Sept. 22, 2026 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHORELINE REGIONAL PARK COMMUNITY

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:03:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, we're going to get this started. Okay, good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bakra, uh, will make a closed session announcement when we will... and then we will welcome public comment on the items listed for the closed session. I totally messed up your name, I'm so sorry for that.

[00:03:26] Senior Assistant City Attorney Bakra: That's okay. Thank you, Mayor. There are two items on this evening's closed session agenda. Item 2.1 is a meeting to discuss initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4). Item 2.2 is a meeting to consider appointment of a City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1).

[00:03:46] Mayor Emily Ann 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 the speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. Seeing none, we will now take virtual speakers. Seeing none, um, the council will now recess to the plaza conference room for closed session and return to the council chambers at the close to continue the regular session.

Segment 2

[00:45:00] On-Screen Display: This meeting is in a closed session. Regular Council session will resume shortly.

[01:29:55] On-Screen Display: This meeting is in a closed session. Regular Council session will resume shortly.

Segment 3

[02:02:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community of September 22nd, 2026. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[02:03:03] Mayor Emily Ann 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.

[02:03:22] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. The City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[02:03:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:03:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:03:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[02:03:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[02:03:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[02:03:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Here.

[02:03:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[02:03:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[02:03:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:03:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[02:03:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[02:03:36] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Here.

[02:03:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[02:03:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Here.

[02:03:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum.

[02:03:39] Mayor Emily Ann 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.

[02:04:01] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The Council welcomes respectful, non-threatening public comments on matters within our jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the Council Code of Conduct and the Government Code may be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period.

[02:04:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Now, I'd like to take a moment to highlight a new tool the city is piloting to make our public meetings more accessible to our diverse community. The city has launched a pilot of Wordly, an AI-powered translation and captioning service that allows members of the public to follow meeting proceedings in their preferred language using their own device or headset.

[02:04:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The service offers translation in more than 60 languages. For those watching from home via Zoom, YouTube, the city website, or cable TV, Wordly translation service can be launched by scanning the QR code displayed on the screen or by clicking direct links provided in the meeting agendas.

[02:04:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: As a reminder, we are currently recruiting members to serve on our boards, commissions, and committees. We are accepting applications until 5 p.m. on October 2nd for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Board of Library Trustees, Downtown Committee, Environmental Planning Commission, Human Relations Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Performing Arts Committee, and the Senior Advisory Committee. Please visit mountainview.gov/bcc or contact the City Clerk's office for additional information.

[02:05:26] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Interim City Attorney Quinn, do you have a closed session report?

[02:05:30] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: Yes, I do have a closed session report. In closed session this evening, the City Council took final action on item 2.1 on the closed session agenda, which was a conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) regarding the initiation of litigation.

[02:05:48] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: Council voted with 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 abstentions to authorize the city to initiate litigation against Golden State Fire Apparatus and other named parties listed in the agenda to recover excess charges for city fire engines and other vehicles due to suspected violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

[02:06:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. We will now move on to Item 3, Presentations. Please note, these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you would like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

[02:06:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So we will begin with item 3.1, National Arts and Humanities Month Proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by Carol Donahue, Chair of the Performing Arts Committee, to accept this proclamation. Carol, will you join me at the lectern?

[02:07:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. The proclamation reads, Whereas, the National Arts and Humanities Month was established in 1993 and is celebrated every October in the United States for the value and importance of culture in the lives of Americans and the health of thriving communities; and

[02:07:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, the goals of the National Arts and Humanities Month are to create a national, state, and local focus on the arts and humanities through the media, encouraging the participation of individuals, as well as arts, humanities, and other organizations nationwide, provide opportunities for federal, state, and local business, government, and civic leaders to declare their support for the arts and humanities, and lastly, to establish a highly visible vehicle for raising public awareness about the arts and humanities; and

[02:07:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, a vibrant arts and cultural community keeps residents spending locally, employs people locally, and purchases supplies and services from nearby businesses, and produces authentic cultural experiences that are magnets for visitors, tourists, and new residents; and

[02:08:16] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, 86.2% of Santa Clara County residents who attend arts and cultural events agree that it quote, inspires a sense of pride in the neighborhood or community, end quote, and 84.1% of those same residents agree it is their way of ensuring that this activity or venue is preserved for future generations; and

[02:08:41] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, the Mountain View Center for Performing Arts creates a thriving performing arts scene, hosting 271 events last year with 74,302 patrons attending the performing arts in downtown Mountain View; and

[02:08:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, the economic and social impact of the audience attendance resulted in $2,922,060 in ancillary spending for Santa Clara County; and

[02:09:09] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, the City of Mountain View demonstrates its dedication to the cultural and visual landscape through the Visual Arts Committee and City Council policy K-5, which integrates public art directly into its capital improvement projects, ensuring art is accessible and embedded throughout the community, and has resulted in a collection of 52 public artworks in parks, facilities, and public spaces; and

[02:09:33] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Whereas, the City of Mountain View has a well-developed art infrastructure through the Performing and Visual Arts and has supported the local arts community by maintaining and operating a performing arts venue as a resource for local artists and arts organizations, as well as hosting Mountain View Center for Performing Arts Lobby Gallery exhibitions offering free rotating exhibitions and

[02:09:57] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: community engagement opportunities that connect the community directly with local and regional artists; and Whereas, Mountain View Center for Performing Arts encourages you to discover the world of passion and creativity by attending a performance, cheering on artists and performers, or visiting the Lobby Gallery to celebrate the arts.

[02:10:15] Mayor Emily Ann 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 October 2026 as National Arts and Humanities Month. Carol, would you like to say a few words? Just a few. It's a very long proclamation.

[02:10:33] Carol Donahue: Yes, thank you Mayor, you've certainly covered a lot. So I'm Carol Donahue, and building community through the arts has been a long-time passion of mine. I, that's why I'm honored to be chair of the Performing Arts Committee. And I'm joined here by my vice chair, Valerie Fenwick, and also members David Garcia, Irina Krone, and Antara Bhardwaj, join us at our monthly meetings.

[02:11:02] Carol Donahue: As was mentioned in the proclamation, the Performing Arts Committee has collaborated with the Visual Arts Committee. Last year, we launched the first artist gallery reception and moderated discussion at the Center for Performing Arts. Look for more events such as this in November and again in the early next year.

[02:11:30] Carol Donahue: So National Arts and Humanities Month focuses on how creative expression enriches our society. I want to thank City Council for joining communities throughout the nation in acknowledging October as Arts and Humanities Month here in Mountain View.

[02:11:53] Carol Donahue: I encourage everyone to take part in local cultural events that are sponsored by the city and our local organizations. Take art or writing classes, express yourself creatively however you like, and share your work. I hope to see you at the Center for Performing Arts soon. Look for news about our 35th anniversary event in January. Thank you.

[02:14:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okey dokey. Next we will have 3.2, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month proclamation. We are happy to be joined this evening by Alyssa Gilo-Heida, an outreach specialist with Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services to accept the proclamation. Alyssa, will you join me at the lectern?

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: is capped. And the only way we can have an athletic field there is to have a field that doesn't need to be watered like regular turf would be. And so this is really a brilliant solution for allowing us to have this field, even though artificial turf certainly wouldn't be the first or my first option in many cases. And I was wondering if the staff could come forward and maybe explain to us a little bit about the stratigraphy there and how the landfill is underneath the turf.

[02:15:57] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Allis: Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, Lisa Allis, Assistant Public Works Director. We have a slide that shows a cross-section of the athletic fields with the landfill cell underneath it. So here is a very general schematic. This is the Shoreline Athletic Fields at 2450 Garcia Avenue in North Bayshore. It was built after a selection process through the Parks and Recreation Committee a while back, I think more than 15 or 18 years ago. This site was selected for the athletic fields for the city that needed more fields for our community. So this is a closed landfill site. And so it basically shows in a typical landfill there is about 40 to 60 feet depth of waste, and above that, the orange color you will see the landfill cap, which is usually clay soil, followed by a dirt layer which is the brown, and then we also have a waterproof protective liner, which is shown in black. And of course the green is the athletic field, and there is a drainage layer because we do need to drain any water that is on top of the landfill. But basically when this field was designed, it went through a vigorous regulatory approval process for permits, and it was designed for synthetic turf so that we did not need to irrigate as the councilmember pointed out. And so this was designed for artificial turf at the time over 10 years ago, and now it is the time to replace it because it has reached the end of its life. And also there is a lot of infrastructure that we don't show here, but there is actually a lot of pipes to collect leachate, that's any kind of wetness that comes out of the landfill cells, and ground water gets pumped away, so we try to keep water away so that the waste water does not leach out of the waste into the ground.

[02:18:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well that's a very good explanation, thank you so much. And I also wanted to just in addition to what you've said, to emphasize that we really aren't the decision makers on how... what we can do on top of this landfill. This is regulated, I believe it's by the county and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, are they the entities?

[02:18:32] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Allis: Yes, there's many entities. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalRecycle, which is the solid waste authority for the state, as well as the California Air Quality Management District. They're the three major regulatory agencies that oversee our landfill operations.

[02:18:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Right. So this has been decided kind of as part of our whole landfill closure program. And so that's another reason why this isn't just a simple option that we get to make. This is made in collaboration with these other agencies to protect this landfill. And so I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention, because frankly this is, from a civil engineering point of view, a very innovative use of this land. Basically, the way I understand it, if we didn't use artificial turf on this, we just wouldn't have an athletic field here. So with that, I would like to move approval of this item. Do I have to read anything?

[02:19:48] Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Allis: No, you don't have to read anything. But we do have Councilmember McAlister who would like to speak on this item.

[02:19:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um, thank you. So, I asked a question to staff about incorporating an environmental friendly turf material. And I was wondering if somebody could expand on that and give me a better feel for it. There are some environmental groups concerned about what's being put on the ground, and for all those football players that when you see a shoe melting at 150 degrees on artificial turf, it's concerning. So I was just wondering what we are doing environmentally on this material that we're using that's talked about.

[02:20:32] Community Services Director John Marchant: Good evening Council, John Marchant, Community Services Director. And thank you Councilmember McAlister for the question. So yes, synthetic turf, there's a lot of discussion going on not only locally, but regionally, nationally regarding synthetic turf and the different materials being used. And just like any other product out for public use, the manufacturers are looking for ways to improve their product over time. So our existing field is a combination of the base layer, which is the carpet if you will, with the blades, the grass blades, and then the infill is a crumb rubber product, which is those little black beads that can get stuck in your shoes. They can migrate off the site because of that. And then the players can go home, wash their shoes, wash socks, and then that also can continue through the cycle. So there are new products which are much more environmentally friendly in comparison to the crumb rubber. The crumb rubber also is what helps escalate the heat impact for those products, and so there are a number of products that we are looking at currently and have been used successfully, including cork. The most recently that we are looking at is corn cob. And as a matter of fact, staff is going to the National Recreation and Park Association, the national conference this coming week, of which we'll be able to look and see it and find some of these new products that are coming out on the market and meet with the manufacturers. So we are looking for ways to make those improvements both for the heat impact, the recyclability, as well as just being environmentally friendly overall.

[02:22:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you have any idea how much this... like on the heat element, that this potentially could lower it compared to...

[02:22:34] Community Services Director John Marchant: I don't have that information.

[02:22:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh, thank you. I just wanted to comment that I was mayor at the time that we put the turf in, so it was a pleasure to be at the fields. So ten years is... interesting to see how it's evolved over the technology over the years. Thank you, Director.

[02:22:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Vice Mayor Clark.

[02:22:58] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I will second Councilmember Showalter's motion.

[02:23:02] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright, we have a motion by Councilmember Showalter, seconded by Vice Mayor Clark. We are ready for our roll call vote.

[02:23:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:23:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:23:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[02:23:15] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[02:23:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:23:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:23:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[02:23:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:23:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[02:23:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[02:23:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[02:23:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:23:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[02:23:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

[02:23:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Alright, we are now on to item 5, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council's subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agendized 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 two minutes. So I'll let the time clock start. First we have Aadi Makaram, followed by Ken Vanbree, followed by Hossein Mobahi. Alright, please make your way to the podium.

[02:24:44] Aadi Makaram: Good evening, Councilmembers and Mayor. My name is Aadi Makaram. I'm the Head of Operations at Lunar Energy. We're a battery storage company in Mountain View, California. Homegrown here, we build batteries to lower the electricity prices for homeowners and provide backup storage. We have thousands of customers across the US, hundreds of thousands that use our services across the globe, and many of them here in the Bay Area. I'm here today because we just renewed our lease at 755 Ravendale. It's a property that sits between Middlefield, 237, and Central Expressway. We love it in the area. We've recruited a great team. 150 of us actually come to the office every day. But there's a major problem with our site. We are surrounded by RVs that are parked there 24/7. And let me be clear, the people living in those RVs deserve a real solution, so I'm not trying to push the problem down the road, but we cannot function in this environment as a company. You should hear what it's truly like on the floor, on the ground, sitting in 755 Ravendale. Our driveways and our streets are blind. We can't see around the corners. Just a few stories from our team members. One of them was almost T-boned by another car. I actually had to slam on my brakes because a ball rolled out between two RVs and two children were running out from in between RVs and I had to stop right away so I didn't crash into those children. Some of our employees bike to work, sometimes during summer break they have their kids on the back of their bike, and one of them almost got hit driving around that area. So we've had Audrey Seymour actually come to our site and take a look at the problem. But I really invite all of you council members to come and see what the problem looks like on a day-to-day. You really have to see it to understand what we have to live through at that site. So I hope some of you will take me up on the offer to come view what it looks like on a given day. I'm available in my contact information, I'm out of time.

[02:26:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Ken Vanbree, followed by Hossein Mobahi, followed by Richard Winn.

[02:27:06] Ken Vanbree: So we have a set of slides that we provided to the council if they want to take a look at them. I'm going to speak about the first two slides and then I'll turn it over. What you see on the first slide is an overview of the neighborhood, and this area between Star Way and Miramonte is the area that is, as I understand it, the discussion is to move it from R2 to R3. R3 is a 36 foot height, which would be quite different from what's there now. Everything in that space is single story building, and so it would make quite a change to the neighborhood, which is a very friendly neighborhood. We have... my wife and I have lived on the street for 26 years because we built one of the first houses on Star Way. And so the second slide is some of the... put together by one of our members on Star Way... some of the challenges of actually doing anything with that property by trying to put together a large set of space to build a large unit there, and there's not been a successful use within...

[02:29:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you for your time. Alright, next we have Hossein Mobahi, followed by Richard Winn, followed by Alan Whitaker.

[02:29:25] Hossein Mobahi: Hi. I'll quickly explain why we believe that this rezoning will not work and share what we are asking for. The first issue is the assembly problem for builders. This zoning change assumes a builder will buy the land to build multi-family housing. However, our area has 13 separate owners. Since 2010, no Mountain View builder has successfully built a large project by putting together 10 or more separate properties. This is because even if one owner demands a huge amount of money, the whole project becomes too expensive to build. Our 13 properties have a total value of $30 to $35 million. Expecting a builder to buy out 13 independent owners on Star Way is just not going to happen. The second issue is real estate and valuation impact. How this hurts us financially right away. We talked to a Mountain View real estate firm and their answer is clear. Upzoning will lower the value of our homes. Depending on the housing built, property values could drop 5% for townhomes or over 10% for apartments. The result? No actual housing is built, but residents suffer a real loss of money right away. So our request to the city council, because rezoning Star Way causes real damage with no real benefit to the city, our primary request is that you don't do the rezone for the area between Miramonte Avenue and Star Way. If that's not possible, our backup request is that you delay the vote for one year, until August 2027. The city provided no warning or information to our residents about rezoning. We only found about it accidentally as the school year started. A one year delay gives residents a fair chance to sell during the spring and summer 2027 real estate season. Furthermore, this delay will have no negative impact on the city meeting the goals of the 2023 to 2031 housing element. Thank you for your time and for listening.

[02:31:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Richard Winn, followed by Alan Whitaker, followed by Valerie Fenwick.

[02:31:30] Richard Winn: Hi, so I'm also here to speak about the Star Way issue. So our family home since 1966 is there, it's one of the largest parcels. I just wanted you to know that when we first discovered this a couple of months ago, we had a lot of upset homeowners and renters. They were upset because they felt the city was doing something behind their back that was immensely impactful upon them. So I understand the city legally, because it's a legislative act in question, doesn't have to give notice. In good faith and transparency, I think the city did about two and a half years ago give notice about the R3 revisions, but when it came to the R2, I don't think we received any kind of notification. So I just want you to know you've got at least 46 upset voters that I know of that felt they didn't have a voice in the matter. Secondly, Star Way is an exception amongst all the other R2 properties south of El Camino. It should not be rubber stamped into R3. So my question, which council members that are pro-housing are willing to hear us out and help us to get more housing and preserve our neighborhood? I would like to email each of you asking for your guidance and help, and look forward to your response. So with deep appreciation to you all for all the time and effort you devote to the city, thank you.

[02:33:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Alan Whitaker, and then Valerie Fenwick.

[02:33:23] Alan Whitaker: Thank you. Alan Whitaker, Monta Loma neighborhood resident of 33 years. By proximity, I drive and bike many areas of Mountain View regularly. Recently I canvassed along the multifaceted thoroughfare Ringstorff Avenue and adjacent blocks between Leghorn Street and Montecito. I was inspired by, along with others, by the city survey collecting data for a complete street study, which is also a design process name that draws study contractors and design firms in anticipation of money being doled out by city and state coffers. Many that I canvassed had comments outside the city paid for limited scope survey. Most expressed disapproval of money going to pomp over purpose, funding not directly aimed at the specific problems, the safety concerns. Others voiced that loud voices or money would get more attention than locals who are paying their fair share. There were also a few saying, 'Spend the money, go for the most flamboyant project while the money exists.' That's not my opinion though. By the way, many comments came in in appreciation of the city's maintenance investment, grinding away uneven sidewalk trip hazards. That was commented upon many times. As an aging individual, I also appreciate this in my area, in my neighborhood. You know, we aren't the first municipality that needs to solve these solutions. What have the other cities, what have they done? By the way, speaking of change, California Street. I did the collaboration survey. Thank you.

[02:35:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Valerie Fenwick.

[02:35:27] Valerie Fenwick: Hello, Valerie Fenwick, a 25-plus year resident of the city of Mountain View. I am on the Performing Arts Committee, but I am not representing them nor my employer this evening. I just wanted to reach out about a couple of things. I bike and walk all over the city of Mountain View, and it is a great pleasure to be here. But something I noticed recently while showing my friend the Berlin Wall pieces that we are caretakers of in front of the City of Mountain View Library, they have greatly faded to almost be indistinguishable pieces of rock. I have pictures that I've taken of relatives and friends going back the last 15, 20-plus years in front of those, and they were gorgeous. We are not acting as good stewards. I will also send I guess an Ask Mountain View ticket. I find sometimes those get action, sometimes they get shuffled along. But as someone who also does walk, I walk on the sidewalk on Central Expressway that the City of Mountain View built. And I know I hear now, 'That's Caltrans, that's Caltrain, it's Caltrans, it's this, that.' The City of Mountain View built that sidewalk along Central Expressway between Castro, Moffett Boulevard, Castro Boulevard and Rengstorff. We built it, we should maintain it, we should keep it nice, and I really appreciate that and everything that you do. And finally, I live in the Rex Manor neighborhood, and from all of my neighbors to all of you and the city staff, thank you for getting the hole filled at Beatrice Avenue. There was a very unsafe deep 15-foot full plotted hole there for years. Thank you very much, we really appreciate it.

[02:37:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Alex Brown.

[02:37:09] Alex Brown: Hi friends. I just wanted to say that given the scale of the housing crisis and how much we're facing right now, I don't think that upzoning to R3 is sufficient and that we should really do most of the area around Star Way and R4 at least, if not a special P-zone. Because we're desperate and trying to maintain single family houses in the face of, you've seen how many, like how many people are here because we have a lot of people who are completely unhoused. So hoarding land and saying, 'Oh yeah, this is restricted to single family homes,' is selfish. And we as a city should not allow for that. We are a community for all, and that includes the people who are going to come here to live and who need houses. Thanks.

[02:37:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright, we will now move on to virtual speakers. So that is Sungjun Meng.

[02:38:13] Sungjun Meng: Hi. Good evening. Can you hear me?

[02:38:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes, we can hear you.

[02:38:22] Sungjun Meng: Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Sungjun Meng. I live in the Gemini Avenue for about three years. Here is my concern is about the trailers and RV on our street. I'm not talking about the parking, I'm here about the people who are living in these vehicles on our street. When these vehicles leave and move, and then what happened is they leave the trash and the, today, this morning, I picked it up there, like a used diaper and I have to clean it up. And then one night, there's so many messes. So what is a good neighbor? If you saw something, you have to report it, right? So one night, I saw there's something really weird thing is going on. Someone was operating the generator and he put it like a pet water bottle, like a peril, and fill it up with a whole gasoline, and then he using like a siphon hose and feeding in the gasoline into his generator. And I thought it was very dangerous. If somehow the bottle is split it up, all this gasoline will be going into the sewer, and our sewer line is directly connected to our ocean. So which is an environmental crisis. It's way worse than the artificial turf, I think. But I called the police and what police says is there's nothing they can do. Here is what I want is, what I ask is we need some department in the city of Mountain View can answer those calls and help to fix those issues. The second thing is the city has the power to fix those issues. What I heard, what I saw was that it's coming this December, it's driven by Intuit, which is a really large company. They put it on the board, like they're going to make a bicycle line around their office, which is going to be permanently ban all this RV around the Intuit office. I mean, what I ask to the city is the city needs to listen about the real people who's living around the Mountain View. Thank you.

[02:40:17] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Cyan or Cien.

[02:40:30] Cyan: Yes, I'm here.

[02:40:33] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Go ahead.

[02:40:35] Cyan: Um, my only thing is I definitely support the Green Streets Complete Plan. I definitely have read through it and realized that it's important, especially to keep the...

[02:40:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, so, I'm sorry. I think you mean to be speaking on an item... a future item on the agenda. If you could hold off until we hit that item, that would be great. 7.1.

[02:41:01] Cyan: Oh, are we not at... that's not 7.1. We have a long way to go.

[02:41:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: No, we are at item 5. We have a long way to go.

[02:41:08] Cyan: Well okay, I can stay the rest of my speaking time.

[02:41:11] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright, thank you. Alright, we will now move on to item 6, public hearings, which is item 6.2, Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update. Advanced Planning Manager Eric Anderson 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.

[02:41:38] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Great, thank you very much. Good evening Mayor Ramos, Vice Mayor Clark, City Council. My name is Eric Anderson, and this is the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Map Update. The city has had a historic preservation ordinance and the Mountain View Register since 2004. Together, these tools help the city preserve historically and culturally significant buildings, as well as their character-defining features. There are several reasons to update the ordinance and register at this time that are shown on the screen. The bottom of this slide shows an overview of the project process. This project started in 2022 after it was included in the 2019 to 2021 council goals. It has three major deliverables: a historic context statement to define the significant themes in the city's built history, an intensive survey of properties that may be eligible for listing, and an update to the ordinance. The project has held a robust outreach process, including four virtual and in-person workshops, a virtual question and answer session, meetings with individual stakeholders, EPC, council meetings, and letters. Most recently, starting in July, a survey was prepared for property owners or their authorized representatives of properties included in the draft Mountain View Register to solicit owner sentiment and feedback on the proposed designation. The City Council has weighed in on this project at three previous meetings, which are summarized here. The first item for tonight is for Council to accept the Historic Context Statement. This is a critical document that establishes the framework to identify historic resources in the city. It's the basis for the citywide survey that informed the current draft register and will continue to help support the identification of historic properties in the future. The EPC and City Council previously reviewed this document late last year, did not have any comments. It's been updated for consistency with the draft city code updates. EPC recommended the council accept the historic context statement. The second recommendation is regarding the ordinance. It's been drafted to respond to council direction from last December. This slide shows key elements of that council direction, including adding integrity criteria, action by council with no approval required for designation of properties, adding properties on the state and national register by reference, new historic district provisions, delisting, including an action by council with no owner opt-off and new criteria, and a clear list of allowed improvements with staff-level review for minor improvements and a minor ZA hearing process for major improvements. One major new element to the ordinance is an allowance for historic districts. Districts are made up of primary and limited contributors. Primary contributors are those that directly support the district's significance. Limited contributors have the potential to impact the district if altered, but do not support the district's history. In December, the City Council requested analysis supporting the delineation of council discretion versus technical expert recommendations, especially for owner-initiated districts. All historic districts require evaluation by a qualified professional with possible city review to show that the district meets the required findings of significance and a concentration of primary contributors. Owner nominations require at least twice as many primary contributors as limited contributors in the draft ordinance. The City Council also requested analysis related to how to ensure ample noticing and participation. The draft code requires owner nominations to secure support from owners of at least 50% of parcels and 50% of land area, requiring applicant outreach to different types of ownership in the district. It also includes detailed provisions for the noticing and opportunities to comment before the public hearing, including an owner response form which may inform the council decision. The draft ordinance includes detailed examples of the types of projects requiring four different levels of development review. First, exempt alterations are those that are presumed no impact to the historic resource. Second, minor HP permits are required for improvements that are not exempt, but do not affect visible character-defining features. Major HP permits are required for improvements that do affect visible character-defining features, but do not cause a substantial adverse change to the resource. Demolition or substantial adverse change requires council approval and overriding considerations. Based on council's direction, staff reviewed opportunities to further streamline ADU and rear addition projects, which has been reflected in the staff report and ordinance. This slide summarizes key changes proposed for incentives and benefits. Key new benefits include a historic plaque program, conditional use permits for historic uses, reduction in minimum parking, and new reductions to impact fees. Staff recommends using a council policy to identify specifics such as fee reductions, contract procedures, and other details within the broad language of acceptable incentive categories to be included in this code update. This will coordinate incentives across different departments and sections of the code, and may reduce the effort required to update the policy as compared to updating the ordinance. One staff recommendation therefore is to refer an incentive policy to the Council Policy and Procedures Committee for further review and recommendation to the full council. The draft ordinance includes enforcement measures applicable specifically to historic resources, in addition to standard remedies applicable to unlawful work. These include the requirement to reconstruct as feasible, requirement for council to remove the property from the register otherwise no new development for a penalty period, and the requirement to repay any property tax incentives received. This ordinance also includes a provision related to recent state law, SB 79. This law overrides the city's density, height, and floor area ratio standards for qualifying housing projects near major transit stops. It also allows the city to adopt a local temporary ordinance that would exclude historic resources if they were registered by the beginning of 2025. Attachments 2 and 3 implement this provision. It would expire one year after adoption of the next housing element, likely in 2031. The project also includes a temporary provision related to HP permit review of state and national eligible single-family homes and duplexes. The previous code required these permits whether listed or not. This requirement should be removed because it's not transparent. However, this could be an impact to historic resources under CEQA, because single family homes and duplexes have no other discretionary permits that trigger the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommends this language temporarily until the city council can determine which sites should be listed and which sites should have an EIR prepared for refraining from listing when this language is removed. These actions are consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act because the ordinance ensures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment through a regulatory process that includes procedures for environmental protection. The SB 79 amendment is consistent with CEQA because of the common sense exemption, which provides that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. This slide summarizes the staff recommendation for the two ordinances for council action. The first is the code amendments to update the historic preservation provisions of the city code. The second is the zoning map amendment to implement the temporary exclusion of certain historic resources from SB 79. The EPC provided their recommendation on these two ordinances on August 19th. They recommended acceptance of the HCS and approval of the ordinances, but they had two comments here. First, to provide more clarity on preservation incentives and ensure they are adequately resourced, and second, require a 5-vote super-majority for approval of a proposed historic district including a housing element opportunity site, to address the competing interests of historic preservation and housing production. The last recommendation at this meeting is for council to provide direction regarding the properties to include on the draft register for final action later this year. The list of eligible properties currently includes 99 resources. This includes the list of 101 resources the council reviewed last fall, minus seven religious properties that the city council directed staff to exclude from further listing, plus five city-owned properties that have been deemed eligible for the register. In addition to the city-owned resources already listed, the Adobe building and Moffett at Central Expressway, the Rengstorff House at Shoreline Park, and the Immigrant House at Heritage Park, two new resources have been identified: the Steel Star Windmill at Heritage Park, and Cuesta Park with its modernist bandstand building and landscape features. In December, the council requested information regarding the draft sites, including whether they are eligible only under the design criterion, whether they are eligible for listing in a local register and not the California or National registers, and owner sentiment. A summary table of this data is shown here, and tables of the properties are available for your deliberation. Council is not obligated to include every eligible property in the Mountain View Register. However, it should be noted that some development activities may be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore subject to similar restrictions as the ordinance. If council decides to delist any currently listed properties, or decides not to list some properties, those actions cannot be completed until additional environmental review is carried out, likely an environmental impact report. An EIR is expected to cost about $150,000 to $200,000 and takes at least a year. Based on previous council direction, the city will commence the EIR process for 1855 Miramonte Avenue to delist this site that is also a religious use. So staff's recommendation is to provide direction to staff regarding currently unlisted properties to exclude from the register for adoption at a later public hearing, or currently listed properties to delist from the Mountain View Register following preparation of an EIR pursuant to CEQA. If the ordinance is adopted by the council, a second reading will be scheduled for October 13th, and the amendments will become effective in November. If the council will hold another public hearing, the council will hold another public hearing, likely in December, to adopt the new register. We cannot finalize the register update with the ordinance because that would leave the owner opt-off provisions in place. Thus we need to adopt the register update once the new ordinance provisions have taken effect. A CPPC meeting will likely occur sometime in the early in the new year. In summary, this is the staff recommendation and this concludes the presentation and we're happy to answer any questions. Also in attendance is Christina Dikas Brobst, consultant with Page & Turnbull.

[02:52:23] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright, thank you. We will now go on to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please 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 two minutes. We will start with Gerry Steach, followed by Massimo Prati, followed by Ron Ikebe. So go ahead. Mr. Gerry, you can go.

[02:52:52] Gerry Steach: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gerry Steach, long time resident of Mountain View. I'm associated with the Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, the Mountain View Historical Association, Old Mountain View, I'm also the chaplain at the Fraternal Order of Eagles downtown, so I have roots around here and I have a lot of interest in our city and in historic preservation in particular, particularly downtown. I moved here 36 years ago and I was drawn in no small part to the downtown and its organic vitality. I put down roots here, I bought a house five years after moving here and I've never looked back and I've never regretted that. It's not hyperbole nor is it an exaggeration to say that this is one of the more consequential votes that you will make in your tenures as council members and mayor. I hate to do this again but I'm going to invoke the metaphor of the goose that lays the golden egg. We have a big goose downtown laying beautiful golden eggs that are drawing people from near and far, that are, you know, it's vital for the downtown's economy. I really don't want to see that messed with too much. The atmosphere is in no small part to the historic buildings downtown that we really, really, really need to take care of and preserve. You ladies and gentlemen have a prime opportunity tonight to keep that goose alive and keep laying those eggs, and you have a chance to cement your legacies as council members for generations to come. So I hope you make the right decision on this vote. Thank you very much.

[02:54:41] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Massimo Prati, followed by Ron Ikebe, and then followed by Bill Mark.

[02:54:50] Massimo Prati: Mayor Ramos and members of City Council, good evening. My name is Massimo Prati. I own 537 Bush Street, which has been identified for placement on the historic register. A letter from myself and my wife Barbara requesting removal of our property from the eligible list is included in your packet. Thanks to city staff, we understand the criteria driving a nomination. In our letter we explain why we don't believe our house fits those criteria. But my public statement tonight focuses on issues that affect all properties under consideration. We remain highly skeptical about the financial incentives for properties that will be placed on the register. Forcing properties to be placed on the register without owner's consent will heavily restrict the development potential of those properties, which under SB 79 could be worth millions of dollars. The presumed benefits that are being offered to us property owners are still in development, you saw in the presentation tonight, and at this time inadequate vis-a-vis the value of the property. It is my belief that city staff are indeed focused on the potential incentives, but it is a work in progress. I was happy to see the referral to the CPPC. In addition to foregoing any potential development proceeds, upkeeping a historic property is an expensive proposition. How do the benefits translate into dollars? I do not believe anyone can provide a clear quantitative answer today. I also question whether the city has the budget to provide fair compensation. The Mountain View City Council has a history of respecting property rights and a forward thinking mindset not shying from development. Voting for this ordinance this evening does not serve the residents of Mountain View and seems counter to how the city council has acted in the past. This ordinance will strip away property rights from their owners and cause serious financial harm by devaluing our biggest financial asset. Thank you for your time.

[02:56:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Ron Ikebe, followed by Bill Mark, followed by Roger Cow.

[02:57:03] Ron Ikebe: I'm Ron Ikebe, downtown realtor, and this is like a form of eminent domain. The people that I've talked to, some of them... one 96-year-old owns property on Castro, has no idea you're gonna take his property. Or that he doesn't realize the city can put his property on a historic list and then his development right is taken away forever. And you know, he probably got these cards in the mail and just never read them. But nothing's ever been sent to him registered mail where he signed and acknowledged that he got it. So by publishing in the paper and sending cards out, you still don't reach them. So each property owner should have a right to be excluded, especially if they're not even aware of it, because you've... I know you've done everything legally, published in newspapers and everything, but it still hasn't reached a lot of the owners that own the properties out there. So they should have a right to say something. That's all I can say.

[02:58:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Bill Mark, followed by Roger Cow.

[02:58:44] Bill Mark: Hi. Thank you. I am opposed to this ordinance in its current form, even though I'm a homeowner near downtown Mountain View, and I urge the council to either reject it or heavily revise it. So let me explain why. In its current form, the ordinance really fails to balance...

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Massimo Prati: The desirable goal of historic preservation with other very important public goals. Um, it also excessively restricts what future city councils can do. Um, it includes too many properties on the draft register, uh, and it places a heavy burden on owners of properties, as we just heard. And overall, it's excessively complex and bureaucratic and actually very hard to understand. Um, so I'm particularly concerned with the way this ordinance will restrict the council's ability to plan for the future of downtown. Uh, I would like to see this deferred until we consider the overall new precise plan for downtown, which I know is in the works. I don't think it makes sense to do this in isolation when it's going to heavily restrict what we can do with the downtown.

[03:00:53] Massimo Prati: About too many properties, I looked at some of the properties on the list. A lot of them don't seem that special. Uh, you know, there should be a very high bar to designate a property as historic in a way that restricts what future owners can do, what the council can do, and so forth. I don't think the bar is high enough. We ought to consider, for example, picking just the top 10 or 20 properties.

[03:01:19] Massimo Prati: I would also like to see the voting bar higher for creating a new historic district. 50% is a very low bar for something that heavily restricts what the future council can do and what the property owners can do. We ought to be thinking about something like 66%, more in line with what some other cities do.

[03:01:37] Massimo Prati: I also believe there ought to be clearer processes for removing a historic district in the future or removing a property. It looks like it's going to be extremely difficult to do that. We just saw it's going to cost $150,000 to even think about removing one property from the list once it's there. Thank you.

[03:01:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Roger Cao.

[03:02:08] Roger Cao: Hello, councilmen and councilwomen. My name is Roger Cao. I used to run the Golden Wok Chinese restaurant in 895 Villa Street. And then city just want to set forth the historical site in my property. And for the, because of the arch circle roof, and then if you go over there to look over the building, harder to see the roof. And how can you making the, my site become a historical site? So I really, city council consider drop me off from the list, from the historic site. Thank you.

[03:02:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Um, it looks like, is that an in-person speaker for this one? Yeah, why don't you go now before we move on to our virtual speakers.

[03:03:03] Marina Keith: Hi there, my name is Marina Keith. I'm a longtime resident of Mountain View, also property owner of the 228 Castro Street, the Monte Carlo nightclub and restaurant. And I believe it's also designated to be a historic, um, designated as a historic building. Now the building itself is built in 1928, I believe, as the cinema, Mountain View cinema.

[03:03:25] Marina Keith: Um, I'm opposed to this, uh, ordinance because the city, I mean the building itself doesn't really look anything like what it used to look like. If the building did look and had that, you know, spirit of the history, I would say okay, but the building does not look anything like its original design. And therefore, um, I would like to see if we can also be exempt from this, uh, designation. Thank you.

[03:03:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. We will now take virtual speakers. We'll start with Louise Katz.

[03:04:03] Louise Katz: Thank you, Mayor. Can you hear me?

[03:04:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.

[03:04:07] Louise Katz: Thank you. Yes, so first of all, um, speaking in support of the, um, effort that has been going on for years. That despite people saying that they didn't know that this is happening, it's, it's been I think several years in the making. Also, I wanted to point out that the concept of property rights, um, none of us have complete property rights. The city can change the zoning anywhere. It doesn't matter what we think of it, if the city decides it's for the public benefit. And you've already heard various parties saying that they're not pleased with the zoning changes that have been ongoing.

[03:04:46] Louise Katz: There's no reason to exempt Castro Street to these kinds of changes. When we have properties going up next to single-family homes that will tower over our backyards and take out our light and privacy, we don't have property rights to say diminution of value that they should not be able to build. So, and the point is for the benefit of the community, we have historic properties, and once we lose them, we will never, ever, ever have our history brought back.

[03:05:16] Louise Katz: So many cities have preserved their downtown, Los Gatos, Half Moon Bay, Campbell. We should be very proud that we have a history to maintain. And it, it, I don't believe that it would be a diminution of value because I think having these unique buildings and a unique retail area is actually an improvement, especially for properties that we can provide incentives for them to upgrade their buildings, restore them to even more historic, um, uh, looking properties.

[03:05:50] Louise Katz: There's much that the city can do and should do to support the owners, incentives, resources, even financial assistance. So I think we have a long way to go to make it as positive an action as it possibly can be. So thank you for.

[03:06:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Hala Alshawani.

[03:06:13] Hala Alshawani: Uh, yes. Hello. Um, good evening, Mayor Ramos, council members, and city staff. My name is Hala Alshawani, a longtime resident of Mountain View. Um, a big thank you to the city staff for the thorough community outreach regarding the historic preservation ordinance. I actually attended many of those meetings. And I am in full support of the staff, uh, properties, of, uh, proposals. In particular, the possibility of preserving our downtown buildings, um, our irreplaceable history, identity, and streetscapes.

[03:06:51] Hala Alshawani: Um, as my, uh, colleague Jerry Steach, colleagues, uh, Jerry Steach and Louise Katz stated, um, the, um, the downtown really is a great attraction from all over the, the South Bay area. And it's, uh, it really contributes very significantly to, um, to our economic vitality. Um, I also support the city's advocacy to provide resources and assistance to the homeowners of historic significance with funding, rebates, and architectural solutions. I feel that this ordinance can and should be a win-win to all. Thank you.

[03:07:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Daniel Hulsey.

[03:07:42] Daniel Hulsey: Hi, yeah. Can you hear me?

[03:07:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.

[03:07:45] Daniel Hulsey: Uh, so I'm just calling in to say I do not support this, uh, measure. Um, these historic ordinances are just like a major headache, uh, for property owners, uh, for future property owners. Um, they make it so that, you know, every little improvement you want to make to your house has to go through this like historicity industrial complex between contractors, lawyers, architects, who all have to know very specific specialized knowledge, um, and meanwhile your house is falling apart.

[03:08:29] Daniel Hulsey: Um, and so I really don't support this. I don't support especially the idea of districts, you know. When you look at the other cities listed on that, other other cities with these districts, I don't think they're really models, I don't think Beverly Hills, for example, is a model of equity. Um, so I absolutely oppose this. And I I think, you know, we should let people own their own houses, uh, I think that's the fundamental principle here, uh, self, self-ownership of your own property.

[03:09:08] Daniel Hulsey: Um, and then furthermore, you know, what's the intention? It seems like the intention is to try to circumvent the will of uh California voters, many of which are in Mountain View and support these things. So I think uh we should just sort of table this and you know if there's one or two things you want to say are historic, go ahead, but you know let's let's not lose the downtown vibrancy race to uh Sunnyvale or Redwood City by freezing this place in amber.

[03:09:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Jonathan Davis.

[03:09:52] Jonathan Davis: Thank you, Mayor Ramos and members of the City Council. Shoot, I thought I had three minutes, so pardon me for speaking quickly. Uh, I'm Jonathan Davis. My wife and I live in a historic property on Mariposa Avenue. We are advocates for historic preservation. Our purpose is not to criticize the ordinance, but to suggest a way to improve the public, uh, private partnership underlying it and make it fairer. Uh, we request that the City Council direct staff to evaluate a supplemental historic preservation fund for extraordinary residential situations and to report those findings back to Council.

[03:10:30] Jonathan Davis: As you know, historic property owners accept restrictions that do not apply to comparable non-historic properties. Now, the Mills Act provides tax relief that helps offset some of the higher costs associated with maintaining historic homes. But Mills was never intended to address every consequence of older structures. Furthermore, Mills doesn't differentiate between a 50-year-old structure built in the 70s from very old properties, say those over 100 years old, that reflect very different construction standards, technology, and structural integrity. At some point, owners of 100-year-old properties face repair costs that substantially exceed the tax reduction benefits provided through Mills.

[03:11:15] Jonathan Davis: Some homes may require foundation repairs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Um, so, because preservation requirements can restrict economic potential that is increasingly available to non-historic properties, it can be a compounding economic hit. Costly to maintain, yet restricted in the economic opportunity to fund such improvements. Preservation should not place homeowners in a difficult position of making prudent financial decisions for their families, uh, for resources that others can enjoy. Uh, please consider a, uh, further preservation fund.

[03:11:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Next we have Jesse.

[03:12:06] Jesse: Hello everybody. Um, can you hear me alright?

[03:12:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I can hear you.

[03:12:10] Jesse: Awesome, great, thanks Emily. Um, so I just wanted to recognize that there's already been damage done to property owners downtown. You can look at the example of uh Chez TJ where the owner had planned to be able to sell that um in order to retire and then was placed involuntarily on the California Historical Registry and now has to completely rethink that and, and scramble to find another way to retire. Current business owners will be hurt, as we heard from Marina from Monte Carlo. I think if property owners want to opt in to the historical registry, that's one thing, but we shouldn't force any properties onto the historical register against the will of the owners.

[03:12:56] Jesse: Um, and that's just, you know, speaking of the damage to businesses. But I also know some home owners, some friends of mine in Santa Clara who uh have a house who, as a previous speaker said, you know have a lot of trouble repairing their house. Just very basic things like oh we need uh new windows, can we upgrade our windows? And the city says no you can't because the original was single pane window, you're not allowed to have uh you know double pane uh for soundproofing or to keep heat in, keep the bills down. So it just makes life really difficult for everybody who gets placed under this.

[03:13:31] Jesse: Um, and I'm also worried that some people are trying to use this historical registry as a way to keep um much needed housing out of downtown. I mean we have a huge crisis. We need to build a lot more housing. I can't afford to live in Mountain View even though I work here. Uh, and a lot of people can't and commute from far away uh in order to serve the people of Mountain View. So I think that that housing needs to be the priority and uh again if someone opts into the list that's great, but we shouldn't force any properties onto it. So, thank you very much.

[03:14:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. David Watson. Just in time.

[03:14:18] David Watson: Oh wow, I thought I'd have a little bit more time to prepare something, but uh, uh, well that's gonna be fun. Uh, the discussion of um, uh, Chez TJ uh I brings to mind the last time I was here to talk about uh, uh, historic designations and I I agree that uh, uh, stopping Chez TJ from selling their uh, the selling the property, uh, retiring because we we feel that the the building uh you know, holds some significance to us, uh doesn't, uh didn't, didn't make sense and I think that that's uh not something that we should do to uh a bunch of other properties as well.

[03:14:53] David Watson: Um, what's more, uh, is I I yeah, I also think that, I think like, like Daniel said, uh, there's an element where I I think that, especially with the district designation, we're maybe not doing it because we believe the buildings themselves are nice, but maybe we we feel that uh downtown is just functioning really well and we don't want to mess that up. And I think that that's a misuse of the historic designation.

[03:15:18] David Watson: Um, we should, uh, if we should if we feel that the downtown should remain vibrant, I think that there are other options to us, but moreover, uh development and change is is part of uh, you know, a thriving downtown. So if we want that, we should, you know, um we should want if we want our downtown to succeed, we shouldn't be uh stopping development there. Um, you know, yeah, on my way out the door I I was I asked my parents what they thought about uh the the historic designation of Chez TJ. I've I've been I have been there once, my parents have been there once, and it's, you know, it was a great restaurant, but uh and I it had you know, uses before that, but that that wasn't a reason to to block development of it and uh we shouldn't do the same thing to to other people's properties as well. Uh people should be allowed to develop the the property that they own. Thank you.

[03:16:16] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Oh and then we have another uh comment, virtual, uh Kevin Ma.

[03:16:23] Kevin Ma: Evening Council, I'm speaking in my personal capacity. Uh, if the council were to move ahead with incentives, I'll be I would caution council to determine how much of the city's resources should be devoted on historic preservation. It is well recognized that the city has many different items that require funding, active transportation, public safety building, and those all require money, and we know that the city is in okay conditions right now but long-term conditions you never know.

[03:16:55] Kevin Ma: So I do worry about how much money we're spending on what's functionally used to subsidize dilapidated buildings that do not actually provide a commensurate amount of benefit to the community. At the end of the day, a community is based off of its people, not the buildings. And if we're just keeping the buildings solely because they're just old enough that they weren't demolished like a lot of others, that don't really provide really any benefit to the community, I don't see why we would do that. As I mentioned in previous comments, you know, it's not like a person would willingly on their own initiative just visit them on their own.

[03:17:35] Kevin Ma: Um, regarding downtown, I do believe that Mountain View's destiny lies in its future, not necessarily its past. We should honor the past with things like plaques or commemorative items, but the buildings are getting old, we have other things we want to balance out like sustainability, electrification, health codes, that with the buildings as it is would be extremely expensive to retrofit. Um, we can see that with like the Locke House being vacant for who knows how many years. And I believe that we should be cautious about how much we want to spend money on this. Thank you.

[03:18:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. And that completes our public comment. Congratulations, everyone. Um, we will now move back to Council. So thank you. Councilmember Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

[03:18:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I do have an announcement. I am going to be recusing myself from any discussion concerning 12 properties for inclusion on the historic register due to the proximity of my personal residence to those properties.

[03:18:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Bye. Now, does any member of the council have questions on this segment?

[03:19:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I remember asking a variation of this question the last time we discussed this topic. Um, and I remember the answer being uh, a little convoluted. So I'm hoping you can help me understand um, with a second opportunity.

[03:19:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I want to, I think I, what I'm trying to figure out is the level of discretion that we have in determining whether something is exempt, I guess, from the provisions of the ordinance. Um, many of the concerns that we've heard, um, were from specific property owners who may be impacted, uh, if their property is deemed historic.

[03:19:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And my, uh, layperson's understanding is that it's not the presence of a property on the register that is the issue, it's whether the property is deemed to have historic integrity. Right? That triggers the um, the CEQA implications, for instance. Um, so whether or not we, I guess what I want to understand is whether these the fact that we know that these properties appear to have historic integrity, and I think it might be helpful to explain to us why they have historic integrity, is is that enough to impact the property owners whether or not these are included in the register?

[03:20:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah. Uh, thank you for the question. Uh, Eric Anderson, Planning Manager. Um, yes, you're you're correct that the California Environmental Quality Act applies uh provisions that the city has to comply with related to any discretionary permit that the city uh would approve. And this could be a discretionary permit at the staff level, ZA level, council level. Every discretionary permit has to be evaluated against the California Environmental Quality Act. And one of the California Environmental Quality Act's uh requirements is that you evaluate historic impacts to historic resources.

[03:21:34] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, um, uh, many of these properties would be required to go through discretionary approvals for exterior modifications to the buildings uh for many scenarios of development. It's not every property in every scenario of development, but many of the properties in many scenarios of development would need to go through that CEQA process, and that CEQA process itself would trigger many of the provisions that are in the ordinance, such as requiring a historic resource evaluation, uh, more city discretion over whether that historic resource might be impacted. Uh, and yes, the, the properties that we've already identified do constitute enough evidence that that process would be um, initiated whether listed or not, for those properties and projects on which the city has discretion.

[03:22:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I I knew it was a convoluted answer, right. So I I think the, if I'm, let's say, right, an impacted property owner were to reach out to me and say you know I really want to want to understand um, what your vote means Lucas, right, if I vote to approve the ordinance uh and the staff recommendations. So, help me understand the practical difference to a property owner between the action recommended right, to essentially, we're not adopting the register but we're saying with approval of the staff recommendations these should go into the register when it comes back later this year. Um, what the difference between that is and if the council says no, we don't actually want these in the register, right? What, is there a, is there a discernable difference to the impacted property owner?

[03:23:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes. Uh, there are uh, some state streamlining provisions and uh, state um, uh, ministerial approvals, things like SB 35 and um, uh, SB 684, these, these state laws that allow by-right certain residential developments on properties. Those typically have provisions that say that uh, all that matters is whether the property is listed on a register or not, not whether the property is historic uh, under some um, some existing evidence, right?

[03:24:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so that is one difference. Another difference would be for single-family homes. Single-family homes uh, do not have a discretionary approval process in the city of Mountain View uh, for modifications or demolition or rebuilding as as uh new single-family homes. Uh, and I should say that's limited to single-family homes in R districts, not in the downtown precise plan for example. Um, so those are two examples where being listed on the register could have a different um, uh, have a different result for a property owner. Uh, most other applications, uh, commercial properties that may want to make exterior modifications, um, multi-family properties that may want to make exterior modifications or rebuild or or demolish or, uh, you know any of those other types of examples, um, they there would be very little difference between being listed and unlisted uh as far as the requirements under CEQA.

[03:25:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So I guess, is it fair to say that the, uh, just the fact that we have completed this survey and uncovered evidence of historic integrity for these properties impacts the property owner regardless of any future action, but that the impact would be greater if we do include the properties on the register? So there is no scenario where we can say, uh, we, we, the council's eliminate, we we are determining that determining that there actually isn't historic integrity, we can't, we don't have that power. The historic integrity has already been determined by the, the research and the analysis that was done. So there is some impact, but the impact would be greater if the properties were included in the register.

[03:26:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so first of all, the uh, the city council, the, the presumption of historic integrity and significance really applies at the state and national level under CEQA. So if the city council sees a Mountain View only eligible property and decides not to list it, that's the determination that it's not listed. Um, so that would not, uh, that would not have CEQA implications long-term on that uh, on that property owner.

[03:27:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The, um, the other uh, point is that it's, um, there's a, there's a balance of incentives and benefits as well as the costs and impact to the property owner. So, um, some property owners have uh, been uh, happy to be on the register to receive those benefits, and so um, it's difficult to say whether it's better for a property owner to be listed or not.

[03:28:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't feel comfortable determining on somebody else's behalf whether it's better for them uh to be included in the register. Uh, so last question, these are currently not in the register, right? Um, so so maybe a maybe a better question. Um, one public speaker referenced SB 79. Um, so I guess it's, there are, there's a kind of a hodgepodge here. So, um, which of these properties uh, because we're adding these properties to the local register past January 1st, 2025, they would not be exempt from SB 79, right? But if they were on a state or federal register then they prior to that day, that's the, the cut off day, right?

[03:28:55] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: No, SB 79 only applies to local registers.

[03:28:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Really? Okay. So, so, these would, even if we added them to the register, they would still be eligible for SB 79 or redevelopment under SB 79 development standards. Because it's after that cut off date in the law.

[03:29:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so the ones that say MV register status on in the far right column, uh, if they are within a half mile of the downtown transit center, I don't know off the top of my head which of these are, um, any of them that say MV register status on could be excluded, and are proposed to be excluded from SB 79 under the zoning map amendment that's also on the...

[03:29:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So three of these properties because they were on the local register yes, prior to that cut-off date would be...

[03:29:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Would be exempt from SB 79, but the remainder, even if we were to add them to the register, would not be exempt from SB 79.

[03:30:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:30:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Mayor, uh, Vice Mayor and Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um, the question of SB 79 is further complicated by the different mechanisms uh related to historic resources and I think I just need to say it so that it's out there and we can work through it as needed. Tonight we're talking about uh an exemption from SB 79 which is one of the specific exemptions for already listed historic resources. Those resources were already put on the register at a prior time by City Council. And those resources can be exempted uh through the period one year after adoption of the next housing element, roughly 2032. There are other provisions at SB 79 to protect historic resources, but only subject to adoption of a local alternative plan. That's something where a historic district can come into play or individual historic resources identified after January 1st of 2025. They can't be exempted exactly from SB 79, but there are protections available to minimize or shift density away from those sites. So, uh adoption on the register after January 1st 2025, such as anything that Council does in December on the register update as part of this process, could have relevance in the future for an SB 79 alternative plan.

[03:31:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you.

[03:31:23] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Is that it for your questions? Alright. Councilmember Showalter. I will remind my colleagues that this is just for the 12 properties that Councilmember Hicks is recused from. If you have general questions, we may want to wait till she comes back um, so that she can hear some of these questions too. Go ahead Councilmember Showalter.

[03:31:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, the picture that was up previously, I had a question about two of the properties that um are on it. The the ones that um are on the far right, could you describe to me which ones they are?

[03:32:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so on the far right in the upper right hand corner is uh 655 Castro Street. That's a uh a one-story um commercial building uh right next door to the kind of recently built three-story office building at the corner of um, the corner of Mercy I believe. Oh no, uh not Mercy, Church, yes. Um, and then the one just below that is uh 624 West El Camino. That is a one-story commercial building um, maybe about two blocks off of Castro Street uh west of um, uh sorry east of Castro Street. Um, it's formerly auto repair, but I believe it has a a gym in there now.

[03:32:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Right, right. Okay. Alright, I'm I'm familiar with that. Now sometimes when you just see the picture without the context it's it's hard to understand um where they are. Uh and um I remember why those two were uh listed. What about the uh the tall one that is sometimes called the dog building, um the uh why is that on the list?

[03:33:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, our consultant from Page & Turnbull, uh Christina Dikas, probably may be able to provide um a little bit more detail. Uh, but it was identified...

[03:33:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: It's the really tall one.

[03:33:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's the tallest building in Mountain View I think.

[03:33:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I don't think anymore, but it was at what it was referred to as dog city at one point.

[03:33:53] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: That's right. Um, it is uh uh addressed uh 492 Castro Street here. Um, it is uh eligible under design, so um, likely the kind of um modernist design that that it has. I I will note that it was recently listed on the California register um uh itself, so.

[03:34:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And what did the owners say about that one?

[03:34:26] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, they replied both with an email and uh to our survey saying they did not want to be listed.

[03:34:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay. That's my questions for now.

[03:34:36] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Sorry, before I ask, did you say 655 is now on a register, not in Mountain View but the state or federal?

[03:34:47] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, 492, the the high rise, the yeah, the dog building as Councilmember Showalter called it. 492, not 655.

[03:34:56] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yeah. Okay. So I'm looking at limiting my questions, not comments yet, questions just to this list. Um, so my understanding is that everything on this list except for three properties is either already on or already determined to be eligible for a state or national register. There are three properties that aren't.

[03:35:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh sorry, just state or national, there are five of these properties are only eligible for the Mountain View register.

[03:35:31] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Two of them are already on the Mountain View register.

[03:35:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Two of them are already on the Mountain View register. Yes.

[03:35:37] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay. Yeah, that that clarifies it. Okay. So basically, there are there are three, there are three that aren't already on either our local register or eligible for state and federal listing. And by if I'm comparing my list correctly those three are 655 Castro Street, 624 West El Camino Real, and 472 View Street. And so in my mind those are of this list are probably the most relevant for discussion in terms of later determining you know, whether we in reading the report agree that you know, a historic event or whatever makes enough sense is is are those the three properties that either that aren't either on or are eligible for the state and national. I know they're eligible for local but...

[03:36:35] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yes, that's correct.

[03:36:38] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay. That's that's my only question. I'll have comments when we get to discussion.

[03:36:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Vice Mayor Clark. Councilmember McAlister.

[03:36:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um, we've been using the term historical and and that could be uh misleading because people think it might have some historical significant. So the ones we've all been looking at is design criteria, not necessarily historical, correct?

[03:37:07] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So, you'll see under the the second column on this slide many of them many of them are are eligible under design criteria. Uh this basically means that the the project has a design that is important to the city's built environment history.

[03:37:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there any difference between a design criteria and a true historical criteria? Like downtown has some historical potential properties that are historical in events, not ne, whereas these are in design. So is there a difference?

[03:37:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. So uh really we're talking about three main categories uh for the historic uh resource inventory. There's design related, events related, and persons related. All three of those are recognized categories related to historic preservation in this context. Um the majority of resources identified in Mountain View are because of design only. Uh but there are persons, events, or combinations of events and design, or uh you know other combinations. And so all three of them meet the criteria and thresholds for historic preservation. Um the council ultimately needs to weigh whether public policy interests are advanced by one or another or some combination uh of historic integrity or care character or value in in making these register decisions.

[03:38:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So 492 Castro Street, it's listed under the California register, are they, I mean, that's an old building, and the only reason I could believe that it was on there is because it was one of those reverse construction properties, other than that, nobody... the site was something, but um so once it's on this, can they tear it down and put something more modern on that property?

[03:39:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So I I think in general there's a misconception that you can never redevelop a property. Uh under this ordinance, that question of demolition would need to come to the city council for determination. It would uh almost certainly be subject to preparation of an environmental impact report. But the council can weigh other public policy interests that might outweigh historic preservation under our local ordinance. And so um, it's not as though this encapsulates a site in amber and it can never change. There are also many innovative ways um used uh across the country to um adapt historic sites to maintain certain aspects of their historic character, but um expand and and allow different uses that allow the building to be useful into the future. And so there's any number of different approaches and outcomes here that do not all lead to keeping the building exactly as it is uh in perpetuity.

[03:39:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So now that brought up the question of cost. You said, so a somebody at uh like potentially Councilmember Clark's uh gym at 624 West El Camino Real, um, would require an environmental review. Who pays for that? And what what would that might that cost?

[03:40:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. So you know, subsequent to the council's uh establishment of the register let's say in December of this year. Uh if a property owner wants to come in and seek removal from the register, and if that prompts preparation of an environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, um, that property owner uh almost certainly would be the one bearing the cost. Um as other developers who need environmental review bear the cost in the city's process.

[03:40:41] Councilmember John McAlister: And the cost would ballpark be?

[03:40:44] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, so we have limited experience with preparing EIRs for historic resources, but in a very recent example for the city's public safety building, that involves demolition of a historic resource, uh the cost there was approximately $150,000 for that EIR.

[03:41:00] Councilmember John McAlister: So would it be less for a smaller building?

[03:41:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um, not necessarily. Um, there are um, there's research and other procedural steps that go into preparing an EIR that that have a certain fixed cost that it's hard to avoid. Um have there been EIRs prepared for less than $150,000, I I think there probably have been.

[03:41:22] Councilmember John McAlister: So there is a potential economic uh barrier based on the EIR. Environmental impact report.

[03:41:31] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I think that's a fair characterization that there would be costs associated with uh removing a property from the historic register once placed on the historic register.

[03:41:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So for a g... as we go forward then, this is the time to really, if you're a property owner, to really advocate for not being placed on it.

[03:41:51] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh so this would be an opportunity to not be placed on the register, and as a result not have to be removed from the register and subject to associated costs and process.

[03:42:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there any point between now and whenever we finish this up that the property owner has the ability to appeal and not that goes through that you know, saying oh I want to get off, now where there's no require uh environmental impact report?

[03:42:17] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Um I wouldn't, I wouldn't describe it as an appeal. There are uh some defined processes in the uh proposed ordinance where a property owner could make an application for removal from the register. Um those include uh religious use exemptions as an example, economic hardship as another example. Um so there is process for an owner to seek removal, whereas there is not currently process in the city's existing ordinance. Um the city could also at some point in the future update uh the register, perhaps best practice now finds that a a a resource is not uh justifying of a of listing, um or other circumstances such as a degraded condition or what have you justify removal. The city could then initiate that process and bear the cost of the environmental review.

[03:43:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm looking at a uh statement here, property owners with notice, access to the information supporting the proposed designation and opportunity to respond in a public hearing before the city council. Is that the process you're referring to?

[03:43:58] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, so.

[03:44:10] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: I I think what that's describing is this process where the city's uh considering an update to its register and is provided notice and has allowed an opportunity to be heard to property owners, as well as an opportunity to submit evidence and analysis that might uh contradict the city's analysis uh related to the historic nature of a property.

[03:44:30] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you reached out to these people that said do not list, is that considered notice based on what what we just read?

[03:44:46] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, so uh earlier this summer we sent out uh two rounds of letters uh along with the survey, one of which was sent uh certified uh mailing. Uh and so uh that was to um uh encourage people to respond to the survey and provide their their sentiment information. We also asked a few other questions about their interest in particular incentives. Um, and we had a little over 50% response. Uh we also received, you know emails and and and letters as well. Uh if people weren't comfortable responding to on online like we we did give options for calling us or sending letters as well. So um this is uh the the outcome of that outreach and and um...

Segment 6

[03:45:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: seeking that that owner sentiment and this is similar to the process that I think we would have in um for example a historic district process uh in the draft ordinance if the council

[03:45:12] Councilmember John McAlister: So my question is, was that an official notice or just an inquiry? And is there a distinction between what you're trying to accomplish and to do?

[03:45:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So there have been a combination of legally required notices and other extensive outreach. I would put this owner sentiment survey if you will in the other forms of outreach category. It's not a legally required notice to seek the owner's sentiment.

[03:45:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[03:45:41] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister, Councilmember Kamei.

[03:45:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. I have, I think, two questions. So um one of them is about um delisting... So and apologies if I missed this in my council briefing or reading the staff report and all the attachments. Um so should a property ask to be delisted could they still be eligible on the you know national or state registry after the CEQA determination or not I'm just I need to understand that nuance because I know that there could be overlapping and so as we're discussing delisting I just want to... Or is it that delisting is only for the Mountain View only properties.

[03:46:34] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So if somebody is requesting delisting for example to rebuild their their building to tear it down and build something else and they're requesting delisting to do that and they happen to also be on the State or National Register, then yes the city council has the authority to approve that demolition that would impact the State or National Register. The city council could do so.

[03:47:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Would a property asking for delisting end up on the National or State Registry after the CEQA determination? Is that even a potential of being possible that's what I'm trying to understand.

[03:47:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: If they are asking for delisting for a number of narrow reasons that may be possible. For example if they're asking for delisting because they have an economic hardship or religious exception, um then theoretically they could end up on the State or National Register even after their local delisting. That's theoretically possible.

[03:47:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that too because I think there might be a thought that just going through the delisting process will equate that you're completely delisted, but the preemption issue is why we're discussing this in the first place from what I recall so I just wanted to ask that. And then um my understanding that should we go forward tonight with the ordinance there's actually two different pathways for delisting so one of them could be as part of properties that we're evaluating tonight that would come back in December and we would vote on that and you could be delisted. There would also be in adopting this ordinance an actual process to delist which currently does not exist. And those would be the three kind of parameters with which we're putting forward so there could be in theory two opportunities to delist discussion tonight as part of the properties but also going forward the city would actually have a process for residents and property owners to use so there tonight would not be the be-all end-all that there will be multiple opportunities for someone to delist should they choose to. That is my understanding and I just want to make sure I'm reading all the documents and understanding the staff report correctly so that we can talk about this and let the public know that that's the case but I want to make sure.

[03:49:02] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's right. I think that's a fair summary. And I think to the point of not getting on the register or being delisted between now and December, there's really two essential pieces. One is a policy question of urging the council to not list either in the face of owner hesitancy or just weighing you know housing or other public policy interests. The other is if there's a there's a technical basis, if we got something wrong, people can submit an expert analysis that they've prepared to say hey City your evidence is is flawed and don't reach the conclusion that you're reaching because the evidence doesn't support it, and we would look at that and remove it from our recommendation in December in light of new evidence. So there's sort of two two tracks there.

[03:49:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so between now and December now I'm hearing three ways. So... so there's um asking us tonight to remove your property which we would have discretion on with the 99 resources listed. There could be also an owner whether that's you know a residential property or you know some other type of property, you could also use your own findings on delisting if we didn't if we didn't bring it up tonight. And then the third and final way would be should we adopt the ordinance, you would be able to go through the city's kind of official delisting process.

[03:50:20] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Correct.

[03:50:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so there's three pathways. Thank you very much.

[03:50:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Kamei, Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:50:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor. Um with great hesitancy I'm going to attempt a motion... and I'm totally open to recommendations and um modifications from my my colleagues here. I don't I think hopefully our questions convey to the public that um this is not easy. Uh that we're doing our best to uh balance the the public policy objectives um with the input from impacted property owners. Um I I don't think it's an easy thing to do. Um but I will start with um uh I I'll move to uh direct staff to proceed with this list but to um I guess it would be exclude in this case 624 West El Camino Real and for the specific reason that it's in our housing element sites inventory. Um and it it sends um I think conflicting signals to say the city is proactively determining that this should be redeveloped for housing and to convey that to the state um and then also have in place a a historic determination that makes it very challenging in practice uh to meet our housing element obligations. So that's the one property I can make I think a compelling case for explicitly excluding um and so I'll start there and then if other members of the council um have recommendations for the treatment of other properties I'm totally open to friendly amendments.

[03:52:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Vice Mayor Clark.

[03:52:07] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Thank you. Um I will offer a friendly amendment at the end but I want to explain my mental framework... and how I'm approaching this list and later additional properties. So I'm trying to narrow it part of part of why we ended up here tonight was we have this mismatch between you one of the one of the things that we have with the old ordinance is we have this mismatch between what is on a local register and what either is already on a state or national register or is already eligible for a state or national register. And I think some of the comments earlier and frustrations that we heard earlier which are very valid are about the latter, they're eligibility for state and or and or national registers that we have no control over. Um uh if I had control over that I might make additional decisions but I can't I can't help that, I can't influence that at least not in my current position. So um so one of the things that we're trying to do as part of this process is make sure that there isn't a mismatch between those. And so many of the properties on this list even despite owner opposition are already eligible for the state or national registry or are already on them. We can't do anything about that. What we can do is make sure that our list is aligned with that list so that no one is surprised and frustrated in the future like they are now um because there's a mismatch between those registries. So I'm taking those out of this list um because I think those should be on the local registry or sorry I'm including those on the local registry because we don't really have an option there and it would be kind of silly for us to just stick our heads in the sand and say um we're just going to pretend that you're not on the state or national register or eligible for it um. Appears to be eligible sorry. Yes, um fair enough. Um but I I think we need uh so between now and December if someone wants to try and convince me that that is not the best path forward I am all ears. Um so you have my contact information, I'd be happy to meet with whoever disagrees with that approach. But that is my current approach. So that that leads us to um the subset of properties here that um we believe aren't currently eligible or on a state or national register and um and are up for um um the local registry. We have I forget the number, one, two, I think at least three owners who support listing so I think that's pretty clear we can just leave those um on the list to add in December. And that leaves us with three properties where um an owner opposes being listed locally and to our knowledge they either aren't on or eligible for state and national register. Those three properties are 655 Castro, 624 West El Camino Real, and 472 482 View Street. My colleague Councilmember Ramirez has already proposed adding or um excluding 624 West El Camino Real. My friendly amendment would be um unless someone can convince me otherwise that we should include or we should add 655 Castro and 472 482 View Street to that list and just to address those briefly 655 Castro the owner opposes being listed. Um I read through the report the historical events in my mind the justification is pretty weak um uh in terms of you know supporting our public policy interest here. Um and the evaluation um principally supported design as opposed to the historic events. With respect to Councilmember Ramirez already covered 624 West El Camino Real. For 472 482 View Street, um as far as I can tell the owner expressly opposes being listed and I don't I didn't find any compelling reason other than design um to have that included. I didn't see anything about significant events or figures or things, maybe I missed it, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. So assuming my colleagues agree my friendly amendment would be to add those other two properties um to your list and I think the rest of it unless someone can convince me between now and December otherwise I think makes sense to have them aligned with what we believe to be eligible for the state and federal registers.

[03:56:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh with your second, yes.

[03:56:56] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Granted.

[03:56:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other speakers? Councilmember Kamei?

[03:57:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Thanks mayor. So I'll support the motion. I think it's important as we discuss this why I'm supporting the motion which is I think uh Vice Mayor Clark kind of summed it up um eloquently in that the reason why we are here is so that we can um provide transparency but also remain consistent with the different registries that exist. Um thank you Councilmember Ramirez for bringing up you know that we also want to remain not only consistent with what's going on on the state and federal level but also what we adopt which was our housing element. Um so um thank you very much. I would also say there there will be other opportunities between now and December to go through the delisting process um and that's also what gives me comfort in supporting the motion before us. Thanks.

[03:57:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter.

[03:57:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, um I would like to offer a friendly amendment to also add or confirm that 501 Castro is one of the buildings that will be taken off of the list, is that right?

[03:58:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: It does not look like that's right.

[03:58:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well I would like to then I would like to offer a friendly amendment to do that. And I would basically use the same argument that Vice Mayor Clark used with another property and that's that um I think that the the reasoning is weak. Um this is not a building where um we can say that a great historical event occurred. Um it isn't um a place where we have treasured community events on a regular basis. I mean I I and and I also think that if we look at our neighboring communities there are similar examples of this kind of architecture. I I just don't think that this stands out as something that we should consider historical. Um so I would offer that we we remove it from the list.

[03:59:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Go ahead, motioner and seconder.

[03:59:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh thank you mayor uh and thank you Councilmember Showalter I I don't um I will need some assistance with this but I think the reason that the vice mayor and I didn't um recommend uh excluding this is that this property is eligible for the national and state register. Um and I think part of the and I don't want to speak for staff so please correct me if I'm wrong but I think part of the intent is for properties that are eligible for the national and state registers the value in including it in a local register is transparency right it's easier for uh that property owner to understand and or even be aware of uh their obligations um because they may not know there there isn't an easy way to know if you're on a state or national register but if you're on a local register presumably the city would would um uh I guess provide some education or some some type of noticing. So that's where I think staff's support might be helpful to articulate that.

[04:00:28] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's right. Um the transparency is a key public interest from staff's perspective. Um being blindsided or surprised on the applicant side during our process when we determine that you're subject to some more extensive process that you weren't anticipating, uh we think that's a a bad outcome for for our clients that come through uh to seek permits.

[04:00:53] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: And then I just had one question for staff because I wasn't this far along in my analysis when we had our briefing. Um I just want to confirm that um planning to exclude these three properties in December doesn't run completely afoul of things or create really significant concerns on your end. If they do please speak now but that or or if you are concerned with my overall mental framework about it but

[04:01:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: No I don't believe any of those three are on the list of highlighted yellow properties that would trigger environmental review before removal from the register or some other action will be taken.

[04:01:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, so my understanding is that you have chosen not to accept the friendly amendment from Councilmember Showalter.

[04:01:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That is correct and please Councilmember Showalter let us know if if it would be helpful to provide additional clarification. I don't mean to be hostile but I think the transparency element is-

[04:02:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, I get it, and I understand the transparency. But I also think with all these things, there's a bit of common sense. And I'm I I I would argue that that some of these design criteria um don't make a lot of sense to most people. And we should be um you know we should be aware of that. But that that's the thing that bothers me is the common sense element, you know when I think of the what um community benefit does the example of this design bring to our community, um a lot of answers don't pop into my mind. And um I think that when I look at some of these other properties that um for instance um 595 Church Street, that is a lovely property to walk by walk by. I mean I it it does um uh give you a feeling of um a different time. And I really appreciate that that those owners want to be um on the list and and want to maintain their property. I think that is a you know that is a uh a community benefit. But I just don't feel that way about 501 Castro and um that's uh um so I think it's you know it's sometimes with city council there's there's the the thing that we're working on and then there's the layer above it of just does this fit in generally what our community needs and does it have a lot of common sense. And um I think this is a this is something that a lot of people could be you know could be arguing about. So, um, that's that's why I bring it up.

[04:03:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Showalter. I have a question for staff um and it might be a really dumb question and it might have been in the packet and I'm so sorry if it is. So we have some properties that are listed as the national and and state eligible for the thing. So what happens if we put it on our site and then like later down the line we find out that it's not eligible for one reason or another. Like what happens then?

[04:04:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh well we do have the process in the um ordinance that allows applicants to come forward with new information to request uh delisting. Um that process is is focused on um uh let me see, is focused on on eligibility for the the Mountain View register. let me move that up here...

[04:04:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Cause like hypothetically based on what Councilmember Ramirez's motion and Vice Mayor Clark's amendment... we're we're not asking to list basically the properties that aren't eligible for state or local or appear to be eligible. Um and that's kind of one of the reasonings like the owners say like we don't want this and then they're not state or nationally eligible so we're like fine we won't put you on but there are some that we are putting on because they have that little flag that says state and national eligible. Um but like they're not actually on those registers. So like what are we moving?

[04:05:42] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um so it's a great question mayor. Um I would draw your attention to page 14 of the draft ordinance. Um there is a section there, um section 36.55.39 other modifications to the historic register. Um the way I read that, uh I believe that empowers the community development director, uh so me in my role to initiate a modification to the historic register if there's new information uh that becomes available to the city. So for instance if it goes through the process with the state or national um agencies and conclude that you know what the facts don't support it and it's indeed not state or national register eligible, that perhaps could be relevant new information that warrants the city to revisit the register and to take uh a delisting action potentially. So there is a mechanism here to have post register adoption uh revisiting of these circumstances if and when new information comes to light.

[04:06:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Thank you. All right. Do you still want to talk?

[04:06:44] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Just very briefly one I agree with you Councilmember Showalter. Um and I was just going to say to the um um um to Director Murdock's um point the um you know if if for some reason we do receive new information between now and December or it makes sense to have you know there's a single list but maybe there are a couple properties that are uh there's a column for local registry um and uh and maybe something is not on the local registry but on that same list there's a column that says it's state or national eligible or maybe state or national eligible. I don't I'm we might not want to go there but I guess what I'm saying is if we receive any additional information between now and December you know we can tweak this list a little bit but I think for now the the best sort of policy approach is to make sure that we're including those that we're aware of or we believe to be state or national eligible or listed.

[04:07:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. I think we're ready to vote. Woohoo! Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:07:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:07:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Vice Mayor Clark?

[04:07:59] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:07:59] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Kamei?

[04:08:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:08:01] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:08:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:08:03] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:08:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No.

[04:08:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor Ramos? Yes. Motion carries 5-1. All right, thank you. Um, we are going to ask Councilmember Hicks to return. Come back!

[04:08:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And as she returns, Councilmember McAlister, do you have an announcement to make?

[04:08:26] Councilmember John McAlister: No. No. Yes. We're open until 10. Oh sorry, no that's the wrong one. Um, I am recusing myself from any discussion concerning 665 Eunice Avenue for inclusion on the historic register due to the proximity of my personal residence.

[04:08:47] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Bye!

[04:08:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And as he makes his way out, we, okay, we have it on our slide on our screen. All right, thank you. Does any member of the council have questions on this property? Or, okay, questions or comments?

[04:09:19] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: No questions. My comment um, and staff can correct me if I misread this, but um I think consistent with the framework that we just discussed um I think we should plan to include it um because it's identified as a state and national eligible based on historic events. And there's no owner position recorded um per my notes. So I think it should be included.

[04:09:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, it's the Wonderman house. Um, all right, so do we have a motion or oh, Councilmember Hicks.

[04:10:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I just wanted to comment that I heard everything you said. I tried, I really did. You did well. Um so I agree with the criteria you came up with, I think you all did well with the consistency transparency and talking about the multiple opportunities to check back um and for delisting. I just wanted to ask one additional question either given the staff recommendation the ordinance or uh the ordinance tweaked, um I just wanted to kind of bring to light the opportunity these are not setting these my understanding and you can correct me these are not setting these buildings in bronze. There are for instance for houses you can build an ADU or a JADU junior ADU which would be attached to the back. Um and there would also be maybe and you can correct me if I'm wrong the possibility uh for commercial buildings uh or other similar downtown buildings maybe depending on how we do the ordinance, uh building buildings with with setbacks and and and stepping up setting back uh higher stories enough in the back. So I just want to make it clear that when we're voting to put something on a list, we're not voting to like I said keep it in bronze that there are things you can do to develop the building or develop the property in various ways. Tell me if I'm right or wrong.

[04:11:56] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: You're correct Councilmember Hicks. So uh state law provides extensive opportunity for the construction of accessory dwelling units or ADUs. Um the city in most cases has very little to no uh ability to prohibit those on the basis of historic preservation. Um depending on the type of ADU so there are broad opportunities there with or without listing in the register. And to your point uh about redevelopment of sites or alterations to existing resources, you know as I noted in the prior discussion, there are many creative ways that sites can be designed to retain aspects of the historic structure but also provide for new development and realize adapted reuse of the site in some economically beneficial way now and into the future.

[04:12:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[04:12:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I was, I live in the neighborhood of this, not obviously not close enough to be excluded, but I've been to this building um many times and um it is very clearly a historical building and so it it should be on our list and we should um encourage its preservation. The current owners have been very good about that and I hope future owners will be as well. Um so I would like to move that we add this to the list.

[04:13:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We actually already have a motion here and a second.

[04:13:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, okay, well I'll second it.

[04:13:25] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, it's already seconded as well.

[04:13:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well good, well then never mind, I have support for this project.

[04:13:32] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, thank you Councilmember Showalter. I also had the opportunity to to check out this property uh when I think it was like in 2013 like really early on there was like a historical association event there. It was really cool because they talked about all the stories about like the um it was really cool. Like like it was really cool. Um it was like a underground speakeasy and stuff like that. It was really cool. Okay. Going on that, we have a motion by Councilmember Kamei, seconded by Councilmember Hicks. Let's go.

[04:14:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Kamei?

[04:14:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:14:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:14:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:14:12] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:14:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:14:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:14:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:14:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Vice Mayor Clark?

[04:14:16] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:14:16] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor Ramos? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Woohoo! Councilmember McAlister come back! All right, and while that happens, um Vice Mayor Clark, do you have an announcement to make?

[04:14:30] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Hopefully the last of the musical chairs. I am recusing myself from any discussion concerning 1051 West El Camino Real for inclusion in the historic register due to the proximity of my personal residence to this property.

[04:14:45] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Bye!

[04:15:01] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, um, does any member of the council have questions on this segment? Or motions or comments? Uh, Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:15:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor. Um so using the same framework uh that we've applied for the previous um segments um I will move to exclude this property from the list.

[04:15:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, any other comments from council members? Um we have a motion by Councilmember Ramirez. Do we have a second?

[04:15:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'll be glad to second.

[04:15:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Seconded by Councilmember Showalter. We are ready for a vote. Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:15:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:15:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:15:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:15:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:15:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:15:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Kamei?

[04:15:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:15:56] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:15:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:15:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor Ramos? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Yay! And that is the last of our musical chairs.

[04:16:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Now the item is not done. But uh Vice Mayor Clark please return. Um thank you. I will now bring the remainder of the item back for council questions and deliberation. The city clerk will take roll call votes as we have a council member participating remotely this evening. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the titles of the ordinance attached to the report. Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:16:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor just a a couple of questions. I'm feeling pity for our colleague who I believe is four hours ahead of us, so we don't want to keep her uh too late into the next day. Um so uh first uh now that we get to talk about the balance of the item, I want to um appreciate the work that staff has been um doing for for many years. This is this has been a I think when we uh prioritized this project project years ago I'm not certain we had a full appreciation for the the level of controversy and and um and challenge uh so I'm I'm grateful that uh we have an opportunity to uh finally see this through although I would prefer to burden the next council with dealing with this. I'm happy to be here and uh weigh in. Um I do have a couple of questions um that I hope my colleagues may consider uh as potential modifications. First um we received a comment from a member of the of the public suggesting that we explore a transfer of development rights program as an incentive. Um that's not something that you can conjure out of thin air immediately but if we were to provide direction to explore and return uh to you know probably the next council with uh a mechanism for achieving that is that something that staff feels is worthy of consideration? I know that's been done in other jurisdictions is is there a reason that perhaps you haven't considered that as an incentive program? We'd love to hear your thoughts.

[04:18:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, well I think to start um transfer of development rights programs uh can be rather complicated to craft and to administer and likely would have a meaningful burden on staff capacity. Um and so that question becomes is there enough public benefit to such a program to really justify the investment of resources upfront and on an ongoing basis. Um I understood the comment related to a transfer of development rights or TDR here to really relate to like a uh SP 79 transit uh or alternative plan. Um SP 79 already requires uh a consideration of where to move density around if you're going to reduce it or remove it from given sites and so in my mind it's already functioning in a way that's going to require that density to move somewhere which is one of the key functions of a TDR program. So um I'll spare the council right now some of the sort of technical limitations in SP 79 about how much density can move, but functionally the council will already have to make such a decision. Um and so I think it really calls into question one of the main benefits or mechanisms of such a program um in this particular context. Um so I think I'll leave it there for now.

[04:19:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um okay. I uh I guess it doesn't include the financial incentive component right? You're right that within the context of uh TOD alternative plan you'd have to allocate the uh development capacity anyway right to meet the requirement of the law. But um so so would it is this is this something that staff would object to? I maybe is a more direct question.

[04:20:04] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh well to to come at it a different way based on your additional context. So I think one of the practical challenges here is that in order to have a functioning TDR program there needs to be development capacity remaining on a given property to be transferred at some later time when a willing purchaser and a receiving site is identified. That only works in an SP 79 context in a local alternative plan which has to be reviewed by the state as part of a legislative iterative process and adopted by council through some sort of public process. So I don't know if there is a way to even have a functioning TDR program um given the restrictions in SP 79 on local alternative plans. So I think there's a a threshold question there that we would have to resolve first to figure out if this even could function much less would the council want to invest the resources to to create and operate such a program.

[04:20:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay that's that's very helpful. Thank you. Um the other questions I was... the other question was uh about the uh some of the work that you were doing in response to council questions submitted in advance. Um I think many of us had um some ideas for potential amendments based on public input uh and other considerations and I was curious if you um had perhaps as an additional slide or available somewhere else some suggestions for language to support the council if we were to for instance um one of the ideas that I'd love to explore is limiting the creation of historic districts specifically to within the downtown precise plan boundaries since that's where I think the the greatest public interest has been in establishing a historic district. So is that something that staff can help the council achieve?

[04:21:58] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We can certainly uh recommend at least one approach. Um we have some draft language which we'll pull up here momentarily for the council and the public uh to review. Um it would require two amendments. Um one to the uh sort of high level applicability language of the districts uh and geographically limiting um where they could be created. Currently it's very broad and could be anywhere in Mountain View and we would need to insert language that geographically bounds where that is. Um you'll see that this does not say area H of the downtown precise plan and the reason for that is uh we are of course in the midst of a downtown precise plan update. That boundary could shift or we may not use areas in the same way. What we've done here is just described by streets rather than by area H reference uh it's the same geographic area. So this amendment uh to section 36.55.20a would say you can only create a historic district within that geographic area bounded by the named streets: California Street, Hope Street, Evelyn Avenue, and Bryant Street. And then a corresponding edit is needed in 36.55.25. This is an automatic trigger mechanism if you will where a state or national resource designation triggers a local register uh amendment to add that resource. This would exclude uh historic districts outside of that defined geographic area if they're created in state or national registers. So they are not automatically added to the Mountain View register.

[04:23:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Wonderful. Thank you for preparing uh these amendments. Um last question um there's there are still the other historic resources that we have yet to provide uh direction on. Do you have the list that you had provided earlier were very helpful in helping us determine based on the framework that we've devised which should or should not be um included. Is that something that you might happen to have available for us?

[04:23:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We have similar lists but given there are many more properties we've batched them in in slightly different ways sort of based on characteristics of properties in a way that we hope will be helpful uh to guide the council's discussion. You can see here um these are designed only, local register eligible only, and not currently on the register properties. I think these would fit sort of in the 'okay to exclude' category per Vice Mayor's um uh criteria uh shared earlier.

[04:24:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so this is is this exhaustive based on that or are there other properties that may fall within that?

[04:24:38] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We'll walk you through briefly the structure of the lists we have for the full council discussion and hopefully that will fill in some of the gaps. Uh the second list we have is properties that are uh eligible according to the design criteria only uh but they are currently listed on the Mountain View register uh but they are not state or national eligible. These um all of these properties would require uh environmental review to delist. The next list we have is properties that are design only criteria but eligible or listed on the state or national register. Uh several of these properties would require environmental review to delist as as seen in the gold highlight. Uh there is also one property on this list that the city is nominating to the national register 301 Castro Street and there is one property that uh staff will proactively delist uh unless council instructs us otherwise, the 1855 Miramonte. Um this next list is properties that are not design only criteria but only eligible under the local register... this also includes four properties that council has directed us to uh nominate to the national register: 124 Castro, 191 Castro, 194 Castro, and 201 Castro.

[04:26:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That's that's very helpful. Um I have uh questions about two of these and then I'll be done I promise. The first is I I'm not sure I caught, I think it was 1051 West El Camino Real which I believe is another uh historic resource that is on our housing element sites inventory...

[04:26:40] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Do you mean um 1901?

[04:26:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Was it 1901?

[04:26:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: 1901 is on this first list, the third item there.

[04:26:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's perfect. Thank you. My apologies I can't read my own handwriting. And then the other one is I think it was 1200 Villa. That's the one that Google wrote in about. Um it would be helpful to understand uh if if staff wouldn't mind providing a response to the Google letter is um do do their concerns have merit, is that something that staff would support? I'd love to to hear your feedback.

[04:27:13] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. So the the primary reasoning in the comment letter from Google about their property at 1200 Villa was that the city's rationale for recommending listing was the property's prior use in relation to a religious use. And uh as a consequence uh their rationale is that the council previously directed not to list historic uh resources that were religious uses. um I don't think I view that as a religious use. Really uh the religious use uh direction from council previously as I understood it was not to list properties in active religious use because they would be potentially burdened in the exercise of their uh religion by the restrictions of the historic preservation ordinance. So those circumstances to my knowledge do not exist with Google and its other tenant's use of the 1200 Villa site. So I think there's sort of a misalignment of the religious, the perception of the religious uh nature of the site. Uh it is the prior use as a printing press by a religious use that had significance at that period of history given the type of printing press and and religious uh uh uses you know publishing uh different materials. Um the council still has discretion whether or not to list that site... there wouldn't be an environmental impact from choosing not to list it. Um the last point uh is in communications with Google we've explained to them that they have an opportunity to provide some technical assessment to my earlier point um with from their own expert uh so we can weigh that if they feel like there's sort of marginal historic value or if we didn't get it quite right in our technical analysis. They've expressed an interest in pursuing that but have not yet submitted any evidence for our consideration.

[04:29:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay and they would they would be able to do that even after we adopt a register that may include that site?

[04:29:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's true but I think it becomes harder. Again I'm not sure that this is clearly eligible for the religious property delisting mechanism. It's not clear. They would need to submit evidence about the economic hardship justification for example. Um really they would be left with finding evidence that we had erroneous facts right that never would have supported our recommendation in the first place so that I could initiate a delisting potentially on that basis. I'm not sure if that's you know likely to occur or not but um I think it's a narrow basis once this is on the register more than likely.

[04:29:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, those are my questions. Thank you.

[04:29:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter.

[04:29:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um I have a really I think an easy one that's very dif...

Segment 7

[04:30:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: different from these, we've been talking an awful lot about structures. And um, that's very appropriate. But another thing that's come up in that is the listing of Cuesta Park. And um, I just wondered if you could explain a little to us about how this would limit or change how we could um improve the park or maintain the park over time.

[04:30:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. Uh, so many uh city capital projects already require a CEQA process. Uh, similar to the police station project that we've been talking about previously. Uh, so a capital project that may require a significant amount of work at Cuesta Park, uh that may um, you know, impair the historic integrity of the park, would need to go through that similar CEQA process that the police station project went through. Uh, there may also be some additional analysis that city staff would need to conduct or would need to hire somebody to conduct, uh for um, more minor repairs, or not repairs, repairs are exempt, but minor improvements that might um, that might modify or impact or obscure any of these character-defining features that have been identified in the report that we prepared.

[04:31:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, for instance, um you know, we're we're going to have to uh change out non-functional turf, and I don't think there's too much of it in Cuesta Park because people use the park very um very extensively all the time. But but there might be some. So, uh how would that kind of thing um fall into a CEQA analysis or not?

[04:32:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Well I'm I'm not sure that I can respond to those types of specifics uh without the required analysis that we'd have to undertake to do that before we did that type of work.

[04:32:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, cause I there has been, you know, we do know that will come forward. And for instance, we've added some pollinator gardens, and they have been very popular. Um I don't think they impact the integrity at all of the of the um you know the architecture of the park that's that's so much fun um to play in, but um I I just was curious as to how that might impact our our taking care of this park long term. And it sounds like it's what we really want to do is we really wanted to protect the design integrity of the um just the great topography that's been created there, is that right? Do I understand that?

[04:33:05] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's the topography as well as some of the improvements, uh things like the lighting. The you know, the character-defining features include uh the topography, the lawns with curvilinear paths, the clubhouse building, uh circular areas with picnic tables and grass lawns, tree species, shrub species, geometric rubblestone planters, retaining walls, wood frame pergola and and uh bandstand, log-form benches, wood beam light posts, picnic area, tennis courts, handball courts, um restroom and locker buildings. So those are the character-defining features of the park.

[04:33:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well you've listed almost all of the features of the park really, um with this. Okay, alright, thank you.

[04:33:55] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Vice Mayor Clark.

[04:33:57] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Very briefly, the EPC mentioned a um a supermajority vote. And I just wanted to, I just wanted to confirm the only um you know, I guess we could put that in the ordinance, but my understanding is the only the only real requirements for more than a majority of council are spelled out in the charter, and they are, I'm not aware of any outside the charter. And those are appropriations I think require five votes, urgency ordinances sometimes, and maybe declaring emergencies sometimes, and and acting in a a very quick manner sometimes require, there's one that even requires six votes if I if I remember correctly. I guess what I'm getting at is I think it would be I suspect it would be unusual for us to impose a five-vote requirement on us on ourselves outside of a charter amendment, is that right?

[04:34:56] Interim City Attorney Jannie L. Quinn: It would be unusual, but you could do it.

[04:35:01] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: But then we could just change the ordinance with four votes to to take away the five-vote requirement. So, okay, I guess it's more of a principal than an effective governance tool. But, um, okay.

[04:35:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And Vice Mayor, I'll just uh remind the council that recommendation came when districts uh would be eligible across the city. The council's, you know, at least one councilmember has brought up potentially narrowing the geographic extent, which perhaps maybe reduces the concerns that the EPC was seeking to address.

[04:35:29] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I see. Okay, thanks.

[04:35:32] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Is that it for you? Uh, Councilmember Hicks.

[04:35:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I'd agree with that. Also, just to note, the EPC couldn't get five votes. The thing that we're talking about, the EPC did not get five votes for it, they only got four votes for it. So maybe it's a high bar. Um, so uh what I'm hearing, let me just confirm that I'm I'm hearing right, oh first can you take for consistency with uh council's previous uh delisting um uh decisions, can you sort that, that's a group of very long lists, is it possible for staff to um it would be hard for me to pick them out, is it possible for staff to sort them by, you look so confused by what I'm saying. To sort them by the criteria that we've used before, which

[04:36:29] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I apologize, I thought you were asking about the religious property guidance.

[04:36:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, I'm talking about the the longer list of properties that we're supposed to make a decision on, I I'm assuming that council will probably want to be consistent with our previous treatment of lists. So that would be, and if we can get a list like that prepared for us, rather than each one of us trying to come up with what they are on the dais right now?

[04:36:57] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh previous meaning uh the earlier discussions tonight uh about which those which are not state and national register eligible and are local only?

[04:37:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, and leave on the ones that want to be on, and then take off the ones that are not um state or national eligible. I'm assuming that people will want to see, will want to make a consistent decision and that that's the group we're looking for. I could be wrong.

[04:37:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm hoping. And I guess also ones not in housing element opportunity areas, but I think we've already maybe spoken to those.

[04:37:36] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, we've we've um the there is one other housing element opportunity site that does meet the criteria that you've already established. Um the the listing that we have, we have two slides that are focused on uh that have properties that are only locally eligible. There is some mix on this slide that you're looking at, which is does include some properties that are currently on the register. Um I could remove those properties uh from this slide very easily and then you'd just be left with the properties that are not currently on the register uh to to review.

[04:38:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Yeah, I just thought maybe a little work on that ahead of time while we're discussing other things would would get us through more quickly. Um and then another question, my understanding uh about your comments on transfer of development rights are that am I hearing that that uh discussion would be best held in the context of an SB 79 alternative plan as opposed to now, or am I not hearing that right?

[04:38:59] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think what I was trying to convey is that um transfer of development rights schemes are already complicated. Um we have an additional complexity of SB 79 uh in the downtown area. And to deviate from the standard provisions of SB 79, to move density from one place to another, such as with a TDR program, can only be done with a local alternative plan, which has to be approved by council and subject to review by the state. And so, I'm not sure at this point in time if we could even structure such a TDR program that wouldn't require coming back to council and engaging with the state every time there was a transfer of development rights. And so, I think that was the sort of key procedural and functional question in my mind at this point in time.

[04:39:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So um I'm hearing several things, one is that it's very complex, which I agree, I knew that already knew but it's good to warn, make that warning again. Um in my mind there's a difference between the transfers uh that you do because of SB 79 and transfer of development rights which allows an individual owner to uh to develop somewhere else. But I do think that if we ever want to have that discussion, now is probably not the time.

[04:40:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think there are many unknowns that make having that discussion uh having that discussion tonight uh it would be difficult. Um our zoning map is supposed to indicate what the allowable development intensity is with a local alternative plan, and to then say well it may not actually be that, it could be lower here and higher over there. Uh I'm not sure how that could even function uh in an SB 79 context.

[04:40:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so the conclusion I'm coming away with is uh talk about it later if ever.

[04:40:52] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh that's what I would ask, yes. Thank you.

[04:40:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I agree that we should um focus on a downtown district, either using because I think I mean I think that's what I hear from from residents that they care the most about, the downtown is our just because we're talking about a lot of technical stuff and not why we're doing this. The downtown is our living room, it's our as Councilmember McAlister would say, it's our you know community building space, our gathering space, it's the place where we get out of our cars and run into each other, um and get to know each other. So um I agree that that's where we really want to focus our attention for a district. And I would like to do anything and everything that's legal and practical to make sure we get a district there, which may mean from reading the staff report, considering more than one uh time of relevance, that may not be the the correct legal term, um maybe looking at what the best boundaries might be, a period of significance, I think that's what I'm trying to say. So I would like anything and everything that you think would make that more possible, because that's that's, and any tweaks necessary that you think would make that happen. Um and then uh my other comment is if there's anything we can do um to I really like the the direction that uh the state has been going in terms of some of uh some legislation to uh encourage more housing on uh on single-family home sites. I know that my neighbors also um prefer ADUs and JADUs over monster homes, you get more housing and you preserve sort of the look and feel of the neighborhood. So we both agree on, you get more housing and you preserve sort of the look and feel of the neighborhood. So is there anything you could suggest to, I know the state already encourages that, but could we do like outreach um or anything programmatically to um encourage that?

[04:43:22] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure, I think there are a number of things we could do once we know where the ordinance has landed and where the register has ended up, to announce this uh you know monumental achievement that we're we're close to making here uh with this register and ordinance update. Get the word out to neighborhood groups, um the contractor community, uh architects, update our website, push out some electronic distributions through our city newsletters and other outlets, and update uh information that's available in our uh permit counter area as well to try to um get a broad base of information out to the community, folks from the individual owner level to the the working professional level that carry out the projects to make sure they know what options are there and the support that the city's able and willing to provide to help them understand how to carry out their project.

[04:44:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[04:44:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Hicks. Councilmember Kamei.

[04:44:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, sorry I thought I thought that Council Vice Mayor Clark was going to give his proposal, then I was going to talk, but I'll I'll I'll talk to get us started um moving forward with comments, I have no questions anymore. Um so uh thank you Mayor. Um so I hope colleagues will indulge me, it's a it's a as our director said it's a monumental occasion right now, so I have a a few things to say. Um I want to acknowledge how meaningful it is that we're here tonight. And first I want to start by thanking our staff and the community effort that it took to get us here. The updates to our historic ordinance and our Mountain View Register were actually first identified as part of our 2019-2021 council work plan, and for those who are not great at math, it's eight years. Um so I know we're gonna have more conversation, it it sounds like um the Vice Mayor has a proposal, but I thought I'd just share um some of my thoughts and hopefully some of the thoughts will get into the Vice Mayor's proposal. Um I want to say that there's also opportunity for further discussion and flexibility flexibility as we go into December, but I think what's really important over these eight years is just to express appreciation that we're even here. Um and the staff highlighted kind of the most recent um outreach, you know, the different workshops, the individual stakeholder meetings, the EPC, and council review. Um but this update's been a really long time coming. Our historic ordinance and register hadn't been substantially updated since uh 2004, which I believe is um before I think the majority of us graduated from high school. And um the last citywide survey of historic resources was done in 2008. So, we I think it's important that we acknowledge that our criteria and our inventory were out of date relative to how our community and our building stock has changed. The old opt out um provision was undermining the purpose of our Mountain View Registry by, you know, just in 2020, roughly half of those eligible properties um were had opted off even though they have qualified. So, we were really facing the the preemption issue on the the federal and state level. So this update helps us streamline our development review, which is something we council gets constant feedback on on how we can improve streamlining our development review, um and hopefully reducing the need for individual historic um projects to come forward to us. I think over the course of our tenure we were starting to see more individual homes in particular wanting to do renovations that had to go to council because of the the inconsistency. So I really appreciate that staff identified and has continued to identify several areas that could use clarification, um particularly about the ordinance role in our development review process. I think um there's been multiple um bills that have come from the state, Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 79. I think it's important that we say what SB is, they are Senate bills. Um and making our historic protections are clear as were navigating the landscape um of of our city while we're trying to uh have development while also trying to understand what that means for us um in the implementation. So I wanted to highlight a few things that have stood out for me, and maybe some additions. So I'm really glad to see the uh historic plaque program included. I think it's a really nice, innovative idea um that staff has introduced that gives owners of historic properties something tangible and positive to point to. I also uh thought that it would be an an opportune time to resurface something that came up as part of our ad hoc committee on race, equity, and justice, which is uh historic significant cultural markers in our district, particularly our downtown district. And staff had done some significant work looking at not only our veterans plaque, but also our historic um district in downtown that had a you know a Chinatown, a Japantown, a a Philippine town, um and be able to call those out. Um and so I would ask if we could kind of resuscitate those efforts as we're looking at the historic plaque program, but also what we can do as a city in our in our right-of-ways. Um I also uh wanted to bring forward that um I I know that it's very difficult to move forward in terms of knowing that not everyone is going to be happy about what we're going to do tonight. But after eight years, I feel like it's incumbent at least on myself that we do make some sort of progress. And I wouldn't want the um you know, us to focus on the perfect and look away from the good, which is we are making significant progress with three identified ways that staff has shared on greater clarity on delisting. I for all property owners, I think it's important to acknowledge that we've expanded but also uh made more clear our incentives. So I mentioned one of them, the plaque program, the parking reductions, impact fee reductions, while removing the below market rate unit credit. So our owner survey that staff did showed that the strongest interest is in the permit fee reductions, property tax rebates, Mills Act um contracts, and how those can carry forward. So I would ask um I think this is going to go to the CPPC, that we think about those and how we can make those kind of feel like actual incentives, because I think some of the feedback we've received is um people want more and how can we have that greater flexibility to to to make sure that it it feels like uh it's an incentive versus a burden. Um but as I mentioned if if people want, there's still three different pathways, should we adopt an ordinance tonight, for them to be um able to delist. Um and then lastly, I did want to touch on some of the um feedback that our Environmental Planning Commission, our EPC, shared, which is um, you know, actually I watched the meeting, um and I um can't at this time um support the proposal of the supermajority, considering a supermajority of the council did not or the um um commission did not vote that way, um two abstained. And I also feel that um we need to make sure that um as this is uh as a deliberating body, we are feeling like we have all the information and being able to share our viewpoints clearly, and think some of the feedback from EPC was more incentives. And I would say give us more ideas of what those incentives can be. I think staff has turned over every rock, done everything they can over eight years to to find them. Um and so I I I know we're going to talk about maybe some other properties, um but just kind of wanted to share my my overall sentiments. Thank you.

[04:54:33] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Kamei. Vice Mayor Clark.

[04:54:37] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay, so I'm going to address the property list aspect of it, I'll let one of my colleagues deal with the ordinance piece of it, but when you get to that. I I'd prefer not to do the supermajority um vote. I I understand the sentiment behind it, I think it just um it'll come up four or five years from now and we'll wonder why on earth we did that. Um so I I think people just kind of forget that we did that in the moment, um and it just doesn't make good governance sense in my even though I understand the sentiment behind it. So, um, I did not have the benefit of um the slides for tonight. So I'm sorry if I go out of order or am kind of all over the place, and if we need to take a breath out to this and my colleagues' comments to sort it all out, we can. Um but there were just based on the framework that I identified earlier, I found um and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, I identified uh seven properties that um where there was I believe owner opposition and some sort that are just um proposed for local listing um and would not require an EIR to remove. Those, I think let me switch over to see if we're aligned at all. Um yeah, so some of it's it's mostly these, mine is in a different order. So 990 California Street. Um I'm going to skip Castro Street for a minute. 1901 West El Camino Real, 201 Mariposa, 252 Monroe Drive, 895 Villa Street. Um I had 1414 West El Camino Real on my list, or maybe we dispensed with that earlier.

[04:56:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: No, not 1414. That was on a later slide.

[04:56:37] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay. Um the I did have 292 Castro on my list, um I just didn't know um I don't know how that interacts with the downtown precise plan and a potential historic district, and I don't know if we want to mess with anything in the 100 200 block of Castro. But it it does fall under this category of owner opposition and as far as I can tell, um it's just a proposal for local um listing. And then um 2674 West El Camino Real, you had that, 250 Mariposa, you had that, 831 and 833 Villa. So I'm trying to figure out what um aside from the Castro Street property 292, which we can discuss separately if we want, the only other one that was on my list was 1414 West El Camino Real I think that probably not designed for.

[04:57:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Oh, it's events plus design. I see.

[04:57:40] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Um yeah. So I was gonna not include that. So just to reiterate, 990 California Street, 1901 West El Camino Real, 201 Mariposa, 252 Monroe Drive. 895 Villa I think might fall into that downtown area, if we want to discuss it along with the Castro Street property. But um and then I would I would include in this list um the 1200 Villa Street property, um that's the Pacific Press auditorium.

[04:58:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Fourteen fourteen.

[04:58:12] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: And 1414 West El Camino Real. But we can get to that on a different slide if you want. But I did have that, and then I had 292 Castro, which we can discuss later, 2674 West El Camino Real, 250 Mariposa, and 831 833 Villa. So, I think I think we're roughly in alignment with cutting across a couple slides. And then um and then um and then I think there are four that we would keep listed for now, under staff's guidance, but we could potentially include in an EIR for delisting um based on the framework previously identified, and the owner opposition. Those are 1855 Miramonte, which staff has already identified. Um I had 562 Pettis and 372 Mountain View Ave, and then um and then there's a a 169 Castro Street which I think we should discuss as part of the downtown. Those are um.

[04:59:19] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Uh I'm sorry, I had a follow-up conversation with 372 Mountain View Ave. They have updated their survey response.

[04:59:24] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Oh okay, do they want to remain on it or?

[04:59:27] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes, they're now yes.

[04:59:28] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Okay, great. Well that makes that easy. And then that's the meat of it. The rest I think we just um we didn't either no position is recorded or undecided, so I think I think there are 13 of those where we can just um perform outreach again if we want to, but otherwise I they'll just be they'll remain listed, it includes like 1131 Bonita, 1560 California, doesn't look like many of them are on this list, but um but I you I think you get what I'm talking about. I think the most important thing that I wanted to identify were the the ones to um potentially exclude. Which I think we are mostly aligned with except for that 1414 West El Camino Real one, but you had that on a different slide, so. I'm happy to read them again at some point if it's helpful, but um I think the biggest question for me was how we want to handle some of those downtown properties that um I just don't know whether it makes sense to continue to keep them potentially listed going into December pending historic district discussions and other things, or whether it's actually in our interest as part of that to to not um have them on the list as of December. But I think there are there are four of them. Um 292 Castro, 169 Castro, 895 Villa, and 831 Villa.

[05:00:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor, if I may. Um, to the point of Castro Street and whether designating these properties um helps or hinders uh potential future historic district, I'd like to have our um expert uh from Page & Turnbull come up. Um we had a conversation on this just this point uh earlier today. I think she had some helpful um perspectives on um does a property need to be its own designated resource to also then be part of a historic district as a primary contributor. Feels like that's the question the council is weighing based on Vice Mayor Clark's comments. So uh if you would please.

[05:01:33] Christina Dikas: Uh good evening, I'm Christina Dikas with Page & Turnbull. And uh the historic districts are separate from individually significant properties. So you could have both. Um individually significant properties have their own reason for significance related to their history. While a historic district is really about identifying the kind of collection of buildings that all tell a story together and have a collective significance. Um so you could uh identify a historic district that doesn't have individual building, uh individually listed buildings within it. Or you could have a historic district that has some individually listed buildings that are just um, you know, listed on their own merits.

[05:02:21] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: That makes sense. So maybe one approach is to between now and December sort of leave those I think there are four tell me if there are four, I think leave those four on the list for designation. And if if we learn more between now and December that it makes sense to to keep them or or not list them um because I don't think it would require an EIR not to list them, then we can um we can just flag those four for um for a decision in December uh based on what we learn between now and then. But I maybe that's not the the right approach, but that was what the first thing that popped into my head, not to kick the can down the road one more time, but I I'm just not sure how to think through those four.

[05:03:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay. Um, I I can I can do that, so it'll be a so this isn't a motion to adopt the ordinance, this is just a motion with respect to the the properties that we can plan to include or exclude. um The remaining properties that we plan to include or exclude in December. So, the exclusion would be um 990 California Street, 1901 West El Camino Real, 201 Mariposa, 252 Monroe Drive. Um I'm gonna create this second bucket of leave on for now: 895 Villa which is downtown, um yeah, it's that's the signs um building. Um but then going back to the excluded list, 1200 1240 Villa Street, 1414 West El Camino Real, um 2674 West El Camino Real, 250 Mariposa. And then um and then in the other the downtown bucket, we already talked about um the signs at 895 Villa, 292 Castro Street, and 831 833 Villa Street. Uh and I think that's that's it. There's a there are four that would require an EIR to delist. Um I'm open to including those four in a broader EIR process that would be 1855 Miramonte which we were already planning to do. And then there are three uh well there's uh 562 Pettis and 372 Mountain View Ave. So if we wanted to include those three in an EIR process we we'll continue to list them for now. Um and then um and then sorry in that downtown bucket, talk about it later, 169 175 Castro. That was the other one. But delisting that one would require an EIR I believe, based on your notes. So that is and then we would keep the rest listed um because I don't see any position recorded or or they're undecided. So unless we get new information between now and December for those 13 I think there are, then um we'll just proceed with um with listing them. But let me know if I missed anything um or need to clarify anything.

[05:05:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um is that a motion?

[05:05:47] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: That was an attempted motion, yeah.

[05:05:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then I'll I'll second your motion once, there we go. Um I did want to clarify so I'm happy to second, um I didn't catch, did that include sorry, did does your motion exclude 1901 West El Camino Real, that's the other housing element site?

[05:06:13] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes, that was um the second one on my list, 990 California, 1901 West El Camino Real would be excluded.

[05:06:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and then you also referenced I think it was 1414 El Camino?

[05:06:23] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: 1414 West El Camino Real, yeah.

[05:06:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you for clarifying. Just to just to make it clear one more time, 990 California Street, 1901 West El Camino Real, 201 Mariposa, 252 Monroe Drive, 1200 Villa, 1414 West El Camino Real. Um those are the the big ones. And then there are the other buckets. But um and then um exclude unless someone changes their mind between now and December, I think it was 250 Mariposa and 2674 West El Camino Real.

[05:07:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, just to clarify that this is just a motion, this is not the full motion that we're going to do, we're just doing the listing and delisting thingys right now.

[05:07:17] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yeah, it's trying to narrow that down. And if staff has any concerns about those, I'm happy to hear them or if um we need to make changes between now and December we can, but that was based on the framework we discussed earlier, those were the that was the list that I came up with.

[05:07:32] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright. No concerns from staff at this time, we will go back and take a fresh look at these uh and provide any further analysis or recommendation for December if we have concern about removing them.

[05:07:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright. Oh, uh Councilmember Hicks.

[05:07:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I was furiously taking down all the addresses but you'd speak very fast. Um I ju that's alright, I just want to confirm that you're using the same criteria we used before, except that you took the downtown ones off, but it's you're keeping people on who want to be on, or trying to, um and you're keeping people who qualify or appear to qualify for state or national, and the other ones you're taking off. So same criteria you used before.

[05:08:22] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Based on all the information I had tonight, anything that it we is on or is eligible for a state or national historic register um stays on. Um anyone who we received opposition from who was just proposed to be listed locally and isn't already listed we would uh remove, and when I say except for the downtown ones, and when I say downtown I'm really talking about the 100 and 200 block of Castro because I think they're one or two further down. And then um there are a couple of those that might require being in an EIR to because they were previously listed a long time ago. Um those were um there were just two of those 562 Pettis and 1855 Miramonte, um and then everything else is kind of proceeding. So everyone who wants to be on, I I didn't touch um so my understanding is hopefully we've respected people's preferences to the extent that we can with the exception of those four-ish downtown properties in the 100-200 block.

[05:09:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. So you read and speak faster than I do, but it sounds consistent with what we did on the shorter list, and if not I'll come back in December and tell you so.

[05:09:41] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yeah, and I'm sure staff will flag it between now and then if I got it wrong. And I don't know if we can vote on this if we want, but I think the way to later do it is you can just incorporate this into the the broader ordinance motion, but we can vote on this now too if we want.

[05:09:57] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright, does anyone have any questions or comments on this specific motion? Councilmember McAlister, I see your hand up, is this for the overall thing? Okay. And then Councilmember Ramirez, is this for the overall? Okay, so we're gonna do this vote just on the listing and delisting um recommendations of Vice Mayor Clark, uh which was motioned by him, seconded by Councilmember Ramirez. We are ready for a roll call vote on that specific part of the item.

[05:10:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark.

[05:10:30] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:10:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez.

[05:10:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:10:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[05:10:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:10:34] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei.

[05:10:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:10:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[05:10:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[05:10:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter.

[05:10:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:10:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos.

[05:10:41] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

[05:10:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Alright. Uh, with that past, Councilmember Ramirez.

[05:10:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor, and I appreciate uh Vice Mayor Clark for doing the deep dive and uh guiding us through, I think, honestly the most challenging part of uh of this item. Uh I'm going to uh move uh to approve the staff recommendations, um so that will include uh accepting the historic context statement and introducing an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the Mountain View City Code to update standards and procedures related to the designation and preservation of historic resources and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13th, 2026. And introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending the zoning map to exclude properties designated on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources prior to January 1st, 2025 from Government Code Section 65912.157 SB 79 uh and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061b3 as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for October 13th, 2026. With uh the following amendments. First, um the amendments that staff had shown earlier, uh staff I don't know if you want to show that language again, that uh would um allow uh the creation of historic districts only within uh the downtown precise plan boundaries that are listed up here. So um accepting both of these amendments. Um and uh to uh also direct staff to begin the process, I guess it would be the council initiated process, uh to uh establish historic district in downtown, right? So determine the uh historic integrity and eligibility. I know that's gonna take some time, but it's basically do the stuff you have to do based on the ordinance that we are adopting. Um and um I also would like to include direction, this is something that Councilmember Hicks had uh alluded to, uh exploration of an assistance program for self-designation of historic resources. So I think maybe staff basically come back probably with the next council um uh with uh some options for ways we might want to um provide support for um property owners who are interested in uh who have identified their property as eligible to self-designate, and then um provide support and and maybe some information about incentives uh for them to participate. And then finally, um in the the ordinance uh one of the enforcement mechanisms is a uh up to 15-year uh prohibition on uh redevelopment of uh properties where uh there might be um some you know arson or or some criminal damage that's done to a historic resource. My recommendation would be to reduce that from 15 to 5 years. Um and the reason is one, it aligns with the redevelopment prohibitions that exist under state law. Uh for instance, if there is a property with a tenant, um generally speaking, state law prohibits the use of certain state ministerial pathways or um SB 79 is included in this, you can't redevelop that property uh because of the displacement component until five years after a tenant has vacated the property. Um and also I was thinking about the practical uh consideration of let's say there is a historic resource that is severely damaged and and not meaningfully uh repairable. We may end up with a vacant lot of land for 15 years, right? Which could contribute to blight, and um especially if it's in a high-profile location, we may not actually want to see. I mean it's it's a substantial penalty, and I I understand the intent, but I think we should focus on the criminal penalties that exist or financial penalty, and not necessarily create blighted circumstances where, you know, we may regret um not having a uh you know, having having that that prohibition against redevelopment of a site for extended period of time. So, staff recommendations with the amendments that were on the screen for the downtown historic district, the direction for staff to proceed with the Council initiated uh historic district exploration within downtown, exploration of an assistance program for self-designation, and reduction of that penalty from 15 years to 5 years prohibiting redevelopment if, for instance, a historic resource is uh illegally destroyed.

[05:14:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have one clarify-

Segment 8

[05:15:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: fication because it also mentioned that the EPC recommended the super majority vote, so...

[05:15:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I didn't intend to. That that was I'm I'm I didn't include that.

[05:15:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Just wanted to make sure we had a clear record. Thank you.

[05:15:18] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. And then, thank you for the reminder. Councilmember Kamei's recommendations earlier related to incentive program enhancements and the placemaking and plaque program.

[05:15:32] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, Councilmember Showalter.

[05:15:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Has it been um seconded?

[05:15:40] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: It's a new motion and it hasn't been seconded. Did you want to second it?

[05:15:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I would like to second it.

[05:15:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. So motion made by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter. And go ahead.

[05:15:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I first of all I I would like to thank the staff for the incredible amount of work that is involved here. And um, uh and uh I want to urge the public who likes history and loves Mountain View to read the historical context statement. It really is the story of our uh our city and particularly the developments of our buildings um, and kind of what spurred the development of those buildings. So lots of events. So um, I just urge people to read it. And um I I want to thank um Page & Turnbull for the good job that they've done, and I particularly appreciated all of the um citations. Um, uh nobody's going to go back and read all of them, but uh I think many many of us will will read some of them. And so thank you for those.

[05:16:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then the other thing I uh I wanted to kind of echo is the value of um a signage uh program. And um I know that Councilmember Kamei and Councilmember um uh Ramirez and Councilmember Hicks won't be here to um necessarily on council to follow up with that, but it's something I expect to follow up with.

[05:17:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: On this trip that I've taken to Canada um in the last week or so, I've um been able to experience a number of um very extensive plaques and um historical walks that were based on a series of um of posters that, you know, have lots and lots of information. And um I think that they add a tremendous amount to the community, both to the people who live there and can remind themselves of um what's happened, and also people who come to visit. Um I think it's a it's a real draw.

[05:17:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So I I'm going to be um I'm going to be working on that coming forward. And um and then the other thing I wanted to say that's part of um the that we all know but but is is is made very clear in the um the historical context statement is that a lot of the history of um of our area is really the development of Silicon Valley, which is less than 50 years old with very few exceptions. I mean the the uh the invention of the transistor was is certainly older than 50 years old.

[05:18:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So that story of the economic development of Silicon Valley and what that's meant to us locally and to the world is a really important part of our history, um even if it isn't 50 years old yet. And and um I hope that we will um go to quite some effort to um to encapsulate the story in forms that that um that will pass on and have people come visit and and see. So um, so that's what I want to say and um, thank you very much.

[05:19:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And I'm getting a little sleepy so if I don't because it's four and a half hours time difference here, so um if if I'm not making as much sense as I might, that's my excuse tonight. So, thank you.

[05:19:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Um, thank you Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember McAlister.

[05:19:35] Councilmember John McAlister: I'll keep it shorter than that. Um, it's interesting how couple observations that I've had for the couple weeks. Um, I thought 1440 was a chicken joint so that I thought that was an important culinary uh historical marker going by the wayside. And Wally's gas station is another historical marker that we had so, you know, the charm is leaving us, but um.

[05:19:58] Councilmember John McAlister: There was a lot of work. I remember uh Councilmember Clark and I were looking at this uh either on EPC or early in our career, that it was a hot potato and nobody really wanted to touch historical at the time. Um so, uh couple quick comments. Everybody, you know, they're concerned about SB 79 and that building down there. There's when this uh transit center was first thought of way back when, that the parking lot over at Caltrain was going to be a big transit uh housing area.

[05:20:28] Councilmember John McAlister: So we don't talk much about it, but I think people should put that in the back of their minds that they're going, oh, where we might want to build up, there is an opportunity to approach Caltrain and say, hey, Caltrain, that we want to put housing there.

[05:20:40] Councilmember John McAlister: And the second thing, uh last week I was in the Boston area and I mentioned this to a few some people here. Uh a little outside a little town called Canton, the outside of Boston, and we're talking about historical and I'm driving through and the homes that I was looking at were built in the 1700s. And if we were to go through those and houses and say, oh, this is this. Um, that would be quite interesting. So, our exercise to find this, go back east to uh Massachusetts and you'll see a lot of homes that look historical, but they were just homes at the time. So. Um, I'm supportive of everything that's been said and uh, I support it. Goodbye.

[05:21:22] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Vice Mayor Clark.

[05:21:26] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Two very quick things. I assume staff just for the public's benefit, any information that you receive between now and December, you know, if someone who is undecided or there is no information or they change their mind, you'll relay that to us in December. Um, so people can still talk to you if they need to.

[05:21:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Correct along with any technical information they have that we think they think we should evaluate.

[05:21:52] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: And the only other question, and we talked about this um I think in our briefing. The 15 years. So, I understand the sentiment. Um, my understanding was that the 15 year penalty was like the that was the for the most egregious cases that would be the maximum penalty. It's not an automatic thing. It's we can impose a penalty up to and including the 15 years and it can also be reduced probably for good behavior between now and 15 years from now. That was my assumption.

[05:22:26] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Um, you know, whether five's the right number or 15's the right number, I guess the the world that I want to be in is one where really really egregious destruction, blatantly egregious destruction of a historic resource uh is never that the the penalty for that is always greater than uh or we have the ability to impose a penalty that will be financially more painful than just riding it out for 5 years.

[05:22:54] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: And so that's why something more like 10 or 15 years made sense to me. If if we don't think that's the case then, you know, I'm not going to die on that hill. I just think that in the absolute most egregious cases where someone clearly knows it's a historic resource and they still just decide to knock it down because they'd rather wait 5 years and ride out the penalties than to um, you know, just leave it alone, I just don't want to be in that world.

[05:23:22] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: And maybe we won't hopefully we'll never be in that world, but um that that was the only my only concern with the motion. So I'm curious if if if staff has any guidance on whether other communities do there or you know whether five is sufficient um to prevent someone from just riding out the five year period versus 15, but.

[05:23:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Sure. So uh, I think the good news is, you know, we don't have many examples today under our current ordinance of folks blatantly uh demolishing these resources. Um, that's an important fact. Um, it is up to 15 years and subject to rigorous due process to determine culpability and the significance of a particular impact. And so some lesser period of time or no period of time at all restricting development, you know, could be part of the enforcement process. There are also other off-ramps along the way. Uh like the good behavior characterization, but um, you know, removal from the register could be approved subject to those processes in the ordinance, as well as some sort of remediation plan through the enforcement process uh could be approved. So, um, 15 would be the worst case. Um, five is, you know, relatively little time relative to the economic gain that someone could could have in staff's perspective. Uh but ultimately it's a policy question and weighing the alternative uses to Councilmember Ramirez's point to the deterrent effect, the extent to which it has a deterrent effect of a potential 15-year uh denial of development opportunities.

[05:24:51] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Vice Mayor Clark. Councilmember Hicks.

[05:24:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well I'd go for up to 10 years if if the motion maker would like to change it. You don't get to answer.

[05:25:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I mean I appreciating the four and a half time, you know, hour difference, I I don't know how much I it would be helpful to to talk about this, but I think I mean there there are many different hypothetical scenarios I I've brought up to to staff um in thinking through this.

[05:25:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, including the the practical reality that you could also end up in a scenario where there's a bad actor who does something horrible and then the property changes hands and then it changes hands again. And then you have someone who's very far removed from the bad act who is now denied an ability to redevelop, you know, a vacant plot of land. And I I think, you know, it's almost like a biblical punishment, right, you did something bad so I'm going to punish you for seven generations. That didn't strike me as fair.

[05:25:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And also, like imagine a scenario where maybe it's a high profile building in, you know, in downtown and now you've got just a patch of dirt for 15 years. Right? That could become, you know, it could become a, you know, some blight or a deterrent to pedestrian activity or something like that.

[05:26:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm I'm not sure it's the right penalty, right? If someone commits an act of arson, arrest them, you know, put them in jail, that strikes me as a better penalty or, you know, we can talk about increasing the the financial penalty. So it's it's it's impacting the person who committed the crime rather than some someone someone who was not culpable 10 years down the road who now has a vacant plot of dirt that becomes blighted. That that's five years is I think at least consistent with state law. And I think the the real penalties are the other things on that list, not so much the inability to redevelop.

[05:26:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Well, I also am not going to die on this particular hill. Um, or drag it out all night, I want certain people to be able to go to sleep.

[05:27:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just um wanted to say I go I will be supporting the motion. I do want to thank um staff for all the work over the years on this, um and um and fellow council members because it is somewhat of a a hot potato while at the same time um something that many people are I know very excited about.

[05:27:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And just I just wanted to say for the people who are had fears that the that an ordinance like this could stop development, that one every city I've done planning work in around the Bay Area, it's not that many, but uh has had an ordinance uh a historic ordinance. It's a best practice, every city I know with some amount of historic resources has them.

[05:27:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and it's one of the tools that we have and a difficult and maybe imperfect tool but to keep our downtown vibrant. Um, and um and then for the the gentleman who said uh we should not be doing this, we should be more like Sunnyvale or Redwood City that are developing so nicely, they both have excellent historic preservation ordinances. Um, in in fact, uh Redwood City sort of based their downtown redevelopment plans all around their their um their their uh historic preservation plan. So I do not share that fear and I will be enthusiastically voting for this.

[05:28:39] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Hicks. Councilmember McAlister.

[05:28:42] Councilmember John McAlister: I'll throw my two cents in. I like the 10 years. Because when Councilmember Ramirez was talking about a bad actor burns the place down, he actually improved the value of the property, so if he sold it to somebody, someone wouldn't have the burden of that old building and they could build something new.

[05:28:59] Councilmember John McAlister: So, so, um, I that's why I would be more interested, as Council uh Vice Mayor Clark, Councilmember Hicks mentioned, that the 10 up to 10 years would be better. But I could see that scenario based on what you said. Burn it down, destroy it, and then you have a plot of land which is ripe for development. So the person that did had the property benefits from the disaster. He's not getting penalized, he's going to benefit because he improved the value of the pro-

[05:29:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: He might go to jail for burning down a building.

[05:29:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, okay, but uh bulldozed it or whatever, somebody ran into it. So, uh for that reason, I I'd still like to go with the 10.

[05:29:43] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, you're not going to respond to that. Okay, I don't think he's going to respond to that unless you want to do a substitute motion, I think that's probably going to... okay, no substitute motion. All right, and that finishes pretty much most the comments. Um, I'll throw my uh two cents in.

[05:30:02] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I'm really glad, thank you staff for doing all this work um on on these ordinances. Um, I remember I used to be on the the Historical Association board before I had to resign to get on Council. Um, and I just recall hearing stories from uh fellow board members. One of them who is around um Councilmember Kamei, Councilmember Ramirez, and Vice Mayor Clark's age, when he was in high school he was working on the the last iteration of the ordinance.

[05:30:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And he was telling me some stories, we did not have the same kind of resources to really do a full comprehensive study, and that's why things were as unclear as they were, things the the registry was very broad, but the the specifics of what was allowed was not very set was not very set. So um I'm glad that we have done like a full look over of our whole city and of our whole historic resources of our city, comparing it with the state and national registries, to figure out what do we truly deem as historic. Um, minus some um asked from the property owners to remove some, um and as we saw there were some that were deemed historic by the state or possibly historic by the state and national registries.

[05:31:26] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So if they weren't, and you had the owners say like we don't want it here, um we are fine, we remove that. And we made those decisions now, we made those decisions early. And now we have this ordinance hopefully in place, so that when something comes along a few years from now, they know if they want to do any kind of development on it, it is on the historic register, and it has a list of things that they want to do in order to development that we don't have to deal with in future future fights. The fights are now.

[05:31:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, so that's I'm glad that we've finally taken the time to really look at our properties holistically. Um, and determine what kind of procedures we want to move forward as a city, still respecting that balance of private property rights and the historic relevance to our city. Um, I also appreciate the uh moving forward with the the placard and placemaking um programs. I think it's something that really shares the story of our city, and it helps give our city a certain areas its identity and how important things are from our past, because you don't learn from your past, you're doomed to repeat it in the future.

[05:32:42] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, so thank you so much to staff. Thank you so much to our general public. Thank you so much for the property owners who have engaged with us on this process. Um, and thank you so much to the residents.

[05:32:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Let's get ready to vote. The motion was made by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Councilmember Showalter.

[05:33:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: So we are ready for a roll call vote. Councilmember Ramirez?

[05:33:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:33:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[05:33:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:33:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[05:33:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:33:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[05:33:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:33:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[05:33:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[05:33:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[05:33:13] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:33:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[05:33:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.

[05:33:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[05:33:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. Uh Councilmember Clark. I mean Vice Mayor Clark.

[05:33:21] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I move that we continue past 10 p.m.

[05:33:27] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: And I second that that motion. Uh ready for our roll call vote.

[05:33:31] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Clark?

[05:33:32] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:33:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramos?

[05:33:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes.

[05:33:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[05:33:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:33:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Kamei?

[05:33:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:33:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[05:33:39] Councilmember John McAlister: No.

[05:33:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[05:33:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No.

[05:33:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Councilmember Showalter?

[05:33:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:33:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: That carries 5-2.

[05:33:52] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We feel you, Councilmember Showalter. We're going to move on quickly to Item 7.1, Active Transportation Plan Adoption. What I'm going to do is that we're going to move on to this item, we're going to let public comment happen after the staff presentation, and then we're going to take a quick break because we haven't had a break since we started this meeting.

[05:34:11] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, so uh for Item 7.1, Active Transportation Plan Adoption. Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter and Public Works Director Jennifer Ng 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. And we are ready for your staff presentation. And here, so sorry for all of you who waited for this item.

[05:36:51] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: All right. Thank you for bearing with us as we get our tech situated here. So, good evening everybody. I'm Jennifer Ng, I'm the Public Works Director. Sitting next to me on my left is Lauren Ledbetter, our Transportation Manager. In Public Works out in the audience we also have Allison Boyer, Assistant Public Works Director. Um, and for technical expertise, we do have our consultants from Nelson\Nygaard and Alta on the line with us tonight. And we'll be discussing the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan.

[05:37:21] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Next slide. Our agenda for tonight is broken up into five pieces. I'm going to start by walking us through the project background and how the plan was developed. Lauren will talk about outreach and what we've done for the project before moving into the components of the plan itself. She'll also walk through what comments we received on the draft plan and how they have been addressed in the final plan before you tonight. Um and then I'll wrap up with next steps and implementation of the ATP. Next.

[05:37:51] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So, section one, project background and plan development. Um, starting with the origins of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan, it started back in November of 2020 and that's when the council at that time directed staff to integrate and update our 2014 Pedestrian Master Plan and our 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan.

[05:38:15] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Um, and in creating this plan, the council recognized that the public right-of-way needed to be reviewed as a whole system and not as discrete pedestrian only or bicycle only plans, which is what the city had in the past. Each of these components in the public right-of-way do not act singularly as their own individual components, they do act as a system, so it makes sense to combine them into this one plan, the Active Transportation Plan.

[05:38:41] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So what's before you tonight focuses on people powered modes of transportation, that that's a term I made up myself, but it really refers to walking and biking and rolling. And sets a vision for how we want those improvements to be refined over the next couple of decades, so it's a long range plan that we're developing here now.

[05:39:01] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So this plan sets our long-range vision while recognizing that our already built infrastructure, such as curb line and mature trees, are part of what gives Mountain View its character. Next slide.

[05:39:13] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Thank you. Um so again, a long range plan is what's before you tonight sets a future for our vision of walking, bicycling, and rolling in Mountain View. And it really acts as a foundation for how we're going to guide um staff and projects moving forward. So the recommendations included within this plan stem from data that's been gathered uh directly um gathered and input from the Mountain View community.

[05:39:40] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So the plan not only identifies projects, but it outlines policies and programs for the city to undertake to promote um the walking, biking, and and rolling in in Mountain View. The plan also considers city's sustainability goals through inclusion of green street infrastructure. So this plan that's before you tonight builds on previous plans local to Mountain View, so that does include our previous pedestrian and bicycle plans, precise plans, um and other planning documents.

[05:40:11] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: In addition, regional and state plan information were incorporated. And because the transportation system does have overlap with sustainability and green streets, those plans were also built upon also. Um the public right-of-way is the common connector across the whole city and therefore has a lot of overlap with these other plans that I mentioned.

[05:40:31] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: It's important to note that the intent of this plan is to not fold all previous plans into this one, but instead the Active Transportation Plan will act as a complement to other plans that already exist.

[05:40:44] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: So where we're at now. This plan has taken a while to complete. We did want to make sure that the appropriate level of communication and collaboration was done with all interested parties. You can see on the slide that the plan was developed through a multi-year process and there were several community and council touch points along the way and throughout.

[05:41:05] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: The review of the plan along the way included technical analysis, extensive community engagement, interdepartmental collaboration. Um community input was collected throughout and there were several midpoint touch points with the city council. Um as indicated by the uh teal color arrows. As the plan progressed, staff provided updates and requested feedback from various stakeholders and committees.

[05:41:31] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: And exciting for me to be at the endpoint for approval tonight. We've been listening and responding all along the way. A public review draft plan was released in April earlier this year and public input was received. Subsequent to that, BPAC and CTC also provided comments at the end of this summer in August. And then from each of these commenting groups we've taken the information and refined and incorporated feedback into the final plan that you have tonight. With that, I'm going to uh toss the ball over to Lauren.

[05:42:01] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: Thank you, Jennifer. I'm going to walk through quickly the public and stakeholder engagement first. So we worked with four stakeholder groups throughout development of the plan. Two groups were convened specifically to guide the ATP. The Technical Advisory Committee, which is comprised of 13 staff members from Public Works, Community Services, Fire, and Community Development Departments, and the City Manager's Office.

[05:42:27] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The Active Transportation Public Advisory Committee, called ATPAC, which is comprised of representatives from 12 community-based organizations, non-profit entities or advisory bodies, and the Valley Transportation Authority. And then the other two groups we worked with are of course the city standing advisory bodies, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the Council Transportation Committee. These groups reviewed and provided input on interim deliverables as well as the draft plan.

[05:42:56] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We engaged the public throughout the plan development. We used a multilingual approach with materials in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian, and translation and interpretation services for key events. We used a variety of community engagement techniques to receive input and better understand walking and biking experiences in the city, including targeted small group multilingual meetings to reach underrepresented communities.

[05:43:21] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: A multilingual online map map-based survey which received over 600 comments which we used to identify favorite areas and challenges. Guided walking and biking tours focused on vulnerable users in challenging areas. We analyzed roughly three years of public feedback from the city's Ask MV platform, and we asked the public to provide comments on the public draft review plan through Collaborate MV and in an in-person public meeting.

[05:43:50] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: Key themes we heard from the community are shown on the slide here. The community values and appreciates the trails, protected bikeways in the city, as well as walkable locations like downtown Mountain View. We heard that major streets are important routes for walking and biking, but also they are barriers. We consistently heard the desire to have safer crossings, improved intersections, and slower speeds. And the community is already active, people are walking and biking for recreation, they are also walking and biking for everyday travel like going to work, school, or errands.

[05:44:24] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: In the next few slides I'm going to walk you through the contents of the plan. So this plan has four chapters supported by appendices. Chapter 1 introduction, introduces the plan, describes how we developed it, this is where we summarize the public and stakeholder engagement. It outlines the vision statement and the guiding principles.

[05:44:46] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: Chapter 2 is essentially the existing conditions report. It provides an overview of the Mountain View community, including demographics, travel patterns, it discusses infrastructure services and policies that affect active transportation. And it also presents the holistic network vision for the future of walking and biking in Mountain View. This is the section where the holistic network maps are located.

[05:45:08] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: Chapter 3 is recommendations. It highlights what Mountain View is currently doing to support active transportation, and recommends capital projects, programs, and policies. Chapter 4 is the implementation chapter. In it we include a discussion of phasing projects, costs and benefits of green street infrastructure, funding strategies, and we also recently added, um at requests from community comment, uh discussion of how the city will engage the public when developing projects, the importance of collaboration with other agencies, a section on small-scale safety improvements.

[05:45:44] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: And the plan is supported by five appendices. uh Appendix A is Project Prioritization, which outlines the process and criteria we use to prioritize the projects. B is cut sheets for those priority projects showing concept designs. Appendix C is recommended improvements. Appendix D is Vision Zero plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan um policy and programs recommended by these plans that are complementary to the ATP, and then finally Appendix E is the Existing Conditions report which provides a deeper dive into the existing conditions.

[05:46:17] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So I'll give you a few seconds to read the vision statement here. The vision was brought to the BPAC, the CTC, and the Council, and it reflects the input of those bodies. The plan is guided by the five principles listed here on the right, which support the council's strategic priorities. Um we use these guiding principles to influence the programs and policies we included in the plan, and also to prioritize the capital projects. We will also refer to these principles when reporting out progress on the plan.

[05:46:52] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So as I mentioned, Mountain View is an active community, we know that people currently walk and bike, and they want to be able to access more destinations that way. Um what we found from our assessment of existing conditions is we do have very good infrastructure, but there are challenging areas for active travel. There are opportunities to fill gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve the quality of the infrastructure, increase connectivity across the city, enhance safety and comfort, support long-term sustainability by including landscaping and green infrastructure into active transportation projects.

[05:47:32] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The plan took a comprehensive look at previously proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and developed holistic maps that show all existing and planned active transportation infrastructure in the city. We used these maps as a starting point for the ATP's recommendations, and we also used them to identify gaps in the existing and proposed active transportation network.

[05:47:57] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The holistic bicycle map is shown on the slide here. It includes the city's proposed bicycle network with priority ATP projects outlined in black. The plan recommends overall over 10 miles of shared-use paths, nearly five miles of Class 2 bike lanes, four miles of Class 3 bike routes, 20 miles of bicycle boulevards, and 22 miles of separated bikeways. The recommendations presented here will will require additional validation as we move through feasibility study and design, and so some recommendations may change.

[05:48:37] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We followed a similar approach to develop the pedestrian recommendations. The holistic pedestrian map is shown here. Dashed lines represent areas for potential sidewalk widening or gap closure. Blue dots represent intersection improvements. Priority projects for the ATP are also outlined in black here. I want to point out there's two magenta dots on El Camino Real at Showers and Rengstorff. These represent intersections that are located outside of city limits, but it's where the city supports improvements and would need to work with other jurisdictions to make them.

[05:49:11] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The plan recommends 30 crossing improvements, the same 10 and a half miles as for the bikeways for Class 1 shared-use paths, 5.4 miles of sidewalk widening, 1.6 miles of new sidewalk on one side of the road, and nearly a little bit over a quarter mile of new sidewalk on both sides. I note that the sidewalk widening proposals could be developed as spot improvements to address pinch points rather than reconstructing the full length of the sidewalk along an entire corridor.

[05:49:44] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: As I mentioned earlier, we used the guiding principles to prioritize projects and identify a subset of 20 priority projects which will be the city's near term focus. Scoring criteria were reviewed and approved by the BPAC, CTC, and City Council. I'll walk you through the process of choosing the projects. We first grouped bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the holistic maps into approximately 200 defined projects.

[05:50:11] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We then measured how well each project supported the guiding principles for the plan, and selected the top 20 as priority projects for the city to focus on in the near term, the next 5 to 10 years. Each guiding principle was measured using two to five scoring criteria. And the criteria included such measures as proximity to destinations like schools, parks, senior centers and transit, history of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, density of community comments along a corridor, if it closes a gap in the bikeway or sidewalk network, the ability for the project to reduce impervious surfaces or integrate plantings. And for the feasibility criteria uh we used professional judgment on the feasibility and difficulty of implementing a project. There is more detail on these in um chapter 3 of the plan.

[05:51:06] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: After identifying the corridors for the priority projects, we took a deeper dive into the conditions along each corridor and developed conceptual recommendations. The team visited each location in the field and looked at the information including curb to curb width, lane configuration, sidewalk width, speed limit, existing speeds, average daily traffic, land uses, community concerns. We brought these concepts through review by the internal Technical Advisory Committee, and then we also cross referenced the adopted plans and corridor studies to ensure our recommendations are consistent with previously adopted plans.

[05:51:46] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We developed two design approaches for priority projects. Essentially one is a lower cost potentially near-term, and the other is a higher cost potentially longer-term treatment. So the resurfacing treatment could be incorporated into routine maintenance, it includes pavement markings, signage, and the potential for Class 4 bikeway elements. There is some opportunity for integrating low-cost greening into these these projects, and when developing the design, we assumed that there would be no curb line changes.

[05:52:19] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The reconstruction alternative is the longer term, this may be a standalone CIP. It will likely require significant design and additional engagement. It could require full demolition and rebuild of portions of the roadway, it's an opportunity for more permanent infrastructure, and there's also a greater opportunity for integrating greening into these types of projects. When developing the design for these, we allowed curb line adjustments, but we assumed that there would be no additional right-of-way acquisition.

[05:52:51] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: Um, the implementation chapter also includes uh green street scenarios. It includes costs for various green street materials, and it discusses the benefits and tradeoffs of these. It also includes cost estimates for the resurfacing alternatives only. Um, we did not develop cost estimates for the reconstruction due to the variability of the scope for these projects. I note that additional outreach and technical validation is needed for all recommendations in these concept plans.

[05:53:26] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So the plan also includes a list of policy and program recommendations that the city can undertake to better support walking and biking. We added several new policies and programs based on input received during the public review process. These include uh an item to update city standards using best practices, including uh NACTO design standards, developing and reporting on key performance measures, and we also added additional and stronger language related to green streets and implementation. We've also added a table to the this uh final plan for you tonight that provides a relative level of effort and cost for each of the policies and programs recommended in the plan.

[05:54:14] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: The implementation chapter also includes a list of potential major funding sources and identifies the need to collaborate with other jurisdictions for some projects. And now I'll just walk through the public comment period.

[05:54:33] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So the public draft plan was posted on Ask MV for a month, from April to mid May of this year. During this period we also presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and hosted a public meeting to discuss the plan and receive comments from the community. In June, we presented the public review draft plan to CTC for input. All told, between April and May, we received over 290 comments on the public review draft plan from ATPAC, BPAC, and the general public.

[05:55:12] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We spent June and part of July addressing the comments we received. Um, the ones that you can see here, we added, like I mentioned, more policy and program context and links to adopted plans to better integrate this plan with the other plans that the city has. We modified text and photos to strengthen the pedestrian focus, we improved consistency across the plan sections particularly in the um cut sheets for the priority projects. I mentioned that we added new language uh regarding sustainability, biodiversity, and greening. We added the commitment to develop performance metrics and report annually on the progress of the plan. Um, strengthen the importance of coordination between agencies. We added a new section in the implementation chapter to discuss public engagement and how the public will be involved as these plan uh capital projects move forward. We also revisited some some uh recommendations on the two Latham Street priority projects regarding sidewalk widening. We strengthened the coordination between this plan and other city plans by adding new language, added language related to the rise of e-bikes, and we also added a section discussing the importance of um ensuring that when future high density development comes in, high quality pedestrian infrastructure is included in those with those developments. Um I note that attachment two to the staff report lists these themes and the changes that we made to the plan in more specific detail, and I also note that the last six bullets on this slide were specifically requested by CTC, and we integrated them into the plan.

[05:56:55] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So, now we're on final plan adoption. Um I'll do just a few more slides and then I'll give it back to you Jennifer. Um okay, so, we revised the plan in response to the spring public engagement and then we presented the drafted draft final plan to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 18th. The BPAC voted unanimously to recommend the plan for adoption to city council with the modifications that you see listed here.

[05:57:41] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: We then presented the draft final plan to the CTC approximately two weeks later on August 31st. Staff recommended incorporating the changes that were requested by BPAC and presented additional recommended changes by staff. The additional changes staff recommended were clarifications and refinements to some of the priority cut sheets in appendix B, enhancing the legibility of the maps and correcting some omissions and errors on the maps, and updates to wording in response to council briefings that we held earlier that month for individual council members. The CTC voted to recommend the plan for adoption to City Council with the staff recommended modifications and the BPAC recommended modifications and added three new changes: further enhance the greening and tree canopy improvements description in table 7, make the disclaimer more obvious in the cut sheets in appendix B, and enhance the discussion of bicycle boulevards and shared slow streets in the plan.

[05:58:43] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: So, the plan that you have before you tonight addresses the comments that we received between April and August, including comments made by the public during the public comment period, the BPAC comments, the changes requested by CTC, and additional changes and clarifications requested by City Council members during individual briefings in August. Attachment three to the report lists the changes and how they were addressed in the final plan being presented tonight. For tonight, staff recommend one additional change to the plan based on additional communication with Council. Uh, move the paragraph describing how proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements interact with the broader multimodal transportation system from Chapter 4, page 73 of the plan, to the executive summary to better highlight the information.

[05:59:36] Transportation Manager Lauren Ledbetter: All of the input received over spring and summer culminates into the action before City Council tonight, and I will turn it over to you Jennifer.

[05:59:46] Public Works Director Jennifer Ng: Now it's my turn again. I got anxious earlier. Okay so, on implementation, the ATP sets out policies, programs, and priority improvements to guide us through the next couple of decades.

Segment 9

[06:00:00] Staff: And this is a quick slide to show how we plan to implement that. On the policy side, we do have a standard details update that is underway. In addition, we can start looking at implementing a pilot program for red light on red and development of criteria for when that no right on red would be appropriately deployed at signalized intersections. And there are several guiding policy statements included within the ATP itself. On the program side, we want to report out yearly to the BPAC starting next fall in 2027. We'll develop those reporting metrics over the next year and some of our program goals also include expansion of our suggested routes to school program and looking at pedestrian paseos as connectors through private development projects. We've talked a lot already about our top 20 priority projects. The goal is to add those to the CIP as there are opportunities and resource availability. Each project will need to start with a feasibility or validation step. And we've talked a little bit about this before, but in essence, the question is, is our vision shown on the ATP still really what is needed by the community at this time? Things do change over time. We do evolve. And this will allow us to keep current as we proceed forward. The good news is with respect to the top 20 priority projects, we've got a head start on several of them and they're currently underway. And just quickly listing those out, California Street Complete Streets pilot project, Middlefield Complete Streets, Miramonte Avenue improvements, Rengstorff Avenue Complete Street study is currently underway. And we just received funding recently for the Evelyn Avenue Complete Streets study. So that concludes staff presentation tonight. As a reminder, the action that is before you tonight and staff's recommendation is that the city council adopt the final Mountain View Active Transportation Plan with the staff recommended changes. So thank you.

[06:02:07] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Does any member of the council have questions? This is the time... It says questions here. Yes, but we're going to do questions, then public comment, then break. All right, so questions. No questions? All right, then we're going to, oh, Councilmember McAlister.

[06:02:44] Councilmember John McAlister: So I have three questions. Um, going forward since council is the caretaker of sales tax dollars, as we move forward, are there any policies or procedures in place to make sure that the proportionality of resources to a project are realistic to meet the, what we're trying to achieve? Do you want me to say that question again?

[06:03:16] Staff: No, that's okay. I was wondering if you wanted to ask all three and then answer all three or if did you want me to answer one at a time?

[06:03:22] Councilmember John McAlister: One at a time, yeah. Because I can't think of three out of time, so.

[06:03:26] Staff: Um, I'll start by saying, you know, Mountain View has recently approved a lot of planning documents and visionary planning documents in recent times. And so as with anything, implementation of such plans requires resources both in the form of money and in the form of staff availability to do such projects in addition to just their regular everyday workload. Um, and so one of the things that we will have to wrestle with as staff, that my team will have to wrestle with as we're developing the CIP for this year moving forward is, you know, how to allocate those limited resources. It's going to involve a lot of conversation with other departments and take into account a lot of needs that we have across the whole city. So it is going to be a delicate balancing act.

[06:04:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The reason I ask that question, I've seen some projects in my mind that there was quite a bit of effort put into it to achieve another goal, or some we might say. Okay, the second question is, when you're gathering public input, how do you know that you get a balanced input throughout the community? We have some very strong advocates, and I appreciate their efforts, but how do we make sure that we get a true representation of the city?

[06:04:53] Staff: We do the best we can, right? For projects where we have community input as part of our process, we try to hit the community... not hit, but we try to blanket and get as much input as we can through a variety of means. So that can mean surveys, that can mean in-person workshops such as the one that we held back in May. It can mean pop-ups where we go to actually meet the people. It can be in the form of walk or bike audits out on the actual streets themselves. Um, so we try the best we can to receive as much input as we can and try to reach people in a variety of ways. Ultimately, you know, I don't have the ability to drag somebody out of their house and participate if they don't want to. But we try to do the best that we can.

[06:05:45] Councilmember John McAlister: And my last question is, how do we integrate traffic, cars, parking, into these various programs that we're presenting, you're presenting.

[06:05:59] Staff: Sure, I'll note that this active transportation plan is really focused, again, my words, on people-powered modes of transportation, right? So that's the walking, the biking, and the rolling. This plan is intended to be complementary to other plans that we have which do focus on our full roadway system and the impact of vehicles on the roadway system. So understanding again that the whole roadway acts as a full system and this plan is just one component of it and not the everything plan.

[06:06:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[06:06:31] Staff: You're welcome.

[06:06:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks.

[06:06:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm trying to think of this as a way of asking this question as a short question, not a long question. But um, so we got from a number of community groups co-signed a letter with um comments on on the active transportation plan. Um and some extremely smart council person who was not me, uh submitted pieces of it for your commentary in uh council questions that for members of the public who don't know we submit written questions ahead of time which the public can see the answers to if you know how to do that. So if you know how to look them up online. So the response to most of them, what I was intending to do with those questions was look through and see which ones you said oh yeah that'd be easy to add, and then I'd ask you to do it. But they all looked a little negative the responses. So I'm wondering um among the things, you know there's a lot of community groups that signed. Among those uh among those items which ones um you think could be most easily incorporated?

[06:07:54] Staff: Um, we did attempt to respond to those questions at the time that we received the questions we did not have the benefit of the full letter the final letter that the that the um that they were sending. And so we didn't have as much detail as perhaps you do now. So we did take the time today to look through the full letter and the detail and so I will just put down a list of the um the items that we do believe that we can incorporate into the plan. So um there are some, okay, we can incorporate uh the following requests into the from the coalition letter. The request um 1B, greening, tree canopy improvements. Request 2B, part-time bicycle lane elimination. Request 2E, smaller scale safety improvements. That would be moving the language from one section of the plan to Table 7 because it's already in the plan. Um and then we can incorporate with some modifications um the following requests. Updated design standards, that's 1A. 1C, uh there's some requests to change the KPIs and performance targets to measure active transportation progress. Uh some modifications to the traffic calming and 1E, some modifications to the smaller scale safety improvements. So those last four that I mentioned, there are some very specific things that we would be able to incorporate, what we believe we'd be able to incorporate, and some sections that we wouldn't be able to incorporate or we wouldn't feel comfortable recommending for incorporation.

[06:09:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you very much, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

[06:09:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Ramirez.

[06:09:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I wasn't planning to ask a question, but I appreciate Councilmember Hicks' question and um I'm not, I don't know if this is an easy thing to do, but um in the previous item, CDD staff did a good job providing visual aids for many of the segments that we had to contend with. And I'm wondering if you during public comment or the break we're going to have, if you can assemble this and put it up on the screen so we can understand what you're comfortable with and what the changes are that you would want to make to each of the recommendations. Or please.

[06:10:42] Staff: I think we we may be able to do that. I need to check with with um other folks here to see how we can get it on this computer.

[06:10:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[06:10:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, with that, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on any item on the... on this item. Um, 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 two minutes. Um, first one, James Kuszmaul, followed by Neil Gorenflo, followed by Lada Adamic. All right, kick us off, James.

[06:11:26] James Kuszmaul: Good evening, glad it's not good morning yet. Um, I think one of the most valuable things we've seen come out of the active transportation plan has been that clearly prioritized list of projects following some objective criteria. That should mean that going forwards when we're assembling our CIP we are actually able to focus on projects that are backed by the data that these are the most important safety projects or things near schools or the such. Um, that does mean that council needs to keep following that list and continue to implement the ATP which I hope uh whatever council exists will continue to do so. Um, the on the amendments discussed in that coalition letter I generally do support them. I think it's it's tricky to balance where we land on being prescriptive about what's in the plan versus leaving flexibility for what to implement in the future. Um, speaking for myself not for BPAC or the such, so I I like to lean on saying oh we can be more flexible but also it helps have clear commitments. The one thing I do want to call out in particular in those programs is the small scale safety improvements. I'm glad to see it moved to the um specific table of programs. I was slightly confused by the uh staff response to one of the council questions suggesting that basic we already do what we want to do in terms of the small scale safety improvements. I think the language in the ATP does suggest we would expand that program and how much we do there because I think quickly implementing safety improvements is going to be very necessary to achieve our vision zero goals and we don't currently do enough of that even though yes we do do some number of small scale short-term safety improvements. And the probably the second priority program I would call out there is the updated design standards which we are already looking at um in that CIP project and I hope that will include some of the more critical uh safety related design standards that are being discussed. Thank you.

[06:13:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Neil Gorenflo. Followed by Lada Adamic, followed by John Scarborough.

[06:13:39] Neil Gorenflo: Uh, good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Neil Gorenflo. I live on Central Avenue. I'm here tonight to ask you to consider Central Avenue as an implementation project of the active transportation plan. And it's this is really about safety. Central Avenue is already an important heavily trafficked um bicycle route that connects Stevens Creek Trail to Moffett Boulevard. And it's used by people of all ages. Um this includes elementary and middle school students, also high school students, but many many commuters heading to Shoreline office parks, downtown and the transit center. Uh, but there's a problem. That this connection is not safe enough. It's it's uh designated as a bike boulevard and a safe route to school by five area K through 12 schools, but speeding is common and and people on bikes um are still mixing with motor vehicle traffic. So and this isn't a theoretical concern, the intersection of Central and Moffett is identified by the city of as one of 15 bicycle and pedestrian near miss hot spots. Um, and while the city is enabling you know more biking and also more density in our neighborhood, um people leaving this Stevens Creek Trail must navigate this this dangerous gap uh to reach Moffett Boulevard and other destinations, especially downtown. So that gap is exactly what I believe the ATP should address. And and uh and what we're asking tonight is not for a specific design, but just to recognize Central Avenue as an ATP implementation gap and direct staff to evaluate an all ages and abilities um bicycle facility between Stevens Creek Trail and Moffett Boulevard. Um, and there there is a potential path to this, but that's the gist of what I wanted to ask and thank you very much. And this is this is a 223 petitions of my neighbors.

[06:15:49] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Um Lada, followed by John Scarborough, uh followed by April Webster. Um, are you seating is is April are you getting people seating time to you? Okay. All right, we will figure it out when you come up. Um Lada, go ahead.

[06:16:14] Lada Adamic: Um, hi, I'm a resident of Old Mountain View. I wanted to express support for the coalition letter. I think particularly important is to make sure that we can use the facilities that are built and planned at great expense and time. Um, part of that is making bike lanes permanent. I find myself very often on Middlefield uh on the weekend forgetting that that it's not a bike lane, it's a parking lane. And then I have to go into 35 40 mile an hour traffic risking my life. So my understanding is that a traffic study has already been done for the segment outside of the Complete Streets plan and it would be wonderful if I could also use those bike lanes on the weekend. Another part is enforcement of no parking in bike lanes that are already permanent. Um, this past weekend I biked on California Street to um the senior center because my friends were celebrating their wedding anniversary. It was wonderful, I biked there, I got some exercise, I felt great. That was great. Yesterday I was biking back from some grocery shopping in Palo Alto and there was a bike in the bike... there was a car in the bike lane on California Street. As I had to bike around in the car lane, there was actually a police car right there, and I know not every police car has to enforce, but wouldn't it have been nice if they had and I wouldn't have to navigate around cars. Um, finally my oh, and also if we can evaluate whether bots should be using these facilities that we you know constructed. Finally my son has been biking to school for years because we are lucky we live by the Stevens Creek Trail. It's been wonderful. The only time he was late was the one day all these years when I drove him and we ended up in gridlock. I hope every child can bike to school like my family has been able to. Thank you.

[06:18:20] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. John Scarborough, followed by April Webster, who has some time seated to her, and Eugene Cordero.

[06:18:28] John Scarborough: Hello City Council. Um, it's kind of hard to believe that I moved here long enough ago to settle down, have kids, now the kids are grown. But um, when they were young we used to walk around. We used to walk from Rex Manor down to the city center, walk around. When they got older they learned how to bike in the slower slower traffic areas and then they biked all around including to high school all their years. So I've seen improvements over the last 20 or more years and I'm glad that this plan is coming to fruition and it's integrating a lot of our non-car type of infrastructure. Uh, one of the things I think it'll do is it'll help us fix some of our long-standing problems and fix some of our upcoming ones. When I was on the EPC one of the long-standing things we had was that when we got more buildings whether offices or housing we'd also want to get more parks. And how do you do that? And that was always like a trade-off. What I can envision is with getting more greenery on our streets and streets that are more pleasant to walk on, that it's like more of a park like experience as we go around the city. And I think that's going to really help the city look better, get more people out and about, and even make some of the larger buildings we get more human scale as the street stuff is more human scale and less fast car scale. And it would also build in resilience because we do have you know global warming coming up, still actually right now, and the trees will help cool down the city and help us through that. So I support that. I support the community letter and thank you for your time on this.

[06:20:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have April Webster and we're going to reset that clock to 10 minutes for you.

[06:20:27] April Webster: Thank you. Um, I just want to say you're all troopers and Pat I hope you're enjoying Canada. All right, um, I want to start by saying thank you staff for taking a look at the detailed parts of the letter and incorporating as much as um you felt you could. Um, and um yeah I want to just move forward and say with this motion, um we really want council to think about um we really want you just to direct staff to make the changes that are in there and you know even the ones that haven't been yet um included by staff. Um, and uh yeah I want to say um you know I appreciate staff's response to council questions um and there's just a little concern that um you know we saw this in the questions and I appreciate that they were um you know uh revised afterwards, um but there is just this concern that things get narrowed sometimes or deferred to a future process. Um, and sometimes we're told that um when it comes to BPAC or CTC it comes as an information item and they're not really given an early opportunity to have an action. And all of these things are are quite concerning um and those aren't um you know the same as having meaningful involvement while decisions are still being made. Um, I want to get into some of the just in case some of you haven't read through it, I know it's long, we tried to keep it um sort of condensed at the beginning with a lot of details and attachments. So if you wanted to read through you could. Um, so the code review and standard details that James mentioned, what we really want there is it's already been um you know we know the project's already underway, um council in a unanimously in a straw poll for the biodiversity and urban forest plan um oh you know directed staff to include what um the coalition letter included then which were some of the details of what we sorry there's some problems with this. I must have this fell off. Um, but included those details um of what needed to be included. And what we're really concerned about this is really just a copy and paste thing, I hope this isn't too bad, you can hear me? Um, we want we're looking for the specific codes and standards that were already identified in the 2023 existing conditions report, we just want those carried over to the appendix. There are um a lot of little details in there, um in terms of you know A22 what it's about, why um it needs to be in there. For some of the other codes it identifies that they're not all ages and abilities. And we really think that fidelity is important to carry over um so staff there's just a clear um direction in there about what needs to be updated. Um that's what that ask is primarily about. On the 10-foot inter lanes, um we don't really want this to be evaluated, we just want this to happen. So we're hoping that um council can direct staff to make this the default. And that's only for the inner general purpose lanes, not the outermost lanes where you would see transit and big trucks and buses which is often a concern and is a requirement for VTA. Um, we also had a an ask about part-time bike lanes. Um, it's great that the city isn't planning to build anymore, but um that's what not this that's not what this ask is about. Um, what we want staff to do is to eliminate the part-time lanes we already have. Um especially those on Middlefield. Um we feel like this should be a simple change and can be added to Table 7 to be implemented at some time, hopefully sooner um in the future. Um but we we don't want to just see that conversion opportunities will be evaluated as projects occur. Um on traffic calming and small scale safety, um we do want to see more there and I thank you for including the small scale safety now in in um the changes you're making. Um on the traffic calming we do know like we had a look and we do know that the neighborhood traffic management program was updated. But the concern is that it's still not proactive. It as as Neil mentioned, you had, you know he had to go and collect 200 plus signatures. So it requires neighborhoods to jump through a whole lot of hoops to get any sort of problems they identify addressed. It doesn't have staff going looking out and seeing okay well maybe this street is unsafe, we're going to do some analysis and we'll take care of it. So we want that proactive bit. Um other cities are starting to do this like Palo Alto. And this makes a huge difference. Um having the neighborhoods go through and spend the time is almost like our business permit um issue that we face. Just all the paperwork or hoops. Um I had a friend who was trying to get a coffee shop in at Midwife for two years and gave up and um started working at a coffee shop in Redwood City. So it's kind of the same sentiment here, how can we streamline those things. Um, on the small scale safety program, um our main concern there which I think is addressed was that um it's not currently a program. Um and we are through the city doing spot treatments as staffing and funding allow, but that's not the same thing as having a coordinated program that identifies and prioritized problems, um make sure we have funding and gets things fixed. Okay, one of the big ones now, um I you know a lot of people have been concerned about this um and there's been a lot of feedback on different other out reaches. Um and that's the walkability and accessibility program. And I think this is a major gap and I want to point out or just remind you actually that this is a 10-year plan. Um, I didn't catch that this one was actually added in. I was looking at the questions and basing my comments off of that. Um, but I I think staff's response to the questions at least really identified the organizational gap we have. Um you know the city isn't currently resourced for this. Um and that it does require cross-departmental coordination, like we're not disputing any of that. But it is at the same time the kind of gap we're trying to address. Um the ATP should definitely establish this program, it's super important. Um and then build the capacity to deliver on it over the next 10 years or as soon as possible. Um rather than assuming that we need to have that capacity today. So we we would love to see that in there. Um and you know just because we have don't have capacity today doesn't mean doesn't shouldn't determine what Mountain View is capable of doing in the future, two years from now, five, ten. So we should definitely get it in there and then work towards that as um as a goal. Um, I think the green streets one was um pretty straightforward and incorporated. I I didn't to be honest I don't remember the numbers and the lettering of which ones we submitted. Um, with that one we were just asking for the language to be updated to um make sure it strengthened trees biodiversity shade etc. Most of these asks were pretty straightforward just asking additional language or a new program. Um, let's just see. Ah, performance targets. So, you saw in the presentation that there were some high level guiding principles, um we also have the vision, but there's a gap there. So, staff has identified KPIs, but we don't have measurable targets which you commonly see in plans. So this would be something like we want to um increase walking, you know, have a modality shift and increase it by 10 percent. Or we want um shade canopy coverage of 20 percent. So I think these are really important um for us to understand where we're moving. We don't have those for some reason. Um the KPIs help you evaluate towards getting in towards that goal. And so we would really like to see those added in. Um the appendix it's a lot, um but there are some ideas in there from other plans um around the Bay area, so if you're interested you can take a look. Um, I think I'm winding down. Sorry, I crossed a bunch of stuff out. Um that was addressed by staff. Um, but you know, I think as it stands now, without adding, you know, prior to this meeting and knowing that staff had added a number of things in, I felt uncomfortable asking council to adopt it because it didn't feel like it had the implementation teeth it needed. There are a lot of, it had a good foundation, good bones, but just not that sort of teeth. And um I think, you know, moving forward and the way we have, and adding more of what you see in that motion would get us to a really good place so that we can actually deliver. And this is something we did um in the biodiversity and urban forest plan too. A number of us came together and thought about, okay well how are we going to get there to what we want to see for these goals. So we're just asking you to do the same thing um in this and you know we want to see things moving forward and and um getting those implementations in. So thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

[06:30:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. All right, we have Eugene Cordero, followed by Cliff Chambers, followed by Joan Brodovsky.

[06:30:27] Eugene Cordero: Good evening. Uh, I'm going to echo a couple things that April just mentioned. Um, I'm going to start that I do like the plan that overall um guidance of the plan, but I think Mountain View historically has been good at planning and less good at implementing. So I'll go back to the 2015 plan, which had over 180 recommendations. Um, of those 180 recommendations, we've made some progress but actually it's been quite limited. Um, and many of the same gaps that we identified in 2015 still exist today and we saw some of those identified by staff. Um, in that plan in in 2015, we had set 6.5% of mode share in bicycling. But today uh according to the staff report, we're only at 3.8%. Cars are heavier, speeds are higher, um and so I feel like it's less safe to ride today. And I think evidence of that is is shown in that data. So I think we could learn from that experience. And what I'm going to recommend that council uh consider right now is that this plan is missing those the real goals and the annual reporting and our ability to really determine whether we're making progress. I know that uh staff mentioned they added commitment to performance metrics and annual reporting. That's great, but you how can you consider a plan without having that in there? So that's really essential part of this plan. I think you should ask staff to include those metrics, to include the goals, those annual goals and long-term goals. So that then council can um look at this and determine are these goals ambitious enough? Are they achievable? And then well know whether every year we're meeting our goals. So uh my recommendation is for council to consider asking staff to include those goals and and metrics so that we have those all together so that you can make best decision possible. Thank you.

[06:32:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Cliff Chambers, followed by Joan Brodovsky, and then we're going to go to our virtual public comment.

[06:32:33] Cliff Chambers: Cliff Chambers, long time resident of Mountain View. I first off, I'd really like to provide some context for the coalition letter. There was a lot of comments made and I think staff did an excellent job overall in responding to those comments. And I think the public participation was really a gold standard. Everybody had a lot of opportunity very often to to make comments. The origins of the letter is even though you made those progress there were a lot of implementation things that we felt really need staff direction. For example the last speaker talked about goals. We have safe routes to schools but what are we really trying to achieve in terms of mode shift from where we're at today to where we want to be? Less car queues around uh schools, what do we want to achieve and how is that going to be measured? It's a real weakness of this plan. I realized that staff has recommended over the next year to develop it, but it should have been in the in the plan. I I want to also talk about the part-time uh bike lanes. I live right off of Middlefield Road. Crittenden students use the bikes quite a bit to get to school. They use those lanes when there's no cars in the lane. They come on the then they start riding their bikes on the um weekends. They are riding like they used to and they suddenly have to swerve out into traffic. I see it all the time. I've seen several near misses. That was a bad policy established back then, it needs to be phased out. There's an accident waiting to happen. I have 12 seconds left but I want to support the whole walkability thing. I really wished we kept the bicycle and pedestrian plan separate because pedestrians are not getting enough treatment in this plan. Thank you.

[06:34:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Joan Brodovsky.

[06:34:42] Joan Brodovsky: Hello, it's nice to see you again. I'm Joan Brodovsky, I live on Sylvan Avenue and I'm 90 years old. I'm part of some uh 10,000 Mountain View residents who are over 65. Did you know that we were that numerous? Uh, and I soon will become one of the 1,500 residents whose vision has deteriorated enough that we can't drive. And so again did you know that there were that many of us? I saw you were discussing the active transportation plan tonight and I thought oh that's great, let's see what will help me get around. So that was a letdown when I read it because there was nothing. There's one mention of an MV shuttle uh which the one time I took it delivered me downtown in an hour. I probably could have walked it that fast. Everything else is about how younger people can get around uh walking or on a bike. Well that's not very useful for me. So when I won't be able to drive during the day, I can't drive at night now. I'll probably use Uber to get to the grocer and to go to Walgreens and to go down and get my coffee at Olympus which is my favorite hangout. Uh, but I'm privileged. I can afford to pay for an Uber and most of my neighbors really can't, not not at that rate. So I'm here to remind you of the demographic. Old people who can't see well. Our 1,500 souls aren't very many among the 50,000 or so normal working adults in this city. But we need you to remember us when you think about transportation in Mountain View. Thank you.

[06:36:30] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Miss Joan, may we be as spry as you are at when we become 90. Uh we are going to go to virtual public comment, Tim Oey.

[06:36:46] Tim Oey: Honorable Councilmembers, my name is Tim Oey. I'm a certified bicycling instructor and have taught thousands of bicyclists. I live in Sunnyvale and bike in Mountain View to work, shop, visit friends, volunteer, and eat. Thank you very much for the Castro Street pedestrian mall as well as the new bikeways along El Camino and California Ave. I use these almost every day to get to where I need to go. Motorists kill about 40,000 people every year in the US. Pollution and climate change cause about 200,000 premature deaths. Diabetes and obesity cause about 300,000 premature deaths. More walking and biking can reduce these deaths while getting us where we need to go. The new proposed ATP is excellent. When implemented, this plan will greatly improve walking and biking safely and explicitly for all ages and abilities across Mountain View. Nonetheless, there is a lot more to do so biking and walking are safe and pleasant enough, including the additions recommended in the coalition letter. I particularly support eliminating part-time bike lanes, getting rid of those. They need to be full-time, and having better metrics. I bike night or day, rain or shine. Thank you very much.

[06:38:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Mr. Oey. Um Valerie F.

[06:38:31] Valerie Fenwick: Hello, this is Valerie Fenwick. Um, I am a resident of Mountain View for over 25 years. I am a former member of the BPAC and I was a former member of the AT PAC as well. And this plan has been um more than a decade in the works and I'm very proud of everybody's inputs here and I thank staff and council for bringing it this far. Uh would like to say um thank you also for staff noting that this supersedes our prior prior disparate pedestrian and bike plans. I do hope that we can still keep focus on bikes. Cars uh to earlier CTC comment and uh council member McAlister's comment cars are the default mode for all planning. They're the default mode they are always considered. We and the people who drive cars also come to the meetings and guess what those of us who ride and bikes and walk and scooter we also drive cars. Uh almost all of us. So I drive these roads as well as walk these roads. Um very thankful for this. I also wanted to second everything that Lada Adamic said as well as um please get rid of the part-time bike lanes / parking. That's really confusing and really challenging, particularly as it gets late earlier. People think I can park because it's dark there's no bikes and it makes it very dangerous for us riding home. I commute currently via Middlefield Road uh to Sunnyvale. Um I like that there is a lot of um things here to protect the most vulnerable people in the city of Mountain View and we may um we may not always be in a car, but we are important. And if you ever get near any of our middle schools or elementary schools during commute time you will see the many dozens dozens of bicyclists on the roads at those times and they are the most vulnerable users. So I really encourage council to move forward with this plan and please also consider doing something with the sidewalk gaps on Wright Avenue in Rex Manor. Thank you.

[06:40:36] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Next we have Zachary K.

[06:40:42] Zachary Kwok: Um, hello council members. Can you hear me?

[06:40:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Yes, we can hear you.

[06:40:46] Zachary Kwok: Okay, hi. My name is Zachary Kwok. I am a high school senior and a Mountain View resident. Um, I just want to echo the previous comments and express my support for the coalition letter. Uh, thank you to staff for your readiness to incorporate the aspects of the letter that you are able to and thank you to council and staff for your continued work on this plan. Um, I've lived in Mountain View my entire life and I'm incredibly proud of it and I love living here and so a big part of that was the fact that I could get to school, I went to EMI and so I biked there every day, and loving biking downtown and biking on the Stevens Creek Trail and biking to go hang out with my friends and um a lot of that has you know is really dependent on my ability to bike safely. Um, I'm really glad that Mountain View has been so supportive of bikers, the you know the fact that my parents allowed me to bike to school means that yes they did there was a some level of like they did believe that Mountain View was safe and I hope that that support for biking and for pedestrians and for safe transit continues for all the kids who grow up here after me. Um, so uh yeah and it I'd also just like to touch on you know increasing the amount of tree canopy. Uh, it can get really hot out especially in summer. I used to bike to um Rengstorff like uh like every so often for the junior leaders program over there um and so that was kind of hot. And then yeah also just you know uh in going to the teen center or being involved in various volunteering activities around Mountain View, um it's really important that I can bike there safely and it's uh often dangerous if there's cars parked there and I'm scared that they're going to open their door and I either have to swerve into the sidewalk or into the lane. So um yeah, I'd just like to express my support for the increased specificity and programs in the letter. Thank you so much.

[06:42:38] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Zachary and thank you for staying with us on a school night. Um, next we have Chloe Chiang.

[06:42:48] Chloe Chiang: Hi, good evening council members. Um, my name is Chloe Chiang and um I'm a high school student. I'm a Los Altos resident but um I bike through Mountain View uh six days a week um and I wanted to express my strong support for the um community coalition letter. Um, so um I essentially wanted to um support the the motion of um enforcing against car parking and bike lanes and uh the removal of temporary bike lanes. Um, because on my bike ride to sit in the morning to Mountain View Caltrain um or back home from the Mountain View Caltrain station um I see parked cars in the Castro bike lanes near Graham middle school um like 60 percent of the time and it's super scary and inconvenient to have to switch into uh car traffic whenever they happen to be obstructing the bike lane. And also um I'd like to uh include how uh when I bike to my dance classes every weekend um while the ideal route would involve biking on Rengstorff um I've tried it a few times but it just doesn't feel safe enough, so instead I've resorted to biking through the San Antonio Caltrain station and going up and down the ramps um instead of just making um a simple turn off of uh Rengstorff. Um, but I do really enjoy taking California Street because the protected bike lanes are uh really great. And so seeing more a val- uh more of that implemented especially on uh Rengstorff would be amazing. So please include the coalition letters um recommendations in the motion tonight. Um, thank you.

[06:44:35] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Chloe. Um next is Rashmi.

[06:44:41] Rashmi Sahai: Hi, can you hear me?

[06:44:42] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.

[06:44:44] Rashmi Sahai: Great, thank you. Um, yes, my name is Rashmi Sahai and I'm a Mountain View resident and a member of Green Spaces Mountain View. And I am also here to express my support for the coalition letter and um hoping that council members will incorporate the...

Segment 10

[06:45:00] Rashmi Sahai: the recommendations that are in it and their motion tonight. Um, I really do appreciate um that staff was able to share with us what they are able to incorporate already, and maybe um with a little bit more time, um maybe during the break, kind of looking through the details of the letter one more time and being really clear about what's possible and what's not would be helpful. And having council members really um push for some of those things that may seem challenging but actually are pretty practical straightforward measures that um just make the the vision and the goals and the strategies um a reality.

[06:45:35] Rashmi Sahai: Um, a lot of times the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the case here. So we want to make sure that um what we that we are translating our vision into reality, and I think a lot of the things in the letter um pull those details out um and highlight them and provide some um practical ways of addressing them. So that's all, just wanted to express my support for the letter. Um, thank you so much.

[06:46:09] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Rashmi. And closing us out for public comment, Daniel Hulsey.

[06:46:17] Daniel Hulsey: Hi, can you hear me?

[06:46:18] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We can hear you.

[06:46:20] Daniel Hulsey: Okay, uh well good night everyone. Um, I'm here to uh support the ATP, I also support the sort of omni letter that was sent in by all the organizations. Um, but I also have a couple thoughts also to to tag onto it. Um, the first is, you know, that really uh the ATP is not about people who ride their bike like me, which is to say like a maniac uh on fast-moving streets uh taking all these sorts of risks. It's it's about these vulnerable road users. You've heard them tonight, you've heard uh, you know, kids going to school. It's about, you know, I see uh elderly people on scooters in the bike lane on El Camino that's that's brand new. It's about uh you know, people people using it as a as a last-mile option because they don't have a car from from the bus or train.

[06:47:30] Daniel Hulsey: Um, and so just just all these people who our city needs to do a better job of protecting. And so, so that's that's the first one is and that's the the importance of AAA infrastructure and I I appreciate that in the ATP. My second thought is just we have a piece of paper here, but what really matters is our city's commitment to delivering on the piece of paper. So I would like to see that reflected in council's priorities uh as well as the processes we put in place. And then finally, I've got my one nitpick. Showers Drive near the uh San Antonio Caltrain station has a sidewalk gap. I don't see it in any of the documents, I think it should be addressed. Thanks.

[06:49:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. And with that, we are going to take a 10-minute break. Uh, so we will reconvene back at 11:56. Lord help us all.

[06:53:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right everyone, let's go. No, we are we are continuing on. Let's get it. All right.

[06:53:54] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We are now bringing it back to council for We are now bringing the item back to council for questions and deliberation. The city clerk will take a roll call vote as we have a council member participating remotely this evening. All right. Any questions, comments? Councilmember McAlister, let's go.

[06:54:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, well after this I think I'll slow it down a bit, but so I I wrote up a comment and uh I wanted to comment on Joan when she said older and people sometimes misconstrue what I'm trying to get across and when I say cars I also mean public transit and there's an example of somebody who needs public transit or our shuttle service. And our demographics and I mentioned this at the CTC that the people get older and they need they need other ways to get about. So I sort of have a vision of what I want the ATP to be because I think it needs to be all inclusive. So I'll read a a little statement here.

[06:55:00] Councilmember John McAlister: When developing a comprehensive active transportation plan, vehicle travel, parking availability, and traffic congestion serve as a critical factor that shape its overall feasibility and success. Because active transportation initiatives, such as expanding bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and building pedestrian plazas, frequently require reallocating existing street space, planners must evaluate how changes to roadway capacity impact surrounding traffic flow and parking capacity.

[06:55:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Unmanaged congestion and lost parking can generate pushback from residents and local businesses, whereas thoughtful integration can show how improved walking and cycling infrastructure actually reduces vehicle dependency, alleviates traffic bottlenecks, and optimizes existing parking supply. Balancing these motor vehicle considerations alongside pedestrian and cyclist needs ensures that an active transportation network integrates seamlessly into the broader multimodal system rather than operating in isolation. And that's my goal. So, thank you.

[06:56:10] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember McAlister. Do we have any other comments or do we want to go to the grid thingy? Let's see the grid.

[06:56:16] Staff: So while we're pulling that up on the screen, there were nine actions that the coalition letter asked us to look at. Um, out of those nine actions, we believe that six can be partially incorporated or fully incorporated into the plan fairly easily. And so we're flashing them up on the screen right now. Um, the ones we believe we can incorporate easily include greening and tree canopy improvements, as well as uh part-time bicycle lane elimination. Um, it is noted on that one that an ordinance change will be required, but that doesn't mean that that should keep us from our long-term goal of eliminating part-time bike lanes. So we believe those can be included.

[06:57:00] Staff: The partial inclusion recommendations, sorry it's getting late. The the recommendations of the letter that we believe we can partially include include um 1A which is updated design standards, but that is limited to the scope of CIP project 27-27, which was approved as part of the last budget cycle. Um, it does look at uh streetscape um as uh essentially as the design standards that are going to be reviewed um and updated. Uh, we're currently just kicked that off, kicked off that project today, um and we've got a schedule to get that um uh uh revised and reviewed by the advisory bodies um through next summer of 2027.

[06:58:00] Staff: Uh, we believe that KPIs and performance targets to measure active transportation progress can be developed over the next year. As mentioned previously, uh there is a plan to report out to the BPAC over um by the next fall. Um, it's a little bit hard to develop uh performance targets at this point since this is a long-range visionary plan. And as I mentioned before, we don't have resources quite yet allocated. That'll be coming as part of our budget process, but over the next year we should be able to figure that out. For smaller scale safety improvements, um we believe we can easily move language from Chapter 4 to Table 7, that is an easy accommodation.

[06:59:00] Staff: Um, the request for traffic calming and doing an update on that one, um we believe we can do a partial. So we believe that what we can do as staff is consider including green infrastructure as we're evaluating traffic calming projects um as they come up through the NTMP program. There are three items that we do not believe that staff should include um as part of the ATP. Uh, they are the 10-foot inner lanes. At this time, lane widths are going to be evaluated as part of CIP 27-27. We haven't gotten to that point yet, we haven't done the analysis, it is I believe overly prescriptive to tell staff to use 10-foot lanes all over the city. Um, and we haven't looked at the different street typologies and the different street classifications to see really where um we can uh achieve a difference.

[07:00:00] Staff: Um, another request that we do not plan to incorporate or do not recommend to incorporate is um adding findings of the standard detail and code review to the existing conditions appendix. And this was data that was developed by the consultant and it was initially presented to the BPAC in 2023 as draft deliverables. That um report was since removed from the final adopted plan because we found that some of the language that was presented in that draft deliverable didn't accurately reflect how we apply our design standards, and or it referred to outdated standards. So it was not useful to us. Um, the parts that are applicable, um, you know, we'll we'll rely on um as we move forward.

[07:00:30] Staff: And then the walkability and accessibility program. Um, as indicated in the council Q&A, you know, we're currently not resourced to create a brand new program as part of this plan. This plan is really just to create the long-range vision, it did not assign additional resources to create such things as a new program. Um, there are um I don't want to say consequences, but there are um tradeoffs, that's a good word, thank you. Sorry it's it's late, my brain is a little fuzzy. Um, but there are things that come along with creation of a new program that we're not prepared to undertake at this time right now. So that is the summary um, and we have uh the six that we believe we can include up on the screen right there.

[07:01:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, thank you. Councilmember McAlister, is that still you or is that from your old comment?

[07:01:11] Councilmember John McAlister: I was still here, but that's an old comment.

[07:01:13] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Okay, so we'll go with Councilmember Ramirez next.

[07:01:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm going to try and cover a lot of ground as quickly as I can. First, um responding to uh some of the public comments. Um, I had an opportunity to meet with uh residents along uh Central Avenue um on I think it was Monday, yesterday. Um, and uh it was, I, well, yes, um, uh and and it was, it was a very valuable experience, and I really appreciated um the the members of the staff who who were able to join. Um, and uh witness some of the concerns firsthand and also hear the perspective of the the residents and um the organizers of the the petition.

[07:02:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I'll I'll share here what I what I mentioned then. Um, uh the ATP among many other things is um a scoring and prioritization exercise. Um, so I I wouldn't I wouldn't feel I would please don't interpret if we do not include uh Central um in the context of our work tonight um uh as a as a candidate for a bicycle lane, please don't don't consider that um as a an effort to try and ignore your your work. Um, I think it's we'll have to be mindful and respectful of the the the the work that staff did that uh through their analysis elevated a number of streets for for prioritization for um for bicycle lane uh improvements, um and and Central wasn't, you know, through that scoring methodology, uh wasn't prioritized. But that that we can still provide direction through the capital improvement program and another context to pursue investment on on Central based on uh the uh the feedback that we've received from from from residents.

[07:03:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, you know, I I plan to make a motion, I'm open to amendments. I wasn't going to include Central, but that's not because I'm hostile to the notion. I actually was I left feeling uh feeling very strongly that improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities makes sent makes sense on Central since in the 45, 50 minutes that we were there, the the pedestrian and and bicycle uh volume was was quite substantial and and sustained. Uh, so I I do think it and and you know it's not not just because of the RVs, but because of, you know, other other constraints, um the speed of of the vehicles who were traveling through, um and and parking conflicts generally. I I can see how uh it it can be challenging, especially for for uh, you know, younger students who are riding through and um, you know, navigating those conflicts is is tricky in any in any circumstance.

[07:04:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I wanted to you you took the time to show up, and you've been here for many, many hours, so thank you for uh for your work in in the community. And I I'm confident that, you know, this council or the next council um will will continue to work with you and your neighbors to make sure that you have the uh investment and safety that your community or that your neighborhood deserves. Um, I appreciate um uh Councilmember McAlister's elevation of Joan Brodovsky's comments. Very sobering, honestly. I think um it's it's very easy to um focus um on on members of the community who are very active and show up a lot, and you know I I don't want to discount their input by any means, but we have a lot of members of the community who don't have the ability or, you know, the the time to to come to council meetings, and many of them are older adults um with disabilities uh who um are, you know, currently or may soon lose their ability to to drive.

[07:05:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And it's challenging to get around town in Mountain View if you can't drive. It's much more challenging if you can't drive and you have other mobility constraints. Um, and I I actually agree that um the ATP really didn't contemplate from my perspective um other that that demographic group uh in in particular. I would say older adults and individuals with with disabilities. I I I feel like at a just sort of big picture I don't think we we quite hit the mark with this plan, and I'll compare it to the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and the Biodiversity Plan which felt very robust. This one feels a little bit lighter and and I I think uh it's, you know, um it's it's good work um but it's it's missing elements, um and so I hope that the BPAC, the next council, um and the community continue to work with staff to to bolster it and to include um uh segments of our community who who maybe really didn't have a meaningful opportunity to to participate.

[07:06:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I I want to be um, you know, I I want to be appreciative of the work that staff has has done, but I I do feel like this um, you know, may maybe maybe we need to rethink how we we entertain and incorporate public input, how we reach out to a broader community, and uh and and include um some recommendations and and projects that that maybe are more holistic in in their implementation and and the outcomes that we're striving for. Um, so that was my nice way of saying, you know, I'm I'm not sure that, you know, we've landed exactly where we want wanted to land, but fortunately it's a plan and it can be amended, and I um I'm happy to uh uh to incorporate - I actually Councilmember McAlister has hit the motion button, so I'm not going to make a motion, I guess. Um, but but I hope that the maker of the motion includes uh these modifications.

[07:07:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, a few other quick things, um, I'm uh I listened to uh the CTC meetings and I I heard your comments earlier, Councilmember McAlister, and I, you know I I think maybe maybe I might be uncharitable in sort of my interpretation of of uh how I'm understanding your comments, um, you know, that it it's an active transportation plan, right? And active transportation has a very specific connotation, um, you know, using your, you know, your feet and, you know, legs to to navigate the world, right, to to walk around or bike around or scoot or whatever. Um, and you've mentioned a couple of times uh the importance of considering drivers and and uh, you know, I guess conventional vehicles, you know, motorists and that kind of thing. Um, and I I feel like that's just not what the active transportation plan is. It's not to say that we shouldn't um be mindful of roadway conflicts. I think that's that's what the ATP is intended to do, but I I, you know, I especially in in your CTC comments, I couldn't help but feel like you're you're presenting this work as a zero-sum game, right?

[07:08:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, where, you know, with motorists and with bicyclists, you know, neither can live while the other survives. That kind of thing, right? But I I would encourage you to think instead of a zero-sum game that this is more like a heated rivalry, right? And in particular, the ATP is episodes five and six where they learn to live together. So I think there's there's good work in here, and I don't think it is, you know, sort of ignorant of the reality of of motor vehicles and um the challenges that roadway conflicts create, but I think thinking about sharing the road, you know, the reality that motorists dominate right now. 10 times out of 10 if I'm riding my bike and there's a and I hit a car, right, the car is going to defeat me. Right? That's why we invest so heavily in bicycle and pedestrian facilities improving safety. That's why we have this plan to begin with.

[07:09:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so that was my response to you. I think I spoke about - oh, thank you to the members of the of the public who put together this very comprehensive letter, 21 pages. Um, I I I'm feeling like you may not walk away feeling totally heard because I know you put in so much work into making these modifications. Um, I hope this is pretty good. Um, you know, I I would actually support going a little bit further, um, but I it's 12:17 in the morning and you know, I know we're all we're all fatigued. So if there if there are members of the council who would like to go a little bit further, I'm totally comfortable with incorporating more of these recommendations, but um I I do want to uh acknowledge the significant amount of work that you've put into this. Uh, it's not easy to do the research and to put it all together and then to get however many organizations and individuals to sign onto a coalition letter. So thank you for your advocacy. And I'll stop there.

[07:10:48] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez. Simultaneously love and hate you at the same time. Um, so Councilmember Hicks.

[07:10:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm hoping there is apparently a motion coming, but and I'm hoping to support a motion that will um adopt the ATP with the um suggested uh changes here and any other changes council members want to sprinkle in. Um, you know uh maybe I will take those photos. Um, so I I want to thank staff for all the work they've done on this. Thank my fellow CTC members because we've had robust discussion for multiple times. Um, and also thank all the members of the public who've been weighing in over the months. Um, I'll just say on a high level the thing I I agree with some of your comments on I have often wondered whether it's making meeting the mark or however you put it. I have at times thought what kind of what uh Councilmember McAlister has has said, um, which is that uh my my best understanding of of it is that you can't fully understand active transportation with without also thinking about in particular about shuttles and mass transit because there's usually a particularly to lower our greenhouse gas our carbon footprint, you usually combine the two.

[07:12:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: In fact, cities that really reduce car use it's primarily because of mass transit and walking and the two pair together. And then there are all sorts of other things, drop off and uh all sorts of other things that that you want to think about. So I do hear his continual frustration the idea that you can't really think about this without seeing it all together. At the same time, I liked uh Cliff Chambers' comment that maybe we give pedestrianism short shrift if we don't look at it alone and constantly putting it in with bikes or total multimodal situations. The things that really get people walking I think are are shade first. Many of my friends won't walk with me unless they we have tree canopy. So kind of putting trees in at the end as we often do when we're thinking about bike paths often doesn't serve walkers. Um, and and also a place to walk to. When we lose our Nob Hill or whatever neighborhood serving retail, um, people people don't walk as much. So we don't talk about those things when we talk about an ATP in the context of um biking and and walking.

[07:13:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I think we gain some things by putting them together and lose other things. Um, I uh and I also think that as electric cars have become such a big thing when we focus on reducing our green greenhouse gas output just by talking about active transportation we're not we're not seeing the big picture. Um, so but I'm very happy that uh that you said you can add traffic calming uh I guess slow streets and bike boulevards with more greening. My big my big um concern about the way we've been doing addressing traffic calming is we have, and maybe these are some I guess there's do you have other pictures here? I took some pictures of places where they've used greening as diverters so that uh so that people uh so that cars can't just barrel down streets and so that they're more open for biking and walking.

[07:14:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I think some of these solutions are a lot less expensive than um than some of the ones that we're applying in the ATP. So I would like to encourage, I know these are in our sort of toolkit when we talk to people about traffic calming, but from what I've seen when my neighbors try to use it these solutions come at the end and they're usually told that speed humps are much more effective. And I'm hoping we can shift that a little so that we put these kind of in the beginning of the toolkit not just at the end. And I think we can save money and get more more biking and walking, particularly biking, because I know a lot of people who you know they look at what we've done on El Camino Real but they would really prefer to bike on neighborhood streets. So um so I will I will table it there and I'm looking forward to the motion.

[07:16:46] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you, Councilmember Hicks. Councilmember Showalter, how are you doing there?

[07:16:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm okay. I had some coffee. Um, I uh just want to say some general things and um then I too want to hear the motion. Um, first of all, I haven't been involved particularly in this development because I'm not on the CTC. And um I want to thank the people who have, and particularly the members of the community who have, and our consultants and our staff. I know this has been a herculean effort. And um, but some of the things I've noticed about it is that this plan really deals with the city right-of-way. And in that city right-of-way, we do have to have cars, we do have to have bicycles, um we have sidewalks on the edge. Um, sometimes they're in the city right-of-way and sometimes they're in people's they're in people's uh private property.

[07:18:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, but I think that's really important to remember that this is a right-of-way area. This is a geography that we're covering. And um uh I I would like to expand that a little as we move forward because every time I talk to people about um things that make biking and walking more comfortable, I hear just exactly what Councilmember um Hicks just said. They really appreciate green streets and um they really appreciate the shade. And I've never heard of a sustainability program that didn't have plant trees as part of it. So I just want to say that that we want to think about the trees first. And um and they might not be in the right-of-way. We might have to um inspire our proper private property owners to help us out with these tree-lined streets. And this isn't part of this plan, but I think it should be part of of how we function moving forward, and perhaps this can be part of our volunteer strategy, and maybe we can do this through our neighborhood associations. I mean it's something to think about moving forward.

[07:19:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and then another thing I wanted to talk about is is how important programming is. That's included in this plan somewhat. Um, we have a lot of stuff about Safe Routes to School. I think um that's been very impactful and we certainly have many many kids riding their bikes now and um uh that's wonderful. It gives them exercise, it it it builds independence skills, um it's you know it reduces traffic, it's just it's just really great. But as has been said, um we don't have nearly as much programming for people at the other side of the scale with mobility issues um or just adults who might be um reluctant to ride bikes and need a little help and having classes or uh community bike rides, that sort of thing. I think is really important, and I I hope we don't forget that.

[07:20:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, and then the other thing I wanted to mention is that as we go through this process of kind of thinking about this. Uh, I I would like us to think about green streets first. That that's the first thing we should think about when we're going to make improvements is how are we going to green these streets? Because there's so many positive things that come from doing that. Uh, the stormwater, you know, the shade, you know, all that uh the GHG reduction, all that stuff. Then the next thing I think that we don't talk about enough and we should do more is enforcement. I don't think that we give people enough tickets. I think we need to have people, I mean I think from time to time we need to have the police out uh in our community at various places um correcting people's behavior either by just being there and inspiring people to obey the rules or if people are egregious, giving them tickets. And I um I I don't uh want to say that I know how to do that, but I I think there needs to be a little more emphasis on that. I often hear people complain that there isn't any enforcement or there's not enough enforcement. So I think that's another thing that, obviously that's not Public Works, but I think it we need to have a collaboration with um the Police Department with that.

[07:20:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then after we go through the green streets and the um enforcement part, thought process, that's when we move to the infrastructure. And um uh there are many places in our community where that's absolutely what is needed, and that's what this plan has really um uh has really focused on, is where are those north-west and east-west, I mean north-south and east-west um uh routes that we need to improve so that there's good kind of thoroughfares, there aren't gaps, etc., etc. So I just wanted to say that, those, kind of that hierarchy of thought, green streets, enforcement, and infrastructure. It's just one of the things that I've um I've gleaned from from reading all this information. So, I hope John is next so we can get to the uh get to the uh to the motion. Yes.

[07:21:14] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right, Councilmember McAlister, it's on you. Do you have a magic motion for us?

[07:21:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I'm sure it's going to have some fairy dust on it, but uh I say we adopt the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan including all items that were listed by staff and to uh somehow evaluate Central Avenue for evaluation of...

Segment 11

[07:30:00] Councilmember John McAlister: of bike lanes and active ATP improvements. That's what you were looking for Councilmember Ramirez? For Central.

[07:30:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh I I wasn't going to include that in the motion if if I were to make it, and that's because the prioritization in the ATP didn't include Central.

[07:30:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I included it for you. Evaluation. Um, and so there's a lot, and I appreciate that staff, well what they recommended.

[07:30:29] Councilmember John McAlister: We are have a lot of plans in front, and if we continue, they have a lot to work with, a lot to evaluate. And if we just make it harder, is this going to delay the process?

[07:30:41] Councilmember John McAlister: So what they have done, they are familiar with, the additions will improve it and give them opportunity to refine.

[07:30:48] Councilmember John McAlister: And this is a breathing document, they've talked about how they're going to evaluate, so they got a starting point, it's going to be evaluated in multiple ways of how they validate what's out there to see it's still relevant.

[07:31:01] Councilmember John McAlister: And so we still gotta give them a chance to get it started. And so I think this would be a great start. And so um that's why I like what's presented. So that's my motion.

[07:31:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember McAlister. Vice Mayor Clark.

[07:31:19] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Um, I'll just ask if there's a a second before I make a different motion.

[07:31:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: We have a second by Councilmember Hicks. So Vice Mayor Clark.

[07:31:28] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I would support a motion for the staff recommendation with incorporating the things that were on the screen that staff identified. As much as I would love to include Central Avenue, I don't think doing it at the last minute of a six-year process is the right way to do it. I can...

[07:31:46] Councilmember John McAlister: I can take that off.

[07:31:53] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So is is that Vice Mayor Clark, was that a friendly amendment?

[07:31:58] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I if if the motion maker and the seconder will accept it as a friendly amendment, otherwise I'll oppose the motion.

[07:32:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Sure.

[07:32:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: All right. We have the friendly amendment accepted. Uh Councilmember Kamei.

[07:32:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I just thought I'd speak before hopefully we vote. Um so I will say I I've lost a little bit of my steam.

[07:32:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um but I I do want to I do want to say a few things which is, you know, I feel fortunate to have been on CTC and so this um this isn't kind of my my first review.

[07:32:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I just want to thank staff because it literally has been such an iterative iterative process. And every time it comes back with more and more and more and tonight you got more as well.

[07:32:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So just thank you for the wherewithal of um uh you taking this on.

[07:32:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I just wanted to say I I agree with the sentiments uh of um how I view our our ATP. I think it's about how we make our community a safer, walkable, bikeable, um accessible um community.

[07:33:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think a lot and probably because Pat you're in Canada I'm thinking about this, I think about the the non-profit 8 80 which is like um celebrating 20 years and their whole focus was how do children from 8 all the way to seniors to 80 kind of have the same user experience in terms of like the the accessibility and having a more livable city.

[07:33:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So sometimes I like to read books and moonlight as an urban planner um Councilmember Hicks. Um I took a couple classes in grad school.

[07:33:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um but uh so I I I think we're on the right track. I would say um just reflecting on Councilmember Showalter's comments on enforcement, to me the key component of what will make a successful ATP is education.

[07:33:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And it's highlighted in our staff report like a little bit. Um but I feel like as we're talking about things like this, um which is not only like mode shifting in terms of how someone actually physically gets around, we need to mode shift people's minds and how they're thinking about our community,

[07:34:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: which is if we're going to be making improvements in our right of way, doing other things, we need to make sure that our residents are educated on um how this is going to benefit them.

[07:34:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think um currently we we all tend to be rushing or from place to place um and I think that leads to a lot of, you know, conflicts and conflict zones, right? Intersections, um slip lanes which I everyone knows I extremely dislike extremely.

[07:34:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um and so how we can build in the education component which I feel might be a little bit more um carrot than stick with the enforcement part.

[07:34:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I'd really like to find ways to highlight that. And so particularly for our very engaged community members who have been adding things every time the ATP comes forward, can we maybe brainstorm more on like the education component?

[07:35:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um and how we can get people to adopt the great ideas that you have because ideas need um ambassadors in the implementation process. So, just wanted to add that before we vote. Thanks.

[07:35:23] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Councilmember Ka-, Ah Councilmember Kamei. Wow it's getting really late. Um well it looks like we have a motion by Councilmember McAlister, seconded by Councilmember Hicks.

[07:35:34] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I'll just say uh thank you to staff for their work on the ATP. I grew up in a very um car-centric city um initially and it it took me a while to de-program that for me

[07:35:48] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: and it's because of how our our bike and well actually I don't know how to ride a bike, but um the walking infrastructure has been um good and how we have planned for things and my proximity to downtown has has been helpful for things like that.

[07:36:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: I I think about as um I think we were all kind of moved by uh Ms. Joan Brodovsky's comment about um how is this going to necessarily help a number of seniors.

[07:36:15] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: It reminded me, as I mentioned I grew up in a very car-centric uh a city. In that same car-centric city, I had an uncle that passed away because he was hit by a car walking at night.

[07:36:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So, it it these have kinds of consequences. And I'm glad that we are are taking the opportunity um in our city to to find ways to make it safer for everyone to walk and bike if they can.

[07:36:44] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um not just on a a planning perspective because if you have too many cars on the road it's actually kind of a sucky experience for everyone, but if we have that shift um with more people walking instead of getting into their car to go to the next thing that they need to do,

[07:36:58] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: and if we make it easier for people we we not only uh plan better for our cities, we save lives.

[07:37:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: So, thank you again for the work. Thank you to the members of public who have stuck through with us at 12:30 at night and uh thank you Councilmember Showalter. Let's go for a vote. Councilmember McAlister?

[07:37:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[07:37:21] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks?

[07:37:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[07:37:23] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Kamei?

[07:37:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[07:37:24] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Ramirez?

[07:37:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[07:37:26] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Showalter?

[07:37:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[07:37:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Vice Mayor Clark?

[07:37:29] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[07:37:29] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor Ramos? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Woo hoo! Alright, last item of the night! I, Set Item 7.2. Annual Compensation Increase for City Clerk and City Manager; Amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to Update the Salaries for Council Appointees. Vice Mayor Clark will present the item.

[07:37:53] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Thank you, Mayor Ramos. Uh, each year the City Council reviews the performance and compensation of our council appointees. The council appointees include the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and the City Manager.

[07:38:06] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: The City Attorney position is currently in recruitment and therefore is not included in the in this uh this year's annual evaluation process.

[07:38:15] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: As the Vice Mayor, I oversaw this process and the council was assisted by professional facilitator Nelson I realize I have not said his last name until now, Fialho I believe from uh Renne Public Management. Sorry Nelson if you're watching and I got that wrong.

[07:38:29] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Uh, the purpose of this item is to consider adjustments to compensation that align with both individual accomplishments and organizational goals for the year ahead.

[07:38:37] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: The Brown Act requires the City Council to orally report a summary of a recommendation for council action on the salary, salary schedule, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits for council appointees during an open meeting at which final action is to be taken. And that meeting is tonight.

[07:38:54] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: To satisfy the requirement, I am providing this report uh of the recommended recommendation, recommended adjustment for the City Clerk and the City Manager.

[07:39:04] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: The recommended adjustment for the City Clerk is a 2% merit increase, professional coaching and development reimbursement of up to $6,500 in fiscal year 2026, 2027 to be funded from funded from existing appropriations,

[07:39:19] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: and an additional 2% of base salary as an ongoing city contribution to a 457b deferred compensation plan.

[07:39:28] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: For the City Manager, the recommendation is to authorize the City Manager to participate in the newly revised Mountain View Employee Homebuyer and Relocation Assistance Program Council Policy D-13 for the purchase of a new home in Mountain View.

[07:39:42] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: In addition to an ongoing increase of $4,527.90 to the city's annual 401a flat amount contribution indexed by the COLA and or merit applied to the incumbent's salary each year equivalent to approximately 1% of base salary. That concludes my report. Thank you.

[07:40:04] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you. Does any member of the council have questions? Seeing none. Um, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

[07:40:16] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We will take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes because I don't see anyone.

[07:40:28] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, seeing no speakers in person, I will now take virtual public comment. Also seeing none, we will now bring the item back to council for deliberation for questions and deliberation.

[07:40:37] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: The City Clerk will take a roll call a roll call vote as we have council members participating actually this still needs to be a roll call vote she's off now. I mean we can still take a roll call vote it'll be fine.

[07:40:50] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Um, uh, please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. It looks like we have a motion by Vice Mayor Clark.

[07:41:00] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: I know we went very quickly through that, but I don't want um the speed with which we went to that to detract from our appreciation for our City Manager and our City Clerk all the work they they've done over the last year.

[07:41:12] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: We're very, very lucky to have both of you and I think my colleagues feel the same way and probably just may not speak tonight. But we will thank you individually if if that's all right.

[07:41:21] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: But thank you again for your your commitment to public service and for putting up with us um including at 12:39 AM uh for sessions like this.

[07:41:34] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: So I move that we adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving annual compensation increases for the City Clerk and City Manager and amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Salary Plan for Regular Employees to update the salaries for Council Appointees to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[07:41:51] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Thank you Vice Mayor Clark, that has been seconded by Councilmember Kamei. Let's take a vote. Vice Mayor Clark?

[07:42:00] Vice Mayor Chris Clark: Yes.

[07:42:01] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Kamei?

[07:42:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[07:42:03] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Hicks?

[07:42:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[07:42:05] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember McAlister?

[07:42:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[07:42:06] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Councilmember Ramirez?

[07:42:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[07:42:08] Mayor Emily Ann Ramos: Mayor Ramos? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Woo hoo! Congratulations y'all. Um, we will now move on to item 8, Council, Staff, and Committee Reports. Do we have any Council, Staff, and Committee reports? I am seeing none. Um, alright! With that, I am calling this meeting adjourned at um 12:40 AM. Let's go to bed!

• ← Previous