that our residents are asking for. So. All right. So why don't we do a... do we need to do a straw poll on it? We do because I got pulled. Okay, Assistant City Clerk.

[04:43:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:43:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:43:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:43:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:43:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:43:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:43:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:43:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:43:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:43:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:43:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:43:37] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:43:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:43:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Thank you. All right, back to you Councilmember Ramirez. Project number 13, pavement condition index PCI increase to 71.

[04:43:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor, and I want to work in collaboration with the Councilmember who suggested this item. So I would welcome your participation and input. I'm not opposed to it. I want to try and find a way to make it work recognizing that there are trade-offs as the staff has shared with us and has been identified by the community. And I sometimes it's dangerous to become too wedded to your own ideas, but one of the ways I think we can make this work is by modifying the intent just a little bit to focus on the arterials in particular and maybe the collector streets.

[04:44:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I appreciated staff including the map and the responses to council questions, it's on the last page. But looking at this map I've been trying to digest it over the course of the meeting, but I think the red streets, the arterials, and many of the collector streets are really what most members of the community actually care about. And so I think I couldn't support dramatically increasing the ongoing city contribution or expenditure on maintaining the average PCI for the entire network. We don't have the resources to make that work and I would be uncomfortable with some of the trade-offs that have been contemplated.

[04:45:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Discernable difference between 70 and 71 for the arterials. And at least having staff do that analysis, come back with how much would that cost increase be, and then we can discern what the tradeoffs may be if that's the goal that the Council wants to achieve.

[04:45:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But I would be interested in analysis on what it would take to keep the arterials at an average PCI of 70. So that way at the very least we know we're addressing by far I think the vast majority of the concerns we've heard from the community over the years. So it would be a dedicated or more concerted effort to maintain those streets recognizing that maintenance early on is cheaper over time than wholesale reconstruction once a street has deteriorated beyond a certain point. I would welcome Public Works input on what that point is, but I didn't realize this but I guess 70 has been our goal and we haven't quite hit that goal for arterials. So I think investing, focusing on arterials seems to be a reasonable compromise where we can achieve the spirit of the goal, address the quality of life concerns from our community and also not break the bank. So that was the idea I wanted to elevate. Thank you.

[04:45:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. I will turn to the project maker, Councilmember McAlister.

[04:45:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, Councilmember Ramirez, I appreciate your openness to work with me on this one. And I appreciate the willingness to pass this through because it is important and obtaining an average of 70 is enough to get us our funds back to reinvest in the city. So that sounds like a fair deal. There is a cost. No matter—it's a infrastructure project that we need to get done. And as you mentioned, if we defer it, it's going to get more expensive over time.

[04:46:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So can you, Councilmember Ramirez, just clarify the language for what the project name or would it be the name would be different or kind of the scope would be different? Because right now it's listed as Pavement Condition Index PCI increase to 71. So for your edits is that...

[04:46:09] Councilmember John McAlister: A lot of people were talking about the Active Transportation Plan. Well, what are they going to ride on? They're going to be riding on these roads. You know, are we going to turn them to dirt? So we're accomplishing the goal of the Active Transportation Plan by making sure that the roads are safe, that people will ride on them, there's not gravel. And if you notice that we recently passed SB 1, taking that money, there's money to allow us to repair the road and to put in the Active Transportation Plan. So I see it as a win-win.

[04:46:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I think the clarity would be helpful. I'll do my best but I think I would welcome city staff's input on this. So the intent would be that would be not merely the goal, but you know that's what the investment strategy would be to achieve an average PCI of I would say 70 because there's apparently no significant...

[04:46:44] Councilmember John McAlister: And for us to do that, you I think you need to do the foundation of the road, pave it, and then we can always add that on. So I, um, when you said come back, there is going to be a cost, but it's going to be a cost that either we pay it now or pay me more later. And to your point is that if we keep it specific to certain ones, and keep it down at 70, I think our money will go further and make sure people are happier and safer while they ride their bikes. And now the kids on these or people on these electric bikes are scooting along pretty quick. You need to look at how safe that is. So I appreciate the openness to it and I can go with it.

[04:47:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So it's moving it to 70 as well as the arterials. You're okay with that? Okay. Councilmember Hicks.

[04:47:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have to say I have a lot of trepidation about this project. Sorry, John. But I voted for it during our last meeting because I wanted to see how it would kind of fit in with, you know, each of these projects needs a certain amount of funding and I wanted to see how it would fit in with that. And getting answers back like if its Council strategy—this is from the staff report—to increase the City's overall PCI to 71, more funds would be spent on pavement focused projects which may result in less funding for other types of projects relying on the same funding sources. That kind of, um, that's the kind of analysis that would make me not not want to put this as a Council priority project, but instead address it the same way we've always addressed paving.

[04:48:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I do have I have some worries. I want to make active transportation a priority, but I also don't want active transportation to be—I don't know if this is an English word—equivalized with paving. Because to me it's about a lot more than paving. In fact, when places are just a mass of paving, people don't tend to want to walk on them much. It has to be much more—it to me it makes every we're making everything into concrete and not talking about shade, not talking about—I mean, we've talked about it tonight, but we may end up without the money to actually do it. And you're the one who wanted wide sidewalks with trees only moments ago.

[04:48:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just want to make active trans—I want I would like Council to to—I'm feeling that this project has made paving much more a part of the language we've been using since it was since we voted on it, and I want to prioritize active transportation and green complete streets and enhancing the public realm. Now, maybe I'll end up feeling that the PCI 70 and the arterials that that will that will do it. Or maybe we should just take it off and make it and address paving the way we—I mean, we're going to we're going to still pave our streets no matter how we do this. So that's my take on this at this point.

[04:50:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I kind of feel like we have a very professional evaluation system for figuring out what streets need to be paved. And things have gotten a little behind in the last few years because of the pandemic and many things that got behind in the pandemic because there were so many things we absolutely had to do. But all of our streets are our responsibility. Not just the—I mean, except for the the City streets are our responsibility whether they're an arterial or just a, you know, a feeder street.

[04:50:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The feeder streets don't wear out as fast because they don't get as much traffic because there isn't as much weight on them. So they don't need to be repaved as often. So I just sort of feel like the system that we have now is actually a good one. And I'm not sure whether having this elevated to a Council work plan item or not makes a big difference. So I would really like to have staff weigh in on how much difference does it really make if it's a work plan project or not.

[04:51:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I will attempt to answer that and then I'll invite our Public Works Director up if she has any other comments. But the Capital Improvement Program has contemplated pavement management. We are already going to be working on a pavement management program in 2026 and every two years. So really it's up to Council to determine if you want to elevate this. You have other existing projects you're elevating, but the work is underway.

[04:52:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Will be ongoing either way.

[04:52:14] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Correct.

[04:52:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[04:52:19] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you. The only thing I would add is that if this is voted for tonight, it's really in my mind an acceleration of what we're doing.

[04:52:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Acceleration. Not a celebration. Acceleration. No. Okay. So, um, all right, I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue. Um, and so just want to, um—oh. You just added yourself. All right. Just trying to move it along. Okay. Councilmember Hicks.

[04:52:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So with that comment, I'm I'm not going to vote to accelerate this over other projects. I think I'm I'm happy with the way I'm happy with our pavement management program, but I want to accelerate active transportation and this is not what I want to accelerate because I think it would mean putting paving as a priority over other things.

[04:53:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember McAlister.

[04:53:15] Councilmember John McAlister: First of all, we've delayed paving. Now you it's not a bad word to pave our streets to make them safe for people to ride on them. And as we say, it's going to cost us more down the road. And saying pavement is not it includes what you want is active transportation because you still need to have a road and everything that's going to be done needs the prep for the foundation. So we're not going to focus all on one thing, but we still need to take everything and bring it up. And you're deferring again things that people actually use, live on. They need to see that the City is doing something, that we're reinvesting in the City.

[04:54:07] Councilmember John McAlister: And your active transportation plans, yeah, they're great, but again they need the base of the roads. But when I was out campaigning, people said what are we doing with the roads? Excluding El Camino. They want to see us reinvesting back in the City. And as you hear me often say, if we keep deferring it's going to cost more and more. So we're going to lose money over time and we're not either way it's going to be a lose-lose as we do it. But if we do it at a regular pace that we bring us up to the 70, we will have more funds to do the active transportation plan in the long run. Because one, we're going to get money back from the uh the state—I mean the county—we're going to have vehicle registration fees are coming in. We just saw the SB 1 bringing in money that's going to help us take care of these issues. So the more we delay, the more it's going to cost.

[04:54:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. I'm going to go to Councilmember Clark and then I'm just going to call the question.

[04:54:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was just going to make a suggestion, um, as to because I still don't know what we're voting on. But uh... I think that so I was going to yeah clarify. So I think...

8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS

[04:55:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: What has been proposed uh was by Councilmember Ramirez that we move we make Project 13 say Pavement Condition Index PCI increase to 70 with a focus on arterial streets only and the project maker Councilmember McAlister was amenable to that. So that was what I was gonna propose that we take a vote on.

[04:55:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: Did I misunderstand? 70 is generally our goal now. We've just kind of lagged a little bit um for pandemic reasons and all sorts of things.

[04:55:34] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Correct. Yes, just so what happened during the pandemic really the big uh blow to this program was the fact that we had around 40% of our public works staff um vacancy rate retire during the pandemic. Um along with just the other workload implications. So we just weren't able to do some of the work that was planned, but we're catching up now, but during that time period we got below the PCI. Um so yes, the current goal is 70.

[04:56:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So if if the if the question is you know do we want to re-emphasize our our goal of of 70 um sort of change the methodology that we've we've used in the past where we're really focused on that average number and instead kind of looking in the future at arterials, a number of which will have active active transportation projects on them if they don't already like I know we're doing Middlefield soon um and some and and Miramonte and some others. And then um and then also just uh not just ar arterials but there are there are a handful of streets with active transportation projects like Safe Routes to Schools like Hans which isn't an arterial. I think if if if the the goal of this project is really just to re-emphasize the the goal of 70 with a specific focus longer term on arterials and active transportation projects and Safe Routes to Schools then that that's something that I can support.

[04:57:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That's that's what I heard. Do you mind just saying it into the mic 'cause we have to say things into the mic now, not just shaking your head.

[04:57:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you.

[04:57:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. That sounds yes. That sounds like a yes. So if it's all right I'll call the question. All right.

[04:57:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:57:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:57:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:57:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No.

[04:57:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:57:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:57:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:57:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:57:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:57:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:57:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:57:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:57:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:57:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:57:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, so then we'll move on to Councilmember Hicks. She had two items of interest. First was the Pedestrian Mall Vacant Storefront Activation Program.

[04:57:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just wanted to ask staff about this one whether there was a whether there was any um what the how you expected to get into the buildings. There has been talk in the past about um there's been talk in the past about doing a vacancy tax if you didn't engage with this program. Is that still on the table or how are you thinking about that?

[04:58:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um as you noted Councilmember Hicks uh one of the challenges with our ongoing efforts uh in this regard has been finding willing property owners and and that's one of the main delays with launching um some of our more uh focused efforts um related to this program. Thinking about a broader effort as part of part of the Council's uh priority work plan, um we are thinking of other incentives, um not a vacancy tax in light of the prior Council decision not to direct staff to pursue it and due to the time and cost of putting that to the voters that would be associated with a vacancy tax that would affect our timeline for implementation. Um we are thinking of other options. Um I don't want to preview them too much but uh other incentives potentially uh punitive incentives that might enable uh us to cajole property owners to uh coordinate with this process uh in a way that they may not have otherwise wanted to do before.

[04:59:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So you'll be telling you have ideas and you'll tell us more about them later?

[04:59:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes. That's right. I mean uh it's not to build suspense. I'm not marketing it. It's really um I don't want to get ahead of the City Attorney's office and others uh related to these approaches. Uh but we are thinking of other avenues besides vacancy taxes.

[04:59:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And can you imagine this interfacing at all with the other project we have on here which is the volunteer project so that or not that for example um nonprofits like the Community School of Music and Art or I don't know if this would be volunteer could could do outreach for their own programs in windows? Are you thinking of those kind of I don't know if it's volunteer partnerships as well?

[04:59:58] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Can I take that? So it would not be the same as the volunteer framework. So the volunteer framework as proposed and scoped by staff is really about the volunteer organizations that primarily work with the Community Services Department. Sometimes we'll come through the City Manager's Office on various projects and activities that we have to assess risk legal risk and uh also workers compensation and things like that. So there would not be a nexus in that sense.

9. ADJOURNMENT

[05:00:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: of volunteers working through this, but we do have avenues for staff to work with groups like the Community School of Music and Arts. So I think there could be certainly ways for them to engage, but it wouldn't necessarily be in this volunteer framework program.

[05:00:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Any other comments you have on that? Otherwise that's all my questions. Thank you.

[05:00:53] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you.

[05:00:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Any other questions on this item? All right, if not, uh, may we vote?

[05:01:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[05:01:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:01:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[05:01:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:01:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[05:01:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Are we voting on the whole package or this one particular item?

[05:01:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Just this one. We're still on the pulled stuff.

[05:01:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Yes.

[05:01:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[05:01:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:01:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[05:01:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:01:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[05:01:19] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[05:01:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[05:01:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:01:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you.

[05:01:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And then, um, back to Councilmember Hicks, Autonomous Vehicle Shuttle Pilot Program.

• ← Previous
• Next →