May 12, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

• 1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION): Mayor opens the meeting and hands over to the City Attorney for the closed session announcement. (00:04:15)
• 2. CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney lists the closed session items, public comment is invited, and the council recesses to closed session. (00:04:32)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL: Mayor calls the regular meeting to order, leads the pledge of allegiance, and the city clerk takes roll call. (00:14:15)
• 2. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: City Attorney provides a brief report that no final action was taken during the closed session. (00:15:37)
• 3.1 Affordable Housing Month Proclamation: Mayor presents a proclamation for Affordable Housing Month. (00:15:43)
• 3.2 Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation: Mayor presents a proclamation for Mental Health Awareness Month. (00:16:04)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS: Mayor opens the floor for oral communications on items not on the agenda. (Note: Addressed out of order prior to the Consent Calendar). (00:16:26)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council members comment on specific items, public comments are heard, and the consent calendar is approved. (00:16:35)
• 6.1 Repeal and Reenact Article X (Transportation Demand Management) of Chapter 19 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) of the Mountain View City Code to Establish a Citywide TDM Program: Staff presentation on the TDM program, followed by council questions, public comment, and council vote. (00:19:15)
• 6.2 Code Amendment to Chapter 36 (Zoning)-Below Market Rate Housing Program (First Reading): Staff presentation on amendments to the BMR housing program, followed by council questions, public comment, and council vote. (00:27:26)
• 7. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilmembers share updates and reports from various committees and events. (00:33:24)
• 8. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor adjourns the city council meeting. (00:34:16)

Transcript

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION)

[00:04:18] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right, good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. City Attorney Logue will make a closed session announcement and then we will welcome public comment on the items listed for closed session.

2. CLOSED SESSION

[00:04:33] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. There are three items on this evening's closed session agenda. Item 2.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding potential litigation arising from the Cuesta Park water main incident, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 D2 and D4.

[00:04:53] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Item 2.2 is a conference with real property negotiators, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. The address of the property under negotiation is 485 and 495 Clyde Avenue. The agency negotiators are Assistant City Manager Dawn Cameron, Community Services Director John Marchant, and Real Property Program Administrator Angela LaMonica.

[00:05:21] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The negotiating party is Google Inc. And under negotiation are price and terms of lease. And item 2.3 is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8.

[00:05:36] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The address of the property under negotiation is 975 Terra Bella Avenue. The agency negotiators are Real Property Program Administrator Angela LaMonica, Community Services Director John Marchant, and Public Works Director Jennifer Ing. The negotiating parties are Steve Nash and Ryan Dennis. And under negotiation are price and terms of purchase. Thank you.

[00:06:04] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

[00:06:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. Any speakers? Seeing none, we will now take virtual speakers.

[00:06:35] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Seeing no virtual speakers, the Council will now recess to the Plaza Conference Room for closed session and return to Council Chambers at the close to continue to regular session.

[00:06:49] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, oh do I read this all out? Uh, 2.1, conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code uh 54956.9 D2... Oh, I don't have to! Great. Okay, so we will, we will see you in open session. Thank you all.

2. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

[00:15:37] None: [Silence]

3.1 Affordable Housing Month Proclamation

[00:15:43] None: [No audio - meeting convened to closed session]

3.2 Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation

[00:16:04] None: [Silence - meeting has convened to closed session.]

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:16:26] None: [No speech in this segment; meeting has convened to closed session.]

7. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS

[00:33:24] None: This meeting has convened to closed session.

[00:34:16] None: This meeting has convened to closed session.

8. ADJOURNMENT

[00:34:16] None: [Silence - Meeting has convened to closed session]

Additional Content 2

[01:19:25] None: This meeting has convened to closed session.

[01:44:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay everyone, I'm going to call the meeting to order. So... Okay. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Mountain View City Council of May 12th, 2026. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

[01:44:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[01:44:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. So now the city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:45:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:45:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:45:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[01:45:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[01:45:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:45:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Here.

[01:45:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:45:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:45:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:45:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:45:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[01:45:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[01:45:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[01:45:26] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[01:45:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum.

[01:45:30] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. In recent weeks, the city along with a few of our neighboring elected decision-making bodies have been subjected to disruptive, racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The City of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all.

[01:45:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: The council welcomes respectful, non-threatening public comments on matters within our jurisdictions. Comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the Council Code of Conduct and Government Code may be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period. City Attorney Logue, do you have a closed session report?

[01:46:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No final action was taken in closed session this evening. Thank you.

[01:46:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. We will now move on to item 3, presentations. Please note that these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you would like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

[01:46:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. So now 3.1, the Affordable Housing Month Proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by Marvel Ang, Director of Housing Development with Charities Housing to accept this proclamation. Marvel, will you join me at the lectern?

[01:47:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. So the proclamation reads: Whereas each year May is designated as Affordable Housing Month, which is organized and led by SV@Home, and the regional theme for Santa Clara County for 2026 is #AllInForHousing to reflect what it truly takes to build a community everyone can afford to live and be on, and solving the housing crisis requires a commitment from many partners and organizations to produce affordable housing...

[01:47:35] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas each year thousands of Silicon Valley families and individuals struggle to find an affordable home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, and affordable housing is an essential building block for stable families, resilient communities, and an opportunity for residents to thrive, making our community healthier, more inclusive, and prosperous...

[01:48:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas increasing the supply of affordable housing in Mountain View is a top priority, and Charities Housing is an experienced non-profit affordable housing developer and highly valued partner of the city. And whereas Charities operates San Antonio Place, which includes studio apartments at deeply affordable levels for households earning between 15% to 45% of Area Median Income, and its project at 1265 Montecito is anticipated to be completed construction in the summer of 2026 is a key project as part of the Measure A funding memorandum of understanding between the city and the county, and will add 85 units of new affordable housing, including rapid rehousing units...

[01:48:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas Charities is undertaking a full affordable project at 5767 East Evelyn Avenue, which is a key project in the city's affordable housing pipeline, is in the process of assembling the financing for the project, and will create up to 143 new affordable units once completed...

[01:49:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Now, therefore I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues in the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as Affordable Housing Month in the City of Mountain View and call upon the members of our community and regional efforts led by SV@Home to continue supporting affordable housing and inclusive, diverse communities, to recognize successful efforts of the city, and its dedication to community partners in delivering innovative housing solutions, and to present this proclamation to Charities Housing. Marvel, would you like to say a few words?

[01:49:45] Marvel Ang: Thank you, Mayor Ramos. So I'm Marvel Ang, I'm the Director of Housing Development at Charities Housing. We are a mission-driven non-profit affordable housing developer and we like to consider ourselves the local trusted partner. And the keyword there is partner, you know, what we do requires a partner that is receptive and supportive of affordable housing in the City of Mountain View is just that.

[01:50:15] Marvel Ang: So I just want to thank the city, the City Council, the city staff for supporting affordable housing, supporting our work, especially on Montecito, which will be opening in this summer, very soon. And we just, you know, the city has been committed to providing folks of all income levels an opportunity to live in what I've heard some people call the best city. And it's really just wonderful for their commitment, and we're really excited to push forward on our site on East Evelyn Avenue. So thank you.

[01:50:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right, our next proclamation is item 3.2, Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by Eleanor Pace, Chief Officer of the Residential Programs and 24/7 Programs with Momentum for Health to accept this proclamation. Eleanor, will you join me at the lectern?

[01:51:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. So the proclamation reads: Whereas mental health is essential to the overall health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, schools, and businesses, and whereas one in five adults and one in six youth in the United States will experience a mental health condition at any given time, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness...

[01:51:50] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas it is vital to encourage relatives, friends, coworkers, and community members to recognize the signs of mental health conditions and guide those in need to appropriate services and support, and whereas education and raising awareness are effective ways to enable early response to mental health conditions and reduce the devastating impacts they can create on individuals and the community...

[01:52:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas the City of Mountain View, with the guidance of the Council Youth Services Committee, continues to strengthen mental health resiliency for teens through such programs as the Teen Wellness Retreat, monthly wellness-focused workshops, wellness events supported by the Youth Advisory Committee. Great job.

[01:52:35] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas the City of Mountain View is dedicated to supporting the mental health, emotional well-being, and resilience of its workforce by providing employees with integrated wellness resources, including seminars and events, challenges and incentives, break stations with cognitive enrichment activities, enhanced employee assistance programs, comprehensive financial tools and education to reduce financial stress and strengthen employee financial stability and control, as well as behavioral health benefits and virtual tools, flexible work practices, and fostering a culture that prioritizes mental, emotional, and overall well-being...

[01:53:10] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas staff in collaboration with the cities of Palo Alto and Los Altos worked with Momentum for Health to develop program enhancements to support trust effectiveness in North County using funding received as a federal earmark...

[01:53:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And whereas the City of Mountain View continues to collaborate with and support community-based organizations and providers of mental health care and health care to promote mental health wellness, raise awareness, and support prevention and treatment efforts, and whereas we call upon all residents, businesses, and schools in Mountain View to unite in support of a shared vision of improving access to high-quality mental health services and creating a community where everyone feels comfortable reaching out for help.

[01:53:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Now, therefore I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as Mental Health Awareness Month in the City of Mountain View. Eleanor, would you like to say a few words?

[01:54:25] Eleanor Pace: Thank you. On behalf of Momentum for Health, I am deeply honored and grateful to accept this proclamation from the City of Mountain View. This recognition affirms the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in our trust program. Together we have made impactful strides in the community. I want to extend thanks to city officials, stakeholders, and community members that have supported this initiative and collaboration to make it a reality. Momentum remains committed to helping communities thrive. We believe that responding in person during a crisis can help to keep people in the community while alleviating their current crisis and offering support and resources. Thank you again for this honor and let's continue working together to make a positive difference.

[01:55:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Seeing none, we will 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? If so, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. No speakers. So now we will take virtual speakers. And seeing no speakers, so we will move on to our consent calendar item. Congratulations to all our proclamationees.

[01:56:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right. We will now move on to item 4, Consent Calendar. Items on the consent calendar will be approved by one motion unless 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 an approval of the balance of the consent calendar. If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

[01:56:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Would any member of the council like to pull an item? I see Councilmember McAlister.

[01:56:50] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd like to comment on 4.4 and 4.6. But no pulling. Nope. 4.4, 4.6. Thank you.

[01:57:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Councilmember Showalter.

[01:57:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I would like to comment on 4.2, 4.4, and 4.7, but I don't wish to pull either one of them.

[01:57:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. All right. Um, we'll take, we'll take public comments on the consent calendar and then we will go back to... oh. Um. Give me a sec. Um. Okay, um, if there are no... we'll go into public comment now. Did I already say we were going into public comment? Okay, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide public comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. I see none in person. Um, we will now take virtual speakers. So we will start with Bruce England.

[01:58:05] Bruce England: Thank you Mayor. I'll be very fast. Bruce England, resident of Station Drive. Speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and Green Spaces Mountain View. We submitted a letter, unfortunately it was late because it takes us time to do what we need to do and the turnaround's fast as you know. But we did submit it, I hope you had a chance to read it, or will look at it later if you need to. But one thing that I think the letter, that particular letter and letters like it point out or illustrate is that sometimes the details in an agenda item or on the consent calendar is very specific for you, but we see all the different relationships from the community perspective that we think are worth pointing out. And I think that the letter does a very good job of doing that. It doesn't just repeat the things that we like about street maintenance but the things that the city ought to think about when they consider street maintenance. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you.

[01:59:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. April Webster.

[01:59:35] April Webster: Hi, thank you. Um, I'd like to echo what Bruce had to say about the letter that we submitted, and I just wanted to maybe point out a few things from it. First of all I want to emphasize that pavement maintenance is not just a resurfacing program. It's also a, it's a recurring opportunity that we can use in parallel to make our streets safer, more comfortable, and more climate resilient. When the city repaves and restripes a street, it's deciding, while they're doing that, what street designs get carried forward for another pavement cycle. So that means it's a really good moment to look for quick, low-cost safety improvements.

[02:00:15] April Webster: This could be narrowing lanes, this is done just through striping, through paint wherever appropriate. Buffered bike lanes and wider buffers could be decided and added in during that cycle. Daylighting at intersections, painted curb extensions to help things make safer, high visibility crosswalks, and then other sorts of paint and plastic treatments. These don't involve digging up the street. It's not reconstruction. These are easy, quick, cheap things that could be done as our city is going through, our staff is going through the repavement project or process.

[02:01:05] April Webster: Um, I wanted to point out I worked with Caltrans on their District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee for several years now. And as Vice Chair I get to see a lot of the projects early on and what's going through their cycle, and they've got a really useful model that they've introduced, and this has evolved over the past several years, to introduce outreach earlier and looking for opportunities earlier as well. And part of this is through... SP 96...

Additional Content 3

[02:04:25] Public Speaker: 60. And so their pavement project is called the shop and what happens is their complete streets team um reviews those projects in what's called the initiation and scoping uh phase of it before even detailed design begins. And so they go through and they look for opportunities in there to add in bike lanes, um different sorts of crosswalks, even green infrastructure now I was very surprised in this current cycle to see several of the Caltrans projects introducing GSI. Um and so I feel like you know we don't need to copy Caltrans exactly but those same sorts of principles of thinking about when we're doing this sort of work there's so many things that we could tag on to it as well and we should start to think about maybe putting together some sort of program like this for ourselves where we look at the active transportation plan the biodiversity etc and look for opportunities to piggyback on resurfacing. Um it takes up a good chunk of our city. Thank you so much.

[02:04:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Um, that seems to have ended our virtual public comment. I will now bring this back to council action and a note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinances and resolutions attached to consent calendar items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7. Good luck to whoever does that. Um, so but before that I'll let Councilmember McAlister speak on item 4.4 and 4.6.

[02:05:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so Moor Park, when they came up the Kennecott Place as it's called, uh, there was a lot of concern about people having one entry and then going onto Sylvan which has always been a area of concern for the neighbors because there's a lot of traffic there. And to have that second opening uh availability to the residents there is really going to reduce the stress on Sylvan. And I do want to give a shout out to Debbie and Monte Kennecott because they, from what I understand they were working also behind the scenes to try to get that second entry in there. And uh, from the neighborhood I appreciate their effort to get that done and staff working on to get that second entry. It made it a much better project and uh gonna make a lot of people feel a little more relaxed about going in there. So that was a good outcome with the developer, the Kennecotts, and staff to get that second entry. And 4.6, I'm just uh glad that we are starting to get take care of the streets. A lot of one of the big concerns that I've heard over the last year was our streets are poor and anything that we can do to improve our streets and incorporate all the improvements that uh the residents wants, ATP, etc. is a great step going forward and I just hope someday we can get to Meramonte and get that done sooner than later.

[02:05:36] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. Councilmember Showalter.

[02:05:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well yeah, I would like to follow up on what um Councilmember McAlister said about um 4.4. I remember discussing this when we um were approving this project and um I was very upset with the fact that there was only one point of egress. I didn't think it was safe or livable. And we asked the developer and the staff to work together and members of the community as well to to change that and I'm really pleased to see that they did that. I think it will make for a um a much a far superior project. Um I also wanted to uh mention 4.2 renewal of the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district fiscal year 2026. Um uh I'm uh hoping that the additional janitorial services will clean up the stairways of the parking garages and keep them clean. Um parking in the parking garages uh is a first thing um you you kind of store and restaurant patrons see when they make a trip to downtown. And so it makes a good impression if the stairways are clean. So I'm glad we're moving forward on this and and thank you for that. And then um uh 4.7 uh authorization to convey a portion of city owned property um adjacent to 236 Castro Street. This is an instance where um it turned out that a building was built on top of um city land just a little bit of it. And um I uh and we're now that they're redoing this building we're just going to um uh and that's been discovered, um we're we're going to uh sell a little bit of that land back to them as it should have been. And I just want to say in my career um I ran into numerous examples where the lot lines and the placement of buildings obviously were not understood by the owners and it wasn't necessarily anybody's fault, it was just one of those things that happened. Um so I think that selling this small portion of the parking lot that is already covered by the building to the building's owner is a great solution. Um thanks for working this out and I appreciate the creativity and hopefully and the flexibility that this demonstrates. Um so with that I will make a motion to I tried to make a motion and it wouldn't let me. Um...

[02:07:10] Councilmember Emily Ramos: You can do it verbally anyway since...

[02:07:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, I I move the um consent calendar.

[02:07:13] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes, but you do also have to uh read...

[02:07:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Do you want me to go ahead and read it or before it's seconded?

[02:07:19] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh, yeah, actually yeah technically.

[02:07:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Alright. I gotta take a breath it's very long. Um we're gonna adopt the consent calendar and we need to read item 4.1 adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending article 5 of chapter 29 of the Mountain View city code to line it with state law, clarify real property conveyance tax exemptions, and make other clarifying amendments to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.2 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View approving the annual engineer's report for the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district number 2 and approving the levying of assessment for fiscal year 2026-27 to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.3 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View appropriating 8 million dollars in state funds received pursuant to senate bill 129 for the lot 12 affordable housing project to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.4 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View approving a final map for tract number 10677 309 Moor Parkway accepting dedications making findings as required um by chapter 28 of the Mountain View city code and authorizing execution of an improvement agreement as a condition to final map approval to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.5 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure from public access of 5 parking spaces within parking lot number 2 for 31 consecutive weeks and authorizing temporary closure from public access of 8 parking spaces within parking lot number 2 for 12 consecutive days to incur prior to May 25th 2029 to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.7 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View finding that a portion of city owned property within the Bryant Street parking lot is excess to the city's needs, declaring the property to be exempt surplus land pursuant to the surplus land act, and authorizing its conveyance to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:08:49] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Showalter. Do we have a second? You can say it verbally.

[02:08:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I second.

[02:08:56] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Seconded by Councilmember Hicks. City Clerk, would you mind doing the roll call vote?

[02:09:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:09:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:09:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:09:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:09:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei.

[02:09:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:09:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[02:09:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[02:09:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:09:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:09:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark.

[02:09:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[02:09:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos.

[02:09:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[02:09:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:09:16] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Um, now we will move on to... Item 5. This is oral communications for public comment. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city's council subject matter jurisdiction for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits council from acting on non-agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. Alright, so our first speaker is Jack Powers.

[02:10:17] Jack Powers: Good evening Mayor Ramos and city council members. Oh, I'm sorry. Good evening everybody. My name is Jack Powers. Uh, I've lived in the Mountain View community now for approximately 5 years. And uh I wanted to make a statement uh for the record about uh oversized vehicle parking uh and disability. So under the California vehicle code section 22511.5, vehicles that properly display a valid disabled person placard or license plate are exempt from most local parking time limits in designated spaces. This same subject matter was the basis for Navarro versus City of Mountain View. That is, parking accommodations for disadvantaged or disabled peoples. The terms of that settlement as far as I know are still enforceable. My wife and I are both disabled. We have requested reasonable accommodation from the MVPD. We should not be selectively or excessively ticketed under Mountain View code 19.72 for parking in excess of 72 hours. As you know there are limited parking places especially now uh for people who are forced to live in their vehicles. It is both dangerous and laborious to keep shuffling large vehicles around the streets especially if you're disabled and trying to do it. I believe the mayor's office and the council should look into the possibility of licensing certain types of parking for the disabled. Some corresponding reasonable accommodations language consistent with Navarro versus City of Mountain View could be included. Also within certain places, city controlled lots and other designated areas such as leased land or other available parking areas, uh maybe to license LLCs and or non-profits to lease empty lots, city controlled lots and other parking space usage and to manage those parking areas accordingly for this purpose while paying fees to the city instead of requiring grant funding. In any case, the disability placard exception can easily be incorporated into an amended section of MV ordinance 19.72 that is consistent with the federal ADA provisions as well as the terms of the consent agreement. Thank you.

[02:12:36] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Alright, our next speaker is Akemi Flynn. And I am seeing no other open public comment speakers, so turn in your blue card now if you want to speak. Alright, go ahead.

[02:12:51] Akemi Flynn: Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. Uh, my name is Akemi. I have been a twenty over twenty year member of the Mountain View Buddhist Mountain View community as a member of the Mountain View Buddhist Temple. So I'm glad to be here with you this evening. And I'm also with the Immigrant Protection and Empowerment Network, which is a county-wide collaborative cross-sector, and we are urging you to develop and adopt a policy to protect city property for city purposes. To prohibit civil immigration enforcement on city property. Join the many cities and counties that have done so that offer a strong model for you. But I'm actually here um also to uh read a message from uh Maria Marroquin from the Mountain View Day Worker Center and Ruth Silver Taube uh from the board of the Mountain View Day Worker Center, both who could not be here but wished to be here today. So here's the message from them: 'A growing number of jurisdictions are responding to out of control and brutal immigration enforcement by adopting ICE free zones. These policies signal to immigrant communities that local government is on their side. Cities and counties have long exercised authority over their own property. We urge the city council to use its power to protect immigrant communities like other cities and counties have done.' Thank you.

[02:14:18] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Akemi. Uh, I see no other in-person public comment. We will now take virtual speakers. And we have Tim McKenzie.

[02:14:29] Tim McKenzie: Greetings all. Uh, Tim McKenzie. He, him. Uh, Monta Loma resident for a dozen years or so, something like that at this point. Um, I just I wanted to thank the the city for uh for having removed flock cameras. I a couple weeks ago I commented that there was still a flock camera just directly across the street from my house and it is gone now. That's great. I hope that all of them are gone and there wasn't just the one that was near me after I commented in public. Uh, my understanding was that the city was going to release a press release uh after having taken down the the cameras. Maybe that already did happen and I missed it. Um, or maybe there are still some cameras up, but I would love to see that. Uh, the actions Mountain View took, the integrity the city had to sever ties with a company that completely uh flouted our contractual agreements is a degree of uh bravery, boldness, and correct action that neighboring cities could learn from. And putting out a a press release after taking the cameras down could help contribute to that. Um, so thank you for having at least some of them come down. I hope that they're all down and uh we should be shouting that from the mountain tops. Um, and I also I would like to uh echo the previous speaker. I would love to see the city pass an ordinance as an ICE free zone to prohibit federal immigration enforcement from using city land, city property, anything that the city has the jurisdiction over. Prohibit ICE from terrorizing our neighbors. Um, they they have already murdered US citizens earlier this year. Uh, they've murdered lots of people. And the the the agency shouldn't exist. It was created we should abolish ICE, but while it still exists, uh, Mountain View should do everything it can to remain a community for all and protect our neighbors. And setting up ICE free zones seems like a great way to do that. So I would like to add my voice to to that.

[02:17:41] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Bruce England.

[02:17:47] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. Bruce England again, Whisman Station Drive. Really quick this time. Um, just want to echo the comment also about um establishing Mountain View as an ICE free zone. I think that's a great idea that was put forward. Thanks.

[02:18:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. I am seeing no other public comment. We will now move on to Item 6, public hearings. So we'll have 6.1, repeal and reenact article 10, transportation demand management of chapter 19, motor vehicles and traffic of the Mountain View city code to establish a citywide TDM program. Transportation planner Ben Pacho... Pacho? Yay! And assistant public works director Allison Boyer will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

[02:18:47] Assistant Public Works Director Allison Boyer: Great. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Allison Boyer. I am the Assistant Public Works Director. And with me tonight is Ben Pacho, Senior Transportation Planner. We also have our consultant team Steer joining us remotely. We're here tonight to discuss the draft citywide transportation demand management ordinance, or TDM. For background, city council identified the development of a transportation demand management ordinance as a strategic priority for fiscal years 2023 to 2025. It was identified as a priority as a result of the city's 2030 general plan, greenhouse gas reduction program, sustainability action plan, SAP 4, precise plans, as well as regional and state laws. To date, the city's approach to TDM spans a mix of project size and land uses. Over 27 entitled development projects in Mountain View have TDM requirements as part of their conditions of approvals. These current TDM requirements include different targets and measures. The proposed ordinance aligns with existing policies and standardizes TDM standards and monitoring requirements. It ensures consistency with the MTA handbook, VMT screening, and the city's greenhouse gas reduction program, while also standardizing trip reduction targets, the TDM planning process, and monitoring and enforcement provisions. Reviewing the project's workflow, staff is currently in the project phase focused on ordinance language, seen here in blue. Over the course of the project, staff has engaged key stakeholders and advisory bodies to gain a broad understanding of current practice with TDM as well as how requirements can be further streamlined and made more effective under the ordinance. Key insights were gathered from the Downtown Business Association and the TMA. One-on-one interviews were held with developers, employers, property managers, and community members. Collectively, the input gathered has been used to guide the direction of the project, including its vision and goals and the TDM framework. Staff presented the project vision and goals to BPAC, EPC, and CTC in quarter 4 of 2023, where members voiced their support for the project's objectives. In quarter 1 of 2025, staff returned to BPAC and EPC to present the TDM policy framework and included trip reduction standards, reporting elements, and enforcement provisions. CTC and City Council reviewed and supported the proposed framework in quarter 2 and quarter 3 of 2025. Staff presented the TDM ordinance to EPC and CTC in quarter 2 of 2026. Comments from EPC and CTC included allowing residential projects to qualify for both unbundled and limited parking core strategies, which has been updated, and tiering the limited parking credit, which staff is working on and will be updated in the toolkit prior to ordinance implementation. On May 5th, CTC voted unanimously to support the TDM ordinance and expressed support of its of exemptions for patron driven uses and asked staff to continue to explore ways to incentivize TMA membership. The vision statement, which went to CTC on January 30th, 2024, states that the TDM ordinance will seek to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips for new development and increase use of multimodal transportation alternatives that are sustainable, equitable, effective, and respond to changing demands. The goal of the project is to increase the predictability and effectiveness of the city TDM requirements while improving sustainable mobility and equity. Tonight, staff is recommending the city council adopt an ordinance of the city council repealing and reenacting chapter 19 motor vehicles and traffic of article 10 transportation demand management of the city code to establish a citywide TDM program with modifications to section 121 definition 11 and section 124i and finding the amendments to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15308. So a quick overview of the TDM. At a high level, the TDM seeks to streamline and implement TDM requirements across a project's lifespan, from the entitlement phase to the post-occupancy phase. The new TDM ordinance will apply to all new development, modifications, change of use, and expansions of existing sites that generate 200 or more net new average daily trips or ADT. This will apply across all land uses: residential, commercial, and mixed use. There are however a couple exemptions: for 100% affordable units, very small projects which are single family developments of 12 units or fewer, multi-family residential developments of 20 units or fewer, or any office development that is 10,000 square feet or less. As well as patron driven projects that are less than 100,000 square feet. Projects will have to demonstrate a plan to reduce projected ADT by 20 to 50 percent through the use of approved TDM strategies and maintain program management and annual reporting post occupancy. The city will maintain records of annual project reports, and any non-compliance may result in corrective action and or fines assessed by the city. Trip reduction targets will be determined based by project size. Projects are divided into three categories: small projects, which is 200 to 499 ADT, medium projects, which is 500 to 999 ADT, and large projects, which is 1,000 plus ADT. Standard projects will be required to implement TDM strategies that reduce ADT to the following levels: 30, 40, and 50 percent respectively. TOD or transit oriented design projects and residential projects will have reduced target levels of 20, 30, and 40 percent respectively. These thresholds were informed by the city's existing precise plan targets as well as case studies of similar TDM programs in San Francisco, San Mateo County, Redwood City, Sunnyvale, and the City of San Jose. Prior to entitlement, prospective applicants will be required to submit a TDM plan for city review. Specifics of the plan will then be included in the conditions of approval proceeding adoption by council. TDM plans will be comprised of two types of strategies. Core strategies offer an array of flexible proven trip reduction strategies that applicants may select from to develop the project's TDM plan. And auxiliary measures, which when paired with core strategies, are complementary and more effective at reducing trips. Applicants will have access to the TDM toolkit, which is designed to offer a menu of strategies that vary in scale and cost, allowing projects to create site specific TDM plans fit for their purpose. Moving into the monitoring elements of the framework. This slide illustrates the various reporting activities that projects will be responsible for, which are again organized by project size. Small projects report out annually for 3 years, medium projects for 10, and large projects for 20. Additionally, residential and patron driven uses are exempt from additional project performance monitoring conducted through annual travel surveys and traffic counts. I will now pass it off to Ben to walk us through some more of the updates details.

[02:20:00] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thanks Allison. Good evening Council. So staff would like to note a few key updates which have been incorporated into the TDM policy framework since last June's study session with Council based on feedback we've received. The proposed changes include exemptions such as for patron driven uses, implementation of housing element action items, exemptions from site-specific trip caps for residential and patron driven uses, updates to enforcement provisions, and optional TMA membership. For the first update, proposed patron driven uses that are less than net new 100,000 square feet will be exempted from the TDM program. These uses are categorized as non-residential and typically generate trips that are primarily by patrons or customers rather than employees. Examples of such projects would include childcare centers, restaurants, entertainment, medical, retail including general merchandise and grocery, as well as other personal services. This exemption was incorporated into the framework recognizing the value of such uses that are neighborhood serving and that patron end uses also support economic vitality by attracting and retaining high quality retail and other service oriented mixed uses. The next update relates to the city's housing element program which went into effect in 2023. Provisions of the housing element required the city to adopt a TDM ordinance to help identify lower cost options for developers to meet TDM requirements. And to support this effort the ordinance will allow residential parking reductions and exemptions for projects that enhance features of a TDM plan which would achieve a higher level of trip reduction than the minimum requirement. To satisfy the enhanced TDM criteria residential projects shall either one, exceed its ADT reduction target by at least 5%, or two, adopt one additional core strategy and two additional auxiliary strategies over the minimum required number from the toolkit. The enhanced TDM criteria presented here are really intended to incentivize higher levels of trip reduction and reduce parking demand while also increasing mobility options for residential projects. The next update to the framework includes exemptions from monitoring and reporting requirements for residential and patron driven uses. Specifically all residential and patron end uses will be exempted from meeting site specific trip caps and associated ADT reduction targets. The exemption also extends to the requirements to provide travel surveys and conduct traffic counts. The noted exemptions here reflect existing conditions and local and state regulations which collectively seek to reduce financial costs and administrative burdens related to delivering more affordable housing and neighborhood serving uses. However, still required of these projects will be the requirement to adopt and implement a TDM plan and provide ongoing annual TDM reporting in accordance with project size. Moving ahead, the proposed ordinance seeks to align the enforcement provisions under code enforcement violations and administrative penalties of the city code. This approach aligns with neighboring jurisdictions on enforcement of TDM requirements, which codify violations under Muni code as the basis for assessing administrative citations for non-compliance. Some examples of non-compliance might include failure of a project to submit an annual TDM report or maintain an ongoing TDM plan as required. Additionally, updated enforcement provisions will consistently apply to all projects subject to the ordinance rather than by specific project conditions of approval. For the next framework update, the proposed ordinance will not require projects of any size to join the TMA. For context, the TMA is a private non-profit membership organization which is governed by a board of 10 members. Under the ordinance, membership in the TMA will be optional and included in the TDM toolkit as a way for projects to satisfy their TDM requirements and trip reduction goals by becoming a member. Some examples of services provided by the TMA that are included in the TDM toolkit would include the MVGo shuttle, which is a first last mile service, guaranteed last mile incentive, midday mobility subsidies, and shuttle service expansion. While TMA membership will not be required, staff with the TMA will explore the process of establishing a property based assessment district or PBID following adoption of the ordinance. Similar to other jurisdictions including city of Emeryville, the goal of establishing the PBID would be to provide a long-term and scalable approach to funding the TMA provided services. Most notably a PBID would support growing growing membership in the TMA over time by clearly defining its governance structure and assessment of membership fees. Currently, staff is working with the project team to develop a cost estimation and implementation planning study as part of this work. The study will evaluate the range of city staff time and administrative resources required to administer the ordinance, including TDM plan review and ongoing monitoring and reporting activities. The findings of this report will inform the basis of an annual TDM fee which would be intended to recover a portion of the city's ongoing costs associated with implementing the ordinance. Following completion of this fee study staff will draft a resolution for the city council to review and adopt as part of the master fee schedule. Once the TDM ordinance is in effect its provisions including trip reduction standards and monitoring requirements will be codified in the city code. Additionally the TDM program standards will be a key guiding document to implement the citywide TDM program. The TDM program standards will be an appendix to the MTA handbook, which may be updated periodically to reflect changes in travel patterns, technological innovation, and TDM best practices. As for next steps I'll pass it back to Allison.

[02:25:43] Assistant Public Works Director Allison Boyer: Thank you. We are here at City Council tonight for the first reading of this ordinance. The second reading is scheduled for May 26th. The ordinance will go into effect 30 days after adoption. Once adopted, implementation steps will include refinement of the TDM program standards and toolkit, updating precise plans and city code to implement housing element action items and ordinance provisions, present annual TDM fee resolution to council for review and adoption, explore the feasibility of establishing a property based assessment district or PBID citywide, integration with the city's permitting and entitlement processes, establishment of ongoing monitoring and reporting systems including identifying technology solutions and providers, and continued coordination with stakeholders and regional partners. And to confirm, staff is recommending the city council adopt an ordinance of the city council repealing and reenacting chapter 19 motor vehicles and traffic of article 10 transportation demand management of the city code to establish a citywide TDM program with modifications to section 121 definition 11 and section 124i and finding the amendments to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidance sections 15308. The staff recommended modifications to the ordinance can be seen on the slide here and include clarification for residential projects under the 200 ADT or smaller project threshold that would that would like to opt in to obtain the benefit of residential parking reductions or exemptions from parking requirements in accordance with the city's housing element. Thank you.

[02:26:43] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Alright, thank you. Does any member of the council have questions? Oh... Councilmember Showalter.

[02:26:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay, well I'd like to thank the staff for all the work involved in this and um uh but I do still have some questions. It's a it's a complicated thing. Uh first, could you explain the status of the TMA at the moment? You talked about that a little bit but one of the things that you didn't say, or if you did I didn't understand it, is essentially what does it cost for somebody to join? And I know there's gonna be a study, but you must have a range. I mean is it a dollar a unit? Is it a hundred dollars a unit? Is it a thousand dollars I mean I don't know. Um and also um what services would a um uh a project get for being a member?

[02:27:50] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thank you for the question Councilmember. Um, so the TMA being a non-profit um organization, the um costs are really determined on a project by project basis. So it depends on the project size, the land use, and there are different tiers for the cost structure based on, for residential projects as you suggested it's based on number of units and uh for uh non-residential it's based on square footage. Um there are discounts provided for 100% affordable housing projects, they get a 75% discount for joining. And then for non-profit and uh non-governmental organizations or governmental organizations rather, for the city we also get discounts for membership. So essentially how it works now is a project would be required under our precise plan to join the TMA, they would then um enter into a discussion with the TMA um to discuss what the cost implications are based on the project size and land use. And um afterwards would be required to sign um an NDA or non-disclosure agreement not to share um their uh their fees because it is based on the specific project. Um and then the board on a fiscal basis approves the fee structure on an on an uh ongoing basis.

[02:29:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So we're not gonna know what the range of this cost is for people, uh, before we pass this. We just, that's not information that's available to us.

[02:29:06] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So uh, just to clarify the TMA is not a requirement of the TDM. So right now it is um identified as a strategy and there are benefits of the TMA membership such as the last um first last mile, the shuttle service, um guaranteed right home that will help you achieve core strategies, but membership in the TMA is not a requirement.

[02:29:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. It's difficult to say, councilmember, what the specific cost would be associated for a project. It's not a general cost structure. It's based on the specific project so...

[02:29:26] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Okay. alright. Okay. So um, uh another question is um, what do transit passes cost? Um I understand I I remember in past times I've seen numbers about this and and they they've actually been pretty expensive and there have been substantial discounts that you could get um uh if you bought them in bulk. And I wondered if you had any informa that is a you know that is something that a lot of um residential uh apartment buildings might want to use. Do you have any idea what what they cost? And would the TMA assist in this?

[02:30:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you for the question. So certainly after adopting the ordinance we would work with the TMA to understand what level of support they would provide in implementing the ordinance um and the provisions with potential to support um distribution of transit passes. Um certainly there are discounts to be realized at scale that once you buy at an institutional level there are just more discounts. Um but we'd work with projects to understand what the level of uh burden would be for for paying for a transit subsidy and we adjust that according to what they'd be able to provide. So there are certain instances with projects existing projects that have recently uh gained occupancy where we've developed um a modified approach to providing transit level subsidy that was viable for the project that um otherwise wouldn't have been if it weren't modified. So I don't know if that answers your question.

[02:30:26] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So you don't have a figure. Just...

[02:30:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So in the toolkit each uh strategy has a rough dollar amount associated with it. So um if we're looking at the toolkit there is an estimated value for how much it would cost to implement that. Um and they range for for low medium and high. Again it's gonna be based on the size of the project being developed, but there are dollar thresholds included in the toolkit of expected cost.

[02:30:47] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Okay. Um and and what would it be for transit passes, is that in the toolkit?

[02:31:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: We suggest certain types of transit passes in the toolkit. One of them we'd previously required was the VTA smart pass. I don't believe that's in existence. It's kind of taken on a new form. So rather than being prescriptive on the type of transit passes that we're requiring, we're providing flexibility for the developer applicant to provide which passes they might want to do. So for example, they might want to buy clipper passes with a certain set subsidy, um not specific to any one agency but that they could use across various agencies. So there's the idea is to provide flexibility for the type of transit pass.

[02:31:08] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Right, it seems like there's a lot of flexi there's a lot of change going on in the in the pass system. Yeah. Okay. Um alright, uh then what is what are you going to do with the monitoring data that you collect?

[02:31:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you for the question. So lots, um currently it's quite difficult um with TDM version 1.0 we're not just not gathering a lot of data because there hasn't been a lot of compliance. So certainly when we implement the ordinance we'd have the kind of recourse to develop a more systematized approach to collect the data. So the idea is we'd be able to see kind of zoom out at a citywide level how programs are performing not just one off on a site by site basis but collectively, what TDM strategies are working for different types of projects, what types of you know um um data they're collecting. So that's the idea is to kind of gain performance, see what's working, see what kinds of iterations need to be made to the TDM toolkit, whether certain strategies need to be phased out, some introduced. Um whether some um of the language in the TDM program standards needs to be uh amended based on you know changing conditions. So the idea is that it's an evergreen toolkit and the data would allow us to kind of iterate on a um...

[02:31:51] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay, so so the data we might we would monitor would change on over time depending on what we found was useful. Okay. And um also I wondered about you know there are some land use um just basic land use things that are really important for you know for reducing traffic right? Um like getting uh getting um residential near transit is is a big one and that's on the list right, of things that they've done. So one one thing though that I didn't see or if I did I missed it was remote work and we you know we we saw in the pandemic how um um just and you know overnight we the traffic changed because there was this need to go to remote work. Well everybody isn't working remotely anymore, but I think some remote work is here to stay. So I wondered is there anything included in this about things that incentivize remote work? Like for instance if an apartment building had uh conference rooms that you could um uh use as an office or things like that. Is is is any of that included?

[02:31:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you for the question. Uh we've looked at this a lot and we've had existing data to draw on, especially in north bayshore we've seen traffic volumes decrease especially with the advent of of and adoption of remote work. So to that extent the toolkit does include a hybrid uh work option. So if um a non-residential project were to adopt and implement it um they would uh see a potential decrease in average daily trips up around 10%. So it's included in the TDM toolkit as a a hybrid work model that um projects can implement at a low cost um uh option. Um

Additional Content 4

[02:49:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: weeks ago or whatever it was. Um, you know, one of the things I appreciated about it was the, these are questions not comments, don't worry. Um, uh, was the history of, uh, TDM kind of first, I guess it says in the 90s it was kind of very congestion reduction related and then decades later green incorporating also greenhouse gas reduction. What I'm thinking, looking over the toolkit and the rest of the reading I've done on this is that it originally applied to offices, correct me if I'm wrong, um, and so it's very commuter based. And now that we're applying it to, uh, other developments including mostly housing, I'm thinking, I'm wondering what additional tools you might think of adding to the toolkit. Because when I think of, um, because the tools, because of the history of the program, the tools do seem very commuter based. And when I think of who lives in apartments, the last time I lived in one for example, um, you know, it's a lot of families with children, a lot who have very different kinds of, take very different kinds of trips than the ones that commuters take to day care to ball games and also seniors who take different kinds of trips to say recreation, family, hospital. Um, and so I'm wondering whether in communication with other, the other model TDM programs you've been looking at in other cities whether there are more, uh, for a diverse set of different kinds of users. Oh, also people who travel a lot for work, you know, maybe handyman, gardener, etc. Like how you can meet their needs as well, not just the needs of commuters with the toolkit.

[02:51:31] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thank you for the question, Councilmember. We've given this a lot of thought and I think, yeah, you're definitely onto something. It's an indictment of our transportation system that was certainly built around peak demand. And now that with hybrid work, we're just seeing trip generation happening outside of the peak a lot more. So for different types of trips happening throughout the day. And so to the extent that we can service the gap, the midday gap and provide service kind of at a higher frequency to meet people's needs beyond just going to work I think is, uh, an important note. So to the extent that the TMA provides a midday mobility incentive, so when the MVgo shuttle stops working, um, after the morning peak and that, and between the morning peak and the afternoon peak, there's an incentive that Mountain View, um, residents or employees can use to get to where they need to go absent of the MVgo shuttle working. But, um, for residential projects what we've seen is how to offset demand for single occupancy vehicles by providing, um, alternatives like onsite car share service, um, has been really successful, um, providing first last mile connections to transit. So whether that's like what we discussed, um, micromobility, bike share, or scooter share, which we're hoping to launch soon. Um, it's also providing, you know, um, closures on our active transportation system for people to walk and bike to where they need to go. And it's it's also increasing residential density right so internalizing the trips that people would have otherwise made by not needing to go as far because they live close to their destinations. So it's things like that. It's both the programmatic and the design kind of features of a development. But the idea is the toolkit will kind of incorporate the best of all strategies, um, that would be mutually supportive.

[02:53:27] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, and that's something we heard from EPC as well. So we've started, um, adding that to the toolkit. We included things like a school carpool program as one of our strategies, um, residential transportation information, um, encouraging onsite amenities such as child care. So we'll continue to explore those and add those as they, as we have more data.

[02:53:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. I'm glad you've been thinking about that and all good answers. Um, can you also, it seems like the housing tools like the big one is parking reduction it seems like. And can you explain a little more about how you see that working? Because I guess the thing that I see is when parking at apartments is reduced there's I guess in the literature they call it spillover effect, am I getting it right? Thank you. Um, so how do you make sure that people don't just park on the street and then you count that as trip reduction when that hasn't really happened at all? Um, so that's one question.

[02:54:39] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: Thank you for the question. So we kind of touched on this a little bit at CTC but I think maybe using a kind of a case study, local case study would be a little bit illustrative. So we've had two affordable housing projects, um, that have gained occupancy. And one or I should actually say both, um, had provided reduced parking or limited parking below what the minimums require. And one had proved successful and, um, mitigating any spillover effects because they've had robust TDM programs. So the demand that would have came for additional parking was then offset by the alternatives that were provided by the developer, right, by providing transit passes or ride share subsidies or, um, connections to the Mountain View community shuttle or MVgo shuttle. So it helped mitigate the demand for parking that just wasn't built out. And then you had another affordable housing project that did indeed have spillover effects and unfortunately at that time it was an earlier iteration of TDM requirements. So we didn't catch that project in requiring TDM. And so they kind of had to retrofit a TDM program after the fact to kind of mitigate that impact and what they'd seen after implementing some TDM measures was a mitigation of those spillover effects. So the idea is like we can certainly implement kind of these parking strategies and see how they work. And certainly with the data we could understand what effects would happen, you know, with, um, curb utilization studies, onsite parking, occupancy counts and to see kind of where the demands happen and then shift people accordingly. But, um, absent of that, I think it's it's an important strategy, but it's overall what we're doing at a citywide level to address parking. And I think there's other strategies that are kind of in the offing as well that we're considering at a city level that are kind of beyond what we're working on here which is I think the residential parking program, we also have the downtown parking strategy. So it's kind of seeing how all of those will kind of complement each other.

[02:56:47] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: I'd also want to add to that, sorry, very quickly that um that's one of the benefits of the current framework with the core and the auxiliary. When we pair the auxiliary with those core they're more effective. So the advertisement and the wayfinding of these strategies will help us in that reduction as well.

[02:57:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then I don't know if, so I have two related questions. The next one, you may not have an answer, but it's kind of the intersection of the last two questions I asked. How do the auxiliary strategies when there's parking reduction, how well do they work for, um, I feel like we're very focused on, um, on childless people. People with children. You know, do those programs tend to work? Because that's when people frankly really need cars or really, that's when I bought my first car when I had kids. Um, so how, how do they address those concerns and do they well?

[02:57:54] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: We have added some strategies again after going to EPC we heard, we got some good feedback there. Um, we added strategies for specifically for the child care, um, things like additional storage for strollers and car seats and things to kind of help incentivize rideshare availability, um, again, the carpooling for the schools, it's not quite childcare but it's that same age group. Um, so we're trying to help think about everybody using. Um, we've also included the design element changes so helping close some of our gaps for biking walking and those elements that might not have been looked at as part of the design but now will help with the whole transit element.

[02:58:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my last question is, how does this intersect with the city's, um, wanting to incentivize, uh, electric cars? Um, and, uh, you know, car charging and putting more car charging in. Like, I don't even know if I, uh, if there was unbundled parking but I wanted, but there was also car charging, do I have to pay for a space to charge my car? How does all that work? Because I can't conceptualize it.

[02:59:20] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: So I'll try to tackle this question. I don't know if I have a direct answer, but I think, you know, EVs are an important strategy. They're not the panacea that I think it's expected to be in terms of like reducing, you know, average daily trips or vehicle miles traveled. But we do have, the city has adopted an EV strategy which I think we're implementing, um, you know, in the places where we have control of our domain and we've installed chargers I think citywide and, um, you know the sustainability team has done great work in their EV strategy by incentivizing adoption of e-bikes. Um, but to the point of incentivize, I mean we're not focused on EVs specifically. We're focused on reducing average daily trips. And even though conversion to an EV would be more sustainable, they are still generating trips in and of themselves. So, um, it's it's kind of a balance. So I don't know if that goes to your question.

[03:00:25] Assistant Community Development Director Lindsey Hagen: Yeah, so there's nothing specific to incentivize EVs as part of this plan because an EV is still part of our congestion, um, and the idea with the congestion management is the mode shift to something else, right, so it's still classified as a vehicle and a vehicle trip. Um, so there's no specific strategy for the EV charging. But we can continue to explore, again it's an evergreen toolkit, so if there's something that comes up that, you know, we can definitely explore it.

[03:00:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I know that it's not a part of the TDM but I would imagine that the two interact and I'm trying to figure out how they interact. Um...

[03:01:10] Senior Transportation Planner Ben Pacho: If I might add, too. I think again in services that the city has immediate domain over, you know, the community shuttle is a really wildly popular and successful service. Um, you know it averages almost a thousand passengers during the weekday. And so what we've been trying to do is electrify the service, um, to zero emissions. So that the miles that it does do in service are zero emissions. So we've kind of made strides over that, um, at Inigo Way we're installing four electric chargers which would then help charge the, um, four battery electric vehicles that we've recently come into possession. So the idea is to provide, um, alternative modes of transportation and have those modes of transportation be electric or zero emissions if that makes sense.

[03:02:00] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I could jump in a second. So really the common, um, thread between, uh, the EVs and the TDM is the reduction in greenhouse gases, right. So the TDM really while we're focused on elimination or reduction of single occupancy vehicles, one of the side benefits is a reduction in greenhouse gases. Similarly our policy with respect to EVs is focused on greenhouse gases so that's where they they kind of, uh, to use your word, intersect.

[03:02:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Right, I'm trying to see how our various policies intersect. And, but I think the rest of it will be for comments. So thank you very much.

[03:02:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Hicks. Do we have any other questions from Council? No other questions from my colleagues. We will now move on to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line or in person like to provide public comment on this item? If so please turn in a blue speaker card or click a raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. A timer will be displayed on your screen, each speaker will have three minutes. So we have, first up, Robert Cox.

[03:03:19] Robert Cox: Can you hear me? Okay, thank you Mayor Ramos, Vice Mayor Clark, and members of the City Council for being able to comment on this. I think transportation demand management, the policy that we have before us is great because it will help expand things citywide and also it will help streamline the approval of projects because we'll already have something in place rather than having to do this every time something comes up. So that's really good. Um, the one concern that I do have is over the core strategies, um, most of them look really good, um, on the other hand, there is a few of them, in particular the market rate residential parking pricing, unbundled parking costs, and limited parking supply strategies. Um, that would be great if it actually reduced the number of cars that people own who live say like in a residential project, but what I'm concerned about is a case like for instance let's take where I live in the downtown, right. We have basically free parking almost everywhere throughout the downtown and so then what happens is that, you know, somebody could just decide well I don't want to pay for an expensive parking space inside my development, I'm just going to park it on the street. So it hasn't done anything to reduce greenhouse gases but it has had a negative side effect when that happens and that is that we have less parking you know available for people who need to patronize our businesses, which we studied at Livable Mountain View and we found out that about 75% of the people end up coming from outside of Mountain View to patronize our downtown, they usually coming in cars. And if they don't have a place to park that's not good. We're seeing a lot of challenges lately with projects that are happening now or will happen hopefully soon in the future, good projects, like the Lot 12 project for affordable housing or the hotel project on Lot 4. And you know we're not immediately replacing the parking when these projects are happening so parking supply is decreasing and that's leading to things like um double parking um because people can't find an easy spot, or parking too close to an intersection or a a uh crosswalk now that we have the daylighting law, or just parking in the red areas because people get frustrated they just can't find a place to park. So, you know, I really want us to look hard at this. I appreciate the answers back from staff on the affordable housing projects. On the other hand, I would say that, you know, affordable housing projects aren't typical of market rate projects where often people in affordable housing have a more flexible or reduced work schedule and so it's easier for them to take advantage of these alternate methods. Um, when and as uh Councilmember Hicks mentioned, I mean when two uh when two adults in the household are working and then you add kids on top of that, that's a what, that's really where you get into the place where you know I mean people just don't have the extra time to use those extra methods. So please look carefully at those other things. Thank you.

[03:06:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Next is Alexander Amoroso, followed by James Kuszmaul, followed by Kevin Ma.

[03:06:30] Alexander Amoroso: Evening Council, thank you. I'll be as brief as possible with this. Um, just to kind of echo what has been said before, I also am in total support of this uh measure as well. I just have a couple of thoughts and questions for consideration for the council and staff to put into mind. So there was a lot of discussion and also I'll open this up with my biggest concern is traffic because I live over there on El Camino Real, down by the Americana and I feel that the traffic over there has just gotten worse. So and I'm also a big uh public transportation guy so if there could be options or strategies to expand uh public transportation. For example there's a lot of talk about the community shuttle. So with the new housing projects coming into play, maybe we could borrow strategies that other cities have used where they build more bus stops closer to where these new projects have been built. So folks who can't drive or do not own a car can utilize that public transportation there and that could also reduce the effects of more motorists driving personal vehicles. So that's just one consideration as well. Um, also like you know there was conversation about rideshare. And the encouraging rideshare is great but I was also kind of asking a question, is there possibly a city manage rideshare project in mind that could be utilized. Because I know San Francisco had tried to prototype that. Something to consider as well. And I will end with um the environmental considerations. Because we're talking about greenhouse gas reductions, and I would say that the best form of greenhouse uh gas reductions and prevention of environmental disaster is to not forget what makes um Mountain View great is our greenery and our protection of our natural habitat. So while we are pursuing these um public transportation and um motor projects, we need to also make sure that we are protecting landscape, we are protecting the green spots on our roads. And also even if it immediately leads to expansion of those green spots, that will also help with managing the greenhouse effect. So that's all. Thank you very much.

[03:08:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Next we have James Kuszmaul, followed by Kevin Ma, and then we'll go onto virtual public comment.

[03:08:53] James Kuszmaul: Alright. Thank you. I am James Kuszmaul, I am speaking on behalf of Mountain View YIMBY today. Uh we do support the TDM ordinance and we want to emphasize that like the goal of this TDM ordinance is to do good planning. We are need to, uh, provide more housing, we're in a housing crisis, we have RHNA goals. And this is how we make sure that when we do this new housing when we build more office space more retail space that people are able to travel in a sustainable way. Um, and but that also means we need to make sure the TDM ordinance does not substantially disincentivize new housing given that very housing crisis. Um, especially since new density to a point that was mentioned I can't remember if by staff or by um council that more density means it's easier for more people to have destinations near where they live so that is itself a reduction in vehicle miles trav, vehicle miles traveled. Um, we do appreciate the incorporation of feedback from the EPC and which included some uh comments we made in our letters including some reductions in the um necessary ADT targets as well as um some additional core strategies for residential um projects since historically residential projects have not been part of this and the original toolkit was much more office focused. Um, we do want to be careful going forwards about the exact required ADT thresholds because we are concerned that they will end up being unrealistic for a residential project to meet given the toolkit and given the budgets they have, but that is something we would hope to monitor and see how that works out. Um, with that said the low cost programs like parking reduction are outstanding, they are very well supported by um existing evidence from places that have done this and have seen reduced car ownership rates and reduced trip rates. So it's great to see that. Um we do hope as the toolkit calls out it will be great if the city can also work on better managing the curb space when these projects happen so that those programs are even more effective. But even without that they will help and we do also see that even when there's not parking reduction there is spillover onto streets. Um, and to to one of the questions that councilmember Hicks mentioned about uh children I do hope to see that some of the TMA funding helps to improve the community shuttle that has been so well used by some of our middle and high school students. Um, and oh one one comment we did have in our letter was it would be great if the parking reductions can be made available to small projects that don't even have to comply with the TDM ordinance, since there is that enhanced TDM threshold if a small project can opt in and potentially get that option for parking reduction that would be outstanding for our future sustainability and for the viability of um small projects. And we look forward to seeing how this program evolves. Thank you.

[03:11:46] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Kevin Ma followed by Katie Patrick.

[03:11:52] Kevin Ma: Evening council, uh speaking in an individual capacity, I support many things that James just mentioned, I'll just emphes, emphasize a few points. In the housing element, it specified you should be looking at the cost of these regulations on the impact of housing. As of right now it's not really there right now we specified you know rough ranges of how costly there is but as Pat's question mentioned, you know some of these details are under NDA which basically means no one knows until they actually happen. So I would wish that as the regulations get administratively approved we do look into further modeling out how much do these actually cost to an actual development we can imagine. Because uh it's in the housing element in part because parking is expensive and we do we do want to make sure that housing can be made more affordable especially given the economic climate we're in and that does require that the regulations be reasonable and with methodology. And methodology also matters because there's some fuzziness with the numbers that will be impactful because as mentioned also we're facing a time of ministerial approvals which means they have to be reasonable to the average person. For making actual ground usage you know just a 2% ADT reduction is a little bit arbitrary and there's just not a lot of data inside the materials that demonstrate why 2% was chosen and which seems kind of arbitrary to a lot of people. And that does need to be made upfront for a developer who has to look through these new regulations to see how they can match to the 20, 30, 40 percent, which I do agree with staff was a good idea to reduce it for all residential. Um, to answer a point from council member Hicks. Under, unbundled parking doesn't mean they don't have parking, it just means that when you have the unit you have to get the parking separately. So that means if there is an EV charging spot you do have to, you know, separately rent that out. So that is an option, though as mentioned from staff EVs are separate from the TDM goals because it's still a trip by a car. And I I do wish that um we do monitor the outcome of this so that we can determine, you know, how impactful these strategies really are in reality and to the bigger, broader point, how much parking demand do developments really have. Because the only official answer is the ITE trip generation manual, which for a lot of people is an abomination of statistics, and I do wish that we do have some local data we can rely on. Thank you.

[03:14:24] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Katie Patrick before we go onto virtual comments.

[03:14:30] Katie Patrick: Hi, I am here um to represent one of these rare breeds of people who does not own a car. And I also live in an older multi-family building. I have a child and I have a dog, and I manage to survive putting my small child and my dog on my bike and it is remarkably difficult to get my bike down the stairs, down the elevator, and out the door. It's so hard in fact that I, despite probably not being the best parent getting my child, my small child to do it as well, we have to carry the bike, pull this heavy door open, hold it open with one foot, then get the bike out, then kick it again before it closes on us, and then do that again when you get in and then when you get out. And then the front door um to the building, we have to then do it again. So it's three times. It's impossibly difficult. The only reason I do it is because I'm a bicycle die hard, and there has to be a way to enforce multi-family buildings to build secure bike storage. So we don't need to go through this. And I'd love to see that um incorporated into the plan. I understand that we do have bike storage in for new developments but why is it so hard to enforce existing multi-buildings like where I live to just put in a shed so I can lock my bike in there and not have it stolen. Uh so people like me who want to go car-free, we can do it. It's literally impossible to live a car-free life if you live in a building like mine. Well maybe not literally impossible, but almost completely impossible to just get your bike in and out of the building. Unless we can get property developers or the property owners to just sacrifice just one parking space and put in a shed, it should hardly cost anything, it should not be any financial barrier at all. It's just a, I don't know where exactly you fit it into the the um the policy process to enforce these things on existing buildings, but through my lived experience this would make a huge difference to my daily ability to live car-free.

[03:16:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Now we will go to virtual public comment. Um, Karen Birky.

[03:16:48] Karen Birky: Hi, um, so I'm going to echo a little bit of what others have said um but I'm going to come from someone who has to have a car. I have two young children, um, and I think any of these programs if you renew this TDM and and add any of these new additional things, um, the constant problem I hear from other people that live in other neighborhoods or that live in other condo complexes or apartment complexes is that there's never enough parking and the spillover into the street as others have mentioned happens a lot. I think that it's a massive barrier to a lot of people especially when you have below market rate housing which let's be frank that really doesn't actually save people very much money when people still don't make enough money and the below market rate is still so incredibly high and it's not really that affordable at all to then force them to pay separately for parking is ridiculous. And so people are going to be pinching their pennies and figuring out how the heck do I not pay whatever the heck it is per month even if it's reduced, they're going to park on the street where it's free. So then you get the complaints from all the people visiting the area or that are parking just to come to a business nearby and then there's no parking. And so then you have all these double parking and all these other problems. So if we're trying to consider families with children which I'm sorry you still need a car. Almost everyone needs a freaking car around here, you can't get around to doctor's appointments and all these other things without a car. So I think that any new builds of affordable housing and anything like that that's included in this the parking in the building should be garage parking underneath the complex or on the site and it should be free for one car each unit. One car each unit should have a free spot included with their rent for any builds that the city does at all and there should be incentivizing things for existing buildings that are going to get converted or that are owned by private owners to provide one free spot and tell them they'll get I don't know do something to help incentivize them to do that as one car spot per unit. So that we can try to mitigate how much parking problems we have because you can't make everyone be car-free. Some people might but not everyone can. So it's like we need to balance that with our green emissions problems we have but also face the reality of what families like mine face every day which is that parking is a huge massive factor. So if you could please consider that um when you're talking about parking reduction that would be great. Thank you.

[03:18:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. And that seems to end public comment. I will now bring this item back for council questions and deliberation. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include the reading uh reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report. Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:18:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. That will only be true until we approve the charter modernization which will mean we will no longer have to read uh the ordinance uh into the record. Um I'm going to uh move to approve the staff recommendations including introduce an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View repealing and reenacting article 10 of chapter 19 of the Mountain View city code to establish a new transportation demand management program with modifications to section 121, definition 11, and section 124, is that I or L? I, thank you. Uh and finding the amendments to be exempt from CEQA uh pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15308 uh to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for May 26, 2026. I hope I integrated the the two um uh prompts here uh accurately. Uh first I want to share my appreciation to staff for uh working on this uh ordinance. I know it was a long time coming. I really appreciate uh the thoughtful deliberations from the EPC and the CTC uh and also uh the comments from from the public. Um I've I've uh spent a lot of time talking with staff and I feel very comfortable in my understanding of uh the ordinance and the program. Um I'm really grateful uh for the long list of uh thoughtful core strategies which I think this TDM ordinance is not going to solve all of the city's problems. But by including core strategies like active ground floor uses and amenities and active transportation gap closure improvements we provide an incentive to developers to voluntarily, it's out, I mean voluntary they get to pick from these right, but to select from this menu uh options that help achieve community goals, right. We want mixed use development, which is increasingly hard to require because of the erosion of local control. Um and we want things like um investment in transportation uh that we may not be able to require in certain circumstances, but some developers may voluntarily elect to do so to meet their TDM obligations, um, but also to provide a benefit to their future residents or in some cases right, to um future employees. Uh, so I think there's, there's a, if anything I would say, you know, for, for each of those, a few percentage points higher would be great because it would more likely incentivize the selection of those particular strategies. But I think most importantly, um, staff has been very clear that this is a living document. Um, I'm really glad that these aren't hard coded into the ordinance, meaning that we have to, you know, go back to EPC and Council every single time we need to amend a core strategy. Uh the uh the TDM uh toolkit uh will will be continuously up updated as you uh receive the data um that we'll be collecting and monitoring. Um it's it's it's just a much more robust program than what we've been able to uh uh deploy on a, you know, case by case or side by side uh circumstance. So this is uh I think a very strong foundation for future work. I'm very happy with where it's landed. It includes core strategies that I think will achieve other goals um uh that sometimes the Council has struggled with in uh land use review. Um and it allows um staff to uh update it um with you know the flexibility that you need um as you learn more, right? To adjust these numbers, to add new strategies, um uh to to make sure that we're uh implementing a robust TDM program that achieves the goals that we set out. So uh with that, I'm happy to uh move to approve the the the uh the staff recommendations and I'm very eager eager to see how it plays out over the next, you know, 10, 15 years. Thank you.

[03:23:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. Uh, Councilmember Showalter.

[03:23:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I'd just like to follow up on a few things that Councilmember Ramirez said. First of all, um, I really was very pleased with your answer Mr. Pacho about what you're going to do with the monitoring. I think that monitoring for monitoring sake is a waste of everybody's time and money, but monitoring so that you learn how the system works and you improve the system is really valuable. So that made me feel, you know, very good, it's it's you know, it's just really a good practice. Um, following along with that, there is this big kind of open ended question here of what on earth is this going to cost. So I really think that as much as is possible we should include the cost of running this program in the monitoring. And you know, certainly leave it to you to figure out how to do that, but um we don't want this program to be a deterrent to anyone building housing. We want it to make our housing better. And I think that this is um kind of part and parcel of uh the sort of state wide um push that we have to make objective standards for things and you know, that's we're writing down lots of um ideas that people can go to and we can go to and um uh to make, you know, to be transparent. But it's really good that it's a living document because um applying this so broadly is um is very different from what we've done before. I mean in the past we've done it in the North Bayshore area primarily and that is much, in a sense you know, those those um uh companies and their needs for transportation are much more standardized and they're different than the residential needs. So you know, we're going to have to um kind of uh work through that. It's not, not going to be a simple task. And um another thing I wanted to bring up along with cost is that the cost to the city of Mountain View of evaluating this is not going to be free. Um, we are going to have to make sure that that staff time um both as a skill and the money to do it is in the budget. And I just, I'd like to bring that up. I think it's, you know, um, it's been my experience if it, it's not somebody's job to do something it doesn't get done. I think it's going to be important that it's assigned to somebody. So I just, I just want to mention that. And um, I would also say that uh, you know, we collect data um typically on an annual basis because um that's uh that just works well. People think in calendar times. But in terms of really learning from data uh it's often more episodic. And in this case, I think the episodes will be uh the development of some big uh projects that get finished and are utilizing it. So it will be interesting to see whether, you know, you think the first big evaluation of this should be after three years or five years or five projects or whatever. But but I think that you know, there should be um thought in in uh uh engineering thought into when that is the appropriate time uh to and then when you do that it'll also be time to say okay well maybe the monitoring um program that we have had today isn't isn't quite right anymore and we'll change it. So um with that I uh I would uh like to say thank you and uh I look forward to supporting this.

[03:27:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Hicks.

[03:27:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, so I want to echo what Councilmember Showalter said, I this is a program that I will happily be happily be supporting the motion and the program and I I uh thank you for all your work on it. Um, I um, I guess the things that I want to call attention to are um first I'm really happy that it's evergreen. Um and just kind of the things that I mentioned in my line of questioning. I think the uh elements of the toolkit that can that we can focus on because it has this commuter history is um some of the the uh some of the travel needs of um of people who are not commuters. Uh people in their other aspects of their life whether it's um you know whether it's shuffling children around, um, or whether it's uh you know I have a young adult who's looking for their first job, you know in a car can expand that search, you know, probably a hundredfold to be honest with you. I take care of a a senior parent uh who lives in Walnut Creek, I don't get to choose where she lives and it's I can't take the MVgo shuttle to go visit her. Um, and I've checked out how what it would take to take mass transit or a bike and it would be five hours both ways so a ten hour trip and then once I got there I would have to do her errands. So there are many people who um, you know, who still need to use cars. And so I want to be mindful of the various needs and not too punitive. I I uh remember when I first moved from my the suburban neighborhood I grew up in to the Bay Area and was thrilled at the abundance of transit options that I had without without a car. And that's kind of the flavor that I would like this the our TDM program to take on, that it's not punitive, that it understands the various needs that people have, um, and that it that it tries to address, I know you can't address all of those needs, but that we have an ever expanding toolkit that um meets the needs of the diversity of people that we that we have living in our community. Let me see if I had any last notes after that. Oh, Clipper cards! I would love it if you worked on, I think Councilmember Showalter brought this up, but also senior Clipper cards which are very difficult to get and change people's habits once they get them. And also any sort of discount programs for um, I stopped using mass transit a lot when I had kids and were I was transporting their friends around because bringing six kids on a, you know, on a light rail and it costs you a lot of money. So anything that can reduce the price and incentivize um those kinds of out-of-car trips I would really appreciate. Thank you.

[03:30:30] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Hicks. Are you wanting to speak Councilmember McAlister? Okay I'm just going to let you go. Go ahead Councilmember McAlister.

[03:30:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah so uh, Mr. Councilmember Ramirez, I support your motion. Keep it simple and we go forward. Thank you. Um, I support TDM, I support the project. But I always have that cautionary tale and you're starting to grin so you know where I'm going once. But um, 2014 uh when the uh North Bayshore was booming and the cars were coming and traffic was going down 85 and we had to come up with solutions because people were taking the trains and we had all these people trying to get from the train station to their area uh we came up with a TDM for North Bayshore. And that was easy to contr, uh monitor because there was only three entrances into the area. And so we were able to check them and help them implement their one of the best transit systems that you can think of for businesses. Google had their bus systems that went throughout the Bay Area. Intuit had their bus systems going throughout the area. And so they took over the private busing where the public couldn't do it. VTA didn't reach out to the areas, light rail is uh light rail very slow, Caltrain was coming along and doing pretty good and now they had a shuttle to North Bayshore. So we we got to the point where it was starting to work and then COVID came and then the jobs went to uh isolated so it was it took a a hit and it was interested. So I sort of call this a concept, uh not a plan, because a concept, a plan means that you're actually going to get something done. And you got a lot of great tools in this thing and you got a lot of ideas, but unless you have enforcement, you may have someone to do it, but unless you have somebody to enforce it and penalize them and put some meat into this uh plan it's not going to work. And one of we had our CTC, I asked one of the city staff I says, has anybody been fined? And they said no. So from 2014 to 2026, it's like 12 years. It's it's uh, I'm always concerned about we put in these regulations, we put in this good intent, but there's no meat to it, no enforcement, and nothing really gets accomplished. And so I know staff time is very precious to us now, and so I hope with all these strategies everybody says this is good, da da, unless there's enforcement you gotta hold somebody's feet to the fire. And I mentioned the last time we were talking about a great plan, and we don't want it, so someones oh we got to have someone to be in charge of this. Well that's good, but those people that are in charge had about five other plans that they're working on. And I believe in public transit, I

Additional Content 5

[03:34:25] Councilmember John McAlister: I believe that the city should really develop its internal transit system. I've always been pushing that from, well... We can't rely on VTA. They have no money. They're hurting like the dickens. And so when people say, oh, we can take out the cars... people rely on cars, as you say. There's not a lot of the big jobs around here if you put them in there. So we can't rely on VTA, we can't rely on people not parking the cars, and that's another concern I have, is, you know, they need their cars.

[03:34:57] Councilmember John McAlister: And so... and I also believe in the quality of life, and if you don't take the cars, you say, oh, you don't need a car, then they're parking on the street. So, bottom line, see what you can do. Start with the first person you get is the enforcement, and figure out who's going to do it. And don't, if you go to the public works and say you're going to be doing it, great, but follow through on it. And so I hope it becomes from a concept to a implementation to a working model because it does have a lot of great things for it, and so that's my word to the wise.

[03:35:33] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. Thank you, staff, for your work on this. Um, I have been recently attempting, since I live alone and a single Pringle with no spawn of my own, to try to take more public transit and not be as reliant on my car. I understand that it is more difficult than I anticipated, and um, I love that we are taking steps, one, to, to, to find ways to make that easier for people structurally. Um, that's kind of like the hope with some of these TDMs.

[03:36:10] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, some of my colleagues know that I've been complaining about them when I try, like recently I tried to do a Costco trip, um, by taking public transit only. That's, that's an adventure. Um, but thank you for your work on this, and I hope that it will help bring our car trips down as a community and in return give us a better clean air and a better environment moving forward. So thank you so much. And we are ready for the roll call vote. City Clerk?

[03:36:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[03:36:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:36:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[03:36:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:36:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:36:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:36:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[03:36:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:36:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[03:36:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[03:36:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:36:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:36:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[03:36:57] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[03:36:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[03:37:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Um, with that, I am going to do a 10-minute break. Um, it is currently 8:38. We'll uh, reconvene at 8:48. And...

[03:44:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: All right, you guys, we're gonna start, to get started. All right. We're gonna move on to item 6.2, Code Amendment to Chapter 36, Zoning, Below Market Rate Housing Program, First Reading. Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso and Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit the blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Go ahead.

[03:45:07] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members. My name is Anna Reinoso, Housing Specialist II, and this evening I am joined by Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard, Housing Director Wayne Chen, and joining us virtually is Darren Smith with Economic Planning Systems. This evening we will be presenting ordinance amendments to the Below Market Rate, also referred to as BMR program.

[03:45:35] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: This evening, we will be reviewing some background, the amendments, and sharing an updated recommendation. The BMR program refers to inclusionary units that are integrated within market-rate developments, not projects that are 100% affordable housing. The city has a 15% BMR requirement for rental and ownership projects, and a 25% requirement for townhome and row home projects. Residential projects that create more than seven units provide on-site integrated BMR units at different AMI levels.

[03:46:09] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Developers may pursue an alternative compliance in place of providing on-site BMR units. Currently, this is achieved through land dedication, off-site unit delivery, and in-lieu fees. The city's housing element program 1.9 requires two reviews of the BMR program in the eight-year cycle under five criteria as presented to Council in December 2023 and November 2025.

[03:46:40] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: We have approached the BMR ordinance modifications in two phases. In phase one, completed in February 2025, Council approved the initial set of cleanup items. Council's review of phase two follow-up items occurred this past November. Council approved staff recommendations and made two friendly amendments. The first related to the graduated fee exemption, which will be discussed later.

[03:47:11] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: The second amendment directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of including in the administrative guidelines staff discretion to grant an extension of delivery for alternative compliance options of up to six months if the developer is working in good faith. As part of the phase two, on March 4th, 2026, staff presented to EPC the BMR amendments approved by Council in November 2025. EPC supported staff's recommendation with two modifications to the alternative means of compliance.

[03:47:50] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: The first modification adds a provision to ensure development partners with alternative compliance proposals meet appropriate qualifications and performance standards. These will be discussed in a few moments. The second modification asked staff to conduct additional evaluation to ensure off-site alternative compliance proposals do not contribute to the geographic concentration of lower-income households. After the EPC meeting, staff further evaluated the HCD opportunity maps and other maps and determined the recommended map would address EPC concerns about overconcentration. Therefore, staff recommends keeping the recommended map.

[03:48:30] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: In December of 2023, Council directed staff to study options to improve the physical accessibility of BMR units. In November 2025, based on the analysis completed, Council approved the staff recommendation to require 15% of BMR units or a minimum of one unit to be accessible. Since then, there have been no changes to this amendment.

[03:49:02] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Amendment 2 establishes updated requirements for an applicant proposing alternative means of compliance. Since November, there have been no changes to the general requirements applicable to all alternative means of compliance proposals. The requirements shown were approved by Council in November 2025. As such, we will address new items which are indicated in red boxes. The housing element opportunity site has been added to the location requirements. All other requirements for land dedication remain unchanged since November.

[03:49:41] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: To align the location requirements for land dedication, the addition of a housing element opportunity site has been added to the location requirement for off-site development. EPC provided input to ensure that partner qualifications do not undermine the delivery or quality of affordable housing. Based on staff analysis, staff is recommending minimum threshold requirements if an applicant chooses to work with a partner to deliver alternative compliance via off-site unit delivery. Alternative compliance for acquisition and preservation has no changes except the addition of a partner threshold requirement in the event the applicant proposes to partner with a third party for this option. And now I will hand it over to Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard for the remaining portion.

[03:50:38] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Good evening. For the third amendment, staff recommend using the California Construction Cost Index as the appropriate escalator index and some other revisions to the fees as discussed in November of 2025. The fourth amendment addresses the remaining clean-up items that were not incorporated into the February 2025 update. These include clarifying the weighted average for the AMI limits and updating the administering department from CDD to Housing.

[03:51:08] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Staff recommends no changes to the November 2025 Council direction for this fifth amendment, which includes removing the HOA reserve fund. Amendment number six relates to the graduated fee reduction. Staff initially introduced a graduated fee reduction schedule which was presented in November 2025. To recap, projects up to six units currently pay the in-lieu fee. Once a project reaches seven units, a full BMR unit must be delivered.

[03:51:42] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: During the prior Council review, staff recommended incorporating a graduated fee reduction for small projects, meaning that the more units a developer builds, up to a maximum of six, the lower the per-unit fee. The intent of this initiative is to incentivize developers of small projects to maximize the development potential of their sites and also to further housing element goal 2.2 pilot ADU and SB9 financial incentives programs.

[03:52:15] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: At the November 2025 City Council meeting, Council passed a motion to recommend that staff analyze two actions. The first action was to analyze adjusting the graduated fee reduction to work proportionally with the maximum number of units physically possible for a project. In order to determine how to calculate this, staff recommends using the base densities under the general plan and zoning designations, as well as the provisions in SB 684 to establish the maximum legally allowed density.

[03:52:49] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The graduated fee reduction would then be scaled proportional to the number of units that are legally allowed. This approach retains the original intent of the greater the density, the less the fee, but also customizes the approach to site-specific densities. The table compares two scenarios. The first being a project with a legally allowable maximum density of six units, and the second with four. As you see here, the graduated fee reduction scales accordingly with the number of units that could have been built.

[03:53:18] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: To illustrate, if the developer has a site with a maximum density of six units and opts to develop only four units, they would get a 60% reduction versus paying no fees if they would have maximized the density. So therefore, staff recommends using the legally allowed development density to calculate the number of units that are physically possible for a project and then scaling the fee reduction schedule accordingly.

[03:53:45] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The second action was to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating the graduated fee reduction with maximizing the development potential of small sites up to 10 units and return to Council with options. Council directed staff to review projects of up to 10 units because there are state laws that allow by-right subdivisions of up to 10 units under SB 684.

[03:54:09] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Staff conducted a preliminary evaluation and have determined that additional analysis is needed. We propose doing this through the low and middle income home ownership strategy, since projects of up to 10 units are often oriented towards ownership models, and then returning to Council with options also in the 2028 BMR review.

[03:54:30] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The final amendment amends the ordinance to allow updates to the BMR program guidelines to occur administratively, rather than requiring a Council resolution as currently written. Staff recommends no changes to the November 2025 Council direction for this amendment. In November of 2025, Council directed staff to evaluate relocating the BMR ordinance from the zoning chapter to the housing chapter of the municipal code.

[03:55:00] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: The intent is to better align the ordinance with the housing department's administration of the program and consolidate it with other housing-related ordinances, such as the TRAO and the MHRSO. Staff initially recommended retaining the ordinance in Chapter 36, as we could not determine how the change would impact the BMR program. Since the EPC hearing in March, staff has conducted that the relocation is feasible and would help streamline future updates.

[03:55:29] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: Staff therefore recommends relocation, with the amendment anticipated to return to Council before the end of 2026. As a reminder, these are the seven general topics of modifications to the ordinance that Council are considering this evening. If the recommendation is approved, the ordinance second reading will occur on consent on June 9th, with the ordinance becoming effective 30 days thereafter.

[03:55:56] Affordable Housing Manager Julie Barnard: So finally, staff recommends that City Council introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 36 as it relates to the BMR program and the proposed amendments presented tonight, and to set a second reading for June 9th, 2026, and also to approve relocating the BMR program provision from Chapter 36 to 46. With that, that concludes staff's presentation. We're available for questions, and we can turn it back to the Mayor.

[03:56:27] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Does any member of the council have questions? Going once, going twice... All right, we will now go to... wait, Councilmember Showalter.

[03:56:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sorry, I was having trouble getting the screen to change here. Yeah, I asked this question and you answered it a little bit in your presentation, but I'm going to ask it again just to make sure that I understand it. And that is, can you please explain the timing of the delivery of the alternative site affordable housing and the possible flexibility and who determines it?

[03:57:12] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Right. I may also ask Director Chen just to verify my understanding of what we've discussed. But currently, what we presented to you in November was that the certificates of occupancy needed to occur concurrently. You requested a six-month extension. Staff did their due diligence. We all decided that, yes, we agree, six months isn't enough.

[03:57:40] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: As written, it would allow rather than the certificates of occupancy occurring concurrently, providing the off-site project was under construction or about to be under construction, like that would that would meet the requirements. Um, there would also, there's another provision that the approval body at the time would have the discretion to extend the timing.

[03:58:03] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Like, we're in concurrence that we wouldn't want to hold back a project that's about to be constructed or about to be delivered because there are just a few months or even, you know, a year from construction commencing. But we do want some kind of accountability to make sure that the units are delivered.

[03:58:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And and so the approval body would be the housing staff?

[03:58:24] Housing Specialist II Anna Reinoso: Right.

[03:58:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. That's clear.

[03:58:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Any other questions from my colleagues? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please turn in a blue speaker card or click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Each speaker will have three minutes. I see no in-person public... Oh. Okay. So, they just popped up magically. All right. Robert Cox, followed by Alexander Amoroso, followed by Kevin Ma.

[03:59:15] Robert Cox: Mayor Ramos, Vice Mayor Clark, and members of the City Council. I'm here to say, make a comment, and not say anything negative, believe it or not. In particular, I just wanted to call out, you know, as I wrote in the letter, about Amendment 2, add requirements for alternative means of compliance. I think this is really great. And the reason I do is I remember when I was on the EPC and we talked about the idea that, okay, we have these BMR requirements, but we're going to need to have an alternative because who knows, somebody might be able to propose something better.

[03:59:52] Robert Cox: Well, that's true, and yet I was thinking in the back of my mind, how easy is it going to be to evaluate that it's actually of greater use than what the standard would be? And I've seen cases where, you know, proposals have come into the Council kind of like at the last minute and staff really hasn't had a chance to evaluate it and then Council I feel sometimes ends up making decisions in the dark about whether it's really better or really not.

[04:00:15] Robert Cox: But adding new requirements, particularly ones when you have an affordable housing developer that's partnering with a market rate developer and that affordable housing developer has to have real credibility, like no bankruptcies, no outstanding criminal indictments, or whatever, you know, it really is going to make it happen. So thank you for making those changes and I look forward to your voting yes.

[04:00:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Next we have Alexander Amoroso, followed by Kevin Ma.

[04:00:43] Alexander Amoroso: Evening again, Council. Much like the previous note, this is all in support for this measure. Just a couple of notes for consideration to take in mind. So, as much as I do support affordable housing, because in my opinion, in one of the wealthiest areas, countries, states in the world, people who are not housed is a crime. So I very much support more affordable housing to be built.

[04:01:08] Alexander Amoroso: However, there is something to take into consideration to not take our eye off the ball when it comes to just housing period, because a lot of the problems we do see when it comes to building up more and more affordable housing is that I'm tracking that this is going to be another one of those projects where people of a certain income are only going to be allowed to apply as opposed to having more general housing where lower, middle, high class can apply to live here. So making sure that we don't bottleneck that market of housing and make sure that we are still working on those projects.

[04:01:43] Alexander Amoroso: And also something of consideration for this housing project is an expansion on what I've seen here in the city, which is the professional housing. So much like what we see over on Shoreline where you have that housing for teachers and professionals, maybe we can also have some housing for tradesmen and service-based employees. So we are also bringing essential workers to the city but also providing housing for that, which is a whole other separate market away from the general housing issue. So again, just something to consider add to this project. I completely support it and the only thing to do is make it better. Thank you.

[04:02:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. Kevin Ma.

[04:02:35] Kevin Ma: Evening again, Council. I would like to comment regarding the letter that David sent for Mountain View YIMBY. I would like to echo the point about... I do believe that we should consider doing the 10-unit fee exemption now rather than waiting one and a half years. There's an opportunity cost for delay, which is especially bad given there's basically no small unit development in the city at this point.

[04:02:59] Kevin Ma: You know, the last condo project, 918 Riches, is probably not going to move ahead at this point, given it's been two years and it's probably near expiry. So I do believe that we should jump-start the ability for small developers, like some that have come before you or before EPC, to see if they can get some kind of fee exemption, just because at this point for those kind of projects, the affordable housing fee or the BMR in-lieu is one of the biggest impediments the city itself has posed.

[04:03:28] Kevin Ma: And that may be a thing to also consider for the 2028 BMR review, is just whether we do need to recalculate the inclusionary zoning requirements we do set. For example, San Francisco does check their stuff every three years, and they at this point probably have a lower inclusionary zoning requirement than we do, which is interesting. So I do wish to see these changes to go ahead because there are other changes that do impact developers, such as the equal to 100% AMI. But we do need to recalculate the fees and our regulations given economic conditions. Thank you.

[04:03:56] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. We will move on to virtual speakers. Karen Birky.

[04:04:04] Karen Birky: Hi, so I don't know as much about the very, very specifics of this BMR program, but what I will tell you is that there was a lot of discussion about new developments that would have BMR housing. I want to know if we are ever going to make existing units in other apartment complexes or condo complexes force them to start providing more BMR or affordable housing units.

[04:04:29] Karen Birky: Because all these projects are going to get mired in permits and the building and all these things. And it's going to take years. And we need housing right now. I'm unfortunately in an apartment that of course we are at the six units or less, so not only are we not protected by the Rental Stabilization Act whatsoever that was passed shortly before we moved here in 2020 or 2018 I'd say. And we also, you know, even if they built something this small that's new, it still looks like it's not, like there's a way for them to get around it. That's the part that I'm annoyed with.

[04:05:05] Karen Birky: The California Apartment Association has a lot of influence probably now and also in the past over the housing developments that are approved in this city. And I really would like to see a bigger push from our council with this measure and others like it to push for more, higher percentages of below market rate and affordable housing.

[04:05:24] Karen Birky: Because our apartment, if our landlady who's just a random homeowner that owns this property, if she decided to raise the rent on us and jack it up, we would be screwed. We live in the Monta Loma neighborhood, other equivalent housing is $500 to $1,000 to $2,000 more a month, and we are a one-income household with two children. There is no way that we can do that.

[04:05:47] Karen Birky: So I urge you council to pass this measure and just try to think if there's a way to include it, if you can have staff look at it, of how can you get more BMR units added that aren't dependent on something having to be built. Why do people have to wait more time than we've already had to wait? We shouldn't have to.

[04:06:07] Karen Birky: There are already existing units, and I know that now that the condos are exempt from that rent stabilization act, guess what was built on Middlefield and Rock Street all around me? They tore down those really old apartment complexes that were more affordable, and now they're all condos that are for sale. There's no BMR, there's no affordable, there's no nothing. So there has to be more done for the existing units. Thank you.

[04:07:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you. I see no other public comment. I will now bring the item back for Council questions and deliberation. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report for now. All right, Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:07:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I am happy to move the staff recommendations including introducing an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36, Zoning, Article 14, Division 2, Residential Development Below Market Rate Housing Program of the Mountain View City Code to modify the Below Market Rate program and add section 36.40.32 governing graduated fee reduction for small projects and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for June 9, 2026.

[04:08:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Ordinarily, you probably know me as a meddler, I like to make little changes. I'm not doing that tonight for either of these ordinances because staff did great work. I do have a couple of quick comments. First, I had forgotten to say in the previous item, but fortunately Councilmember Showalter mentioned it, the inclusion of objective standards is a great improvement in a lot of the ordinances that we are now bringing to Council for approval. I asked a question about how...

Additional Content 6

[04:19:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: we would approve projects under a ministerial or administrative approval process using an alternative compliance option and staff provided a very helpful response and I think that's in part because of this concerted effort to introduce objective standards in all of our regulations which make our regulations more robust, more defensible, more in line with state law and this is tremendous progress.

[04:19:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I also am very happy with the staff recommendation to return later to take this program out of the zoning ordinance and include it in the housing ordinance that we're beginning to flesh out to make it easier to amend in the future. This is phase two of this work but it's not the end of the work that we're doing on the BMR program update, so very excited for additional work that I know staff will be doing over the next few years and I want to acknowledge, I should have done this also for the previous item, just as our transportation planning staff are heavily impacted and there's a lot of important work and we don't have enough people, that's also true for housing. And I just want to express my appreciation to the Director Wayne Chen and also your team. I wish we could keep all of you forever. I know that's not going to happen, but for as long as we're able to benefit from your work, you're doing phenomenal work in the city of Mountain View and I just want to express my gratitude and my support for the work that you are doing. Thank you.

[04:20:27] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ramirez. Councilmember Showalter.

[04:20:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well ditto what Councilmember Ramirez said, particularly about the objective standards. I think that this is also a way that under the state laws that have been enacted that we continue to exert local control and one of the things that we do locally is really create a community, a good community through our planning, and this is a way we're doing that. So I'm delighted to see it. I've been working on BMR stuff since the 90s when I was on the Planning Commission and it's one of the things that I'm really proud of because there's been a lot of good done by the BMR funds that we have collected over the years and utilized to make quite a bit of affordable housing. So I'm really proud of this program, but it's good too that it's not a static program. It needs to change with the times. And so this is an opportunity for us to update it appropriately and I, you know, I'm really supportive of that.

[04:21:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: At the same time, I think that it's important to continue to monitor how this is, or to monitor how this is working. It's been going on for a long time and we're making an important change here and I think that in the next three to five years we should monitor this program and see how it's working and come back with an evaluation of is it doing what we want to do. So that is the only suggestion that I would like to make to this is that we, you know, we include monitoring of the program so that we can, you know, we can judge its effectiveness and that would be things like how many people were helped by the programs, how much it costs, how many units we produced. I don't think it's necessarily information that we don't have, but I'm not sure we've ever evaluated, you know, who do we help and how much do we help. So I would really like us to kind of plan to do that the next time we do an evaluation. And then the other thing is it seems like as part of the program is it's really important to make clear guidelines and I understand that that's, you know, that's part of this. So that is excellent. Thank you very much.

[04:23:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. I believe we have a motion by Councilmember Ramirez and a second by Councilmember Showalter. I believe Councilmember Ramirez you still have to read the items that, did you already read it? He did already read it. I must have blanked out on that. But we are ready for a vote. City Clerk?

[04:23:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:23:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:23:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:23:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:23:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:23:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:23:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[04:23:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:23:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:23:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:23:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[04:23:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:23:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[04:23:44] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

[04:23:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yay! Good votes today you guys. Alright, we are now moving on to item 7, Council, Staff and Committee reports. Do we have any Council, Staff and Committee reports? I'm seeing none. Oh, sorry, Councilmember Showalter.

[04:24:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Just a quick one. I want to share that I attended Stanford's Sustainability Forum on April 29th and May 1st. And the first day of it was the Sustainability Summit of the Doerr School. And it was kind of, as the Doerr School of Sustainability was founded seven years ago, and this was kind of a celebration of that founding and description of what it does. And I was just blown away. It really is a very comprehensive and powerful program on so many levels.

[04:24:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I look forward to us, you know, I know that we do have some fellows from Stanford and we do some research from time to time, but this was just really a wonderful thing to be able to take part in. And one of the advantages of kind of living here. So, and then the one on Friday was about data centers and how what their impact will be and particularly on power. So that was in line with my representation of Mountain View on Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Thanks.

[04:25:33] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. Vice Mayor Clark.

[04:25:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Very briefly I'm also required to report that I attended the data center summit at Stanford on May 1st, Friday May 1st.

[04:25:43] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh, cool. Alright. I'll just mention briefly April 30th we had CNNC a grant meeting reception. So those recommendations will be coming to you all very quickly. Then on May 1st there was the Cuesta neighborhood meeting to talk about when we met with the residents about the water main incident.

[04:26:06] Councilmember Emily Ramos: May 2nd I did opening remarks for the Multicultural Festival and was joined by Councilmember Kamei as well with her lovely children running around learning culture. And then May 6th we had a CPPC meeting, May 7th I was actually a judge for the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation event, they awarded a United Effort a $25,000 check for their work and their theme was 'Live Where You Work' and how do we do that.

[04:26:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: And then on May 8th I introduced Congressman Liccardo for the Leadership Mountain View graduation. I see a hand from Councilmember Kamei.

[04:26:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks Mayor. I completely forgot that I need to report that I attended our Council Transportation Committee meeting last Tuesday, May 5th.

[04:27:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And then I attended one day of the two-day Making Democracy Work and Welcoming Cities convening at Stanford. It was great to see members of our staff there talking about what we can do to be a welcoming city. Thank you.

[04:27:21] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Kamei, and with that, the next City Council meeting will be held on May 24th. This meeting is adjourned at 9:29 p.m. which is the earliest I've ever adjourned a meeting. Woo!

• ← Previous
• Next →