December 15, 2022 Council Policy and Procedures Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:02] Member Lisa Matichak: Great. Great. Okay. wonderful. So this is the council policy and procedures committee meeting of December 15th. And during this declared state of emergency, the meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code 54953 E as authorized by resolution. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the council policy and procedures committee will participate in the meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to comment on any item may do so in the following ways. Email comments to city.manager at mountain view.gov by 12 noon on the meeting date. Emails will be forwarded to the CPPC and entered into the record for the meeting. Please identify the agenda item number on the subject line of your email. Provide oral comments during the meeting. Uh, obviously, if you're watching us, you've figured out how to log into Zoom. Um, but, uh, Just as a reminder, your email address will not be disclosed to the public. And when the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click the race hand feature in Zoom. Speakers will be notified of their turn shortly before they are called on to speak. And if you're participating via phone. Um, you figured out what the dial and number is, but as a reminder, it's 669-900-9128. And it's webinar ID 836-51859262. And If you wish to speak when the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak. Um, hit star 9 on your phone, and we will call you by the last 2 digits of your phone number. Okay, so let's call the meeting order at 334. Um,

[00:02:01] Unknown Speaker: if we could do a roll call. Uh, committee member Hicks. Here. Committee member Ramirez. Here. And share manager. Here. Thank you. And

[00:02:16] Member Lisa Matichak: the 1st item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from September 28th. 2022 Are there any questions or comments from the council, from the committee members? Okay, seeing none? Um, is there any comment from attendees? Uh, Mr. England. Took

[00:02:46] Mr. England: a side to get the unmute. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, in the minutes it has for the open public comments at that time, it mentions that I raised several issues and highlights some of them there, but it's not at all clear to me where they go from here. So I might bring this up again during the open public comments. just trying to find a path forward on those items that I raised at that time. Thanks. Thank you. Okay.

[00:03:14] Member Lisa Matichak: Um, I'll bring it back to the committee. Committee member Ramirez? Thank

[00:03:21] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. I'm happy to move to approve the minutes. Thank you. Um,

[00:03:26] Unknown Speaker: committee member Hicks. Second. Thank you. Um, we take a roll call vote. Committee member Hicks. Yes. Committee member Ramirez. Yes. And Cher Matachek. Yes. That passes

[00:03:43] Member Lisa Matichak: unanimously. Thank you. And so the next item is oral communications from the public, and this item is reserved for, um, people wanting to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Um, but the committee will not be able to act on any of the items um, that might be raised. So

[00:04:02] Unknown Speaker: we'll start with Mr. England. Hi,

[00:04:09] Mr. England: thanks again, chair. So, as I mentioned, a number of items. I'm not going to repeat them, but would be helpful for me to have a path forward somehow. Um, I could put them in an email and send them off to you for possible action next year, but I, again, not clear entirely where to go forward. Some of these things I am committed to bring back to outside community groups, and so it is important for me to be able to find, you know, close a loop on them. The one that is particularly interesting at the moment is the advisory body handbook, um, update, which has, I need to check that again, but last time I checked, it had not been updated for the PCAB, and it's been a while now since PCAB has started. So seems to me the handbook should be updated anytime there's a change like a new advisory body or renamed body or new changes in procedures, et cetera. Thank you. Thank

[00:05:02] Member Lisa Matichak: you. So yeah, I would suggest, um, if you want to put the items in an email and send it to the city council, um, and then the staff members responsible for those areas to respond. Okay, thank you. Thanks. And I don't see anyone else, so we will close this item. And we'll move to item 5, which is, um, amendments to the council code of conduct and council policy K2. And um, oh, sorry. Yes, sorry. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say, um, Did you want to do any sort of summary presentation or anything? I'm happy to summarize

[00:05:46] Unknown Speaker: the point of the item if that's helpful or if you guys have specific questions. Basically, this was referred by the committee, um, to the committee in August of 2021 to, um, provide some sort of recourse for an advisory body or board commission and committee member that fails to file a form 700. Um, so basically what we recommended is, um, outlined an attachment too. And that would suspend a member's participation on the body to which they're appointed until a proper filing is made. And we're recommending that those missed meetings during that period are qualified as unexcused. So, um, a variety of other miscellaneous changes, but nothing too, too substantive, um, happy to answer any questions, though. Thank you. And there any questions from the committee?

[00:06:42] Unknown Speaker: Committee member Ramirez? Thank

[00:06:44] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. I, there's really nothing I found, uh, controversial in, uh, the modifications proposed, but I did want to ask, this is a question that actually came to the council, or if it was, um, 4.7 on Tuesday, uh, regarding the, um, weakness. So we identify applications that are late, you know, to the park. Um, and one of the questions I've been interested in, better understanding is, do we need to have a, uh, a defined, Headline, or can we simply say, as long as you get your application in, before, uh, the agenda is published or the carp meeting, um, then that's acceptable. I

[00:07:35] Unknown Speaker: would not recommend that that be the case. And for the simple reason that it takes steps some time to compile everything and get it all published. So if we just say before, you know, the meeting or even before it's published that runs the risk of someone applying and then they're not, um, included. What I could recommend to the body is, um, that, you know, we can add some language to, uh, the policy that, Basically dictates that we would set the deadline as near as practicable to the interview date, you know, so if it's EPC or RHC or PC app or council to interview, that we would set an application deadline that was closer to the time that we could reasonably get the application, gail the information together. and create the packet. Um, Historically, and I think this was part of the answer that was provided to the council for that item. Historically, the deadline has run with the, uh, publication or advertisement of the vacancies. And so that's kind of what happened this last time is that's just kind of the, path that staff has taken in the past. I know for our upcoming, um, advertisement for terms ending in April for public safety advisory, um, board and rental housing committee, that we've pushed that out past the time that we're advertising. So we'll advertise it for about 6 weeks. But we'll continue to accept applications up to the point where we're comfortable, we would be able to pull everything together. I would also point out that, um, We need to have some sort of deadline because there is a portion of your policy that requires that we give, Um, Persons already serving a 2nd term, a shot at applying if we don't receive enough qualified applicants, right? So that kind of inherently means that we need to be able to provide a deadline by which people can apply. Okay,

[00:10:02] Member Lucas Ramirez: that's that's helpful. I feel like we had an unusually long period of time between the application headlong when the interviews were conducted. And I don't think that happens very often, but, um, I think it was, it might, it, and it wasn't part of the modifications proposed, but it's something to pick up since we've got the council policy open. Um, and then the other question I had was uh, related to, an interpretation about, Finding, um, Excuses, sorry, absences excused or unexcused. There was a, a human relations commission meeting. I watched the recording of Um, and I'd never seen this come before. but the commission voted to determine whether an absence was excused or unexcused. Um, maybe that happens and I just haven't been privy to it, but I've never seen that before. And I was curious to understand whether there's a common understanding of whatever provision may have been used in that interpretation. Um, that I haven't

[00:11:12] Unknown Speaker: had a lot of experience with since I've been here. I do know that the policy provides that each advisory body went determined by general consent or majority of vote, whether the status of an absence is excused or unexcused. So per the policy, that was not an incorrect way of handling it. Um, I think it kind of just depends on, on the situation.

[00:11:40] Member Lucas Ramirez: We haven't done this. It's not common, but we've had absences in council meetings. Um, you know, how would we handle that scenario? Would we take a formal vote?

[00:11:53] Unknown Speaker: That's governed by the charter. And that defers the power to determine whether an absence is excused to the mayor. Okay.

[00:12:04] Member Lucas Ramirez: Um, okay, I forgot about that. Thank you. I feel like it might be also helpful to think about. How do we make sure there's a common understanding and interpretation of that provision, since it would be strange for some commissions to handle it one way and other commissions to handle it, you know, with this particular way. Right.

[00:12:22] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that. Before the part that talks about general consent by the body, it does say that the advisory body chair and consultation with the staff lays on would propose, whether or not an absence was excused or unexcused. And then that would be something that the body would accept or not accept because that's something that needs to be in the minutes.

[00:12:46] Member Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Those are my questions. Yeah, I just want to note that your 1st issue. I had the opportunity to speak with our city clerk about it. Um, because I had the same questions and thought, we address that here. And so she was kind enough to, um, put together some suggested changes that we could do. Yeah. Um, so we'll get back to that. I have seen the, um, discussion of excused or not um, at an EPC meeting. Um, so, but yeah, I don't think there is a common, uh, understanding across all of the different advisory bodies. Uh,

[00:13:25] Unknown Speaker: committee member Hicks. Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. That was something that

[00:13:32] Member Alison Hicks: was on my mind after our last meeting. Are you saying, in my understanding that these are going to come back, these questions are going to be an agenda item for this committee in the future? So I think, um, well,

[00:13:47] Member Lisa Matichak: I think the question of absences, uh, excused or not, is already in our policy. And so we don't need to do anything about that. Um, I did speak with the city clerk about the other one and since it's the same policy, um, and it's fairly minor edits. I think I'm hoping we can just do that here. And then it will go to the full council. Okay. Yeah,

[00:14:09] Member Alison Hicks: the other one I think about is because most of the decisions were made around frameworks of absences and lateness and so forth. Um, the other one is whether people had attended a meeting or not might be something that's more prominent, but that maybe we can take up as a, uh, whether applicants had ever attended a meeting. Maybe that's something we should discuss, but I guess I'll maybe bring that up at another time. Anyway, my question, the reason I raised my hand was, um, I just wanted a little. I have no objection to the proposal. But I just wanted to know is staff having trouble getting advisory body members to complete the FPPC filings? Is that, is that the, and needs some clout for that? Is that the reasoning behind this? Um, Chair

[00:15:05] Unknown Speaker: managek may have a little bit more insight into, I believe it was on on your ask to have this referred to this committee. Um, We have had a handful of, you know, kind of difficulties. Um, but definitely not a overwhelming issue. Um, but yeah, we have had, you know, some some difficulties in. Impressing upon people, the need to comply with, uh, you know, the council's resolution and dictating who would be a filer. Okay.

[00:15:43] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I mean, this isn't an issue. I have a strong opinion on either way, so I just wanted a little more background on what was, you know, I'd be open to being informal unless there were, unless there were problems that. Yeah, this was solving. It's

[00:15:58] Member Lisa Matichak: my understanding that there are, you know, it's been a handful, but, um, I think the city clerk, um, does a lot of, uh, takes a lot of action to try to explain the importance and help the person before it becomes actually a real issue, like with the FPPC, say. Uh, city manager McCarthy? Thank

[00:16:22] McCartney (Staff): you, Chairman Adachek. So, um, I can't say that we have one smaller commission in particular. That, uh, we may have challenges with with form 700s in the future, that the DRC. Um, and I have been working with uh, the community development director, Artis Shravastova, on the, options going forward for what the DRC might have to look like, or might need to change too. Um, because it is absolutely going to be a challenge for that, um, commission, which really isn't like a commission. It's more functions almost more like consultants. So, um, where rethinking how that is done. And so I would just flag that for you all that that is one that

[00:17:16] Unknown Speaker: we're having to look at. Thank you. Mini member hicks. So can you

[00:17:26] Member Alison Hicks: tell me more about what you mean about? I mean, I have thought the DRC have been fairly good, so are you meaning choosing new people or a new process or what are you thinking through? The

[00:17:39] McCartney (Staff): challenge is that there's very few people on that and they're generally architects and um, In the future. It may be very difficult to find people who are willing to serve, who want

[00:17:50] Unknown Speaker: to file for 700s. Very challenging, very challenging. So what's the solution? That's what we're working through right now? Are

[00:18:03] Member Alison Hicks: you leaning towards non-architects or having them be consultants or something else?

[00:18:10] McCartney (Staff): Probably would be more the latter, the consultants, but they might still have to file a form 700. So, and I think um, if our city clerk may have some more context on this as well. But yes, I think regardless, you know, it sounds like they would likely have to file form 700s. Um, but we are still working through what what the options are and the challenges, but it's certainly something that we're going to need to be thinking about because, um, it could prohibit us even having anyone from serving

[00:18:42] Unknown Speaker: on that in the future. Is

[00:18:50] Member Lisa Matichak: that it? Committee member Hicks. Well,

[00:18:53] Member Alison Hicks: no, I'm ready to move into comments then, but lower my hand and wait for you to. Thanks to call for that. Okay.

[00:19:01] Member Lisa Matichak: Um, so uh, 1st let's open this up for public input. And I don't see any hands raised. So

[00:19:11] Unknown Speaker: back to the committee. So Committee Med murder Hicks. So

[00:19:19] Member Alison Hicks: I think I'm not going to be supporting it until it's more worked out with the DRC because I would just hate to, like, lose the BRC, um, So that's where I'm at at this point. I

[00:19:31] Member Lisa Matichak: have a question. Is the DRC considered an advisory body? Under, really? Yeah,

[00:19:38] Unknown Speaker: so it's a, it's ordinance created, anytime the council creates a body. It's automatically a legislative body that has to follow the burn act. Um, and is subject to all the same things that any other body is and by virtue of the decisions that they make and the recommendations that they make. Um, you know, those were determined to be financially substantial.

[00:20:08] Unknown Speaker: Hey,

[00:20:09] Unknown Speaker: mini member Ramirez.

[00:20:12] Member Lucas Ramirez: I was actually prepared to move the staff recommendations and include, it sounds like, um, uh, you had discussed with the city perks on potential solutions to the, uh, application, um, deadline issue. So if there was language, uh, stream manage technology open to including that. But I feel pretty strongly about, um, I would want to know if members of the DRC had a financial conflict of interest, right? If we have an architect who has worked with a developer, you know, on a routine matter, and has accepted compensation from them. That's really important for us to know because as a member of routine, we accept their recommendations generally uncritically. Um, so I, I, I'm actually very, I, I didn't realize that they didn't file form, form 700. So I'm glad that they're now supposed to. Um, and I, I, I think it's, it's important that anybody who is required filed a form 700, be in compliance with the law if they want to serve on any of our appointed bodies. Um, so I'm comfortable with the recommendation. Um, I am eager to see uh, where, um, the city manager and the uh, community development director end up going to resolve this issue. Um, personally, I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who say, I don't want to file a form 700. That's their prerogative, but then they, you know, wouldn't be compliance with the law and, um, I didn't want to file by form 700, then I shouldn't be on the city council, right? Um, but I'll go ahead and and, rather than make a motion, I'll see if there are other things that we wanted to, um, consider. I also appreciate the city. It sounds like you've been, honestly, sure I mentioned. Um, holding a lot of hands as people who are not accustomed to bothering the form 700. Um, you know, now are, I mean, that they're required to. So I'm not grateful for your work and how you can keep compliance with them. Yeah,

[00:22:07] Member Lisa Matichak: so um, I'm actually also supportive of, um, Including this change that you have to file a form 700 and if you don't, then um, until you do, you can't participate because I agree with what, um, the mayor said. It's important to know. Um, has got a financial interest in something. Um, the, I also appreciate all of the other small changes that were made to the, um, policy to clean it up a bit. So thank you for doing that. Um, the, and I um, Did get some changes and I don't, I don't know if the other committee members have their packet open. Um, because it'd be easy to reference, uh, the changes to address the, uh, deadlines for applications. Um, but to give the uh, city clerk's office a little bit more wiggle room. Um, we're suggesting that on page two. Of, um, council policy K2. Um, that it, say, um, 5 months, and let me get the exact uh, section. Um,

[00:23:26] Unknown Speaker: so I think that is, is that B? I

[00:23:31] Unknown Speaker: think it's one A, it's the 5 month reference. Um, And to get the other members kind of some context, the issue that we're having is this. This timeline that's prescribed. Only envisioned December term ending dates. And now you have 2 different April term mending dates for other bodies. And so when we're trying to like back the process out and make sure that we're advertising not over the holidays, when people aren't really paying attention and making sure that we're giving enough time for people to, to get the word that, you know, applications are being accepted, and to not, you know, make it a lot easier for us to not run our deadline for application with the publication process. Um, it would give my office more flexibility if we just removed the, the prescriptive time. And just say prior to term expirations. Um, and and and leave it to us to make sure that that we're, you know, getting the advertisements out well in advance and and we're aligning the deadlines more closely to the the interview dates. Sorry,

[00:24:57] Member Lisa Matichak: I misstated that, yes. So it's, um, procedures. One A, to be very specific. Um so

[00:25:06] Unknown Speaker: we would remove 5 months. And

[00:25:13] Unknown Speaker: then on, um, The next page. Um. It says,

[00:25:24] Member Lisa Matichak: B says 4 months, and we would remove 4 months. And C says, uh, and I'm looking at the red line version, uh, 2 to 3 months, um, but we would just remove that. Uh

[00:25:45] Unknown Speaker: Committee member Ramirez? Thank

[00:25:47] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. So I'm comfortable with this, just to pair it back, I think I heard the intent is to give the city clerks off this flexibility, to discern the time frame and that would include also the deadline to submit an application. And then, I guess taking a step further, that would allow us to have a deadline that is as close as reasonably possible to the date when the interviews would occur. Yeah,

[00:26:14] Member Lisa Matichak: actually, she had some suggested wording. Um, Section B. Um, and unfortunately, I didn't write down section B of which section. That

[00:26:28] Unknown Speaker: would be, um, one B. Under procedures? Yeah, so one B where it talks about, um, you know, how we would appropriately advertise. And we could add a little language there. Um, and just if the committee is comfortable recommending language that says that the deadline for applications should be set as near as practicable to the date interviews will be held by the recommending body. So that would cover both the council appointments review committee and the city council making recommendations to itself. And

[00:27:08] Unknown Speaker: so there really would be a deadline now. And

[00:27:12] Member Lisa Matichak: it might be different than the end of the advertising. Yeah. And

[00:27:18] Unknown Speaker: it would be a hard deadline because we would be saying, No more after that. We're gonna put the packet together in the event that we don't have enough qualified applicants. Per section. Trying to find it. Hmm. That's sufficient. It's that very next paragraph. It says additionally, the city clerk, she'll send all current applicants a new application form, right? And then the event, an insufficient number of new applications are received by the end of the advertised application period, the city clerk shall provide an application form to incumbent serving a 2nd term. So that would give us the flexibility to make that date align properly and get the packet up as well. Do

[00:28:17] Unknown Speaker: you guys see where that is? I just want to make sure. Allison. Okay. Um,

[00:28:22] Member Lisa Matichak: committee member Ramirez? Thank you.

[00:28:25] Member Lucas Ramirez: Well, I'm happy to move the staff recommendation and include the revisions that were just read into the record. Thank you. And

[00:28:34] Unknown Speaker: I'll 2nd it. Committee member Hicks. Yeah,

[00:28:42] Member Alison Hicks: and then, well, and then I'm not going to be voting for it, and while I appreciate, um, you know, what you're saying about people should, uh, you want people to do disclosures and you want to be able to see if they're conflicts of interest, much, the problem that I have is that I feel that, um, many people believe that the DRC is very important, particularly as there's, you know, kind of the state is cutting back on the ability to comment on projects. And I don't, we haven't had this policy in the past, and I don't see, I don't know what's going to happen to the DRC. Is it going to, you know, is it going to, um, disappear? Or, you know, is nobody and for a while and we have no DRC. Or is our less qualified people going to be put on it, who maybe aren't architects? I don't know where we're going with this in that particular, and I don't feel that that particular aspect of this has been thought out and it's really important to people. So I will not be supporting the motion.

[00:29:47] Unknown Speaker: Committee member Ramirez.

[00:29:49] Member Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. It's a good question for staff. My understanding is, we don't determine whether a body files of form 700 or not. That state law. Regardless of any action we take, It will still be required. The DRC members are still required to file a form 700. That's it. Uh,

[00:30:10] McCartney (Staff): yes, committee member Ramirez, that is accurate. So, um, if we have to remove DRC, um, from the ordinance as a as a review body or as an advisory body. Um, so that medians can be held, um, form 700s would still be required. So uh, that's what we're trying to navigate through. Okay.

[00:30:35] Member Lucas Ramirez: And then maybe just taking taking this a kind of step further. Do we understand why members of the DRC would be reluctant or Unable to file a form 700? Is there a special reason?

[00:30:49] McCartney (Staff): I am not aware of the specifics. Okay, it could be that you just don't want to. There's, I mean, Perhaps. Yeah, perhaps. Some people just don't want their personal stuff put out there. Not that there's anything nefarious about it. They just, you know, might not want personal information or, um, just stuff out there in the public realm. So, it's, it wouldn't be that unusual. Um, but, you know, again, we are not the ones that that are saying, uh, who can and can't file them. It is set by law and the city attorney's office has advised, um, specifically on which boards and commissions do need to be filing them. So, uh, you know, we, this, this may be a challenge for us, which is why we're having to kind of think about how it functions and, um, because it's architects that serve on that, um, board. And they function more almost more like consultants. So, we're having to talk about it further. I don't have all the answers, but it, you know, it is potentially a challenge, and it could just be a personal, personal reason for it.

[00:32:06] Unknown Speaker: Mini member hicks? So

[00:32:08] Member Alison Hicks: now what I'm hearing is that, that, um, this has always been the law, it's just not in our, I don't remember the name of this. My cat is sitting on my paper. Um, you know, it's, it just hasn't been, we just don't have it on the books yet, but it's the law anyway. So we're not really the okay. Well, that's kind of different. I'm still worried about the BRC though. Okay. In that case, I'll vote for this, but I will be worried. Okay,

[00:32:37] Unknown Speaker: can we have a roll call phone?

[00:32:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Uh, sorry, uh, uh, committee member Hicks. Yes. Uh, committee member Ramirez. Yes. Chair Manachek. Yes. Yes.

[00:32:52] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Thank you, sorry. Um, okay. Uh,

[00:32:59] Member Lisa Matichak: the next item is 5.2. And

[00:33:03] Unknown Speaker: this item is a brief item for the committee, which is an update on your work plan, your action plan for the year. We are doing this at each meeting that we hold on to ensure you're aware of what's currently on the agenda. And you'll see that a number of your items have been accomplished through your 1st 2 meetings. And going into 2023. You have 2 uh, items that would be, um, uh, beyond this update, that is also noted, which would be uh, council policy A 2 to look at some minor level cleanup items uh, that would be in conjunction with our finance team working on that. And you also have a council policy A15, which is the shoreline ticket policy. There are some additional modifications, you may recall that came to you, not so long ago, but there are some additional modifications that our community services department would like to be making sometime in the spring. So both of those items will be carried forward, and then we'll also include an update, as well as any other items that come before us for referral. That concludes my brief report. Great, thank you.

[00:34:10] Unknown Speaker: Are there any questions from committee members? Uh, Committee member Ramirez? Thank

[00:34:19] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. Um, for my benefit, is this an appropriate time to suggest um, an additional item? No urgency? Um, this this would be? Okay.

[00:34:30] Unknown Speaker: Yes, this would be. that we can incorporate that in and then add that to your workline. Okay,

[00:34:36] Member Lucas Ramirez: thank you. I had intended to bring this up Tuesday night. Um, but was incapacitated and unable to do so. So I figured you might as well bring up and the city manager and I have talked about this, but it may not be the right. This might not be the right body to consider it, but I figured it would be worth a discussion. Um, we, right now, there is, uh, no guidance or policy, um, that provides a process for private developers who would like to use public land in their developments, right? Sometimes they go to the council, sometimes they don't, right? And the 2 examples that I could think of are came away in 590 Castro, which went to council and closed session. And there are other instances. Well, actually, there wasn't good, the cushrooms, you know, Fairmont also went. We don't actually have a policy that says, here's when it's okay, here's when it's not. you know, here are the parameters of discussion. Um, and maybe that doesn't need to be a council policy. But I figured it might be helpful for the public and the council and the development community to have some transparency on when is it okay for me to ask the city, whether I can include a street, you know, or a cul-de-sac or another public property. Um, I don't know if you've had a chance to look that into this city manager, but I'm, uh, open to suggestions. Thank you.

[00:36:03] McCartney (Staff): Um thank you. Committee member Ramirez and through the chair, Mattachek. Um, So the only thing I would say about this, and I need to talk further with staff, but I would caution the CPPC, uh, making policy about land use. It's a little bit different when we're talking about land use and development projects because CPPC is typically focused on more of the administrative policies of council and how you do things. Now, not saying you couldn't. But there could be another vehicle that um, gets you all the same thing without necessarily coming to CPPC. Now, it could be something that, uh, you direct to do as part of your work plan, even, that we would bring back to counsel with some sort of process. Um, and I'm saying this in the context of, There's going to be a lot of uh, work plan items that that are going to be on the work plan related to various, um, Actions that council wants to take related to development. Um, if you all want to talk about the gatekeeper process. So, you know, I would just, I would just say that, you know, I'm not quite sure that CPPC is the correct vehicle, but I'd like to hear what you all think about it. Go ahead,

[00:37:32] Member Lisa Matichak: committee man for Ramirez. Thank

[00:37:34] Member Lucas Ramirez: you. And I'm, that's, that's fine with me. I am agnostic on the vehicle, but, um, I think we already do this, right? We've, we've, there have already been instances where private developers have approached the city and said we want to use public property. And so presumably there's, at least an internal process or something, but it's not, it's not publicly accessible. It's not really transferred to anybody. Um, would it would it be possible, maybe as an interim debt for staff, to just share with the council, maybe through an info memo, off agenda. When a developer wants to use public property, here's what happens, right? So that way we have an understanding of when does it go to council? When do you just categorically reject it? Um, you know, and make some understanding. If this had never happened before? You know, I could understand it taking a lot of work. But it's happened somewhat frequently over the past few years. And so I'm inclined to think that you already have some sense of, well, we think it's okay. And when you have some sense of when it's acceptable. I just don't know what those parameters are. So I'll

[00:38:50] Member Lisa Matichak: just add, um, I think that's an interesting um, item to bring up. Um, And, um, I do think it is good to have things known, um, rather than have people guess what the process is and different people use different processes. Um, but I, by am all for figuring out what is the right uh, forum for this to be addressed. Um, It doesn't have to be the CPPC in my book. Um, and I'm okay with it um, being someplace else. But I do think it's, it would be good to have information on it and understand it. Um, and so I'm fine with a memo for now, and if we want to bring it up as a work plan item, uh, that works for me. Committee member Hicks? Yeah,

[00:39:36] Member Alison Hicks: I think it's a, I mean, it's definitely a good topic. I'm glad you brought it up, but I think it is something that we need to talk about in bed a little. Um, the, the, I can see why you wouldn't want to put it on the CPPC, uh, you know, as a land use policy. On the other hand. Uh, the good thing about giving it to a committee is that there's so much on our work plan. I you know, I honestly don't know what I'd take off. To put that on. And to some degree, I, I kind of like the, I like the idea of putting some of these things that are maybe not as big as some of the things that we discussed, uh, during council meetings, say, the housing owner. Um, some of these smaller items, um, giving them to committees might be a way to kind of break that log jam. I'm not sure if this is the right committee, but I'm, I'm not, totally behind putting everything on our work plan and then saying we can't do half of them. Because I don't

[00:40:36] Unknown Speaker: know what I would ditch for this even though I want to talk about this. City

[00:40:42] Member Lisa Matichak: manager McCartney? Um,

[00:40:44] McCartney (Staff): thank you, chair. So I think it's absolutely doable for us to prepare at least for now. an off agenda memo for council just so that you all can understand right now, just the context of decision making. And then once we give you that, maybe if there's interest to take it further, then that's something that council can raise and, you know, if it should come via CPPC or otherwise, but we can at least give you the lay of the land 1st so that you understand. And I will say that, you know, there's probably some things that, um, are, like decisions are made because of certain precise plan, rules or determinations, and others may be more of an art than a science. Um, but I can definitely, I'll talk to staff, and we'll get you information and a memo so that you're better informed about it, and then we can go from there. If you want to codify something or um, really think more about, um, digging deeper into what you may or may not allow staff to decide versus counsel. I'm good with that. I

[00:41:59] Member Lisa Matichak: see 3 netting heads. But let me open this up for public input. Mr. England? Thank

[00:42:08] Mr. England: you, chair. Um, so on this agenda item, this is where you're talking about future agenda items and items on your work plan. This is where the advisory body handbook maybe should appear. Um, I did, meanwhile, have a look at the current version. It's from late 2021. It does include Peace Ab, so that's good, but it is ambiguous, not ambiguous. It's not consistent as far as whether members can be non-residents or not. The forming arts committee, senior advisory committee, and visual arts committee, all say one member can be a non-resident, and none of the others say, you know, either way. Meanwhile, the code of conduct in the K2 documentation, just say resident of mountain view. So, it's really unclear, and the information I, and the reason that came up is that there was a member of PCEB, who's a student, and so she's kind of living at home with her parents, so she has established residence in her parents' home, but she's actually going to a campus that's outside of Mountain View. So it was ironed out and that member was able to continue, but that's how the issue came up. And it seems to us, those of us looking at this, that this should be codified and made clear in the supporting documentation. Um, that's why the ask, but it's not in this document that you have for this agenda items. So again, I'm a bit lost in what to do. I can send up an email to all city council, as the chair suggested. I'm not sure it's the right way to go, but that's what I'll plan on doing unless I have for the guidance. Thanks. Thank you. And

[00:43:46] Member Lisa Matichak: we'll close public comment and bring it back to the committee. So, um, Man, this whatever I have is hanging on. Um, I think, um, we have resolved the 1st one that we will have, uh, a memo, uh, on the topic. Is there anything else anyone wants to bring up? I do still think sending an email, um, Mr. England, uh, is the right way to go because then our city clerk uh, can answer uh, your question. Um, regarding the, uh, handbook. Couldn't think of word handbook. Yep. Um, okay, um. If there's nothing further on this one. Okay, then we'll move to item 6. Which

[00:44:43] Unknown Speaker: is committee, staff comments, questions, and committee reports. Does anybody have any? I don't see any hands. Okay.

[00:44:55] Member Lisa Matichak: Then we will uh, adjourn the meeting at 417. Thank you all very much and Good meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Happy holidays. Happy holidays. Yeah, bye now. Bye.

• ← Previous
• Next →