City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. All right. Good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our study session. The city clerk will take roll call. Council member Hicks here. Council member Kame here. Council member Mallister, here comes Mallister. Council member Ramirez here. Council member Shawter here. Vice Mayor Clark here. Mayor Ramos here.

Great. So, we'll begin with uh item 3.1, Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130, impact on development review process and operations. The purpose of this study session is to receive council input on potential approaches to addressing Senate Bill 79 and Assembly Bill 130. Community Development Director Christian Murdoch and advanced planning manager Eric Anderson will present the item. If you would like to speak on this item, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

Thank you. Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm community development director Christian Murdoch. I'm joined on the dis by planning manager Eric Anderson. In recent years, the California legislature has enacted a range of laws aimed at addressing housing affordability. Two bills passed in 2025 have major implications for land use regulations and the development review process in Mountain View. Senate Bill SP79 will take effect on July 1st, 2026 and will require the city to approve highdensity housing projects located within one half mile of Calra and Valley Transportation Authority or VTA light rail stations. SB79 includes a process to adopt local alternative provisions, which will be the focus of council's discussion this evening. Assembly bill AB130 is already effective and included a broad range of provisions relevant to this evening's discussion by council. AB130 created a new statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act or SQA for certain housing development projects. It also created a new streamlined process for requiring final action on these projects within 30 days of certain project milestones. Projects will be deemed approved if the city does not act within the required timeline. SB79's provisions apply to areas within one half mile of transit oriented development or TOD stops. There are five TOD stops in Mountain View, two Cal Train stops at the San Antonio and downtown stations, and three VTA light rail stops at the downtown Whisman station and Middlefield stations. There is an additional TOD stop, the Beayshore NASA VTA light rail station that's located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, but which has about half of its area located within the city of Mountain View. These TOD zones comprise approximately 21% of the city's land area. There are detailed qualifying criteria in SB79 which are included in the staff report. Some of the major criteria are that a project must be located on a site zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed use. That it not be located on a

site with three or more units that requires demolition of housing subject to local rent control. And the units are or have been occupied by tenants within the last seven years. Similarly, the site cannot have had demolition of rent controlled units within the last seven years. and the project must propose at least five dwelling units. Projects must also result in a density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre or the minimum density under local zoning, whichever is greater. And projects must not result in a net loss of existing residential units. There are limits on the average size of units as well as requirements to comply with local anti-displacement standards. Projects must also comply with other local standards, including inclusionary zoning and objective development standards, provided they do not prevent projects from achieving the allowable SB79 densities. SB79 supersedes local general plan and zoning standards for height, density, and residential floor area ratio or F. There are three categories of development standards under SB79 based on the distance from a pedestrian access point to a TOD stop. those within either a quarter mile or half mile radius known as tier 1 and tier 2 stops respectively and those adjacent to a TOD stop meaning within 200 feet. Adjacent sites receive additional allowances for height, density and residential F above the tier 1 and tier 2 allowances. SP79 projects are also eligible for state density bonus law. SB79 has many complex requirements that require detailed technical analysis. The figure on screen shows properties the staff believes are eligible under SP79 based on a preliminary initial analysis. Staff has described several options for how to prepare a TOD alternative plan under SP79 in the staff report. All these options will require trade-offs involving deferral of council priority work plan items that are already in progress. Community development department would have primary responsibility to prepare a TOD alternative plan. The department the

department already has a heavy workload of ongoing advanced planning items prioritized by council in the previous and current council priority work plans in addition to numerous ongoing housing element implementation programs. The department's advanced planning team consisting of two staff dedicated to this type of work has three items with primary responsibility in the current council work plan and four such items that are still ongoing from the prior council work plan. As described in the staff report, the overall level of effort for individual items as well as the phase of work for each item will determine how much staff capacity can be created by deferral of one or more items. As council considers work plan item trade-offs, it's helpful to consider why a tod alternative plan will take so long to prepare. TLD alternative plans are different from traditional planning processes. New density uh rather uh net new density and residential F must be transferred to other sites. Existing density and residential F is not immediately available for every site and requires parcel level analysis of numerous sites. There is a need to be thoughtful with where density is transferred and ensure we create workable objective standards for projects in those locations. Environmental review is required for receiving sites which has technical work as well as process requirements associated with it. Council may want community engagement to also be part of the planning process which takes time and effort. And lastly, to alternative plans require review and approval by HCD, the California Department of Housing and Community Development. All in all, this work may resemble a precise plan type of process in terms of effort, time, and other resources required. In light of these considerations, staff recommends approach B described in the staff report. Approach B is a combined approach consisting of limited effort option number one and number two. Limited effort option number one would exempt sites as allowed in SB79, including those shown on the slide, and notably sites listed on the city's local register of historic resources as of

January 1st, 2025. The colored areas in the figure show those sites with the minimum density and residential F allowances to be excluded and also includes sites that do not have a residential, commercial, or mixeduse zoning. Also, while staff has not completed the mapping and analysis, a very small number of sites would require more than one mile of walking distance to a tod stop and could be excluded on that basis. Limited effort option number one would apply until one year after the next housing element adoption or until approximately January 2023, January 2032 rather. Limited effort option number two would focus on the adoption of development standards relevant for implementation of SP79 developments. This option would build off the objective development standards currently being prepared for the R3 zoning update, which includes standards for development comparable in density and intensity to those allowable under SB79. Staff recommends beginning this work after completion of the R3 zoning update currently anticipated to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2026. Staff recommends approach B because it balances the benefits from TOD alternative plan work with the most limited deferral of council priority work plan items. The plan would exclude SB79 from many properties, including those with historic resources already listed by the city and other properties that already allow sufficient development intensity relative to SP79. It would also improve development outcomes under SB79 by putting in place local standards suited for the types of development allowed under SP79. Staff could start work immediately on limited effort option number one and initiate work on limited effort option number two once the R3 zoning update is finished. Approach B would require immediate deferral of work on the dark sky ordinance citywide objective design standards downtown precise plan update and Moffett Boulevard precise plan to complete the approach within the timelines estimated by staff.

Shifting now to AB130. AB130 has many provisions that are beyond the scope of this study session. This evening, the focus will be on two provisions in AB130. The new statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA and the requirement for final action on housing projects qualifying for the new statutory exemption within 30 days of certain application milestones. AB130 created a new statutory exemption from SQA. Unlike categorical exemptions, the new statutory exemption is not subject to any of the exceptions in SQA guidelines section 15300.2. It applies to housing projects meeting the criteria established in AB130 and also requires tribal consultation. The other key provisions of AB1, the other key provision rather of AB130 is a new deadline for final action on projects subject to the statutory exemption. The city must take final action no later than 30 days after one of two project milestones. The conclusion of tribal consultation or the completion of the objective standards consistency analysis whichever occurs later. The tribal consultation process in particular makes predicting the deadline for final action difficult. Consultation can conclude uh before or after the 30 or 60-day objective standards consistency analysis deadline. Under the city's current process, staff has had difficulty preparing for and conducting the required public hearings within the new deadline. AB130 provides that projects will be deemed approved if the city does not take final action consistent with the deadline. AB130 establishes no limits on the number of units a project may propose. There is a minimum density requirement, which in Mountain View is at least 15 dwelling units per acre. The main limitation on number of units under AB130 comes from the maximum allowable site area with regular projects limited to 20 acres and builder's remedy projects limited to 4 acres. Mixeduse projects must have at least twothirds of their floor area dedicated to residential use. Other criteria require

the project to be located on an infill site previously developed with an urban use. AB30 does not uh AB130 does require consistency with general plan zoning and precise plan standards. Although projects may deviate from these standards with application of waiverss and concessions through state density bonus law, there are limitations on certain mixed uses with AB130 prohibiting transient lodging uses like hotels and motel but allowing residential motel. AB130 also does not apply to projects that involve demolition of historic resources on a local, state, or national register as of the date of the project's preliminary application. AB130 does not apply to projects on a hazardous waste sites database or those located in certain other sensitive locations such as wetlands, flood zones, or delineated earthquake fault zones. AB130 includes other various requirements. These include payment of prevailing wage for projects above 85 ft in height. Certain project design requirements apply within 500 feet of a freeway, including filtration requirements for mechanical ventilation systems and requiring air intakes and balconies not to face freeways. Hazardous substance contamination must be evaluated through a phase one environmental site assessment and follow on preliminary endangerment assessment if necessary. Identified releases must be mitigated to levels required by federal and state standards before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The city's existing development review process for housing development projects varies depending on project type and location. The zoning administrator can take final action on many projects after a public hearing. These are usually projects located outside of precise plan areas. The zoning administrator combines review with the subdivision committee when a project proposes a subdivision map with five or more parcels. The environmental planning commission or EPC does not take final action on any types of projects. Its project review role is limited to recommendations to city council on some projects located within precise plan areas. The city council has final approval authority for

projects with subdivision maps as recommended by the zoning administrator and subdivision committee and projects recommended by the EPC. The council also has final authority on appeals of final actions taken by the zoning administrator. As currently established, the city's review process requires at least one, commonly requires two, and sometimes requires three public hearings for housing development projects. With public noticing and agenda materials preparation, review, and publication, meeting one public hearing within the AB130 timeline may be possible in most cases, but meeting two or more public hearing requirements is not feasible without compro compromising the hearing process. For instance, taking a project to EPC for a recommendation before the objective standards consistency review has been completed. As explained on the prior slide and further detailed in the staff report, the city's existing development review process for housing development projects presents significant challenges for compliance with AB130 timelines. The two-step review process required for many project types and the limited scheduling opportunities for EPC and city council meetings are particular challenges. The variable timelines for required action by the city based on tribal consultation also complicate meeting planning and agenda management. Additionally, state law has significantly restricted local decision-making uh discretion when reviewing housing development projects, meaning there's little opportunity for public hearing bodies to modify projects based on their judgment or input from the public. In light of these considerations, staff recommends option number one in the staff report. Option number one would create a ministerial review and approval process for projects qualifying for AB130. Staff sees this approach as balancing the need to preserve community awareness about housing development project activity through the issuance of courtesy notices and potentially a written public comment opportunity with the reality that the city has extremely limited discretion when reviewing housing development projects. This option also recognizes the city's obligations under state law to comply with accelerated project approval

timelines and ensures the city can meet its timing obligations in all cases without risking that projects will be deemed approved. Reliance on any public hearing process, especially an EPC or council hearing, could jeopardize the city's ability to act on qualifying projects within the timelines required by AB130. The two state laws discussed in this study session materially affect the city's existing land use regulations and housing development project review processes. Staff will take next steps based on input provided by council at this study session. Modifications to the development review process in response to AB130 and preparing any TOD alternative plan will require ordinance and precise plan amendments. The timeline for completion of these ordinances and precise plan amendments will depend in large part on the work item deferrals authorized by council. Lastly, depending on the work directed, staff will determine if it's necessary to return to council to seek a budget appropriation to carry out the work. This concludes staff's presentation and staff respectively requests council's input on the four study session questions in the staff report at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh uh community development director Murdoch. Um, we would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide public 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 e in-person speakers first. Um, so it looks like trying to see how many people. One, two, three. So, it looks like we have over 10 people speaking. So, we're dropping down the time to about u two minutes. So, our first speaker will be Robert Cox.

Okay. Where's the clock? Oh, thanks you uh members of the city council, Mayor Ramos and Vice Mayor Clark and for being able to speak here. Um I'm going to speak on SB79 alternative plan. I'm appro uh speaking for Liverpool Mountain View and supporting approach C and a tighter timeline. I understand from looking at the uh list of items that you want to go through for coming up with an alternative plan should you go in that direction that you uh say that it'll take a substantial amount of time. Um I would advise you to direct yourself to the items needed by HCD in order to approve substantial compliance rather than a complete plan. um the deadline of January uh July 1st uh was set up with the idea that you know this must be able to be done in a reasonable amount of time. So um I ask you to take a look at that and figure out what the essentials are. Um I want to also just repeat in a letter that we sent to you uh there are certain characteristics of what we're suggesting that are important to call out. The first thing is that even though a transit oriented development site uh may exclude 10% for uh alternate use um we're only asking for 3% of the downtown district. We think that's quite reasonable. The density so-called transfer uh can be done over to the east west and precise plan which already exceeds SB79 in terms of its zoning now and so no re reszoning would be needed. And the third thing is I urge you to uh look into an SB79 local alternative plan because it preserves the council's ability to make the decisions about what can be done with our downtown which is a key beloved area of our city and we really do want

the council people rather than a state mandate making the detailed decisions of the future of that part of our city. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Nancy Stir, followed by Lorraine Worm Mald. Nancy, I was going to agree with someone who hasn't spoken yet. So, okay. Um, I would echo everything that Robert Cox said. I think our downtown is something it's vital. It's vitally important and anything we can do to try to preserve it and parts of it should be done. I know it's a lot of work. I know it's a lot of uh trouble for y'all, but I just can't imagine losing our downtown. I mean, after all, the city government makes its home here, so it must be pretty important. Um, so I agree that we should go for option C and I agree with everything that Robert Cox said and I will seed the rest of my time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Lorraine followed by Robert Swerick. Hello. First time I've ever done this. Um, I echo what Robert has said and what Marine has said. Um anyway, um you could speak into the light.

I was born and raised in Mountain View. My family came here in 1910. My aunt was a woman of the year. Um she helped develop Parks and Wreck at the beginning. Um we had the uh Armenini drugstore. They had on the corner of Castro and Dana. This city is in my heart. Um I value option C. Once a downtown historical area is gone, it is gone. It will never come back. Um, Santa Clara lost theirs and I had family who were involved with that and just cried over what happened. The city council, you are our trustees. You are trustees of our heart, of our history, of how things are developed. I understand the major time crunches and staff crunches I work too when we had issues that involved more work than we had staff. We hired more staff. We realized we just realized that it needed to be done. Um I would imagine that most people in the city of Mountain View don't know what's going on here about downtown. that the possibility of our historic downtown could be wiped out tonight or soon. And I just don't think that that's what they want. I only know about it because I live downtown and I've been trying to keep aware of what's going on. Anyway, I just want to thank you. I want to thank you for being our trustees and for thinking with with knowledge and with data, but also with your heart. Thank you. Thank you, Robert Swurick, followed by Luis Katz.

Good evening, members of the council, uh, city staff. My name is Robert Swark. I'm a principal planner at VTA. I'm also a Mountain View resident, but I'm here representing VTA this evening. On SP79, VTA has been following the implementation very closely, and we're interested in continued dialogue with local jurisdictions about the implementation process. Um, we've been involved in a number of countywide meetings, including some of the colleagues here um, uh, in the council chambers tonight. And, um, we believe that SB79, if implemented, uh, well, can play an important role in creating more complete, vibrant communities around rail stations, helping reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. We recognize that implementation is complex and nuanced. We're still waiting on some guidance from HCD at the state and mapping from the region MTC, but we stand ready to serve um helping Mountain View and other jurisdictions in implementation. So, don't hesitate to reach out on SP, excuse me, on AB130. Um we recognize the challenges timeline uh in AB130 poses for local jurisdiction review and approval of development projects. also the limitations on discretionary review and approval that other state housing laws in recent years have placed on local jurisdictions. Um, however, we're interested and we believe the city is also interested in making sure that uh development projects are accompanied by good multimmoal transportation improvements, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, TDM improvements um as they're approved, particularly larger projects. um it places an importance a greater importance on precise plans on active transportation plans on transportation impact fee programs of projects and so forth. So we hope that with the options for implementing SB79 that the city is still able to find a way to holistically plan ahead for transportation improvements along with development. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Next we have Luis Katz followed by Jim Zarowski. Thank you, mayor and council members. Speaking on behalf of Livable Livable Mountain View, um it's notable that homeowners have consistently been told to put aside having concerns about how zoning for density, things such as four to sixtory buildings next to single family homes affects property and entire neighborhoods because the law allows this and it's for the greater good of the community. Now comes the issue of more laws per SB79 and more changes. But this time the issue is the irreplaceable buildings of our historic business district. A district that dates back over 162 years and has clearly conferred benefits to the community. It's their only downtown. It's our legacy of the city and state's pioneer founders. And it's the unique space that brings people together and provides revenue. Per past meetings, we've heard how council is now being asked to exempt a select few property owners on Castro Street from the overreaching standard that has been applied to others in the city. That change happens and property owners need to accept that it is in the best in the community in I'm sorry, in the best interest of the community even if there is a perceived impact on their personal property. And I use the term perceived intentionally because it should be noted that the density projected for Moffett and other areas and new transportation programs will in fact provide hundreds perhaps thousands of new customers for Castro Street businesses. As we densify and add thousands more housing units, preservation is a win for the community and businesses.

If uh we have a need for more consultants to get this done, we should make it a priority. The deadlines are not of our doing, but it must be done. I wanted to also thank you for hearing our story tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Jim Zaroski followed by Hala Ashawani.

Thank you, members of council. I hadn't planned to speak on this tonight, but I very much agree with what um Robert Cox has said and what some of the other speakers have said. I'll be honest, most people in the monol community do not know about SP79. What I worry about is they're going to find out on August 1st or August 15th and and all hell's going to break loose. The people that do know are very fearful. They're very upset. they see the end of the community that they've lived in for some 30, 40, 50 years and they don't know what's going to happen. I would very much highly recommend that we go with option C because we want to avoid the builder's remedy fiasco that happened in 2022. That's probably going to cost this town $und00 million when we think about all the fees that we're not going to be able to collect and all the building that we're not going to be able to do. I know it's a lot of work, but I think we deserve to maintain as much control as we possibly can over our own destiny. I don't think that the state knows what they want us to do. And if we allow the state to come in and give developers permits in August because we haven't had an alternative plan filed yet, and we don't know what we're going to do, we could see a scattershot approach where three or four buildings are built scattershot around the the old Mountain View, around downtown, and around Mount Aloma, which will cause people to abandon their block, abandon their Nobody wants a sevenstory building over their garden. Nobody wants a street with no parking on it. So I realize it's a lot of work and I realize the staff is overwhelmed with a lot of things but this is almost like a empty the armories. We have to do it and unless we have a plan that we can assure that we don't get car um cannibalized prior to having a plan done I don't think we have a choice. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hala you're next. Uh, good evening. Um, good evening, Mayor Ramos, council members, and city staff. Uh, my name is Hala Al Shawani. I'm a longtime resident of Mountain View since 1984. Um, I am here to urge you to support approach C in the staff report in order to save and preserve our downtown commercial and historic district in and around the 100 to 300 um blocks of Castro Street. And I urge you to please make this a top priority so that the plan can be submitted to HCD before July 1st, 2026. Uh, city documents have always called our downtown the historic center and focus of the community and the heartbeat of the city. It is a major source of sales tax revenue that supports the city's economic vitality. 75% of the visitors that come to Mountain View are actually from outside of Mountain View. Um, and that's because of our downtown unique, irreplaceable characteristics and history. Um, frankly, we're the envy of the South Bay area. I mean, no, nowhere else. Sunnyville, Certino, dare I say even PaloAlto. We have a very unique history that connects us to, as um Louise said, 160 [clears throat] years ago when the pioneers came, established the transit center and the first three blocks and the adjacent uh buildings around that. So, um I I have every faith that the staff can pull this off. I know it's a lot of work and I

think with the resources u they have and maybe consultant services if needed that this can be can be accomplished and I hope the um council can provide guidance and support so this can happen. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take virtual speakers. Be sure to raise your uh click the raise hand button on Zoom. Um, so our first virtual speaker is Cliff Chambers. Do I unmute him or does he unmute himself? So, Cliff Chambers, if you can try to unmute yourself.

Oh. Oh, okay. It looks like Oh, here we go. Here we go. Sorry, I had a a a spinning uh rainbow. Uh my name is Cliff Chambers and resident of Mountain View. And I first like to really thank staff for an excellent report and it really laid out um a lot of really important options on a very complex um subject. I I really do uh agree with the staff recommendation and on approach B with major caveats. I really do feel the concern about downtown is really important, but I think we can leverage the R3 uh development standards. We can work through some of the his uh historic preservation in a timely manner and really address downtown. At the same time, I'll let you figure out exactly how we should uh proceed with that. I I know you have some really complex issues to deal with tonight. So, I'm not going to spend much more time other than I hope that we can integrate the R3 update that comes before you in February with the findings that you have tonight and also continue to address the middle income uh ownership issue because that's really going to happen in the SB79 and the R3 area. So, please pay attention to that and then thank you very much for your time. Thanks.

Thank you. Next uh virtual speaker is Leslie Freriedman.

Hello. Thank you for this opportunity to describe our feelings about these very important circumstances. I'd like to thank Louise and Robert and Holla and Lorraine. Um, I agree with all of their very reasonable points. I'd like to mention that Santa Clara destroyed their downtown, then decided it was a mistake, but it was too late. It is gone and won't come back. I have friends from Oakland who go to football, but they eat and browse around and shop here in Mountain View. Also, Sunny Vale has set up an historic district for Morphe Avenue. They plan to file an SB79 local alternative alternative plan to preserve it. I've lived in Mountain View for more than 20 years. It would be terrible to destroy something that is really an addition to everyone here. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Moren Blondo.

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor [clears throat] Ramos, and the city council and the city staff. I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favor of option C. Uh from my perspective of Mountain View, one of the things that makes it so desirable is are the historical [clears throat] buildings in the first couple of blocks of Mountain View. I'm not a radical who thinks that everything should uh stay the way it is. My second favorite part of downtown Mountain View is that let's call it a plaza by the um the law the big law firm. I'm forgetting the name of the law firm where the cascal outdoor dining is pets where you can meet people there. That particular area I think is very nice and I welcome more development of that type. But what will continue to draw people are the historical buildings that we have to have the alternative plan. I want to remind people who may not be familiar with some of these issues does not compel the city council to have no building in that district. It just preserves the council's opportunity to make decisions in the future to preserve historical buildings. That's everything I would like to say tonight and I thank you for the opportunity and for the work that the city has put into this planning.

Thank you so much. Next virtual speaker is Jerry Steachch. Uh good evening ladies and gentlemen. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you.

Fantastic. Fantastic. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wish I could be there in person, but I'm presently a bit under the weather and honestly, nobody would want to be near me and get my cies. So, I'll just uh call in here um real quickly. When I moved to Mountain View a generation ago, I was immediately impressed with its downtown. It didn't try to be anything forced or ingenuine. I felt then, as I do now, that this city has uh the city, it's a city that knows how how to embrace commerce while preserving its unique character, how to draw residents and visitors alike to our downtown with an inviting atmosphere that evokes both vibrancy and history. As Hala just mentioned, it's the envy of countless Bay Area cities. A small part of that of that lure of course is the number of architecturally rich and in many case historically significant buildings along and around Castro Street, excuse [clears throat] me. Uh most of which are very very bit every bit as functional today as they were a century or more ago. SB79 is already disruptive and threatens those attributes. with the good new the good news here is ladies and gentlemen you have a once in a-lifetime opportunity to ensure our vibrant historical downtown remains just that alluring for generations to come and you can do that by supporting approach C that among other benefits will serve to preserve our downtown's unique character support will contribute greatly to our city and your legacies as city council members thank you

thank you next uh virtual speaker is David Watson.

Uh rats, I'm just a moment too late. I'm almost to council, but that's fine. I'll uh my my comment is uh that um the it's it's worth remembering uh why it is that uh Santa Clara lost their downtown. It it wasn't because they uh allowed gradual development. It's because they on purpose uh demolished their historic downtown uh under the um [clears throat] popular at the time concept of urban blight. Uh basically uh that's not really something that modern uh American urban planners think is a real thing and is not something that I am worried that the current city council or staff or the state or really anyone else involved thinks is a real plan that we're trying to fix. A real problem of urban blight that we're trying to fix. So, I don't think that city council should go into this with a concern that uh suddenly our our downtown is going to be uh demolished without uh due to due to this state law. Um however, uh as much as uh uh the folks from Little Mountain View have in the past shown up and been uh extremely worried about the the loss of downtown, they they haven't really gotten into uh details of what exactly it is uh specifically that they're worried about. are they worried about the the actual loss of the businesses of the buildings of something else? Um, and I think that it's a good idea for if council really is worried about these things to think about which part of this they're actually worried about. Are you worried about uh a loss of the buildings or of the business as uh as you know is is highlighted by many of uh the those commenters. Um I I think that uh if if we uh believe that the success of our downtown is uh due to the you know mix of good restaurants and uh other amenities um then uh that's the kind of thing that we should be uh looking forward to development of. If we're worried about the facades of the buildings um that's also something that

I understand our downtown precise plan is going to address. So overall I would say we should not be um uh wasting staff time with huge uh attempts to do significant changes as staff estimated.

Time is up. David, thank you. Um next up is Nazanine. Nasinine, if you could unmute yourself, you should be able to do it now. All right, we're going to move on and we're going to loop back to you. Oh, um to Jaci JC, if you could unmute. Oh, there we go.

Hi there. Uh, thank you to staff and council for letting me speak today. This is Jessica Choan. Um, I just want to ask that alternatives be considered that will be more operationally efficient and keep our neighborhoods from uh being impacted and becoming disjointed. Um, you know, there there are options presented in here that will um contain the building to areas where it could be better planned and executed rather than being disjointed throughout neighborhoods. So, I hope that you will consider those options um and that council will do what they think is right um not just what the staff recommended options are. So, thank you.

Thank you. And our final speaker is Matthew Martin. Hey, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

Uh great. Um, I just want to say, um, some people have been saying that, you know, a lot of people don't know about SB79 and they may not like it when they find out about it. I just want to say, um, that doesn't speak for everyone. I know exactly what's going on with SB79 and I am really excited about it and really happy about it. Um, concerning downtown itself, people are, you know, concerned about we might lose our downtown, lose our historic district. I don't go downtown because there are old buildings there. I go down there because of the vibrant businesses there, the walkable environment in general, uh, and the transit center. Um, and when you upzone downtown, um, you know, the best thing you can have for businesses is a large customer base. When you have dense housing downtown, that's more people who can enjoy that walkable environment and visit those businesses there. Um, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. And that ends public comment. Yay. Um, council will now have the opportunity to ask questions and then discuss and provide feedback on the following questions. Does any member of the council have questions? I see council member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I there's a lot to digest here. Uh, and it's tough at in particular tackling at the same time two uh significant pieces of of legislation. Um, so I'm I'm grateful to staff for um uh doing the best you can to try and break that information down and and put it in uh a staff report that um I think includes uh a number of helpful recommendations and some guidance for us how to approach each of these complex questions. Um, I have a few questions about uh SB79. Uh, most of which I think you've responded to either in the presentation or in the written questions, but um just I think because some of this is complex, it might be helpful to to sort of break it down further. So the historic resource exemption is statutoily exempt from SQA, right? So there is an option under SP79 to adopt an ordinance that would exclude certain properties um and that would be exempt from environmental review under SQA and historic resources um on a local register as of January 1st, 2025 could be included in such an ordinance.

Okay. Uh thank you. That's helpful. Um but to alternative plans are not exempt from SQA. requires potentially an EIR. Um, correct. Environmental review would be required uh potentially including an environmental impact report depending on the magnitude of potential environmental impacts. Okay. Um, and then the uh moderate effort downtown focus option which I think is the option members of the community have suggested we explore is a TOD alternative plan. Right.

Correct. which means it's subject to SQA in addition to the uh sightbyssite analysis that would be required for transfers of residential capacity. Correct. Okay. Uh and then on top of that uh there's also the HCD review and approval process which uh is a non-trivial period of time.

Yes. But even beyond that, um the the work I think that this was a response you provided in the written questions. The work uh to create a TOD alternative plan is akin to the work that you would put into a precise plan. Is that right? I think that's likely to be the case. um if it's anything more than a a small subset of parcels um that the technical analysis, the thought in citing in other locations, consideration of standards, community engagement, and so forth quickly begins to resemble a precise plan type of of planning effort.

Okay? And that that's in part because, you know, one, you would want objective standards to help facilitate development that achieves community and council goals. Um, and then you would also want to be thoughtful about not, you know, while we have members of the community who are concerned about downtown preservation, if we shift that residential capacity to somewhere else, those residents may not be as um, uh, interested in sort of being the recipient site for that increased dens density in F. Is that right?

I think it's reasonable to expect that um, care should be taken u when thinking about the places where the density would shift and engaging them uh, accordingly. Okay, that that's helpful. Um, and then the last question is um the the residential capacity. I don't think that's it's um not something that I think we've spent a great deal of time processing. What does that analysis really entail? Uh in terms of the work that would be required to determine how much density would need to shift to another location, right?

Um so I think um you know we don't have a full answer. I think our initial assessment is that you would need to look at each parcel where the city's considering shifting the density. You would need to determine the existing density on the site, compare that to the SP79 maximum density. Do the same process for residential floor area ratio on the site currently versus the maximum permissible. That difference um we understand to be the amount of development intensity, if we'll call it that, that needs to shift to another location. um it may not necessarily need to go to a single parcel. It could potentially be broken up in multiple locations, but that cumulative net capacity that's removed needs to be moved to someplace else. And again, it may not be all the capacity on the site. The choice might be made to reduce it to the 50% maximum that's allowable or to some other percentage, but whatever is removed needs to be shifted to some other location.

That's that's helpful. in um in a previous council meeting um one revelation uh I I thought was you had described that even though SB79 sort of as an overlay includes residential capacity there is also the underlying res residential capacity of of the existing zoning and general plan land use designation. So is that we now kind of have to think about two sets of residential capacity. Is that how you anticipate working through this for the to alternative plan as well?

I think that's one of the important considerations. So I think the example I used may have been um Castro Street as an example. And so considering um concerns about SP79 development intensity um but recognizing we probably don't want to try to drive it to zero. Not that we could necessarily do that. So, how do we get it as close to the current downtown precise plan or future downtown precise plan uh density F and so forth and try to use the local alternative plan to match that so that there's no more no less sort of incentive um or catalyst to redevelop those sites if that's not what's intended.

What is the existing uh residential capacity for or the the density for um area H in the downtown precisely? Area H currently allows 50 units per acre. Okay. And then that's you could also apply the state density bonus on top of that. That's correct. Great. Those are my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ramirez. Uh, next in questions is uh, Council Member Hicks.

So, before my questions, I'll say thank you so much for making a a very complex subject much easier to understand, but I still have questions. Um, even after my council questions, too. Um, so first, you know, initially when I was talking to people about this subject, um, I it seemed like a to alternative plan was like a one-time thing, but as I talk about it more with people, it's a part of a process, which I don't think we've really, you know, you could have added another 50 pages to your staff report and and described that. Um, but maybe more briefly, my understanding, I guess the simple way to ask this question is some people have said to me, why would we do some of these exemptions that are temporary? They'll expire in several years. But when I talk to people with more expertise, they say that all the things we do or most of the things we do here, the TOD alternative plan, the exemptions, they roll into a future process. uh which intersects with the next time we do the housing element. So it's not like if you do some some of those steps in several years you throw them away and you will pretty much wasted your time. So can you explain how it's an ongoing process because of course planning is an ongoing process. Certainly. Um SP79 provides that um any approval by um HCD, the California Department of Housing and Community Development is valid through the next uh housing element adoption essentially. So um while that planning work may be able to be reused, it will be necessary to go through that review and approval process again by HCD. So, if everyone's fine with the status quo, the housing element process and requirements don't inject

some sort of new unknown or requirement that requires adjustment to the to plan, you know, maybe you could sort of dust it off and submit it again for reapproval and the work would not be wasted. So, it's it's hard to speculate, but I think that work will likely continue to pay dividends uh over time. Or you could learn something from the to alternative plan and improve it. It's not our last chance and it's not something we throw away is basically what I wanted to confirm. Right. The only way there would be a one time and you don't do it again is if you don't care about having a TOD alternative plan after your next housing element adoption.

Um okay. Uh so I've had a concern and I asked this in my written council questions about um whether under uh to alternative plan or just the objective standards that we're allowed to do whether we can require commercial because that's one of the more important things I think people have talked a lot about historic but I think also people well people have talked about commercial too. One of the things that makes our pedestrian mall work is that there's a continuous string of commercial as opposed to a block where in fact a block where it's not is where people stop walking. So, we don't want to lose that. Now, I've been told if there's enough space, we can put in uh we can require a floor of commercial, but I'm not sure exactly what enough space means. particularly the beginning of the block close of the 100 block closest to the transit station. Aren't we allowed like the most historic block? Aren't we allowed like 90? We doesn't it prescribe 95 ft? Is that am I getting that wrong? It's 75 ft in some areas which is maybe seven stories and 95 ft is nine stories of residential approximately. So the height limit within a quarter mile of the Calra station downtown is 75 ft. Within 200 feet, which is the adjacent uh definition under SP79, an additional 20 ft, so 95 ft of height would be allowable under SP79's basic provisions. So if I wanted to require commercial there, would I have to make it and if that's 10 feet, 105 ft, would I have to add that?

Right. I think what you're talking about I would describe as what SP79 um you know contemplates as standards that would pro prohibit or prevent achieving the densities and heights that the law requires the city to allow. So if we were to think about requiring ground flooror commercial in a set of adopted standards, we would need to very carefully analyze whether that required ground flooror commercial could reasonably uh prevent someone from achieving the height or the density or the residential floor area ratio to which they're entitled in that location. So I think it's possible that more height could be needed as an example or flexibility in other standards perhaps that would allow them to sort of make up for that ground floor commercial area in some way needed to achieve residential development density.

Okay, thank you. That's what I've been told but I wanted to confirm. And then also what about I'm building market rate housing and I want to have cars allow I want the residents to have cars. Uh, do am I allowed to say I need some space for that? I mean, I know parking's not required, but most people doing market rate housing say to have it pencil out, they actually do need to put cars space for cars. So, we're seeing a lot of developers um not dig underground anymore for parking, but put the parking on the first and second floor. Is that something that we could also possibly have? Would we have to raise the height to prevent that sort of configuration on our pedestrian mall, a couple of floors of of parking garage? That's a that's a question I don't think we can simply answer. Um there are a number of considerations that we just briefly discussed. I think one in my mind is if the city's not requiring it, is it our standard that's preventing them from achieving their floor ratio or density? Probably not. And so maybe from a technical standpoint, there's not a problem. But the interface with say density bonus law is where I think it gets more complicated where if the developer wants parking, they may seek to have a waiver or a concession for some other requirement to enable them to provide the parking. Um I think more more work and analysis would be required to give a a firmer answer than that.

Okay. Um and there's been some talk of uh leveraging the R3 development standards. I really like those, by the way. Um, for our down for uh downtown development standards, I'm wondering what you think the overlap is because there's we have within the current downtown precise plan, we have design standards that are more specific to the downtown. So, I'm wondering how much would the R3 development standards help or how much do we already have it in the downtown precise plan? Or maybe you have a third idea. Yeah, I think one of the key challenges is the densities that SP79 requires the city to permit um far exceed the densities for which the development standards have been created in the existing downtown precise plan. As one example, um there may be elements uh of existing objective design standards in the downtown precise plan that are easily lifted and put into a a local alternative plan if that's what council wants to pursue. Uh but more broadly it's sort of the physical development standards that would enable a well-designed building of the densities that SB79 requires the city to allow that's missing currently in our um in our process that the R3 zoning update would get us much closer to having for SP79.

Okay, I think this is my last question. Um so if I can remember it. Let's see. Um, actually maybe I will. Oh, do you think so this being a lot of work, do you think that Opticost could do some of a uh of a a TOD alternative plan?

It's currently not scoped in the R3 work that we're doing. Um, and uh I well I think it's it's hard to understand how that would work currently. Um, as planning manager Anderson mentioned um they're not currently scoped. That's sort of a functional limitation. Um, also their work is more focused on some of the uh design and development standards intended for R3. So they may have a starting point, but again um further refinement would be needed given the small lots that SB79 would apply to that we haven't sort of worked through in the R3 high intensity or density context.

Okay. Thank you. That's what I have for now. Thank you, Council Member Hicks. Uh Council Member Shoalter.

Yeah, I have a couple of quick questions I think for SB79 and then a little more for um SP130. Um uh one I just wanted to talk a little bit about how long it takes to get a consultant on board. It seems to me um when I remember doing it that um it really took about three months to get an RFP written and approved and out and then another three months to get somebody on board. So that's six months. Is that um does that ring true?

Uh that's our experience on recent larger projects. Um there uh I you know I'm not familiar with all of the finance department's um you know uh uh requirements for uh pulling getting um this uh process for getting uh cons hiring consultants. Um but yeah, that's a that's a pretty familiar time frame for getting consultants on board. Uh especially if you do need to go out in that public um open process.

Do we have a list of people who we could call on for this? Like I know in public works we have some, you know, lists of qualified um vendors we we can go to for street work for instance. Um, so we we do have uh planning consultants already um under contract for staff augmentation work. Um, their contracts, the amounts as well as the scopes of work aren't really established for this broad type of work program that we'd really be talking about. And so we would potentially have to go through the contracting process to to bring on board a consultant for this, you know, robust purpose potentially.

Okay. Um, another question that came up was the use of prevailing wage. Um, something can you talk about when prevailing wage is required and when it's not? Sure. Um, so the the key trigger um in both uh AB130 and SB79 is buildings uh over 85 ft in height.

All right. All right. Well, then moving on to 130. Um, I did ask a couple questions and I'm just kind of going to repeat them because I think it's um I don't think this the public reads the answers to our questions in the few hours before the meeting starts. Um, one thing that um I'm was concerned about is um some of the environmental protections. We have uh a couple of toxic groundwater plumes in Mountain View and the standard practice for protecting um residential development over them has been to install vapor barriers. And um I just wanted I understood that basically if if a residential property were proposed in those areas then um we would require a um an initial study which would identify the problem and so could you just go on talk a little bit about how that would be handled so that our community would be safeguarded.

Certainly. Um so I think there's there's sort of two circumstances. Um, AB130 does not eliminate these environmental protections. It changes the process through which we achieve them. Essentially, the first circumstances where a site is actually listed in a database of hazardous sites, AB130 would not apply to those projects. And so, period

period, some other SQA process would be needed. Maybe another exemption, maybe actual SQL analysis. Um, perhaps the more common scenario is that the site's not listed and a phase one environmental site assessment must be performed. Potential contamination from past use is identified and a project would then need to do further analysis and uh implement any requirements of state and federal regulations to achieve um safe levels uh of mitigation of the hazard. So that's required to be implemented and verified at the certificate of occupancy stage rather than front-loading that analysis um which is sort of the prior process uh through SQA.

Thank you. Okay. The other one I wanted to check on with you is um on page 31 under other criteria um there's uh an exemption for not um it doesn't apply in a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 1% annual um chance flood 100-year flood. Uh but I didn't see anything about riparian setbacks and um we do have uh two streams in our uh in our city that are senuous you know are getting more senuous as we um that means wiggling [laughter] as um as we have more intense storms uh erosion gets uh happens and and they and they uh they meander a little bit. that happened significantly on Stevens Creek. I think it was four years ago and a big section fell in on the Stevens Creek trail. I know Eric will remember that. I don't think you will. But anyway, um uh that is likely to go on and we have signed quite a while ago with um if memory serves me a guidance document with Valley Water that requires us to have a 25 foot setback from top of bank for uh Riperians zones. Is that in here?

It's not in AB130. There's no special provision uh if those areas are not within a a flood hazard area that's described. Um there's nothing in the law that would get someone out of complying with um other regulatory agency requirements. So if there was some sort of um permit needed from the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the US Army Corps of Engineers for work very close to uh a stream, that could be required still, but that's independent of and not addressed in in AB130. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from my colleagues? Oh, one more question from Council Member Hicks.

I guess I'll just follow up on what some of the community members asked. They were kind of asking, if I got them right, uh, if they only transferred 3% of the density in the downtown area, would that be much less work than some of the other things we may be imagining? I guess we'll find out what everybody's imagining in a few minutes, but um you know to do a minimal alternative to TOD alternative plan and then later when we're doing the housing element do more is can you see it very finely scoped? So what I understood from the public comments was um their calculation that the area in the downtown that they would like to be protected in an uh to alternative plan was only 3% of the area of that to zone. Um I didn't understand it to mean we only want to they would only want to shift 3% of the density which might be a more limited sort of scope of technical analysis. um the area they're talking about is comprised probably of dozens of properties with buildings of different types. And so we would likely have a pretty extensive technical process in order to figure out existing density and residential floor area compared to um SP79's requirements and then where to shift that. So I think it wouldn't necessarily limit the extent of work needed.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hicks. Any other questions? I had a quick question which I think I'm hoping it's an easy question. Um, projects that will make use of SB79, they're still subject to uh, park fee requirements. Correct. Um, there's nothing that I know of in SP79 that addresses the payment of fees. So, I would interpret that to be um, that the fees would still apply to whatever extent they apply uh, in the first instance. All right. Thank you. Um, all right. We will now move on. Oh. Oh, we have questions from council member Mallister.

Yeah, I wasn't going to ask any, but um the my colleagues brought up something. So, about this relocation of density, would it have to go to those other TOD areas that we have been identified? Yes. Any density that would uh be shifted from one site in a to zone would have to go to one or more sites also in to zones in Mountain View. So, we only have two other Well, the one's on light rail pretty much. Uh there are five zones. Um Oh, that's right. From San Antonio down to, you know, the Whisman area.

Okay. Um what options that you have A, B, and C or in alternative plans would keep downtown as close to possible as it is now. That would likely be approach C that involved a focused TOD alternative plan that sought to minimize density in the area H of the downtown precise plan to shift that density to some other uh place or places in Mountain View.

Okay. So, there was the question about the 50 units per arc or whatever and you said, well, that's what's the downtown precise plan does. So is it they that they overlap or how did that play into you're saying the alternative C would do more than what you said that the precise plan would allow. So I I don't I'm confused one or the other.

Sure. It's a little hard to sort of verbalize and visualize the math, but essentially um portions of the downtown would be subject to um the 120 dwelling unit per acre example uh for a tier one within a quarter mile to keep it simple. Downtown currently allows 50. That's a little bit less than 50% of 120 dwelling units per acre. So, we probably wouldn't be able to push it down to existing 50 dwelling unit per acre density, but we probably could shift it down to 60 dwelling units per acre and then shift those 60 dwelling units per acre to some other location. Um, that's sort of the the construct that I was imagining to try to approximate the downtown precise plan to minimize development pressure from SP79 to those focus areas.

Okay. Because when we discussed this before and you said we're not going to discuss 79 right now, a couple of months ago, a lot of people were concerned about preserving the downtown in your approach. And help me get a better clarity. This report was sort of like a pinball machine for me because you were going bing bing bing and I was just trying to follow it. It was one of the more interesting uh reports I had to read. So if we to do that to pro and they were asking to protect downtown and now you're saying okay well you're not saying but uh approach C would probably be the closest to protect or rem resemble what we have now. Um why isn't that potential in B or is that because of the local approach al uh additive that you were going to put on?

Um so what we laid out in the staff report was uh a series of limited effort, moderate effort and a significant effort option. Approach A is one of the limited effort options to just do the exclusion ordinance. Uh approach B which staff recommended is both of the limited effort options. So, the exclusion ordinance plus the development standards to implement SB79 building off of the R3 zoning update. Approach C adds to both of those efforts. Uh, a focused TOD alternative plan in the downtown. And so, um, it's just the way that we structured the approaches that to alternative plan work in the downtown is only included in approach C. So, are there any asurances on approach B that would sort of u make uh the community feel a little bit better about that all of a sudden you don't come back and say, "Well, we missed something and so now we got we lose it."

I think for the downtown, the main thing in approach B is the ordinance that would um exclude from SP79 um historic resources that are on the local register as of January 1st, 2025. So there are a number of those in the downtown um area in question and so those would be excluded from SP79 and would not be subject to the development pressure uh from the law. Okay. So now it kicked in. So when we were doing the historical ordinance we were to staff was going to identify properties. Have those properties been identified?

Um so we've identified uh potential uh new resources to list as part of the historic preservation ordinance update. they're those properties uh those new properties are not yet listed. Um those properties would not be subject to the exclusion ordinance in approach B recommended by staff. Um only those properties listed as of January 1st, 2025 could be excluded. We would have to do a TOD alternative plan like approach C to exclude uh historic resources added to the local register from this point forward. Okay, that's uh Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Mallister. Council member Kame. Okay, thank you. Um, so I I I apologize. I'm trying to go through the staff report, double check the questions, and try to fully understand. So, it's a process question. So, our first council question is if we want to pursue a TOD alternative plan. And then um council question three asks about deferring certain um work items. So if we answer yes for question one, does that mean for question three all of these items would get deferred? If we go with staff recommendation B.

Uh I think or do we pick? Sorry, I I'm sorry. I sure I should have asked this sooner. I I there was a lot to think about. [laughter] Yeah, it's it's a difficult conversation to have. I think from my perspective, all of them need to be paused for some period of time. Okay.

Because of the need to focus potentially on an AB130 ministerial approval ordinance, which will be a very focused effort we need to get in place very quickly if the council supports that. Um or whatever other modifications and then the need to put in place potentially the you know limited exclusion ordinance and then do whatever other associated planning work. The question becomes if it goes beyond approach B those would be deferred longer potentially because of the elevated level of effort. So um some of those could resume sooner if it's just approach B for example.

So is it also that if we do a TOD alternative plan this would get accomplished before like for SB79 right certain provisions need to be done by July. Um, so is that why all four of those plans would get paused to accomplish and meet that or would there still because I saw some things that said some of these options will take 12 to 15 months. And so I just I'm trying to understand timelinewise what would actually be in place I suppose like for example for SB79 um when that comes into effect what what what realistically would we have accomplished at that point? I realize that that could be we don't maybe know it yet, but

Sure. Um, so I think it's it's possible, but I cannot guarantee to the council that we may be able to put in place an ordinance before July 1st. Okay. Um, part of that hinges on what council may direct and whether that's something that requires HCD approval under SP79. If the approach does, it's almost certain that we won't have this in place for July 1st. Um, you know, if the council directs, certainly it's clear to me to work on this as expediently as possible. And the way to do that is to pause the other council priority items to make sure we don't have other deadlines or distractions or demands on staff capacity.

Okay. So, the two questions at least are, you know, they're interrelated. So with the idea that if we say yes on the alternative plan and then we say yes to three there is the goal that we would be going towards a July 1 2026 date on adopting if we can fingers crossed uh adopting the ordinance um as quickly as possible um would be the objective it's difficult to assure that that would be done by July 1st but this would be if We this is all taking into account if we go with the staff recommendation which would be B.

That's correct. And if there's some thought to scale that down in some way uh or do approach A [laughter] that might simplify the effort and shorten the amount of time to defer and increase the likelihood of July 1st. Okay. I just wanted to understand kind of as as staff mentioned all the tradeoffs. So thank you. All right. Uh I don't know if Okay. Council member Mallister. So, a follow-up question on uh option C. Would al that also include the uh pausing of those other four projects that you discussed?

Yes. And and likely for a much longer period given the additional um demands and requirements to pursue a to alternative plan of um the downtown area H. Okay. And would C then take I think you mentioned or implied that C would take more time than B. Correct. But B isn't going to guarantee us that we're going to get uh done on time anyway. Correct. Okay. [laughter] Is that all your questions, Council Member Council? Okay. Uh City Manager Kimber McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. So I I would like to also clarify and perhaps our director could uh underscore this that if we are to p pursue a tod plan that moves densities and requires us to study not only the individual heights all of the specifics to one property and have to move it to another property that also entails doing squa analysis. That is why this takes so long. It is not because staff's dragging their feet or they have um you know not enough time. It's truly because there are regulatory efforts and steps that we would have to go through in order to do that. So that's really why it's taking a long time. Um, but I would also like to say that meeting a July 1 deadline anyways is going to be very difficult just because of all of the steps that staff will have to go through. They will try their best. They will expedite given wherever council ends up landing. Um, but I do want to just make it very clear why option C is indicated to take as long as it does. it is because we have to go through all of these regulatory steps along with SQUA.

Uh thank you, city manager McCarthy, Council Member Ramirez. Uh thank you, Mayor. A really quick question. Can staff remind us when each of these items is uh anticipated to be completed? So, the dark sky ordinance, the precise plan update, downtown precise plan update, Mafet Boulevard and citywide objective standards.

Um, so maybe I can just uh reference the information, the figures in the staff report. So, R3, um, we are projecting a completion by fourth quarter of this year, 2026. historic preservation ordinance um by potentially uh the end of the second quarter but no later than the third quarter uh of this year. Dark skies uh no later than the third quarter of this year with a goal um second quarter. Citywide objective design standards um would finish um probably in late 2027 uh is the best estimate at this point in time. And then the Moffet Boulevard precise plan um you know is projected to be completed by the end of the fourth quarter of this year. And the downtown precise plan going probably um mid to late 2028 is the best estimate at this point in time.

2028 correct. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? Oh, I see a question from Is it a question or Oh, great. We are now we will now move to comments by the council which should include feedback on the questions staff posing the staff report. If staff could put slide 27 up with the council questions relating to SP79. We'll start with that first. And because I also know my colleagues very well, there might be items where we may need to uh do a straw poll on. So staff will be capturing any items that we will be doing a a straw poll on. And so after you are done speaking, they will put on the screen um possible items that you we may need to do a straw poll on after each council member has spoken. All right. So we will start with council member Hicks.

Start with turning my mic off. Okay. I'm gonna I'm going to give my initial ideas and I'm curious to see other people can build on them. Um so I am uh I responding to some of the things that um uh well no I'll start with saying I am for a to alternative plan that focuses on the downtown. So I guess that is C. I'm not extremely concerned about getting it done right away. Maybe I'll regret saying that later. Um, but it seems to me that the economic conditions we have now give us a little reassurance that we can work on something something that we'll be happy with. You know, it won't be probably the last one we ever do. We can re we'll learn from it and reconsider it later. So, I'm not saying I want um something uh something um you know that we spend that we're not making our the greatest novel we can ever write or whatever. Um I'm also very interested in an a historic exclusion ordinance as quickly as we can do one if we can do that before the TOD alternative plan. Um, for me, the model for us is more or less is in some ways, we're all different, but is more or less Sunnyvale that has Murphy um uh has Murphy uh protected and I think they'll put that into a TOD alternative plan and then they um you know build up around it. Um I I want to say um kind of the values, you know, this was a really good technical report. Um the the staff

report that we're working off of um but there were not of course values expect expressed in it because that's our job. So I think I should say some of my values now. Um the first thing the first thing I think following the things that I've said would do we are encouraging housing. That's one of the the goals of this project. Um we're now not getting much in those areas. So this does encourage housing. At the same time um I agree with Mr. Watson. It's not going to all go at once. We're not going to tear it all down. It it will be things will be torn down and developed gradually. And I think we should decide where those things happen. We don't want 10% of it to develop and we say, you know, we wish all that development was consolidated. It's scattered site. We want to make those decisions and we want to make those decisions in a way that um that uh continues the projects that we're in the middle of. Um the main project that I'm worried about right now is call it what you will the pedestrian mall or our the that downtown component of our economic vitality which we've been putting time and money into and we expect to invest in more and I think if we get if we don't plan carefully to me it's not so much the historic buildings themselves you know Thomas Jefferson never lived there. Not that's not the kind of thing that we're looking for. It's a sense of place that we get from kind of the overall like Murphy. Not every building is historic, but a block a couple blocks with sense of place. There's I mean I can pretty much guarantee in the next 10 or 20 years the entire downtown is not going to become six to

10 stories. So we have to pick where we want it to be. And by transferring some of that density, we are not stopping housing development. We're staying where we want it to be. And you can see that from the upzoning that was done in the 60s in in Old Mountain View or many other places I've lived. A few a few apartments popped up, but the whole blocks, you know, in Old Mountain View were not torn down. So over the decade or something that they allowed that. So I, you know, I think they've given us a way to have uh control over uh the projects that we're in the middle of like the pedestrian mall and that we should take that control. Um I also want to say that upzoning alone doesn't make economic vitality. Um there are a lot of places with um tall apartments such as the San Antonio Center, taller than downtown Mountain View, not as vital in terms of walking and community. And tall buildings, I love tall buildings. I would like to move back to San Francisco personally, but tall buildings alone don't make community and don't make walkable streets and economic vitality. They're other ingredients. And I think we as planners and council members have to add those other ingredients. So that is um Oh, and I would love to declare a Villa Lands historic district. Villa Lands was the first subdivision in uh all of Mountain View. It includes the first three blocks of Castro plus Villa. um doesn't mean you can't develop if you have a historic district, you can still build tall buildings there, but it gives you a little more discretion and recognizes that. So, if I were making this decision all alone, that's what I would do. So, that's my opening

statement. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Hicks. Now testing out the system that we have put in place. Do we have um can we see what we have so far as possible um council straw polling items? Well, I'm just making sure that council member Hicks sees that nothing was missed. So really this is just for council member Hicks's sake to start out with. So, we have two items already. Yeah, that looks good. Perfect. You're good. I don't know who wrote that down.

All right. So, next we will have Council Member Ramirez. We could put up a slide 27 back up.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first I uh I want to I think echo or emphasize uh some of the remarks from the city manager. I know there is uh frustration perhaps with some of the the timelines that um are described in the staff report, but that's not the staff's fault. I think it's the practical reality that um it would have been nice to have a statutory squa exemption for a to alternative plan, but that's not in the law. Uh so we have to do SQA. That is the law. Um it would be nice if HCD were expeditious in their review and approval, but we can't guarantee that. Um, and the one thing that is within our uh our purview is the thoughtfulness of the plans that we create. And for better or for worse, Mountain View tends to be very thoughtful. And I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think we want to rush something out there that uh doesn't include thoughtful development standards or that uh may end up placing the residential capacity in an area where there are different unintended consequences including uh uh making a community that is the recipient of that upset because they weren't a part of that community conversation. So we wouldn't want to rush something together, rush to put something together. I think we would want to uh include members of the community, you know, who are interested in downtown preservation, but also the folks who are going to be on the the receiving end of that residential capacity or who have other interests in the the development of a to plan. So, I think um it I I appreciate your your remarks and I think it is important, you know, to recognize that this is not a problem of the staff's making. Um I also appreciate following uh Council Member Hicks. I think there are uh probably a lot of themes that are going to be similar in my own comments. Um, I think I'll I'll start with though, uh, it, as I've sort of reflected on a lot of the material, this feels more than anything like a a workload management exercise more than

it is like a land use policym exercise. Um, I think what the the staff's ultimate contention appears to be is eventually we should put together a to alternative plan. We should have objective standards, right? we should try and shape and and guide the physical evolution of the community as best as we're able to recognizing that there are many constraints under SB79 and and state law. Um so I I think my my my direct response to question one would be yes, we should pursue a t pursue a to alternative plan. Um I personally I don't know if I would necessarily want to just limit it to the the first three blocks of of Castro. think that is important and we have a lot of community input right now but I think as many members of the community also alluded to over time other members of our community who are uh in monoloma or elsewhere will probably want us to start thinking about their parts of of the city as well their neighborhoods so I I I would say yes pursue a tood alternative plan I don't I agree with council member Hicks I don't think we should start it today I think there's a lot of work that has to go into the existing work plan items. I would like to see those completed. And also how we just like talking about what the TOD alternative plan should achieve is important too. Uh there are some areas where we may want to limit the the density and height and there are other areas where uh we're maybe more comfortable with with shifting that height. But that you know beyond being a a a technical and challenging mathematical exercise I think it's also that's where you know what what type of a community do we want in 20 30 40 years is is a a critical component of the conversation that we're really not able to meaningfully have right now. So question one, yes. Um but I think that should follow the existing work plan items and in

particular I think um the citywide objective design standards are really important. That's citywide, right? We have many instances where not having objective standards has resulted in suboptimal development elsewhere in the city. And I think that's why that work plan item is critical. Um, and also, uh, the precise plans, the downtown precise plan update and the Muffet Boulevard precise plan update can inform the TOD alternative plan. Um, and I would welcome staff's uh, perspective on uh, perhaps maybe there's a different way we can approach those precise plans. One one thing to consider is uh if if the downtown historic core had at a base density of 60 units per acre, we could have a simple exemption by ordinance today. Right? If it were just 10 units per acre more dense, we would actually have an easy way to exempt that portion of downtown. But it's not sufficiently dense. So, we don't have that simple pathway that SP79 does allow. Um, so, you know, maybe a a more narrowly scoped downtown precise plan where we talk about making that area 60 units per acre could allow perhaps more quickly a simple exemption where you don't have to go through a much more elaborate to alternative plan. Um, and it can provide perhaps some relief more expeditiously. But that's where I think we would need a lot of input from staff about how to how to rescope or how to uh to to appropriately plan for the the existing items to you know see them through and and maybe break out the things that are more urgent and defer the things that are that are less urgent. Um so uh for op two um I I agree with council member Hicks. think we should pursue the

exemption for historic resources. That's something that we can do through ordinance without squa. Um I don't support the other exempted parcels. I was going through that map and most of those first there aren't that many. Many of them are already built out. Um or you know it's like city hall or the you know the the Kaiser building. Uh you know I I don't know if that's the priority. um uh some of these other areas. I don't want to trigger, you know, conflicts of interest, but um I live in a very dense part of the city and I don't know if we necessarily need to exempt, you know, the San Antonio precise plan, uh from SP79 and honestly that staff time and capacity would be better spent on many other things. So maybe it's like a modified staff recommendation where pursue the the statutory uh statutoily squa exempt you know historic resource exemption do not proceed with the precise plant sort of the random assortment of parcels exemption. um pursue the uh objective standards by ordinance um option which right now I think would use R3 as sort of the baseline um which I think is a good place to start. I agree. And then after we've completed the work plan items and informed by staff's recommendations about how we should think about the precise plans in particular, then we should start the the TOD uh al alternative plan. Um so happy to sort of go through that if that's helpful. Again, I I I also want to answer a question for because that's that's the easier one. I like we really don't have a lot of options there. if we don't meet the deadlines, the projects are deemed approved, which is actually pretty

crazy. [laughter] So, um, it's in our best interest to have a process that allows us to meet those extremely aggressive deadlines in state law, and I think the staff recommendation is is a prudent one. So, I I support the staff recommendation for question four. Thank you. Did staff get that? I think so. So far so good. All right. Uh did you want to double check to see if they did catch it, Council Member Ramirez? Because that that you are the one I'm most worried about with this process,

I guess. So, um maybe this is a process question for later. Some of these I'm not certain need straw polls like include members of community and development of TUD alternative plan. I don't think there's a scenario where we would exclude the community. Um so I I mean it's if if staff if that's helpful guidance for staff then certainly um but I I feel like we're Do you have an opinion

mayor and council members if I may? So I would suggest that what we're trying to capture here are um your uh options frankly for number two question two because if you're going to think about different approaches that's where the straw polls are going to come in. So I would suggest just for efficiency sake that let staff capture this and then let's display it at the end and then to staff why don't we just make sure that this document is capturing the items for the straw polls because I'm also taking track of where we're at with questions and then let's pull it up after we're done and then we can move forward from there if that works.

That that does work. Can I ask one thing I completely forgot? Um, we only have like two staff who do advanced planning. Maybe we should have more. Maybe you should have some friends, Eric, because I know we're we're expecting a lot of [laughter] you. And uh maybe adding I I don't know. I'd love to see maybe in in the midyear like consideration of like this is we're getting to a point where our staff are going to break if we keep adding all of these state mandates on top of the council priorities. I think it's something we should seriously consider. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, we will, if we could go back to slide 27 and now we will have council member Sho Walter.

Thank you. I I like this list thing with the chart. Very good idea. I used to make one on just on a piece of paper, but it's really nice to have it pretty and neat up there. Um, uh, I want to just go to a sort of a little bit of a higher level. Um, when I look at all of the um, state legislation that's been passed to promote housing recently, there are a couple things that seem to be um, commonalities. One of the commonalities is that if you have objective development standards, you can enforce them. And so I think that that what that says to us is that the lack of objective development standards is really a problem. And I know that R3 is designed to um develop them for a a a portion of our residential development. That's great. I mean it seems to me like it's a wonderful start in that direction. But I just think that we really need to remember that commonality um objective development standards and we need to have them because otherwise um the state has control and we don't really want to seed the control for our local development to the state. We we have worked really really hard to be a pro-ousing community and um support housing and and and and think about planning in a very comprehensive manner where we put together parks and schools and commercial and you know industry all together. We we we look at the whole package. So, um, I think that's that's an excellent model and we, you know, we need to kind of protect it and the way to protect it, it seems to me, under the current situation is to get those um

objective development standards done as soon as is reasonable. Um, then the other thing we've I've heard loud and clear and I I agree with is we all love downtown. We all want to um protect downtown. So, what we need to do to protect downtown, I'm not sure exactly what it is, but um u I'm I think that's where, you know, that's where we've heard from our community and I I think that's what we want to we want to really concentrate on. And then I would um I would echo what um my colleague uh council member Ramirez said. It seems like along with the objective um development standards, there's a lot more work for advanced planning than there used to be. And um so I think we need to, you know, we need to think about that as um as we move forward and and and make sure that there's adequate staff or consulting power or whatever is the best way to do it. That's not our decision, but just to recognize that advanced planning is super important and um and we we really recognize that. Okay. So um oh then the other thing is we are not powerless in terms of how these um uh how these bills are written or amended. So and we have a good reputation and we have very good relationships with our legislators. So, I think as we go through this process and we identify things that perhaps aren't written as well as they could be, um, we should bring that up to our legislators. For instance, it seems to me in 130, um, there's, uh, you know, there's a time frame that that generally you use and it's and it's kind of a one-sizefits-all until you get to the huge size and and then it just adds a little bit more time. If I understood correctly, most of the time it's 30 days

and then if it's a slightly bigger one, it's 60 days. That's not really time for much process. So, I think that um putting together a um uh an understanding of what would be the cut off for when we really feel like it's not just a single project on a uh it's it's part of like a plan and and it needs more it needs more community time. I think that would be a legitimate thing to bring up to our legislators. So, I wanted to bring that up. Okay, to the questions. Sorry for all that um soap boxing. Um uh yes, I I think we do need to do a to plan, but I think we need to do it thoughtfully. Um we are in a sense protected by the economic downturn and the lack of um residential development that's that's going on right now. Um, I uh I do feel like getting R3 done and getting objective standards done are they seem to be the me to be the most important things to do before the TOD. But but again, we're not going to do this tomorrow. So, if staff after after thinking about it um has, you know, a better way to handle it, I certainly would be interested in hearing it. But then I think we we don't want to put off um the precise plans too much, but as we can do them if we can do them in parallel to the do to I think that would that would be great. Um and um about the deferral, I guess we you know we just have to um I I would like to say instead of the deferral, my priority is R3 and the objective standards. It's not like I want to defer any of these any more than is necessary, but we all need to make sure that we do things at a um at a staff that they can a um a time

frame that they can be done well. And so I you know I understand that that that could mean deferring some things. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Shaw Walter. as requested by the city manager. We will we will do the the visual aids after everyone is done talking. Um, anyone else wants to go next? Council member Clark.

I think um, open to hearing from my remaining colleagues. I think I mostly agree with um council members Sha Alterra and and Ramirez so far, but a little bit of um minor difference. I I think I I think we should pursue a a TOD alternative plan. Um I think the the path forward, which is um Sorry, I'm sitting away from the mic. Um the the path forward that council member Ramirez described I think makes the most sense to me. Uh mostly because we're we're taking a [snorts] you know if we were in a different economic environment like we were in 2019 per se, I would be um much more worried than I am now. Uh because I think if you look at uh and staff identified this in the report, but if you if you look at um you know, I don't think we're going to have a flood of applications on July 1st. And if there if there were going to be significant uh applications later this year, it's probably going to be from the most well-resourced um um developers with whom we have relationships who probably don't want to torch those relationships. Um I would guess if they want to continue doing business in the city. Now, I may I might eat my words um as council member Hicks pointed out earlier, but I I think I that is one of the macro um factors that I think is playing into how I think about this and and also the and also sort of doing this right versus really really quickly. I I think the one area I don't know if it's an area of disagreement, but the I I do think the

citywide objective standards is important um because it's been pointed out you those are things that we can enforce citywide and uh I think especially in the current legislative environment they're going to become more and more important. So um so in terms of deferring things you the the world um as much as I'm sure we all love dark skies the world is not going to end if that gets pushed out six n months. These other things sort of dovetail with one another. The Mafet Boulevard precise plan the downtown precise plan the the TOD alternative plan are probably going to inform one another. And I I don't think I'm in a position where I feel comfortable dictating which of those should go first or in parallel. I I kind of trust staff after we after they get our feedback tonight to to sequence these things. What should go in parallel? What can be fast follows? But of the things that were listed, you know, I want to get the dark sky ordinance done um or at least in a in a state where we can talk about it again. But I also don't feel that getting that done this year is um is really going to have a have a dramatic impact in terms of the the priorities that we're talking about here, especially if the state legislature um gearing up probably to pass even even more legislation. Uh so um and I and I will point out so that that's a long way of saying I I think I answered yes to one. Uh the answer to two is probably something along the lines of the staff recommendation but more along the lines of but uh I think more closely with what council member Ramirez recommended except in number three. Um I I I don't want to dictate which of these should be deferred and when. Uh I I've said that I'm most comfortable with dark skies being

deferred and maybe a few other things. But um but I do think that there are um there are tie-ins between the other items on this list. So I'll trust staff to kind of identify which of those should go when. Um for question four, um I I do think we should create a ministerial process, approval process. That that makes sense. Uh, and then just the last note, as council member Sho Walter pointed out, um, I hope that, and I plan to have these conversations, if I'm able to with some of our state legislative representatives, and I hope others will too, and maybe the city can can do this, uh, you know, formally on the council's behalf, uh, or maybe the mayor can. But I I really hope going forward that we're I think there's a there's a lot of lost potential with the you know the the um the the designation of being a you a proousousing city you know the the the thing that everyone talks about is the the the availability of funding or at least the potential to compete for that that comes along with that. But I think what would really move the needle is is additional carrots for those who pursue, you know, a pro-ousing designation. Um I think the state could say, you know what, you've worked hard to do this. um this isn't an easy designation to get and if you get that designation we know you're acting in good faith and so we're going to give you the grace of instead of forcing you to try and put a TLD alternative plan in place in 6 months you have a year or two or so and not just this but I I think there are additional carrots to where you know the pro housing cities aren't necessarily aren't necessarily exempted from new requirements but they have the the ability because they're presumably working in good faith to build

additional housing to have a little bit more latitude in where that housing goes and how it's uh how those plans are developed and and not necessarily preempted um at the state level. So I I just I really wish that and this is a conversation that we we can maybe have but I think that would be a really helpful framework is to choose the allow the prohousing designated cities to have a little bit more latitude to and time to effectuate their plans if they really are moving toward in the direction of building additional housing. So hopefully that's a separate conversation that we can have at some point but I just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council member Kame.

Great. Thank you. All right. I think I'm going to do my best to follow directions, which is I I think it's just one, two, three. Okay. [laughter] Perfect. All right. Thank you. Um, so I just want to thank uh staff um for um all their hard work on bringing this forward to us, the community for all your comments. Um I just really appreciate all the feedback that you've provided to us. So, um, for question one, yes. For question two, um, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation, but I tend to be I perhaps as a former staff in in another jurisdiction, I'm always comfortable with staff recommendation. Um, I I think it's balancing um the environment that we're in. I'm I'm comfortable with work beginning immediately. I think mostly because there's the for SB79 there's uh the July 1st um kind of deadline and I think that's probably why the legislature put that in there in terms of trying to have a have a target goal and hopefully we can achieve and maybe that's tempering expectations on you know we're going to try to put forward as much as we can with with our alternative plan um and not let the kind of um perfect be the enemy of the good. Um for question three, um I'm comfortable with the deferral knowing that again knowing that there's kind of the timeline looming of the July 1 deadline and really trust staff in terms of being able to let us know um kind of the the different timelines. I think I I hear what colleagues are saying in particular uh particularly to the citywide objective design standards. Um but considering it's January and and July is just a few months away, I I just

feel comfortable knowing that we're going to get right back to it. And I think hopefully some of this work is already happening and can build off of each other h happening in in parallel. So those are my answers. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Kame. Council member Mallister. Yes. I have a follow questions. Currently, what does the city have as it relates to citywide objectives of designs and standards? Do we have anything in place right now or would this be just a tweaking of or review of?

Yeah, so we have um some objective design standards in precise plans. Uh but the um the R3 project is developing objective design standards and then there's a work plan project council work plan project where we would build off of that uh to apply to other mixeduse areas in the city.

Okay. uh on the LA on the one on the uh downtown precise plan. I attended a public meeting and they the consultant said that the downtown precise plan update would probably take until 27 and 28. So u I guess we're not pushing that's okay. So that being said, I will answer the questions. Yes. C yes. Yes. I mean, council member Ramirez says, "Well, we have the work plan." Then what council adds on and when I came on board and I campaigned for it, he says, "We got to start taking things off to get things done." And we just keep adding them on. And then I also hear, "Well, we got to trust staff." And I'm trusting staff because they spent a lot of time to come up with this information. And then we say, well, why don't we tweak this? We'll we'll trust staff to do something. Well, if you trust the staff, you would trust what they recommended and go from there. So, um, it's sort of you can't have both ways. So, I'm trusting staff to get it done because they did put the time and energy to think about what would be best for the city. So, those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Council Member Mallister. Is that still Council Member?

Oh, Council Member Clark, are you okay? Uh, Council Member Hicks. Okay. So, I spoke first, so I only answered question one. Maybe a little bit of question two. Um, so I'm left not quite knowing where we're at, so I'll ask. Um, with many people choosing option B, but many people in the audience and virtually asking for a focus on downtown. I think I'm unclear on whether and I guess uh council member Shoalter said she'd like a focus on the downtown. I didn't think I'm going to ask two questions actually. I didn't think option B had much focus on downtown. So, I want to clarify whether everybody's on board with that or whether some of the things that people said in the audience resonated with them because I think that the downtown is probably the thing that's most in danger. That's question number one. Then question number two is related. Um, council member Ramirez said he did not support the exemption of some of those other buildings. I know other buildings is poorly defined but um he in some table the number of which I don't remember but he mentioned um the San Antonio center he said it's a tall place if we get another couple stories it's probably not going to kill us. I thought option B did have those exclusions. So, the reason I didn't pick, and I may be wrong, but the reason I didn't pick option B is one, it had no focus, no really very good focus on the downtown, and two, it focused on some areas that I think already have a lot of density and it will make little difference to do a lot of work on. So

I I believe we can do a shortened I understand people want something more efficient but I think we may be doing something that nobody really wants and that's a question. So approach B uh recommended by staff does not have a a focused planning process for the downtown. What approach B includes is adoption of um a limited ordinance that has exclusions allowed under SB79 for historic resources on the local register as of January 1st, 2025. That's sort of the main point uh for us here.

Yeah. And I I support that. But honestly, that's super minimal and that's not what people in the audience were asking for at all. They're asking for the sense of place, the pedestrian mall working, making sure we have commercial there, a whole set of things that are I want council members who may be voting for it to be clear that if you vote for option B, it doesn't have any of the things people have come to ask for except for the historic buildings. So,

thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Council Member Hicks. Council member Kame. Well, I guess the the question that I have back is what what other tradeoffs may need to happen to include that focus on the downtown. And I and I don't know what that is. And I think that from what my understanding was from the city manager's comments, that could also include having to do further SQA analysis. I you know potentially um which I think yes definitely would be a benefit but I don't know what else that would mean what other trade-offs that might mean in terms of putting forward some sort of alternative plan and I'm not sure if staff is able to answer that question but I think that was a bit nebulous to me so I thought at least if we're moving forward with the with B which staff says they can accomplish which is and it includes the historic register that would maybe encapsulate ate some I know that some colleagues were also talking about prioritizing and not deferring some of the other items like [music] if we did something like a a be approach but still tried to move forward the citywide objective standards could that maybe um umbrella under some parcels within the downtown that's kind of what I was thinking of but I don't know if I don't know looking to

st So, I'd like to take this one. Um, so here's what I'm hearing. I'll summarize. And we haven't heard from our mayor yet, which I think, um, as the seventh person, we'll need to see where her thinking is as well. Um, so right now, what I'm hearing is that at least three council members are wanting somewhat of a hybrid approach between A and B. And so then I'm hearing some support for C and some support for B. So, right now, um, if there were to be a straw poll, um, it would give staff the direction that we would focus on finishing R3. We would finish the historic preservation ordinance. Uh, we would exempt um those historic properties that were on the roll, um, which are some buildings downtown. we would um not necessarily put anything off except we would not start the TOD alternative plan until those existing work plan items were finished and then there's interest in other things like the legislation um and some other things that folks brought up. So I don't think we have a clear A, B or C at least from everyone. So, I'm hearing somewhat of a hybrid approach. Um, and then we would just need obviously the the mayor's thoughts to see where you all land and then we can take straw polls.

Uh, thank you, city manager McCarthy. No pressure at all. Um, okay. So I I guess that that um my thoughts I when when I thought looked at um SB79 I I believed that we were already working on our downtown precise plan. We were already working on Moffett precise plan and it was my hope that those plans would essentially take into account the density requirements of SB79 as as we move forward. Um, one of the questions I asked ahead of time, um, which was about facade standards, which I guess was my way of asking about the objective design standards, particularly for the downtown, because I I do feel like what a lot of people I mean there is a lot of concern of us losing our downtown. Um, and it it it's it's a really interesting thing to to think through because the question is is like what does it mean to lose our downtown? Like is it just going to be like I I'm pretty sure no one anticipates like the downtown is just going to be bulldozed and raised as soon as July 1 comes down. That's probably not going to happen. Um but but I think a lot of people are scared of that that drip drip drip of the change happening so much. And at some point we'll look around and and it's not the downtown that we had envisioned it to be. Um so as we look into our and I I'm I'm sorry I'm not really good about fitting into those those boxes of ABC. Um I I am uh I am okay. I would love to pursue pursue a to alternative plan. Um, I I think the reason why I like B is because I don't want to put more on staff than we really have to, but then

I'm also going to be like, what about B+? Um, and the thing is is it we're already asking to defer work of um, dark skies orinance, citywide objective design standards, downtown precise plan, mafet precise plan. But it was my hope that the downtown precise plan and the citywide objective standards would help feed into SB79 work. And so if we were going to look at B plus um we would look at the objective design standards that we maintain that look and feel of our downtown. And it it's not a guarantee that our downtown will remain the same way if we if we do those objective design standards, but it's kind of our best shot. It's it's how we implement our vision for our downtown. Um so that's overall what I was looking at. Um, also the due to the historic exclusion ordinance, I would love us to get started on that just so that we can ensure that the historic uh buildings that we do have already on our local registry are are protected because I I don't see a um appetite for people to demolish those that we have already deemed as historic. Um, I think those are my answers to the questions. Um, should we start with the visual aids or Oh, I see. Council member Clark.

It was just to clarify after the the city manager summary. Um, I I'm not opposed to um I'm not opposed to deferring the items in question three. Um, if you know I think we should defer things to the extent we need to to I what I don't want to do is just wait and do the TLDD alternative after all these things you know years from now. Um because I think if we're going to pursue a TOD alternative then we should we should do so with some urgency and I'm willing to defer the things in number three. I think what I was trying to point out earlier is I think some of them inform one another and I realize that we can't it's impossible to do all these things at once. Um it was just pointing out that I think um you know I think I'm willing to defer what we need to defer to to move the TOD alternative along. I just I also understand that you know even if we were to go with C, it's probably not going to be done for 18ish months, right? So, unless something changes, but um but the only other kind of quasi question I had was one of the things that you proposed referring was citywide objective design standards and I thought a little bit more about it. Um and maybe you can be a thought partner with me. The um so we have objective standards I think in most of our precise plans. Some of those precise plans are old like downtown, but they're there. And so that covers a big chunk of the city. That's El Camino. You know, we you know, all the precise plans. So really, citywide objective standards might have saved us in some of these instances where we were outside some of those precise plan boundaries, but those were kind of few and far between. Not to say they weren't important, but um that that changes my my willingness to defer that a little bit more knowing that um a big chunk of

the city is already covered by those. Plus, we're doing R3 and those objective standards can inform um some of the other things. So, I just wanted to update my thinking there and just correct me if I'm wrong, but I I feel like while the all the objective standards might not be the same, there are there are written objective standards in most of the uh well, a big chunk of the city because we're talking about precise plan areas. Is that right?

I think that's correct. I think it's important in answering your question to understand the context in which you're asking the question. So, yes, generally that is true what you described. There are objective development standards more or less depending on the area in the age of the plan. For example, the challenge is if it's in the SP79 context that you're asking in the question, those objective uh standards probably would prevent achieving the heights, densities, and residential floor area ratio that we're obligated to allow and so they wouldn't be enforcable.

I see. So that's where the need to do, you know, focused planning, work, building off of R3 as a starting point to tailor those standards in a way that shapes those projects to the extent that we can still shape them and allows them to achieve their density, Floria ratio, etc. to which they're entitled. Okay, that's helpful. So, I think um well, I guess we'll get into where we all land and we'll figure out a path forward in one way, shape, or form. But

just a a clarification from what council member Clark was asking. So like if we if we're looking at objective stand our objective design standards say in our downtown precise plan um the current ones that are there would not fly under SB79. Is that what you're saying? So, a few years ago, council adopted uh design standards that were crafted to be objective design standards for areas AG and H. Um there was some direction at the time that council wanted to, you know, modify some of those and we're working on some of those modifications with the the project right now. uh but the um uh there are other parts of the precise plan that don't have the benefit of those standards. Uh further I would say that the focus of those objective design standards were on um uh kind of historic design and character which may be applicable to taller buildings. Uh but as director Murdoch said uh the the challenge here is a broad range of other development standards that may constrain uh those taller or denser buildings that would be uh that we would have to allow under SB79. So, if we do want to address um those design standards while still maintaining our the feel of downtown but still have it done by SB79. What buck is that? Is that A, B, or C?

Um that would be well well A doesn't include any updates to standards. So that's just the the exclusion of sites. Um that would be uh bucket uh B. Okay. Okay. Uh bucket C involves changes to density.

Oh, okay. All right. That that makes sense now. All right. Are you still up, Council Member Clark, or are you good? All right. Council member Hicks. So, I did like the mayor's description of uh B+, but I I was thinking maybe it was with what people have said B+ minus, which you would think would make B, but I mean adding something and subtracting something else, so it doesn't. Um, and kind of answering uh council member Kame's question of what can we do to speed things up. So, I'd say the first thing is I don't feel like we have to finish by the July 1 deadline and I don't think we will. Um, and I think as people have said because of economic conditions, I don't want to go too far out there, but I'm not too nervous of going past that line. Um, so the plus, the minus is what council member Ramirez mentioned about exemp isn't doesn't B have exempting these other buildings in it. Yes. B includes exemptions uh under the provision of SB79 where the zoning allows more than 50% of what is prescribed in SB79. So, I thought if I heard right that Council Member Ramirez said that was probably not worth our time and if everybody agreed it wasn't worth our time and people are looking for things to cut, we should probably cut the thing that's not worth our time. Um, so that's so that's so I would agree with B+ minus what council member Ramirez said is not worth our time. But I'm still most people have said they want to do a

tod alternative plan, but I think that's at some time in the future. People have said, tell me if I'm hearing wrong, um when it can be informed by objective standards and I would say probably informed by the downtown precise plan and Moffett precise plan, the amount of work that's been done in them so far. But that's the thing. I'm not People say they want to do a to alternative plan and some people have said they want to focus on the downtown, but I'm not sure that I've understood, you know, and do it later. I'm not I'm just not sure. They're going to do this. We all are going to do this to alternative plan later, but does it focus on downtown? Is it just Are we just all talking about C, but doing it later? I'm not sure.

Mayor, can I can I offer a way to think about um doing the TOD alternative plan later? Um I think the reality is we can't at the staff level do all of these things all at once. I think the council understands that. So what we're talking about is trying to pause some of the existing work plan items other than R3 uh as an example, historic preservation ordinance as an example, pausing the others only to the extent needed to complete this first trunch of work. the ordinance to exclude historic resources that are already on the register and then completing R3 so we can use that as a launchpad to build objective development standards that meet the purpose of SB79. Um really the timeline to do that pushes us into you know early to mid 2027 already when the council will be developing its work plan for fiscal years 27 through 29. It seems sensible to me that that might be a juncture at which we'll know more about SP79. We'll know if any cleanup legislation's come out. We'll know what other priorities may have emerged at that point, what work plan items we've completed, and council can prioritize then whether to do a TOD alternative plan, which seems supported at this time, and also the the scope of that. Is it remaining focused on area H, which is a very narrow task, or does council want to prioritize a bigger planning activity by the staff at that time in order to broaden that beyond area H. So, I think the timelines converge in a way that allows council to revisit this point with more focus um at some point, you know, give or take a year in the future. So, I want to offer that we may not have to have the council solve all of that now. What you are, I think, approaching is knowing that you're not going to do that now because of the drawbacks of depp prioritizing other work that would be necessary to do a TUD alternative plan starting today. Okay, Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor. I I actually appreciate what um uh Director Murdoch just shared. I think that we we're not going to prescribe a date to start the work. Um, and it's very difficult to know exactly when work plan items will either be completed or will they were where where they could land in a place where we might suspend that work to begin other higher priority work. Um, for I mean all of us I'm sure have had jobs where um you you invest a lot of time and effort in a project and then your boss says you know what I don't care about that anymore. you know, on a dime flip and focus on something else. And that's very disruptive. That's very challenging. And the reason I'm uncomfortable with uh with being very prescriptive in how to treat the work is only the staff know exactly where they are in each project. I I agree with council member uh Sha Walter and and others who have shared. I think the the dark sky ordinance is is nice, but I think we're acknowledging that there are higher priority, you know, urgent items that we need to attend to. And that's one where, you know, if if we had to ask the community pick, you know, do you want to do some of this important land use work or do you want the dark sky ordinance, I think most would say the land use work is is really essential. So that's one where we're making a tough call. We're saying sorry staff, I know you've invested a lot of time on that item, but it's it's because we really have to make that trade-off to achieve these higher priority items. Uh, and and I think council member Clark spoke to the the the challenge that I have as well with with the downtown precise plan update and the Mafet Boulevard precise plan update. [snorts] I don't know exactly where you are in that work. Mafet Boulevard is I think anticipated to be completed by the end of this year, right? So, it is disruptive to say stop working on that and pick something else up, especially when it it has a lot of

overlap with the to area that I think we care most about. So, I'm I don't want to say suspend work. I think it's more have staff think about now that SP79 exists, how should we rethink or rescope the Mafet Boulevard boulevard precise plan? spend a little bit of time thinking about where should that land and then I think you would be better able to articulate to us where that should fall and where we should suspend work or where where we should complete work because it so heavily informs our thinking about the to plan uh or the to alternative plan especially for the downtown area. I think Council Member Hicks, you asked the question that that I I I wasn't fully grasping until until just now. Um, and that's when we begin a TOD alternative plan, uh, where where should we focus? And I think what you're what you're suggesting is we should be very clear to staff today that when we begin it, it should focus on downtown. Um, and I'm I'm comfortable with that. The only uh concern I have or the only advice I would give for those of you who will continue serving after I've passed away politically is there are there are going to be communities that will come out, you know, to their council to the new council and say, uh, you know, we we just found out about this. We're very concerned about the impact to our neighborhood outside of the downtown historic core. And if we go too far along the to alternative plan and have already directed staff to invest heavily in just the historic core, then the risk is that you know that council or that the staff would be less able to respond to other I think equally valid community concerns about well what about the infrastructure in Monoloma? What about the infrastructure you know west of Wisman? Right? Those are also de facto change areas now whether we want them to be or not. So I I I wasn't explicit in saying where or what the TOD alternative plan should focus on. Um I am

comfortable comfortable with saying based on the community testimony tonight and before this meeting downtown is a fine place to start. However, I will not be here. But I I I think it's important for the council to consider what happens when other neighbors find out and they come to, you know, you all at that podium and say, "Wait a second. What about my neighborhood?"

Thank you, Council Member Ramirez. So, for the first three questions, is there um things that we need to do a straw poll on that staff needs us to clarify? and do you have the the Google doc or whatever word doc ready for us to start going down those draw poll votes. If you don't have it ready, we can go on to question four because I think that's actually really quick if you if you need time to get that ready. But if you're ready now, we can we can do that now. Why don't we uh try another moment to attempt to formulate the questions uh based on the last uh bit of dialogue uh from the council.

All right. So, I am letting everyone Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Council Member Kame. Sorry. Um, as the only one who said I'd be happy to work on it immediately or a later date, I don't So, I feel a little bit nebulous on So, what does a later date mean? So, we say yes, we had discussion. So, staff will do an off agenda memo or just let us know when it's happening. I want an alternative. So, I just don't that's the part that I I got confused on because people said we'll just start if staff could city manager. Oh,

so is it just January of 27 or Q1 as you were mentioning? So, if we

for for question two, it sounds like the majority says later date. So, later date would be sometime next year. So, I think um where I've heard the council majority seeming to form is consider um pursuing a TOD alternative um that may focus on the downtown area H or maybe broader uh perhaps as part of the council's work plan prioritization for fiscal years 2027 through 2029. That would be happening, you know, in the first and second quarter of 2027 most likely. And so um at that time right with better understanding and insights into the functioning of SB79 and other priorities there can be a proper discussion of exactly when to start and the extent of that work uh in light of other uh staff demands at that time. So effectively, our conversation may inform if the future council will prioritize this as a work plan item. But effectively after today, then nothing would begin until it's potentially added as a future work plan item next year. Is that what I understood? Did I understand that correctly? That was what I uh put out as my interpretation. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

And mayor, council members, if I may. So, I think uh the the biggest thing about the timing is this is good news. R3 is coming forward to you next month. It's coming forward the first meeting in February. That will help inform uh the to plan. We're also working on the historical preservation ordinance that is also expected to be wrapped up this spring which will also help the plan moving forward. By not postponing the downtown precise plan or Moffett precise plans by as far in the future, it means staff can work on those also which may also help inform the TOD plan. And then I think where we will need clarity from council is if you want to focus on all the priority areas or only downtown. Is downtown shifting to Montaloma? Is it shifting to San Antonio? Is it shifting to the other transit areas? Or do you want us to look at all of them holistically which I think is where the timing is going to come in for the to. all the work that you will have done on all those other policy items will help inform the tod piece. So I think where you all have the decision to make is are you comfortable with this kind of B+ option um and are you comfortable with the timing of when these items would come to you. Now you all can say this is a priority. We want you to start the TOD at the beginning of 27. You don't have to necessarily wait for this to be put on the next work plan. It would go on the next work plan because the work

would continue at that time. Thank you, city manager McCarthy. Council member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor. I think just just I uh as uncomfortable as I am to to stipulate a particular area, especially if the future council is going to work on this and not me, um I I am okay with having a fairly, you know, uh narrowly scoped downtown focused to uh alternative plan. If if that's helpful direction for staff today, then when you begin it uh as council member Hicks had had described, I think focusing on on the downtown area and especially the historic core to the greatest extent possible informed by the work that you will do or have done on the downtown precise plan update. As long as we found a place to land those precise plans, that's comfortable for staff, right? Don't don't do anything that is disruptive. I know that's that's a hard thing to do. So I I I don't it's it's it's hard to say start at this day. It's more I'm trusting staff to figure out how to wind down some of these other items. I'm okay with deferring dark sky ordinance. I'm okay with saying downtown focused to air alternative plan. Um and then I I you know reiterating the the only immediate actions would be the ordinance to exempt historic resources as of January 2025 and uh the ordinance to implement uh uh objective design standards for SP SP79 and staff is recommending using the R proposed R3 standards as a baseline. So those would be the things that we would do soon. Thank you, Council Member Ramirez. Council member Shoalter.

Yes. I just wanted to confirm that the uh development of the objective standards is on the list of things we're we're getting um going on right away. Is that correct? So, the discussion I'm tracking right now um does include um the objective standards work that builds off of the R3 zoning update completion. I think that's really important. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Shaw Walter. Council member Mallister. Um, so everything you heard tonight, is anything going to get done by the uh initial implementation of SB79?

The honest answer is probably uh nothing will be in place by July 1st given the work that's required and the potential uh need for HCD review and approval. Um, and so we will work as expediently as we can. Uh, but it's not likely to be in place by July 1st. Thank you, Council Member Hicks.

So, if it's downtown focused, I will be voting on it. I have or for it. Not exactly the way I would have done it myself, but um I I um had thought that the we would defer the downtown and Moffett because we would work the work we've already done into a downtown focused to alternative plan. Uh and you look puzzled. [laughter] Uh well, I think the look on my face reflects that we're still at a relatively early stage of the downtown precise plan update. So, um we've largely completed the visioning framework phase. Um we have not done the extensive uh refinement and development of uh standards at this point.

So, there's not much in to inform it. Correct. [laughter] Okay. Now, I understand that facial expression. Um, yeah. So, that's why I thought maybe we could defer those and start the TOD alternative plan earlier. But, um, yeah, if it's focused on the downtown, then it's not ideal, but I will be voting for it. Okay. The staff is staff ready for our straw poll or should we move on to question four and then you'll be ready for uh some clarity in any of the straw votes? So I think we have what I think is a workable starting point for this discussion and so if we need to tweak these to get the exact council majority then we can do that.

Okay. So we will move on to question four and then we'll go back to those straw polls because I think question four is actually relatively simple comparatively to the three other questions. So I believe council member Ramire has already said his answer to question four which I already forgot but I'm sure the staff remembered it. So, uh, the answer to question four that I noted for council member Ramirez was to support the staff recommendation of option number one, prepare a ministerial approval process for projects eligible under AB130. Thank you, staff. Does anyone have an answer to question number four? Council member Mayor. Oh, yes.

You may just want to do a straw poll and see do who supports um staff's recommendation. All right. So, let's let's let's go with that. Um everyone who supports staff's recommendation for question number four, please raise your hands. All right, we have uh six. Oh, any oppose? All right. Any absentions? Oh, yes. Go ahead, council members.

The reason I'm opposed is is um because I really am sad to think that there won't be a um public hearing where people who object to a project or have good suggestions for it can share them. And that's one of the things that the ZA hearing, I think, is really valuable for. Granted, um, with this new AB130, the city won't be able to say, "Okay, you have to make that change." But a lot of times our developers um hear an idea that is um suggested by our residents and say, "Oh, that is a good idea. I could do that." And um so that's why I'm objecting because I I feel like even though we can't require them anymore, we we need a vehicle or I would like there to be a vehicle where they can share those um those opinions.

Thank you, Council Member Shoalter. I'm trying to see if there was like a question relating to that about Oh, there wasn't. Oh. Um, about the ability for for um community input even when things are ministerial, like there's usually like a big sign saying there's a development coming here and send an email to um whoever. Is that correct? Um, so I think what you're describing is the public notification component of the discretionary permit process where those on-site signs are provided. Um, we have contemplated um, evaluating in this ministerial approach some sort of uh, courtesy notice and possibly a written comment opportunity. We need to think more about how that would work. Uh but that would at least offer um you know the opportunity to point out unique issues or concerns about a particular site or neighborhood that may not be evident to staff that could have bearing on our analysis. And so that's one of the alternative sort of options that might come along with this min ministerial process if we can find a way functionally to make it work.

Okay. Does that sound good to you, Council Member Schaalt? That does sound good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, Council Member Hicks, you're up.

So, Council Member Shaalter, I appreciate your no vote. I I was going to add that as a comment, not as a no vote. So, I I agree that it's important to notify it was mentioned in the staff report, but probably not everybody here has read the full staff report that there would be could be courtesy noticing as a pardon of this. And I agree with council member Sha Walter. That's important. Take some way of taking in people's comments because they can be really in my time as a planner, they can be really helpful and things you actually want to act that are beneficial to you to act on, maybe even save you money. Um, and then, uh, I also think we should check on the purpose and role of the EPC because this is changing a lot of what the EPC does. Um, so I think we're going to need to check in on that. And, um, like we said before, for the SB79 portion of this agenda item, we should lobby for modification modifications. we may want to this legislation such as longer time frames for planners to complete work on larger projects like really big projects. So those oh and we should publish something in the view about this we should educate the public I mean not that every you publish it in the view and everybody everywhere will have comprehensive knowledge on it but it's a good first step. Thank you. Do we need to take a straw pull on all that or are we is that kind of feedback because I feel like we're generally okay with that.

Um so what I would imagine uh clear majority support for the ministerial approval approach. We need to work on an ordinance and precise plan amendments to affectuate that. I think what we can take from the council discussion is um serious interest in courtesy notice and potentially a written uh comment opportunity and we can evaluate that as uh alternatives or components of that ministerial process when this comes back to council. Great. And you don't need us to do a straw poll on that or we're I don't think so. Um, at this point,

mayor, I think it's pretty clear we will um certainly do what we can to educate the public about the AB130 and the process and the steps that we'll take to provide that courtesy notice and the written comment period. So, we'll make sure to do that in various ways. Thank you, city manager McCarthy. Uh, Mr. Anderson, do we have our uh straw pole grid that we need to go through to get any lingering um questions and clarity in the way? Yeah, it's coming up.

All right. Thank you. So, here we've tried to um lay out the questions uh from the study session as well as sort of the components of those based on the flow of the council discussion. Um if we didn't capture anything quite right, please let us know. So question one, pursue a TOD alternative plan. Um it sounded like there was council interest in um pursuing that um in the form that we described it in the staff report, which is uh some sort of local approach to respond to SB79. The TOD alternative plan as strictly defined in SP79 is a subset of that discussion which is broken out here uh in the third row uh related to approach C. So maybe a straw poll just to confirm the answer to question one is yes and then we can proceed to question two.

All right, all in favor for question one, yes. All right, it looks like that's unanimous. So, yay. Um question two, um approach B, staff recommendation focus only on historic resource exclusions and developing SB79 objective standards based on R3 update. Uh in favor, raise your hand. Wait, I said I'd vote for it if it had a downtown focus. Oh, this is what Wait, what? Oh, one has a downtown focus. Okay. Okay. The the downtown focus is for the to alternative plan, right? Okay. So, it had that when I voted for it. Okay.

Okay. Questions? All right. Okay. So, um are we clear on the the question? All right. So, we're gonna Oh, we are not clear on the question. Um can can staff um explain the difference between question two well question two in the question two approach B staff recommendation so forth and then question two approach C to TOD alternative considering in fiscal year 27 through 29 work plan.

So uh the first question two is really to confirm council majority support for the staff recommendation as sort of the base uh amount of work. So, uh, put in place the historic resource exclusions that SP79 allows and then do the work on the objective development standards building off of R3. So, essentially the staff recommendation. The second question two in row three is this B+ B plus minus the various ways it was described. It wasn't clear to me where the majority support was, if it was focused only on area H or if there was a desire to consider at some point other areas. Montaloma has come up as an example that may need to be discussed later or if council's sure now. And so we've set it up to just talk about considering it in the work plan for 2729 because there's maybe different interests in the geography that would be planned for. So through through the mayor, I think the challenge is they look like because they're both question two, they are mutually exclusive, but they are not, right?

They are not meant to be mutually exclusive. We can do both of those things. Correct. Thank you. But none of none of them are focused on the downtown. That one is not there. That's C. So maybe I can clarify uh approach C if you give me a moment to just add uh at minimum area H of the downtown and other areas to be considered by council in the future. That is for the third question. That is question two.

Yes. Go ahead, council member Kam. I mean, I I understand the emphasis on the the downtown, but I wonder since it sounds like this will be coming back to the new council, they'll get an update at that time. Do we need to call out the downtown at this time or do we just need to coalesce around an approach? I I I wonder how prescriptive we need to be when there's going to be a new council. [laughter] I don't I don't know. I mean, I just while I appreciate the conversation, I think I'm grounding myself in understanding that this this work will will go forward. But I I don't know if it's helpful cuz it will actually help scope between now and next year or and if that scope is actually, you know, necessary or will that come back at a later date um for the the next council. So I think it's helpful to get your feedback tonight because then staff knows what they're starting to work on. Perhaps uh clarification for that third row. So, approach C, which would be in tandem with approach B, um, pursuing the TOD alternative plan for area H, and staff can evaluate the other areas, which it sounds like there was interest for that as well. And then that would be looped into the future council consideration. So, if that's where this council's at, so you want to look at um kind of holistically all the areas. So yes, downtown and also um other areas that staff may identify. Then that could be looped in with that second question too. So really they're together. It's not really two separate things.

All right. Um let's let's do the second question in the row which is the approach B staff recommendation. Then this is not exclusive to the next question that we're going to do after it. Um but let's let's start getting answers for staff and consensus. So, um, question two, approach B, staff recommendation, focus only on historic resources exclusion and developing SB79 objective standards based on R3 update. All in favor? One, two, three, four.

That is correct. Okay. I I know the numbers are

Yes. All right. Unanimous. Let's go. All right. Now, question two. Approach C in tandem with approach B for area H. Future council consideration of other areas in fiscal year 2027 to 29 work plan. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six. Unanimous. Yay. Um, now we're going to two more questions left, you guys, and then we're almost through with this item. So, question three, deferral of some items finish R3 historic preservation objective design standards. Don't start TLT TOD alternative plan until these existing work plan items are finished. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. All right. Five. All opposed. All abstensions. I'm gonna assume that's an extension. So, we have votes. Um, we're just breezing through this now. Uh, question three. Resume downtown precise plan and Moffett Boulevard precise plan as soon as sensible and practical. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All right, it's unanimous and I think we have I'm hoping that made sense to everyone. Um, the staff have what they need.

Oh, wait. There's a question four. We did.

We do that. Okay. [sighs] All right. We uh finished. Does the staff have what they need? I I just I guess I wasn't clear on the final point related to the resumption of the precise plans. We were trying to respond to council member Ramirez's statement of not being overly prescriptive and um you know knowing that they will need to be pushed off for some period of time but starting the work again as soon as makes sense once we think through um the best way to account for SP79 in those processes. So, it's a little bit wishy-washy, but because I think it's just meant to allow conditions to dictate rather than council prescribing uh when that works to resume.

All right. Perhaps just confirming my verbalization of that with the straw poll might help. Does that sound right? That sounds that sounds all right. Thank you so much everyone for your patience. Um we are going to take a 10-minut break and reconvene at um at at at 2000 which is 8 o'clock. Thank you.

Okay, everyone. Um, oh, hi. Um, we're going to call this meeting back to order. Um, welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community of January 27th, 2026. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. All right. 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.

All right. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call. Council member Hicks here. Council member Kame here. Council member Mallister here. Council member Ramirez here. Council member Shawter here. Vice Mayor Clark here. Mayor Ramos here. You have a corn.

Yay. All right. Thank you. All right. We will now move on to item three. Please note this is a presentation only. City council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation item. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. All right. So, we are happy to be joined Oh, I should move up. All right. Um, we are happy to be joined this evening by Leslie Carmichael, board member of Hope's Corner to accept this proclamation. Leslie, will you join me at the lectern? Alrighty. Um the proclamation reads, "Whereas January has been recognized as National Poverty in America Awareness Month, an opportunity to shine light on the struggles faced by millions of mer of Americans daily and to explore solutions that ensure opportunity and dignity for all. Whereas poverty is a complex multi-dimensional issue shaped by policy decisions, lack of affordable housing, low education levels, limited employment opportunities, and systemic challenges that affect individuals and families across all demographics. And whereas the intent of the National Poverty in America Awareness Month is to heighten awareness, encourage greater support for effective programs, challenge preconceived notions, and inspire empathy and action within our communities. And whereas organizations, educators, volunteers, and businesses

across the nation dedicate time and resources to address the root causes of poverty and provide essential services such as food, shelter, counseling, and support to those in need. Now therefore, I, Emily Anne Ramos, mayor of Mountain City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of January as national poverty in awaren uh America awareness month in the city of Mountain View and encourage all residents to recognize the challenges faced by those experiencing poverty. to learn more about the system that contributes to economic hardship and engage in activities such as volunteering, advocating, and donating to help combat poverty and support those in needs with within our community. So, here's the proclamation. Leslie, would you like to say a few words?

Just a few. Um, thank you very much on behalf of Hopes Corner. I'm in the in essence representing a multitude of agencies that are part of the community safety net and we appreciate the city's efforts to address poverty and also the support the city provides to those um comprising the safety net. Thank you very much.

Thank you. If you join me up here, we could take a picture with the rest of the council. Okay. Would any member of the council like to say a few words?

All right. Oh, I was just going to say it's really exciting to recognize Hope's Corner. They they just announced their executive director and so I know they've been working on that a long time. So, it's wonderful to have them join us.

Thank you, Council Member Pameay. And this would be a good time for what I uh promised uh in uh at our last meeting to have a call to action, call to service, call to community. Our proclamation recipient, Hopes Corner, is a Mountain View based nonprofit that provides daily meals and supportive services to individuals experiencing homelessness um with a focus on dignity, respect, and community connection. In addition to in addition to meals, Hopes Corner helps connect guests to housing, health, and employment resources. So, Hopes Corner, you can volunteer with them to help with meal service, food preparation, welcoming guests, and day-to-day support. Whether you could give a few hours once a month or volunteer more regularly, your time makes a real difference in our community. You can sign up on their website at hopes-corner.org/volunteer. And now we will move on to take public comment for the presentation items. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We will take in-person speakers first and each speaker will have three minutes and I see none. All right, we will move on to the next item. Um, it's our consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately following the approval of the balance of the consent calendar. If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-aggenda items, ple in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. Now, would any

member of the council like to pull an item? I see council member Mallister. Yes, I'd like to pull 4.2. Comment on 4.3 and pull 4.5. Okay. So, 4.2 and 4.5 is pulled while 4.3 is just comment. Is that correct, Council Member Mallister? Correct. All right. Thank you. All right. Next, uh, Council Member Shoalter. I don't really want to pull anything, but I do have some comments. Should I go ahead with my comments? Yes, please.

All right. Um, first one I wanted to comment on was um item 4.3, the heat pump program. Um it's exciting that so many people have um changed their water heaters to heat pumps that the program has run out of money. That is really a great accomplishment. Congratulations to staff for running such a successful program. Also to SVCE for administering it for us. It's important to continue because heat pumps uh reduce uh the use of methane and uh help reduce our collective greenhouse gas emissions. So they it's it's really good for us to continue to this. The public has suggested that more incentives be added for large families. And from my point of view, that sounds like a fine idea. If it if it works out from staff's point of view, I would be welcome for them to make that decision. Anyway, I wanted to thank everybody for uh the heat pump program. Um 4.4, the Mountain View Affordable Housing Initiative Fund. Um this is a way for ordinary people to contribute to the devel development of affordable housing. And um I'm really pleased to see this creative um [clears throat] mechanism set up so that you or I or anybody you know could could donate $10 or $10,000 or a million dollars to this fund and um help with what's really one of the major crises of our time which is affordable housing. Um 4.5 the Miramonte Avenue complete streets. Um, this is a long time coming. I know my automatic pilot for the last three years has been to avoid Miramonte when I go places because it's so bumpy. So, I'm really looking forward to it

getting resurfaced and all the amenities that will be with it. Um, and staff has really worked hard to make it as comprehensible as is reasonable and to let other projects that would be required to the street to be dug up to be accomplished first. So, it'll only have to be surfaced once. Um, at our December meeting, the subject of the left turn at Slad Key came up and I'm glad to see that the staff will be analyzing the situation and making suggestions to the neighborhood. That's really um good government service. So, thank you staff for rising to that occasion. Um 4.9, the downtown utility improvement in citywide trash capture devices. Um, this is the this is about important replacements to our water manes to make sure our water delivery system remains in good working order. We have over 176 miles of water pipelines in Mountain View that need to be maintained. So, we need to work on that every year and we do. And it's something that we should all be proud of and um and uh support. Then um as part of our uh um storm water monitoring permit, we have to install trash capture devices in our storm drains. And um this is these permit requirements are given to us by the regional water quality control board. And um we uh we work collectively with many other um communities in the region under this permit to help keep our streams and um and the bay clean. And then the final one I wanted to comment on is 4.10, the shoreline park water control structures improvements. This is about the restaurant the restoration sorry there's a restaurant next to the shoreline lake. the

restoration of the island in Shoreline Lake that has um provided really wonderful bird habitat over the years. Unfortunately, this island has eroded, so it's much smaller than it used to be. And this restoration project is designed to return it to its um original size so that it can be um the bird habitat that we uh we we we like to have. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Schoalter. Council member Hicks.

Well, lucky for me, Council Member Shoalder said many of the things I was going to say. So, um, making it easy. As for uh 4.3, I am also on the council sustainability committee and know a little bit about the this heat pump uh promotion. And I just want to say that uh some of our volunteers in particular Bruce Carney from the uh from Carbon-Free Mountain View says that heat pumps are the main thing you can invest in uh besides electric vehicles. You could buy one of those as well um to cut your carbon footprint. So take advantage of this of this particular promotion if you can uh if we vote for it. Um and uh yeah, as council member Sha Walter said, he he also uh suggested a restructuring for large families, which staff could take advantage of or not. Um as for 4.4, four. This is a uh a loan to it's a work with staffing can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's working with the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation to put together a fund to loan to affordable housing. And can that be for community land trust housing as well? Or what kind of affordable housing would that fund go to? Uh good evening, mayor and council. Wayne Chen, um housing director. Yes, the initiatives fund is intended to be flexible to um fund a variety of efforts such as our new uh construction pipeline projects or acquisition preservation projects that could include a a CLT community land trust project.

Okay, so now everyone knows if we vote for that one, um you can contribute to it. Um, and I think and yes, council member Sha Walter explained the left turn into and out of slide key, which community members had been concerned about, but is there will be an opportunity to engage. So, those are my comments. Thank you, Council Member Hicks. So, as it stands, we have two items that are pulled. Uh, Council Member Mallister, would you like to make your comment on 4.3 before we go into public comment or would you like to wait till after public comment? Oh,

I can I do my comments. We're doing that. So, on 4.3, you know, um I was always concerned about the cost and the u how it could affect older people down the road. And I sent in a question because I was thinking we're looking where we've been doing a lot of focus on this greenhouse gas here, but we're not doing as much attention to transportation, which was at 58% of our emissions is much greater than we're doing with this water um heat pump. Uh this water heat pump, we had 126 people were benefited from it. And so if we put more money in maybe 252 people, whereas transportation, if we increased our funding for our shuttle, we could probably reduce the amount of emissions greater, we could reduce congestion and we could probably reduce the uh improve the quality of life. So I was just trying to counterbalance. Yeah, we're doing this, but if we got serious about transportation and getting our seller service working in this town and getting alternatives to going forward, we can do a much better job at it and that's going to be a greater effect in the long run. So, that was my comment on 4.3.

Thank you, Council Member Mallister. We will now move on to public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button on 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. Uh so we will begin with uh John Cohen. Cowen.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. I'm here tonight in my capacity as a current board member of the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation, a former chair of the foundation, and also a Mountain View resident. I just wanted to make some brief comments on 4.4. Uh thank you for the uh the partnership. We believe that uh generous people with bold ideas are how change happens and uh I think this is a good example of that coming to fruition. And I just want to share it started with a listening conversation that uh we had with the city manager Kimber McCarthy where we spent about an hour together uh really just understanding how the community foundation could best meet the needs of Mountain View and affordable housing came up as really the top focus. And then our wonderful CEO Christa Krames pounced on that and and already opened a fund. And then uh there were a number of conversations which over about a year. Uh wanted to thank Wayne Chen in particular for a lot of the nuances that had to be worked through that as well as the city attorney and creating this unique partnership. Um but really excited uh that we can get out there hopefully after tonight and uh start working to raise some funds for affordable housing in this wonderful community so more people can live here. So thank you again.

Thank you so much. Next up, we have Sebastian Bri Boy. Um, I don't recall if I pronounced that right. I'm sorry if I did. Um, and then after him, we have Alexander Brooks. Sorry, Sebastian, if I messed up your last name.

Hey. Yeah. Um, my name is Sebastian Brisbah, but don't worry about it. I have to go to another country for people to pronounce it correctly. So anyway, I'm here to talk about uh item 4.7 and yeah, so I'm not a big fan of this funding for the public safety building. uh when I think of you know public safety in the city and imagine what that might look like I don't think oh a big expensive facility and it's not very helpful for a lot of residents and what I think about is like the safety of our roads for pedestrians bikers even people driving cars is pretty crazy out here um yeah and also housing it's not very affordable and yes I know the city is doing work on both of those, but why not um do more instead of waste it on a big expensive building. So, that's how I feel about that. And I just think that we can do better as a city and maybe act more on that poverty awareness month and do more towards that and directly deal with the problems we face instead of throwing money away. So I think this is also time we really need to step up as a city. We have a federal government trying to make life hell for many people and we have a state that's not doing enough. So I think we need better, more affordable housing, safer transportation, and in general better social services that I think we could deliver if we send this money that way. Thank you.

Thank you, Alexander Brooks. and then we will go to our virtual speakers. Speaker,

hi, I am here also to speak on item 4.7 and much like the previous speaker, I oppose continued spending on the police facility. Uh, police spending is something that has been tried over and over and over again in order to reduce crime and there's no correlation between increased cop spending and safer communities. We have an enormous enormous amount proposed in this item. something like $8 million proposed to be put into uh this COP complex as just the first of what are uh expected to be something like $189 million, which is just an unthinkably high amount to spend on something that we know is not making our community safer in a time when, as the previous uh speaker mentioned, communities are really feeling boots on our necks in terms of what's going on with ICE. And we've been feeling this way for generations, especially in black and brown communities where policing has continuously been criminalizing and villainizing people instead of providing the types of support and the types of education, housing, transportation, healthcare, and employment that communities really need. And so again, as I asked at the last uh city council meeting where this item was brought up, I'm really encouraging the city council to think more creatively about what generations from now we want our community to look like. We know that this existing structure where police uh have this enormous amount of funding is not uh leading us into a a better future. Instead, we are exacerbating racial disparities, exacerbating class disparities, exacerbating increasingly gender disparities. And we have this rise of government and state power that's coming down on our communities. And people are really feeling the pressure and not feeling the support from our cities that we'd really like to have. We've seen what's happened uh in Atlanta. We've seen what's happened elsewhere in the Bay Area where these there are these huge uh police spendings that are not in line with what

communities want and are instead kind of slipped in on them. Um I'm kind of surprised that there's been almost no discussion of this item. $8 million is an enormous amount of money as part of what was proposed to be $16 million already proposed to this and then $190 million or so over generations to come which is an enormous amount to burden communities with when that's just not what communities need right now. There's been a lot of discussion I appreciate about affordable housing, a few million dollars put here and there for that in the short term and that's blown out of the water by what's being devoted to it towards this police uh facility. I understand that there are some concerns around sizing retrofitting. If that's what you are trying to do, then I can understand there being specific budget items about how to size retrofit a building. But that that's not what this proposal is, which is to double the size of the amount of space given to policing with this huge giveaway of public funding for generations to come instead of what communities really need, which is support, which is understanding, and which is power for our communities instead of continued power for policing. Thank you. Thank you. Uh we will now move on to our virtual speakers. Um first one, Tim McKenzie. Greetings, council. I hope you're all doing well. Um I also would like to uh join in to with the previous commenters who spoke on item 4.7 about all of the money going to the police building. Um I do think that they articulated things better than I would be able to. Um, just that I don't think having a huge building for police with a shooting range to be added on is what creates safety for our community. Uh, I'd like to echo the idea of, you know, traffic safety. Making it so that we can bike to school or work without being hit by a car. Uh, that is public safety. Ensuring

that we have housing, having food for meeting basic needs, that is public safety. Um but uh I'd also like to uh remind everyone that there has been a material change in conditions since this uh this huge amount of money has been spent or has been decided to be spent to build this massive building. Uh when this was being discussed, there was a public safety advisory board where citizens could have some oversight and see have some impact on policing policy. that board has been disbanded. So, we're spending a huge amount of money. There is no longer the same uh public oversight that we once had. Uh that is a material change in conditions from when this was initially made and I think that's important to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next we have Renald Nubi. I'm really hope I I'm sorry if I got that wrong. Oh, no. You actually did it. Um Okay. A pretty good job.

Okay. Um as the previous three presenters, uh three speakers, I would also like to speak against this specific item. Um, not just because I like everyone else who spoke prior to me, I think the city could well better spend this money into better investing into its people, better investing into other items that could help better the citizens of Mountain View. Like example, third spaces, more investing in the arts and schooling instead of again give giving all this money to the police while we know that's not what makes our community safe. Um and just also going through the city's forecasted for the ne forecast for the next 30 years. The city expects to go under a budget deficit and I feel spending this amount of money is not the right way to spend to for the city to use its funds where it should be used to help people knowing that the city is going to be in strenuous financial situation coming forth in the future. So once again, I would implore the city council like all everyone here has mentioned before, please think of more creative way of using this huge amount of money instead of investing into a building that would do effectively nothing to help the citizens of Mountain View and think of better ways in which it could be invested into the population of Mountain View. Thank you.

Thank you. And that is it for our virtual public comment. I will now bring this back for council action and note that a motion to approve the balance of the consent calendar 4.2 and 4.5 have already been pulled should also include the reading and the title of the ordinance and resolutions attached to consent calendar items 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4. I see a motion from Pat Shoalter and seconded by Council Member Ramirez. Go ahead, Council Member Shoalter. Oh, wait. Uh, is this Council Member Mallister? Is that after

to um make a I thought did I mention 4.7 I wanted to make a comment on. Oh, no. I didn't have that down. Uh, feel free to make your uh comment on 4.7.

Okay. uh in the light of the seriousness of what these uh prior gentlemen had uh commented on, mine is a little more towards the community, but I just would like to remind the community that this it's a public safety building that we are building and that includes the fire department's going to be there. Our emergency operations center is there. Our dispatch center is there. So, as you see what's happening in the east with all these tremendous snowstorms, what we've had recently and all the rain, uh we have earthquakes coming along, we need to have a building that is going to be able to stand and it does more than just policing. So, it's a it's something that's going to benefit the whole city in the long run and make our city safer and more responsive to our needs and more respectful as we go forward. So, just to give a heads up on what our that actual public safety building is going to do, and to make that public safety building even better, and I know the segue is stinks, but um we authorized a million dollars for public work, and I've been pushing public works or public art for the last uh well, I guess 10 years since I've been on council. And when I saw that we had a reduction of uh to spend uh save money on this particular item, I thought, "Oh, that was interesting that, you know, we're going to save $600,000." But this is a general comment for the whole city is that I think if we start doing public art throughout the city, it's going to be more engaging. It's going to make the city more exciting. It's going to be a destination. And even though this is one building, it's potential that it could be a showcase for many other parts of public art that we can do throughout the what the city has and city facilities and again for the rest of the u the downtown or parts of the city wherever if we have statues and whatever. So, uh, I'm always looking

for public art to go somewhere. And, you know, if we're going to start putting it down one place, let's make sure that we've reinvested in the city because it is an attractive, it improves your lives, it could be calming, it could be so where you can uh, reflect on things and so public art is very important for us. So, those were my comments on 4.7. All right. I I Were there any other comments that you had? I know that you pulled 4.2 and 4.5. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so we have council. Yes. Uh, council member Hicks, uh, your comments on 4.7 would now be appropriate. So, thank you, uh, Council Member Mallister for your, uh, support of public art. I also support public art. I wanted to say this particular item. I did request to reduce it and that's because um my I kind of have sympathies with uh some of what uh the members of the public have said. I think that we as council members always have to watch carefully what we spend on public buildings. Um, when I was going to school as a planner, uh, I worked for the city of Oakland that spent a lot of money on some of its public buildings and my planning teachers told me that we it's a foolish city that spends a lot of money on public buildings and I would include police buildings and shorts other things like parks and housing and economic vitality. In this case, the art that was uh al the art budget allocated there was like higher than anywhere else, including downtown, anywhere else in town. And I probably would have made the it's on a the building is on a very large parcel of land, which I think we could have used more economically. Um, but I can't get all those things done. The one the one thing I did was make sure that the art that was allocated to it is the same as in other places, not way above other places. And that was my reasoning. All right. Um so we have a motion on the floor which is to approve the balance of the consent calendar um not including 4.2 and 4.5. I believe we are ready for a vote on that.

Oh. Oh, council member Scholar, take it away.

Okay, so I'll now um bring [clears throat] back the um the balance of the consent calendar which is 4.1, 43, and 44. Well, the balance and I need to read resolutions and ordinances related to 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4. Um, item 4.1, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, repealing chapter 36, article 13, tenant relocation assistance of the Mountain View City Code, amending chapter 46 of the Mountain View City Code, to change the title and add a new article governing tenant relocation assistance and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only. Further reading waved. Um, item 4.3, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing the city manager or their design to amend an agreement with Silicon Valley clean energy to increase funding for the heat pump water heater program by 250,0001 resulting in a total not to exceed amount of $500,000 to be read and title only. Further reading waved and item 4.4 Four, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View. One, appropriating $1 million in the city's below market rate housing fund to fund the Mountain View affordable housing initiative fund with the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation. and two, authorizing the city manager or designate to negotiate and execute the funding agreement with the Los Santos Mountain View Community Foundation and to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to effectuate its purposes to be read and title only. Further reading waved.

Thank you, Council Member Shoalter. Now we are ready for a vote. Motion passes unanimously. We will now move on to item 4.2. Council member Mallister.

Yeah, I'm still getting used to this format. So, it's probably going to be more of a comment, but uh I also want to say I'm going to vote no on 4.2. And the reason being we went over this before about the resoning throughout the city. And it's it's concerns me that we are doing all this resoning, but we also say that we are a city that supports small businesses. And this is sort of a counter contradiction of what actually what we're trying to do is because we're taking these small lots where small strip malls are and we're going to say, well, developer, you can come along and you can uh tear it down. Yeah, you can put some mixed use into it, but you're allowed to do this other things. And once we start tearing down those small little strip malls like the one on Calderon, the developer is not going to put room in there or that space because we're seeing small businesses go out on a business throughout the city, throughout the county, through everywhere because the cost of doing businesses or relocation. And so when we say, hey, we're going to allow businesses to uh come back in, that's not going to be that's not realistic. So, I'm voting no on it because we need to do a better job of protecting small businessmen. As a small business person myself, I'm very aware of the continuing increases in costs. And so, I think we need to look seriously. Are we serious about wanting to protect small businesses or are we just trying to build? So, that's what that's my comment on 4.2 to and I can make a motion to if you want to pass it or tie it into four point my other one but

I see we actually already have a motion on the floor and I think council member Ramirez is next on Oh, okay. 4.2. Okay. Or 4.2. Then we'll go into 4.0 right there. All right. Council member Ramirez.

Thank Thank you, Mayor. Um and I appreciate the uh remarks from Council Member Mallister. I know it's an issue that we all take seriously. Um in this case this is um a portion of the direction that we've already provided and specifically uh adoption of the development standards and the zoning ordinance which include um uh standards related to uh commercial elements. So it it is an important part of the direction. Uh so I appreciate your principled vote, but I think this is actually necessary to effectuate the um uh at least having development standards to to retain businesses in in these uh these areas. Uh, and with that, I'll go ahead and move to approve the staff recommendation, uh, including adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending chapter 36, zoning of the city code to implement subtask G of housing element program 1.1, including updates to article 5, commercial zones to allow general plan mixeduse village center land uses in the commercial office zoning district, and to make other clarifying and conforming changes such as modifying and reorganizing standards in division 23, general plan, mixeduse village center developments of article Article 9 standards for specific land uses to be consistent with the uh commercial office zoning district and the Evendale precise plan and re requiring a navigation easements pursuant to the Moffett federal air airfield comprehensive land use plan as recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read in title only. Further reading waved.

Thank you. Council member Ramirez, seconded by council member Schaalter. Let's take it to a vote. And that motion passes 6 to one with council member Mallister uh dissenting. We will now take it uh back to council member Mallister for item 4.5.

Okay. Thank you. Um this is another one [clears throat] I had questions about concerns about. I'm always looking for infrastructure and how we can improve it, how we can make it more efficient, how we [snorts] can uh save money on doing things that are right. And I pulled 4.5 because I had some following questions on the parking on this street. Anytime we take parking away from a particular area, this is particularly towards McKelie Ballpark where, you know, we got baseball fields coming on. I mean, we got baseball tournaments going on. a lot of people come to it and uh there was concerns about where people were going to park, were they going to go into their neighborhoods and so I wanted to make sure that we did that. Also, we have a lot of people that are in some people are saying we need to improve our bike routes and so forth. And I said that's great, but we need to collect data to see actually where people are riding their bikes and so that when we make these decisions to how we develop them that we're using uh good good data to appropriate the amount of uh usage to the the design of the the the road and so that it gets the best sense out of it. the best best dollars because we are limited in our funds and sometimes we have a tendency to want to do the best we can but we have to live in reality and see what we get through. So for this portion that I know we're doing uh segment two there's three segments to uh my mani going from uh Covington well I say Coington it goes to Questa then Questa to Castro and Castro Dale Camino and this part that we're doing on Marmani is long overdue and I know there was a lot of construction on it and um that is one heck of a bumpy road and there's a lot of good stuff that I've seen on it. We're going to put some crosswalks or we did repaint our crosswalk going Hans that's very important but we're also going to be

taking some uh some street parking away from it what I understand but I don't know exactly what so that's partly on me but the point I was trying the point I'm going to do on this part is do we really know how many people were using the bike route on it I had I went through the report that was the complete street study way uh when it was first initiated came through And I was looking how many people were riding on segment B. Now segment B is very important because it includes people going from Bub school and Graham and I think that's very important that we maintain ourself our safe routes to school. Uh that is a very important se intersection over there and we already have protected bike lanes from Hans to Castro for the Bub school that's going to be going through and so that's I support all that and the increased sidewalks but on the other sides of the streets where we're not necessarily that close to the schools. That's always I always like to make sure that we have the data before we do a project to see if it warrants it and then data afterwards to see if there's an what the effect of doing this because we plan to do a lot of stuff involved with our active transportation program and a lot of people want it and I think it's a great idea but we got to make sure we we do it wisely. So I can't say you know segment B has really been taken care of. I appreciate uh Council Member Shoalter and Council Member Hicks talking about slide key. People are concerned about that. I see that. I could see that could be a potential issue for all those people because all of a sudden we're saying we're can't allow a few cars to pass turn on that intersection and then they're going to be going through the neighborhoods which doesn't help anybody. So, um I'm glad we're doing that and being proactive and being smart about that particular deal. On segment A, I do have a few questions for staff. Um, I was looking at the pictures

on segment A and I wanted to get clarity on there was items that was going to be done. These were brought up in our our council questions and that was mine and someone else brought some long ones up of what exactly was going to be done in there. I it was good to see some clarity on this particular one. And so, uh, one of my addition questions for whoever wants to take it, it says, "Consider installing an additional new midblock crossing at Marirammani and West Park Drive." And there already one exists. So, I was wondering where were you guys going to be putting this new thing in? [snorts]

Do we have someone from staff to answer that? Thank you.

Good evening, Jennifer Ying, public works director. So the um additional crossing as my understanding is going to be requested at East Park. There is currently an existing painted crosswalk at West Park which is the southerntherly park interface with Miramarante. Um and at that location at the Southerntherly one we are looking at adding an RFB. So it's different than this one here. This is the one that I would think that goes from park over to McKelie. There is also another park at My Monte that is north of that. So, one is East Park and one is West Park.

Okay. I'm still confused. Is that the one that goes over by AAA building? Um, the one to the north is the West Park that does not currently have a painted crosswalk across Mye. And the one to the south is East Park. that one does have a painted crosswalk and is looking at getting an RFB.

Okay, I'll follow up on that one. Thank you. Um, also I was concerned about since we have a community ballpark there that you were going to be taking some parking away from that particular but it says that there will not I was confused about you were you taking some parking away and then in the [snorts] questions it said we will have parking there and there will be no need to park in the community and I couldn't see how we did both. So, some parking will be retained along Marmont Avenue in the vicinity of McKelie Park. Um, some will be removed and some will be retained. And so, uh, based off of the parking counts that we parking utilization counts that staff had conducted, um, the amount of parking that is due to be left on the street, um, will be sufficient for park needs. And so that's if there's two games going or a tournament going, there'll be a significant part, plenty of parking on Elmont Marirammani. Then

based off of the observations that were performed earlier, including weekend and weekday counts. Yes.

Okay. Because there was a notation in here. Okay, we'll go with that. Um, were there baseline back in 24 when this was taken? It seems like there was a baseline taken of so segment A from Marmani to El Camino of 19 people riding a bike on that particular segment. Are is it your plan to do some more counts or going forward to getting more data to say actually how many people are riding on these routes since you said 19 at this particular time. Yeah, I think 19 at the time that data was collected was information that was used into feeding the design and the recommendation for today. Um, typically we wouldn't go back and do additional counts unless there was some sort of directive um for staff to do so or if we were looking at changing roadway geometry, which we wouldn't be doing anytime soon after this project is constructed.

Okay. Will any of this information that you've collected for uh segment B be reviewed after to see how the effect of putting in uh bike lanes and so forth are I mean certainly staff is especially traffic staff in public works is always out on the streets and observing how new construction is utilized in the city. They're always looking for opportunities to make um improvements and they're always driving around the streets to to see how, you know, and to enjoy how the residents are are using the new infrastructure. So, there will be observations that are informally um happening after construction is completed.

Okay. Um we're doing a lot of road improvements and bringing things down. Are is the the traffic department getting a a good sense of here's what's we're trying something that works and we're we're streamlining our uh planning process or is it getting uh more expedited that you're able to do you know you've done a bunch of these buffered lanes and and going forward that will be get done quicker or better understanding of what needs to be put in.

Yeah, we're always learning as we're going right. Um the first time we do anything, it's always a little bit rough. Um but the second time we do it, it goes a little better. The third time we do it, even faster. So at a certain point, um once something becomes standardized, certainly that is when you know my team hits their groove and they're able to be the most efficient. Okay. I thank you, answer. Yeah, I would thank you for meeting with me earlier today to answer some of my questions. I appreciate that. You're welcome. Thank you for being there. And I I'll can make a motion for 4.5 if needed. All right, go right ahead. We'll do accept it or I need to read it. There's no uh need to read, but you might want to make the motion what you want to do. I did. Oh, okay.

It came back. Okay.

All right. So, we have a motion to approve 4.5 by Council Member Mallister, seconded by Council Member Shoalter. Let's take it to the vote. Motion passes unanimously. Yay. All right. Um, next item. We will now have oral communications for public comment. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council subject matter jurisdiction up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-aggenda 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. Uh each speaker will have let's see how many people we have. Okay, so we we only have four people in public comment. So each speaker will have three minutes. We will first have uh Dylan Rich that will be followed shortly after by Albert Jeans. Good evening, council. Uh my name is Dylan Rich. I am a director at Palo Alto Prep School in Mountain View over on Windout Street. Um I've uh we've been coming to these meetings since about September 9th. Um uh the last time I spoke we've had a few more um incidents close calls with um either teachers coming out of parking parking lots or

even on windote to uh uh independence um where there's near accidents that are occurring including students who are walking. Um this is uh [clears throat] something we really need you to take a look at. Um this is a [gasps and sighs] um it's a serious issue with line of sight. The large uh large vehicles are hard to see through. Um uh this is something where um it's someone is going to get hurt or killed um and we really need some relief. Um please uh please take some action. Okay. Uh thank you. Thank you, Albert Jeans, followed by Eva Tang.

Yeah, we can just move to the second slide, please. Um, I'm here for the parks thing, but I thought I'd give you an update on the RV situation. Following this gentleman's comments, in the last couple weeks, Pava has really restricted the parking in their areas um I guess you say east of the 101 freeway which is their commercial zone. They've instituted, you know, mandatory movement of RVs on Thursdays so they can do street cleaning and has essentially have the number of RVs that can park in those areas because they don't want to keep having to kind of crowd around and try to jockey for position every Thursday. And in addition on Elway, I think Elwell Court and Commercial, they're doing some gas line maintenance. And so they've pretty much banned parking there for the next six months. And that's reduced the number of RVs in that whole area by maybe about 30 vehicles. The next slide, please. Now, whether that's correlated to what's happening in Mountain View, I don't know. But at the last count, two weeks ago, there were 329 RVs on Mountain View streets. That's up 20 from the last time I told you in December. And you can see it's just going up and up. Um it's happening in different areas. These things move around. It's very difficult without getting detailed tracking information. You know where the RVs are going, whether it's the same people coming in and going. Um in this particular case, there was actually reduction of RVs on the what is it? National Avenue, which is actually another big area in the East Wisman area. So, I'm not sure what's going on there. There's definitely an increase in the area around Wine and Costco. And so, that's probably a result of this, but I'm you can't be sure, but I'm sure we know we still have capacity for more. Um, again, those RVs on National could come back and that will probably

bump the figures up another 10 vehicles maybe the next time I take a survey um next month. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Eva Tang.

Hi, good evening, council. It's Eva Tang. You may remember me from such defunct advisory committees as public safety advisory committee or board. Thank you. Um, before I get into what I really came here to talk about tonight, I love what's been done to California Street. Um, especially the curb cut in on the crosswalks and how they don't impede the bike lanes because have you ever driven through the city of Berling game? They do that and then it interrupts the bike lanes and I don't know how anyone bikes there. Sorry not to talk smack about any city, but uh let's get to the main point here. I'm here to talk about Flock. Flock was brought to the public safety advisory board in April of 2024. It was brought to us as a purelyformational item and we didn't vote on it. Um, it never sat right with me how we expressed our concerns about flock and yet we rubber stamped it. Anyway, in July, you may remember that I sent an email to each of you with concerns regarding flock because the SF and Oakland police departments have funneled their flock data to ICE. I was met with anecdotes from our chief typical about how Flock has helped uh various people like a couple people reassured me that Mountain View PD has complied with California law and that their data is safe and secure. I decided to audit the um data for myself and I did a records request pool in November 2025 including all requests from outside agencies. I got an update in December that said, quote, "Lastly, we will not be providing records related to queries made by outside agencies using our data. For information

regarding inquiries conducted by other agencies, we respectfully direct you to submit a request to these agencies directly. I sent in an appeal on the 13th of this month um because MVPD policy say uh says this is section 460.9 um outside agencies make a request uh for Mountain View's data uh in written form is reviewed by the special ops division captain and the request is retained on file. I think this is a Freedom of Information Act violation. I'm gonna say that outright. Um, why are we not why have I not been handed this data? Unless MVPD has something to hide. And if you're wondering why I care about this so much, you try consoling an 11-year-old whose family has been deported. Thank you. Thank you, Eva. We have Judy Levy next, followed by Zoe Zeroski.

Hi, Judy Levy. Uh, and now for something much lighter, but I've been meaning to come to you and ask you to um come up with some kind of policy because I understand there is no policy and that is the buskers that are have amplified music on Castro Street. I love buskers. I think they're amazing. I give them money. I spend time with them, but I don't want to sit outside and dine and hear somebody a block away with amplified music that is not exactly my style and it it detracts from the enjoyment of my meal outside. I understand Mountain View does not have a policy regarding that around amplified music and I'd love it if we would have some kind of guidelines so that we can kind of curtail some of the volume. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Oh, was that meant to be the next item? All right, no problem, Zoe. Um, or is it Zoe? I don't know. Um, all right. We are now moving on to virtual public comment. Um, Bruce England. Thanks, Mayor. Hello, uh, city council members. Um, I have one comment that I want to make, but I just would support um the last comment about um the busking. A lot of us have asked for the guidelines to encourage busking, of course, where it's appropriate and not with the volume too high. And lacking any sort of guidelines, it acts as a discouragement for people who would come in and help to entertain us with music and so on that other cities get to enjoy. And we kind of had this renegade thing going on. I also want to echo um Eva's concerns about the flock program. Um certainly she should be able to get those records that she requested as far as I can tell. And um I'm also concerned about the review cycle for the program. The understanding is that you are starting the clock on the pilot program when the last device is installed. So that if that's true, that means all [snorts] the installed devices are running without a clock on them for the pilot program duration. That just doesn't seem right to me. The point that I want to bring up is about objective standards going through um public works and um that help to establish the guidelines for how uh um development projects are dealt with. So, this last came up at at the EPC meeting where they were talking about 490 um East Middlefield, the housing project there. You're going to be reviewing this in March, I believe, and I'll bring it up then as well. But one of the problems

with that, it seems to be a very good project, but there's a quandry about how to provide adequate spaces for delivery vehicles to go into that site or on the street to be able to drop off items without blocking the bike lanes. And that the blockages in the bike lanes has been an ongoing problem um throughout the city, but in particular right now on California Street on El Camino where the bike lane is a bit limited with the ballards and everything and and delivery vehicles and others are parking regularly in the bike lane. So there needs to be amped up uh enforcement there it seems. But also the objective standards aren't updated enough to uh make sure that we can require that in new developments that spaces are provided for those delivery drop offs. Um uh that those really need to be developed and quickly because as you know new uh project developments are coming through all the time. Thank you.

Thank you. And our final speaker is uh Tim McKenzie.

Greetings all. Tim McKenzie. he him once again. Um I would also like to echo some of the comments about concerns with flock safety. Um this is something that we were if you recall uh before the disbanding of the public safety advisory board, which was how we citizens were able to have oversight to policing in Mountain View. Uh there was a lot of consternation expressed by board members. In fact, one board member resigned after the flock debacle because they felt that they didn't did not their concerns were not being seriously taken. Um, but one thing that we were assured, we were guaranteed along the the way was this will be open, this will be transparent, there will be oversight, you'll be able to get reports back at public safety advisory board meetings at least once a year. Um, maybe it was even quarterly. I forget it doesn't really matter because PAB doesn't exist anymore. Our promised oversight does not exist. Uh, additionally, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request back around when Flock was adopted um asking for communications between the city and Flock safety. um the that if you search for that public records request on the I think it's on the city website, it's actually hidden away and only allowed for me to see it, which is instead of being open to the public, which seems pretty antithetical to transparency again that we were promised. Uh and also the files that I did end up getting were redacted to an extent that would make the people who worked on the Epstein files blush. Uh the fact that our so-called one-year pilot program has been going for more than a year and the

timer hasn't even started is a bit ridiculous. Um and we know there are from the uh public records requests that uh that Eva received of who has had something shared with uh or who has access to Mountain View flock data. There are one or two departments in there that have explicitly shared their data with ICE, which means that if they can see our data and they shared it with ICE, our data is going to ICE. I don't want surveillance state helping fascist thugs keep us down, put boots on our necks. We should not have these cameras that are tracking everyone's motion for up to 30 days. And perhaps I'll submit a public records request for the uh location of the council members cars which flock in and VPD do have.

Thank you. Um we will now close public comments. Um, and now move on to item 6.1, parks and recreation strategic plan draft review. The purpose of this study is to review and provide feedback on the draft parks and recreation strategic plan. Assistant community services director Christine Crosby and community services director John Marshant 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 staff, take it away. All right. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. My name is Christine Crosby, assistant community services director. And as mentioned, here with me tonight is community services director John Marshant, as well as parks and open space manager Tim Youngberg and recreation manager Colin James. Also joining us virtually tonight are members of the consulting team Neil Bot from Next Practice Partners and Diksha Rott and John Gibbs from Wallace Roberts and Todd. I'm pleased to present the updated draft parks and recreation strategic plan. This draft reflects more than two years of community engagement, technical analysis, and staff collaboration across multiple departments. Tonight is an opportunity to walk through the key components of the draft and gather your input to help us refine and strengthen the final version. Our last major guiding documents, the 2014 parks and open space plan and the 2008 recreation plan are outdated and no longer reflect our community's growth or current needs. Since then, Mountain View has experienced population growth,

changes in school field access, and major shifts from the pandemic and how people use parks and public spaces. Additionally, developing this plan is a city council priority project and aligns closely with related city-wide efforts such as the housing element and the biodiversity and urban forest plan. The strategic plan is grounded in several key factors. It starts with extensive comm community input paired with the on the ground expertise of staff who understand program demand and facility use. That input was supported by in-depth technical analysis and dav data-driven tools to understand current conditions and needs. We also evaluated realistic cost ranges and potential funding strategies and we re refined how park acreage is calculated to focus on what's accessible to the public. These factors shape a practical and actionable plan. Following the release of the initial draft in November, we received feedback from the parks and recreation commission and the public. A summary of key themes are included in attachment two of the staff report. Based on that input, we made targeted updates to better connect community priorities to the analysis and resulting action items. We elevated trees, biodiversity, and safe access as core themes. expanded planning area based analysis to better reflect growth and equity and improved organization and clarity around implementation, funding, and staffing. The updated draft reflects that feedback and functions as a clearer, more actionable roadmap. During the plan input phase, several themes emerge consistently and are noted on the slide. To name a few, residents strongly expressed the need to expand parkland, particularly in certain planning areas. There was broad support for improving aging infrastructure and

park amenities and a clear desire for more biodiverse landscaping, tree planting, and environmentally sustainable features. And across all engagement, the community emphasized its appreciation for the city's well-maintained parks and the wide range of programs available. Several strengths stand out in Mountain View's parks and recreation system. Over the past decade, the city has made major investments, opening eight new parks, expanding the trail system, and delivering a significant number of facilities like Shoreline Athletic Fields, the Community Center renovation, Magical Bridge playground, and the Ranks Park Aquatic Center to name a few. Our parks are also well-maintained at a consistently high standard, reflecting the dedication and expertise of parks and open space staff. On the recreation side, programs have grown and adapted, particularly since CO with participation up 28% and community events up 31% over the last three years. These strengths provide a strong foundation for the next decade. Looking at key opportunities, the most significant is adding new parks and planning areas with the greatest gaps in acreage and access. We also need to modernize several older parks and they meet today's expectations for accessibility, functionality, and design. We heard strong interest in expanding programming for adults and older adults. And internally, strengthening staff capacity and succession planning will be critical as the system continues to grow. Overall, while recreation is a strength, the core opportunity and focus of this plan is expanding and enhancing the park system where it's needed most. This slide shows park acreage by planning area using a revised methodology that better reflects public access. Historically, the city reported park acreage both with and without the north bayore planning area, resulting in

a city-wide figure of 13.43 43 acres per 10,000 residents with North Beayshore and 2.66 without it. Based on community feedback, we we refined how acreage is calculated to better reflect what's open to the public, reducing schoolfield acreage to reflect limited public availability and counting only publicly accessible portions of shoreline. Using this revised approach, the citywide figure is 4.74 acres per 10,00 residents or 1.94 acres when North Beayshore is excluded. Most importantly, this analysis shows five planning areas below 1.5 acres per 10,00 residents, noted in the red box on the slide, clearly identifying where new parks and expansions are most needed over the next 10 years. To guide future investments, the plan introduces a framework for prioritizing park planning and improvements. This framework organizes projects based on their cost, complexity, and scale, helping clarify the level of investment required. Develop new parks represents the most significant investments, focusing on new neighborhood parks and park expansions that typically involve land acquisition and major partnerships. Enhance exist existing parks include strategic improvements such as redesigns that improve layout, accessibility, and overall usability. maintain and update parts. Focuses on repairs and updates, primarily like forl like life cycle replacements. Let's take a look at the draft vision and values that form the foundation of the strategic plan. They were shaped by what we heard through community engagement, technical analysis, and staff input. As part of this work, the community services department also developed a new mission statement, building community, enriching lives. The vision reflects a future that's inclusive, sustainable, and centered on

access and connection. While the values guide how we make decisions and deliver services, these set the foundations for the goals and actions that follow in the plan. The plan is built around four goals. Expanding equitable access to parks and trails, strengthening inclusive recreation programs, supporting staff and maintaining maintenance capacity, and advancing long-term funding and community engagement. Together, these goals guide the strategies and action plan. The strategies on the screen tonight um highlight the key ways we advance goals one and two uh through strengthening connections to parks and trails through land acquisition, new park development, and transportation planning, diversifying amenities to reflect community needs, supporting biodiversity and environmental resilience, and expanding inclusive programs across the system. On the screen are goals three and four strategies. These support strengthening staff and maintenance capacity, expanding revenue sources, and improving storytelling and community engagement. The draft plan includes 50 action items organized by goal and strategy. Because community priorities center on parks, trails, and open space, most actions focus on expanding and maintaining those assets. Recreation programs are already strong, so fewer actions are needed there, while 10 action items focus on funding and marketing to support implementation. To be transparent and accountable, the action plan is paired with a clear performance and tracking framework. The plan includes 10 performance metrics that translate goals into measurable outcomes, tracking progress on park access, participation, sustainability, workforce capacity, partnerships, and financial stewardship to name a few. Progress will be reported annually through a public-f facing dashboard and updates the parks and recreation commission and city council providing

transparency and ongoing oversight. These metrics metrics are designed to be adaptive allowing the city to adjust priorities over time as conditions and needs change. Finally, the plan recommends a comprehensive update beginning in 2036 to evaluate what's been achieved, reassess needs and levels of service, and set priorities for the next decade. This slide illustrates the scale of costs associated with park improvements and new park development. As discussed earlier, updates to existing parks are generally low lower cost. Enhancements require moderate investment and developing new parks represent the highest level of investment. Each category category is shown here relative to the cost of developing a 5 acre neighborhood park. And many of the plan's actions, particularly new parks and major renovations, will require significant funding funding, which aligns with the city council's direction in the fiscal year 202527 work plan to explore a potential revenue measure. The plan outlines several funding strategies to support implementation. These include the 2026 revenue measure, completing a nexus study to update development fees, expanding sponsorships and grant funding, and building strategic partnerships. In addition, in addition to larger strategies, the plan also identifies smaller incremental opportunities to strengthen long-term funding, such as updating fee structures or exploring capital reserve fees for facility reservations. Following tonight's meeting, we will update the draft plan to incorporate the feedback we received from the council and the public. The next draft will then go to the parks and recreation commission in March, and we will return to city council in May for plan adoption. Within the staff report and on the screen tonight, we have provided three

questions for the council to provide feedback. In closing, this draft strategic plan provides a clear data-informed roadmap for expanding access to parks and recreation, strengthening programs, and guiding investment over the next 10 years. We appreciate council's time and direction, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will actually take public comment first. Um, 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. Um, each speaker will have two minutes. Um, we will start actually with Jim Zaroski uh because he is speaking on behalf of a bit more than five people. Um, so he will get 10 minutes as soon as we confirm all the five people. Sounds good. Fancy with slides, too. All right. When you're ready. Okay, Mrs. Aroski, when you're ready.

Um, I have a presentation in about 10 minutes. basically what I was going to show and next slide please that um first of all mountain view is a great place to live you can skip three slides and it has its advantages but it also has its thorns its pace of life it's congestion what and um stress that goes on here a lot of things cause us and most likely the most important the high costs [sighs] when we look back at how this plan was created I was at most of the meetings and we started with a template where choices were offered. More playgrounds, more shade structures, obstacle courses, splash pads, but not offered as choices in their surveys that went to 400 that we got 455 people for was more parkland, more trees, more uninterested play spaces, and more plantings and biodiversity. The fact that these scored in the top 25% of the responses, even though they weren't listed, shows that there's a great demand for things like biodiversity, undifferentiated placements, especially in those four communities that were correctly identified by Christine and John as lacking park spaces uh almost entirely in some like in the Ringorf area. So, what we're going to say is that we don't think Next slide please. that the original proposal as as crafted by the consultant really got its arms wrapped around Mountain View. They didn't include um school fields or an evaluation of school fields as part of the study and and the the um cumulative analysis of how satisfied people are with their parks. We're not satisfied with our school field. people in my neighborhood hard people in the criminon area aren't satisfied their school field they want a park and we keep saying we want a park and everybody nods their head but there's no funding for parks or

there's no nothing so we don't think that the study as it exists today as of user satisfaction is accurate and if you're going to answer that question if you think it's accurate come down to monalom and I'll introduce you to about 100 people next slide please we don't think that the consultant had a good analysis is of what it's like to live in Mountain View. Mountain View has about nine different planning areas. Each of them have different park challenges and some of these planning areas are fairly distinct and fairly difficult to get from one to the other. They're separated by things like 101, Central Expressway, 237, 85, and and it makes it difficult for especially for residents north of Monoloma, north of I'm sorry, central in North um North Mountain View to do anything. Next slide, please. So, because of this, we get these ridiculous conclusions like 92% of people live within a 10-minute walk of a park or schoolfield. Next slide, please. Now, I would add an asterisk to this. The 92% accessibility figure is accurate if you have an asterid that said if the field is open at the time and date you wish to visit which in the case of school fields is not or you possess w and you possess wings. Next slide please. So for instance and and uh I can show you this on on the board. If you look at this slide this is the the um consultants drawing of accessibility of parklands. Notice that these people over here can climb over the fence and cross the railroad tracks and then they're within the 92% level. That's for that's for n that's for uh central in the railroad track. Over here they can cross 101 and they're in the 92% level. Now if you want your kid to go cross 101 and be in the 92% level, you obviously don't live here. The same thing goes with the um diagram and this is a the orange spots are schools. They're not available

to the public three months out of the year. And in that case, they do not clearly reflect the availability of parkland in most of North Mountain View. So to the extent that they're saying we're happy and we have parks, they're wrong. Next slide, please. So since staff took over ownership, early this summer, staff took over ownership and things have gotten a lot better. And I've got to say positive things about Christine and about John and about Audrey and the work they've done to define the problems. Next slide, please. Some of the things they they recognized that the consultant did not recognize was that and and Christine had this on her slide was that our some of our areas, not many, but some such as North Beayshore and Miramonte have more park space than the state relies. Others have less than half and some have less than a third. In these cases, these these areas are park deficient. Next slide, please. and they're getting more and they're getting more park deficient. Staff also did a very good job in a very short period of time of cleaning up some of the real sloppiness in the original consultant draft. They they got rid of some of the slides that that showed that we had to cross the railroad tracks or 101 or 85 or 237 to get to our 10-minute walk. I don't know how they got in there in the first place, but the fact that they were there made them know that these people are not from Mountain View. Next slide, please. Another thing that staff recently did that was very positive is they were able to figure out how much we are short and how much we have borrowed from our community in shortages from from park in park space. They calculated in their brief that we're 83 acres at what at 13 million an acre is what they calculate the cost of building a new park. And it's slightly different than the Nexus study you're doing, but it's in the same ballpark, which is about we're $1.1 billion short of park space. That is a lot of money, and that's nothing we're

ever going to make up in short period of time. Next slide, please. So, they made also very good generalizations about prioritizing the parks equity things, which Christine just showed you. Next slide, please. The thing is, we need to give them time to finish their job. We need a plan that tells council how much this is going to cost. We don't know and and and there's some real challenges ahead of us. We need to set our priorities. They talk about let's go with the priorities that are the most important, but we don't list them. Without listing them, we're never going to be able to do them. So, we need to have staff. These are our priorities. We need to take care of our young people. We need to take care of old people. We're not going to be able to take care of everybody at a billion dollars. So we need to do that in the next gen drafts so that we have a plan that we can work on. The other thing is we need model staffing to execute. We need to model our staffing. We don't have enough staff right now to do what we need to do under um the the the six the sixth element this the six housing um plan. We don't have enough. And so we then from there create meaningful and measurable action items. Next slide please. So, we know we know a park space by planning area. We need we know we need more. Next slide. And we know that's what now the thing we can learn from 2014. Next slide, please. Oh, wait. Stop. Come come come back to that one real quick. I'm sorry. We had priority one. Acquire open space community park north of central south of 101. This is 12 years ago. No, not done. Acquire open space throughout the city of neighborhood parks and mini parks, especially for those neighborhoods deemed most efficient in space. Hardly anything. next. Well, so we didn't get it done. So, since 2014, we've fallen further behind in our park deficit. Yeah, we built the magical bridge. Yeah, we opened about 8 acres of park space, but we should have opened 30 because our

population grew by 10,000. 10,000 times 3 acres per is 30. So, we fell an additional 22 acres short over the last 12 years. What did we do wrong? Next slide, please. We have a very long pipeline. It takes an average of eight years to go from property ac acquisition to park dedication. We don't have an acquisition se uh strategy. We're not equipped to compete with private developers in buying land. If a piece of land comes due, it usually gets bought by private developer very quickly. We don't get a shot at it. Next slide. In addition to having our our the amount of space um that we have available be less because it was diluted by 22 acres. We lost 88 access to a lot of 88 acres of school fields during the kurfuffle with the uh Dr. Rudolph administration over the last thing. So now all of our schools except monolomar fenced and all of them have restricted access. So most of our areas that have less park space have less access than they had 12 years ago. Next slide please. So if you look at it, the park def deficit in 2014 was 61 acres. Land cost 3 million an acre. So with a total deficit of 270 million adjusted to today's dollars, that's 370. Today the de deficit is 1.1 billion. Meaning that we have seen a 200% increase in our park deficit over the last 12 years. That's huge since the CPI only went up 37%. The problem we have, next slide please, is we don't know how much the park deficit is going to go up more. Next slide please. We have 11,000 more ren residents coming in with the exception of North Bayshore. Most of them are going in areas that are already proc deprived. We need to figure out how much that's going to cost and where we're going to get the money from. Otherwise, we'll be back here in 12 years talking to our residents about why once again we

have tripled our park deficit and the kids, the new residents, the old residents have no place to play. I really thank the council for looking at how we're going to keep Mountain View a great place to live. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, are we our next speaker is Albert Jeans. Wow, that was a great talk. Uh, I'm only going to compliment that a little bit. Uh, you can go to directly the second slide, please. Oh, you have a slide too.

There we go. Yeah. The main point I want to drive across, which is what this gentleman also mentioned, a school field is not a park. Um, yes, an open grassy field for playing in is part of a well-designed park, but I don't think anyone thinks that a field is an adequate substitute for a park. And yet, when calculating levels of service, the plan treats school fields as equivalent to parks. Next slide, please. This is a summary of a table in the in the report, but I've added a few columns that and it shows what percentage of the parkland or open space as they call it is actually schools. And you can see that three boxes in orange, twothirds to threequarters of that allocation is schools. So those those areas are actually very deficient in parkland every weekday until 4:00 because you know as you said there's and even on some holidays I've been there and the late gates have been locked and I haven't been able to get in. So if you look at the the last column which is the acres per thousand without the schools included we have three areas that fall below 1/2. You know this is compared to an ideal of three. Next slide please. So those and those areas happen to be clustered right there in the upper leftand corner. Thompson Rangdorf and Sterland. And as he said and and the report says those are high priorities but I just want to stress these are very high priorities. You know, you you talk about making up, you know, upgrades to existing parks. We don't even have parks to do upgrades to. In fact, in the Steerland area, the only the biggest park there is San Veron, and it only has about 1.4 acres of usable space, even though it's about a 2acre park because a lot of it's covered in ivy. Next slide, please. Finally, like to point out that the population is not standing still since 2020. you know, almost 1,500 in the next few years, 1500 units will be added to the Steerland area, which is about population about

3,000. You know, we should be getting about 9 acres of parks, and that's not coming anytime soon. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Zoe Zaroski. Okay, thank you. I would like to speak more from a personal experience. Um I grew up in Mountain View. So, um especially I I'm a part of the Monoloma neighborhood and I as a young kid I would go to Monoloma Park. Right now it's Monoloma Elementary School Park. It's no longer Monoloma Park. Um, and I used to play soccer and use the uh the baseball back stop and the park would be open. Um, but things have evolved over time and uh the school has taken more control over the park and the park is no longer available until after 400 p.m. Um, I've also noticed at Maloma Elementary School Park that um there are more uh club soccer teams, little leagues going on. Um, so it doesn't really feel like a community park anymore. Um, there's about three different groups there simultaneously and um, and it's not even a full-size soccer field. So it is a very crowded space. Um, in addition, okay, so throughout the years I've continued to play sports and I also, um, have played at Kittinden Middle School and, um, Quinton Middle School is also very crowded today. Um, there's people running around the track. There's, uh, different sports groups there. Um and then there's also the community that wants to have access but they can't

because the uh people who pay to have access on these fields have priority. So I also see this as an equity issue and um park space will continue to be an issue as the population grows and it's something that should be addressed now. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, next we have Henry Song or Sunung. [clears throat] Uh, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Um, I want to clarify the level of service in the report specifically with regards to in the context of tennis and pickle ball programming because the current report materially misstates both tennis and pickle ball access by relying on raw court counts rather than function uh functional availability. The report states that Mountain View has 35 tennis courts, yielding a tennis level of service of one court per roughly 2500 residents using the city's implied population. That sounds generous on paper, but that paper number collapses once you account for how courts are actually used. Of those 35 courts, 24 are subject to or managed uh by mixed usage, including 12 courts at Qua Park operated under a private contract contractor overflow use at Rankstorf and Cooper parks or and also shared shared courts with other uh property owners and monthly club sanctioned events withstanding agreements with the city. Um these courts are frequently reserved for programming and not available for true drop in first come first- serve uh usage. So that means it leaves 11 courts citywide that functions at functions as a truly open first come first- serve use. And when you redo the level of service math based on functional availability that uh and based on the roughly you know 87 to 80 89,000 residents and only only 11 courts that yields one court per 7,900 residents. Um and so when pickle ball goes from severely underprovided into meeting the level of service based on the current numbers and essentially counting the tennis courts as if the the availability is more available than they appear. There is a metric issue that needs to be reconciled and also that both activities must be analytically decoupled for a

more accurate reading and understanding. and before endorsing any framework within the strategic uh report um I believe that council will be best to advise staff to clarify those numbers so that the metrics will be more accurate on paper. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to our virtual speakers starting with Bruce England. Hi, uh, Bruce England, uh, Westman Station Drive. Um, yeah, I just have a few comments. I, um, interested in what has been said so far, and I do agree with the points made about counting school space as park space. They aren't the same thing. Clearly, you've heard that from other people here, so I echo um, please keep that in mind. Other points briefly are uh the importance of amenities because people are not just going to the parks and using the parks in and of themselves, but they're moving around the town. People who are um exercising uh active transportation, they're biking, they're walking and so on and trying to make their sometimes commuting and making their way through the city along the roadways and into the parks. And so envisioning our city as being just park space, a continuous park space is an important conceptual thing to keep in mind rather than just saying we're going to put trees in this park and we're going to call that a park and everything else is different. Um [snorts] so the amenities need to include water fountains, restrooms, and things like that so that people have those rest stops when they're making their stops as they're going through town. And that includes after hours. The idea of having restrooms and other amenities closed down at sunset just ignores the fact that people are using the parks and going through the parks at at all hours. So even keeping them open until 10 is much more realistic than saying when the sun goes down, we're locking everything up, especially since they're being locked and unlocked remotely. Now, um the [snorts] operating hours are controlled by section 3813 and they were or yeah 3813 and that was last updated in 2014. So that really ought to be reviewed. The dark skies issue which was talked about earlier. I I've heard um that that's going to be delayed.

That's really important because lighting is key in park space and how that's handled as well as other places in the city. So having that delayed can really be uh problematic. And then lastly, I just want to praise Pyramid Park. I often say that that's the one closest to where I am in addition to a couple of other neighborhood parks. Thank you, Mr. You really did a great job. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have uh Ma Saitor.

Hi. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak here. Um I live in the uh central uh area, I guess, at Old Mountain View is what we call it here. And um uh we have no um dog park that is um in a walkable distance. We have Eagle Park, which is not technically a dog park as you know. Um and you can only take your dog there off leash between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. Um so you cannot take them off leash on the weekend. Um and so you know there's a large community of um dog owners that are driving around Mountain View to take their dogs to off leash dog parks. Um we have a I believe it's called a mini park named uh Fairmont Park. Um and it's um it's a very nice park. Um it's hardly ever used by anybody and I know that because I go there about six or seven times a week. Um, and I think it's very rarely used because Mercy Bush Park is much nicer and it's only two blocks away. Um, I I raised Fairmont Park because it is already fenced in. Um, it would only need a gate um for uh at the very small opening of the current fence and you could very easily turn that into a dog park um quite quickly. Um, so I appreciate all of the effort that went into the strategic plan. Um, I am concerned that there's a target of only one to two updates per year and that those updates cost 1 to$1.5 million. Um I think there we need to focus on small things that we can do quickly. Um and so that we can make um small improvements to more parks um during the year rather than just one to two major updates um so

that um more people are feeling benefit all the time um rather than just small pockets um getting major updates. Thank you. I also want to voice sorry your time has expired. Um, we'll move on to Dasha Leeds.

Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Lumber Pria chapter. Uh, we're glad to see that staff has integrated biodiversity into the park design subsection and the addition of action items related to the implementation of the draft biodiversity and urban forest plan. These inclusions are good uh but biodiversity has not yet been identified as a standalone core goal of the park system. With this in mind, our chapter supports the suggestion put forward by the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance in their letter that they sent to council this morning. In that letter, they recommend the addition of a fifth goal to the draft parks and recreation strategic plan, a goal that is focused on biodiversity. I'll read the draft language here. quote, uh, protect and restore biodiversity, identify opportunities for habitat preservation and restoration, and ensure that park operations facilities are designed and implemented so that locally native species survive and thrive in alignment with the biodiversity and urban forest plan. End quote. Biodiversity is important in its own right, and it's important for the health and well-being of Mountain View residents. Establishing biodiversity is a core goal of the plan would strengthen the plan's vision, reflect community priorities, and help ensure that future park investments will continue to support people and nature. Uh, and speaking of how we handle nature in the future, we'd also like to lament the delay on the dark sky ordinance, and we encourage this council to find opportunities to resume work on that ordinance as soon as possible. Um, you don't need to reinvent the wheel here. There's a plenty of established local precedent for these ordinances that you can base your draft ordinance off of such as Certino, Brisbane, Los Altos, and the recently adopted ordinance in Palo Alto. Uh so we encourage you to resume work on that and provide direction to resume work on that as soon as you can. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Rashmi, can you hear me? We can hear you. It's a little light though. Okay. Is this better? Much better.

Great. My comments focus on the importance of natural spaces in our park system and a push to better align the plan with the community feedback. Natural green amenities have been highlighted as a priority by residents at every step of the feedback process of this plan. Natural green spaces have also been highlighted as a priority by the city leadership through the biodiversity and urban forest plan. The parks and wreck plan has made progress since its last iteration by incorporating portions of the biodiversity and urban forest plan into the parks and wreck plan which is great. However, the plan still reads as if natural spaces are separate from the core set of amenities that parks are meant to provide to fully to be fully integrated with the plan. These spaces such as tree groves, pollinator habitats, and nature trails should be directly called out as amenities in the park design process section 6.1 and 6.2 of the plan. For example, the plan's design guidelines for community parks states that these parks should have at least one recreational anchor, one community anchor, and one active recreation amenity. This required list should also include one biodiversity anchor. It is only by directly incorporating these natural spaces into the design guidelines as amenities in their own right that Mountain View residents can be confident that green spaces will not be deprioritized in favor of built environment amenities when the rubber hits the road. I would also say the same thing about trees and shade structures. The plan still lists shade structures as an amenity investment priority in section 7.4 areas of focus for park improvement and expansion and leaves out trees completely in this section. I'm also still not sure why skateboarding parks and adult fitness areas continue to be listed as priorities in the plan. These two amenities scored as very low importance skateboard parks as the lowest in fact in both the statistically significant and community surveys. Yet the plan still calls out these amenities as priorities in section 7.4. While nature-based amenities and items residents have identified as top priority priorities are left out. One last important topic I would like to see included in the plan is addressing the

use of poured in place rubber surfaces which are used at almost every playground in Mountain View. These surfaces are your time. Um next we have Cliff Chambers. Hi, this is uh Cliff Chambers, a 20-year resident of uh Mountain View. I'd first like to thank Christine Crosby and her team because I think they did a exemplary job of responding to the very diverse comments that we received at the parks and recreation uh commission and a very engaged public. I I want to make comments with two hats. First, the hat is president of the Mountain View Pickle Ball Club. We're really pleased to see the pickle balls highlighted as a prioritized amenity. Uh we're very happy that uh an action was added for the uh design and construction of pickle ball courts. Uh and we're really looking forward to an update hopefully in the coming days on the private property public uh pickle ball court option for hopefully uh a minimum of 12 new courts. The second hat I wear is as a voter and I have to agree with Jim Zorski that some work really needs to still be done and kind of itemizing the costs of things. We have a revenue measure hopefully it's probably going to be a bond measure coming up and I don't get a good sense of what the priorities are that would be included in such a plan in a very short period of time. So I think a lot has there's been a lot of really good stuff added to the plan in terms of the kind of cost but there's no sense of priorities of what would come first in the next few years that really needs to

be added to the plan. Thank you very much. [laughter] Thank you. Next, we have Jessica Choan.

Hi there. First, I want to acknowledge the immense effort staff put into this comprehensive plan. Um, we know this was a huge effort. Um, now it's finally time for council to weigh in. You know, you've heard from the community for years now about lack of park space and we even see new folks joining the conversation every meeting. Um, this is your opportunity to get it right and to do the hard things to make progress. We all understand the reality is that Mountain View is a builtout city, that land is expensive, and closing the projected parkland gap is a massive financial challenge. While the plan clearly identifies the severe gaps, the proposed solution needs to be elevated in urgency to address the deficit. Earlier agenda items highlighted that this issue will only grow and this plan relies heavily on an opportunistic acquisition strategy with a goal of acquiring only up to 10 acres over the next 10 to 15 years despite an 87 acre shortfall. To achieve meaningful results, I urge council to strengthen the action plan, especially in four specific areas. Move from an opportunistic to a pre-positioned plan. We can't just study or wait and see about a a bond or wait about properties becoming available. We need to be clear that we will pursue a bond measure that we will identify specific properties that we will acquire through all means available potentially including things like eminent domain. Uh we need to strengthen regulatory requirements for developers. Um as we um go through the nexus study, we should look to maximize impact fees rather than reducing them. This is crucial for residents uh across the city. Um you know residential projects over a certain size should be required to dedicate actual land rather just rather than just accepting in lofies. Um you know as as we grow and

densify this only serves the public more public health environmental stewardship and it it's just

thank you. Uh next uh our final commenter is Mary Datio. Um good evening. Um I want to echo all the points that Rashmi made about um recognizing natural spaces and biodiversities um as an amenity. So, um that this would um sort of strengthen um to actually reflect in the plan how important so many of the uh people who who've weighed in on this plan. Um how important we feel feel that that that those things are the um natural spaces and and biodiversity. Um, I'm um I just think we need land is such an issue and as I'm hearing other people talking about it, I'm especially concerned too because um not just because of all the new residents that we expect that are going to be Mountain View residents with all the building, but at the same time um quite a bit of building is going on right on our borders uh along ong El Camino in Los Altos and along San Antonio in um PaloAlto. And so it's just so important that um that we do find a way to acquire more land. And then the third thing I wanted to mention is um I feel that the I sent a note about this. I hope you saw it, but basically 50 acres, the 50 acres, 52 acres of Stevens Creek Trail and Permanente Creek Trail, um, all that park space is allocated to the North Bayshore, even though only about a third maybe of those trails is actually in the North Bayshore. So, it grossly distorts

the um, park space per area. And this especially bothers me or concerns me because one of the top amenities in many of the surveys that were conducted like the top thing people said they wanted were biking, hiking, and and walking trails. And so here we have these two trails. Thank you. All right, it's time to bring it back to council. Council will now have the opportunity to uh ask questions and then discuss and provide feedback on the following questions. Does any member of the council have questions?

I'm assuming. Okay, there we go. Council member Mallister, kick us off.

I need to start off saying I've been doing the city council for 10 years and this is the best report I've ever seen. the detail. Somebody actually follow the strategic plan blueprint and how to do it. And when you do something like that, it includes a lot of stuff. It makes you think about what you're doing. Yes. So, there are some flaws here and there, but overall, it's very comprehensive from my span standpoint, from seeing other I was here in 2014, so I get to reflect on that. Uh, but it really does accomplish a lot. And what it also does is allow people to really discuss it. You start a lot of discussion. People are going what about this D. And that's why this is a draft program, but you have so many areas that you can bring in so many people say, hey, this is important to me. This is important to them. So that being said, I just think it's really good. And you know, the questions I have are are pretty minuscule to the overall design. I'm disappointed that it's going to be 10 years from here. I'll be gone. you'll be here to work on it and get it done. But that is a long process and we don't have many uh precise um programs like we were talking about the precise plans for wherever and we're talking 10 years down the road and and things changed dramatically. So, uh, I'm glad that you're looking that far forward and that you have prioritized certain items and yes, your statistics may be some people view it one way, other people see another, but at least again, you're getting people look down there and see what's coming on and so it's it's really nice. So, I have a couple of questions. Well, I have more, but I'll probably think of more as we go along. U, but just follow up on some of the questions that uh people asked about. Now I live over by Okay, city attorney. Do I have to recuse myself since I live near a park? [laughter]

You said I'm just making sure. Um I live near a the gate um gateway to the southern part of Stevens Creek Trail. I would say that's on our on the west side of Stevens Creek. There's a whole area that's going to be developed. It's like 32 acres or so forth. And when someone mentioned that that's all going to be part of North Beayshore, well, the people in North Beayshore are really using this. I mean, I use the this the U Stevens Creek Trail daily and so does my dog and so it's doesn't make sense that you don't include it in other parts of the city where it actually is the local the 10-minute rule that you walk into. So, is that something that you may revise to say getting that out of the 233 acres that you say up there, you can clarify the 172 later? Um, to get it down where it actually is used and utilized. Thank you for the question. Once again, John Marshant, community services director. So, this is an item that we as staff struggled with with a little bit and even the parks and recreation commission had a brief conversation about as well. Um, and I'll I'll go back. Historically, the the trail systems started in the north, started being connected to shoreline, and then moving south. So, historically, those acres have been associated with the North Bayshore. Um, and therefore, when you look at the calculations um, citywide and you and then you take away the North Bayshore, you're actually reducing all of those acres from the total. Um and in the discussion through the parks and recreation commission, they decided not to allocate or recommend allocating those acres into those planning areas. Um as well as uh staff was looking at the um where the

Stevens Creek Trail is bisected by several planning areas. And so we we have not gone through a specific process to see how we can allocate those to individual planning areas. If that's what uh a recommendation of council tonight, we can certainly look at that. Um for an example, um in one area, the central and then Whisman is bisected by the Stevens Creek Trail. How do we how would we separate those acres out? we would have to go through an exercise to figure that out. But once again, if that is uh something that the the council is interested in, that is uh some work we can do.

Okay. Um I would like to see that also. And I also see your calculations for the overall city is at 4.4 acres, but you know, we have this 3 acre um goal. And I think you you do put an asterk in there. because that includes parts of North Bay Shoreline Regional Park. And I think that uh and I thought I saw an asterk in there that would take it down, but when you take a regional park, that's again, let's use your 10-minute rule. I'd like to see that uh maybe reviewed because it doesn't really reflect the the uh deficit that we have throughout the city. when you had you put up the slide, we only had one or two areas that were in it. But if you take it out, the whole city is in a big deficit. And it was in a deficit back in 2015 when I was mayor of the city and we were trying to acqu get acquisitions. But it's very hard to compete with billionaires and multi- un uh companies that's have a lot of money. So it's very tough to do that. And you you I think you're doing a pretty good job getting there. So uh the other question or comment I had is that you had these uh actions and I always think uh you you need to have some actions and actually how you can fund these things. We we were talking about, you know, we're going to have a shortage and I think there's opportunities and somebody brought it up. I saw the park uh commission can park can actually figure out how to increase their funds and I saw under immediate actions and you actually put first two years which is I mean you're saying we're going to do this we're going to do it in a timeline and so what happens is what's great is that we hold you accountable because in two years I'll come along and and I'm here and I'll ask you these questions

but what you were looking at is how we can increase our funding to a lot of people were concerned about funding. So how are you how did you come up with saying these immediate actions we're going to look at the fees we're going to look at how to all of the these different the use fees the naming fees and so how did you say hey these are important and and your thoughts behind that.

Thank you for the question. um in order to do a lot of the um short-term, midterm, and long-term um action items, there are foundational action steps that we need to take first to be able to set us up to complete the future ones. So, as I stated earlier, um significant funding would be needed to develop new parks or to update our parks. And in order to do that, we need the funding. So, let's look at identifying that first. Um, additionally, we've got um in the immediate actions a focus on updating um council policies, things that uh can impact our facility reservations and our our field reservations um sooner than later. Um also looking at um our staffing in order to accomplish some of those larger action items, we need the appropriate staff in the right positions to be able to advance them. And so we were strategic in um how we placed items so that we could sequence things.

There was an also a comment about we have limited funds and so is it the question is do we save it up to be big things or do we try to get accommodate more people with doing small things of enhancing the parks or maintaining the parks and so forth. So could you explain a little bit that strate is that going to be implemented? Is that a something that you can do right away or is that something that you're thinking about doing?

Thank you. Um so as we are advancing um several of the action items, there are capital um improvement pro projects that have been identified that we have currently um scheduled and have funding to do. Um those are ones that we hope to accomplish sooner than later um because we have the funding and we've got the projects identified. Um we've also u will be looking at some of the um what we did with this draft is we incorporated a whole section of milestones and deliverables that we anticipate for each action item that was not in the last draft. And that allows us to say what things we anticipate being able to complete. um and that the um the timelines that are associated with those action plans are when we expect them to be completed. So, for example, a long-term item may have several u milestones underneath it where some of those may be completed sooner than later um because again, we've got those projects identified

or is there any strategies in this these guides to make your uh financing sustainable? And would could I mean like fees that haven't been revised we know about in a long time but is there a way to incorporate the fee structure that even though we're supposed to be cost recovery but we can redefine cost recovery for um rem maintenance and maintaining as things wear out like we do with the fire department. We got big trucks and we save money and get it done.

Yes, thank you for the question. There is an action item and I'm trying to find it. Um that is specific to looking at the recreation cost recovery policy. Um, we previously did the citywide master fee study, but we knew that the cost recovery policy should be looked at. And so we held off on updating a large number of our fees so that we can go through a true cost recovery review and determine if our um programs are allocated to the correct uh categories and the right subsidies. Um, so we would like to go through that exercise first. that will allow us to see if any of our programs move and then um be able to adjust the fees accordingly. Additionally, within um one of the action items um related to funding, there is an action to study um adding um capital reserve fees to our facility reservations. These are fees that are a nominal fee that would be added to the reservation that would then be put into a reserve that could be used to improve that specific facility. So for example, a nominal fee for a barbecue reservation would then be earmarked for any future improvements needed for that specific barbecue. Um so we don't have that currently. Um it is a new concept for us and um it is an action item for us to explore.

The other question I see, well a couple other questions people are asking you to do quite a bit of trees and native planting. Don't we have another study that you're working with that sort of interacts with that one that feeds into it? Could you give us some background of the biodiversity and what do you call that? A biodiversity and urban forest plan. U yeah because there are two separate plans and and see how they work together.

Absolutely. And thank you for that question. Um you are correct. The city is working on a draft biodiversity and urban forest plan. It just recently went to the parks and recreation commission last week um which they um approved forwarding the draft to the city council which I believe is coming to you next month. Um it will be your first opportunity to weigh in. Um that and the parks and recreation strategic plan have a little bit of an overlap. Um and what we see in this current draft is that we've elevated biodiversity. It's in section 6.3. before it was a little buried. Um, but we've elevated and added more information to connect it to the biodiversity and urban forest plan. Um, specifically with a cross reference of action items that focus on biodiversity and parks, we've incorporated that within here. We also doubled up on those action items. So, if it was an action item in the draft biodiversity and urban forest plan, we've also included it in um the strategy that's focused on biodiversity here. um which I think helps strengthens it and helps align it. Um, additionally, one of the um feedback things that we heard from the parks and recreation commission at the last uh meeting in November was they would like to have the city look at having dedicated staff to focus on biodiversity to ensure that the um outcomes or the actions of the biodiversity and urban forest plan are carried through. that is not only in the um biodiversity and urban forest plan draft but is also included as a staff position that we are recommending through this process as well.

Why do we have two plans? What what are they such big tasks that you had to focused on certain items to get it? Okay.

Yeah. And um I I would say that the biodiversity and urban forest plan and and John can fill in um director Marshon can fill in anything that I've missed. Um really focuses on um the scientific side of nature and incorporating landscape um to provide um access for our habitats and wildlife and supporting them. Um whereas this plan is focusing on a larger systemwide analysis. Um and so we see that we could utilize the biodiversity and urban forest plan to support um the way that we look at park design um the way that we maintain our parks. Um but they are separate documents. The biodiversity and urban forest plan also doesn't just govern parks but also focuses on um private development as well as um public infrastructure.

Okay. And there's some comments about transportation and I know we have our you have your department, we have a transportation department. So I mean why are they sort of looking at you to get these things done when we have a excellent transportation department? Are you working with conjunction with the public works and their transportation program?

Yes, we are. Um public works is working on the active transportation plan. Um and we have identified an action within this plan to support um the active transportation plan with identifying opportunities to increase safe access to parks. Um that was something that we heard loud and clear through the public engagement and that um folks would like to have um like to feel safe and comfortable walking from um their house to a park or park to park. Um and so we've incorporated and connected with our our uh colleagues in public works on that aspect. So as they are advancing their plan, we'll be at the table to assist and provide information related to park access.

Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Shoalter.

Yeah. Um well, you ask a lot of great questions. Um, Council Member Mallister, I have a couple and then lots of comments. I mean, I guess we're all sort of integrating the comments as we go. First of all, I I I echo what um John has said and what uh Jim Zorski said about how, you know, this plan is really progressed. I read the november version over the break and then I found out the new version had changed a lot so I had to read that too. And um I was a little taken aback by that, but at the same time it really um uh showed me how much the the plan had changed and um that's you know all to the good. I think that when we started out it was a little too theoretical and not too not not Mountain View enough. Anyway, um I do have some questions. One is um uh I don't understand what you do with the update. you know, the update numbers were like a million dollars per acre for a park. What do you do for that?

Thank you for the question. Um, so an update Well, actually, let me clarify your question. Is your update of what could be done with $1 million? Well, yeah. I mean, what what could be done? What would you expect to do? Sure. I am going to look to our parks and open space manager who is currently working on a few update items to share what could possibly done for an update for around a million dollars.

Hello, Tim Youngberg, parks and open space manager. So, currently we're working on a project at Silven Park and for $500,000 we have various amenities that would be improved. benches, uh the trash cans within the park, the playground that's there, both the uh 2 to 5 playground and the 5 to 12 playground. So, both playgrounds would get updated. The post and platforms would stay the same, but the amenities around the uh playground would be updated. There's a few irrigation upgrades that would happen within the park. And then, um I'm trying to think of any other ones. Uh there's a few picnic tables that are in the park that need to be upgraded and benches as well. I think there was 17 benches. uh 20 trash cans. So various things came up in just in that park was about $500,000.

Okay. So that that park is a number of acres. So if you divided, you know, um

it it depends on the like you said, it depends on the number of amenities within the park. So obviously a bigger park has got more amenities. You can you can make that buck last a lot longer. But the per acre cost, you can do a lot with the a million dollars per acre. I guess that's what I'm getting to. Um because all right because I would really like to see I mean I see that the actions are sort of bifurcated into things that you need to do to get organized to move on to the um to all the actions and and and to um really incorporate all that's been learned in um in the uh this plan development and to you know to carry those things out. And then there are the action items that are more things that people will see in the parks. And I I um I uh I was wondering if if there would be a way for us to kind of evaluate those separately so that there would be um some vis visible responses to our residents um uh that we tracked more than just getting organized which is very very important. You can't do the other, you know, one one without the other. But I I do feel like people um people are really uh immersed in their parks. Like John says he goes to the Stevens Creek trail every day. I go to Puk Cooper Park a couple times a day. I'm sure if you asked all of us, we go to a park really regularly. So we know it really well and we notice what what changes. So, so if there was a new tree or new benches or whatever, I mean, people would care and notice. So, how how are you um planning to uh kind of

come up the dashboard, separate that out? Um, thank you for the question. Um, so one thing is we naturally do that. Um, our parks and open space division has annual CIPs that we have access to be able to maintain these these items. Um, and so we do look for those opportunities. As things are aging out, we try to replace them or, um, if we have access to planting more trees, we try to do so. Um, I think you were gonna tag. You can

Yeah, it to go along with what um, parks space manager Youngberg was talking about is we do look at our parks. We look for opportunities to improve. We do have capital funding to help with that. Um, and as we go through the biodiversity plan, we actually have some initial ideas where we can add trees, biodiversity, how do we revisit our existing parks to see how we can either plant more trees or increase the biodiversity um and and then be able to um either look for the existing funding or request the additional funding to do that. Um, in the case of Silven Park, we think we have some funding to um, make that happen once we have an approved biodiversity and urban forest plan to follow the planting guidelines that will be coming out in in other items.

Good. Okay. So I guess what I'm asking then is the answer I I seem to be I I think you're giving me which is good is that we do have a way to track that there are improvements kind of spread throughout the city and all the parks regularly.

Yes. As a matter of fact, one of the great things that Mr. Youngberg has done since he came and joined us as as a team member. He really has created an annual review of where we can be making improvements. So, he has a five-year plan for porn in place. He has a certain number of years for um the playground improvements and so we can follow his plan and be make sure that we're keeping up on those systematically.

Okay. Thank you. And then um another question I had was um I wondered why the vision shows up so late in the report. That's a bit of a um unusual uh organization. Usually the vision is in the you know introduction. It doesn't come up until well it's in the executive summary of course but it doesn't come up until 114. uh page 114. So I wondered about um uh do we want do you feel like you I mean you've thought about how to reorganize this. Do you do you want to further reorganize it so the visions a little earlier or um how how did you feel about that?

Yeah, thank you for the question. Um so we did hear a similar comment when we brought this to the parks and recreation commission. However, at that time we didn't have an executive summary formalized. Um and so when we developed that executive summary and incorporated it um we felt oh it's at the front. However, we can further look into that following tonight and see if there's a way that we can further reorganize. That's something we can look into.

Yeah, I I think that's great. And also um uh kudos on the executive summary that um adds a lot. And then um this is something that I think we're going to be studying in the fee evaluation, but um do we do we have an estimate of what percentage of the costs of um like a summer camp is covered by fee versus not fee? I mean fee versus general fund or other sources.

Thank you for the question. And so the operating costs associated with um the recreation programs is general fund um funding. Um I don't have the information in front of me to say what a cost recovery is for our summer camps. I will say that we are um very affordable and low cost and we're also very proud that we have our financial assistance program to assist those that may need um financial assistance to cover. I think we're all very proud of that and um I think that it's um you know it's really a policy discussion about how much we want to spend and it's and it really aligns well with our community for all. Okay, thank you. Those are all for now.

Thank you. I'm going to reiterate. So we we are only doing questions right now. I'm not ready to to to straw poll quite yet until we're done with our questions. So next we'll have Council Member Hicks. I have a question for you, Mayor. And yes, and it's how we're going to go through the questions so that I never know. Do we do are we going to take them one by one, go through all of them? I want to be organized ahead of time and everyone else so we don't get lost. I I was anticipating doing all three questions and then if there were things that would draw pullable, okay,

um staff will uh pull it out. We won't have the visual aids that we did in the last item. Um, so we will probably be going a little bit more carefully to make sure that we capture everything. So one by one we'll be going through all questions at once. I can do that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, do we have any more questions from the council? Any more questions? Okay. There's a garbage can near my spot and it's a bear trap one where you have to go under. So, why do we have all these garbage cans that have to be bear safe?

Yes, thank you one time or something. Tim Youngberg, parks and open space manager. Uh, this was before my time and I think there's some still some YouTube videos of these squirrels that uh took over Questa Park. So, in in doing that and for future, we've we've latched on to these bear saver cans. We've actually gone to ones that have the foot pedal and the hand. So, uh it makes it a lot easier. Another reason is for back safety. Um some of them back safety uh for staff so that you're you're opening from the bottom rather than having to pull the bag out over the top. So, there is some ergonomic safety due to them as well.

Uh and one we forgot to ask and I'm surprised council member Scho Walter didn't ask about it. Uh do we have any updates on pickle ball? I actually have an update and so this is uh hot off the press if you will. Um dur as you know during the development of the city's pickle ball feasibility study, city staff stated that there was an opportunity to collaborate with private property owners to develop publicly accessible courts. Over the last few months uh and since we our last public meeting uh staff has been discussing various potential sites with property owners, we have identified a viable site for an interim pickle ball facility that could be used for uh at least 5 years. Uh while we continue to work on securing a more long-term permanent location and potentially at the same site, the site is located about a half mile away from the nearest residential neighborhood in the eastern part of the city and provides appropriate space for outdoor pickle ball facilities as well as parking. We are in the initial stages of negotiation with the property owner to come to an agreement for the interim use of the site. uh after which city could begin the process to design and construct the pickle ball courts. Additional public updates will be provided in approximately two to three months subject to reaching formal agreement with the property owner for the interim use of the site. So we have been able to say that we have identified a specific location. We are uh now in active negotiations with that property owner. We still need to see what we can do with exactly how much we can provide in including parking and other amenities. So I don't have a specific number yet.

All right, thank you for that. Are we done with questions? Because now we can get feedback. Let's go any moment now. Council member Clark,

I will probably be the briefest. Um, questions one, two, and three. Does the council agree the draft plan provides an accurate picture of Um, so anyway, yes to number one. Um, yes to number two. I agree the draft vision and goals and strategy reflect what the city should focus on. And number three, um [clears throat] um the the action plan I I I don't I think you've captured I don't have any specific actions or to add or remove. So I I'm fine with one, two, and three. The only thing that I'll add is um I do um there was one public speaker and I think it I think you mentioned it came up the PR meeting. I am sympathetic to the idea of um [snorts] I I I if we're allocating I realize that trails are recreation, not necessarily parks, but they um they're a really really important component of of our overall um amenities and and plans. And I think it is a given the amount of time and money that we've spent on those trails, I think it's kind of a waste to have those allocated to North Bay Shore. um or or have them unallocated. So um and I realize they they cross some planning area boundaries, which by the way, my only other comment is I don't know how we arrived at these planning boundaries decades ago. Um at some point in the future, we should probably find a different methodology, but we have what we have and it's fine. Um the way that I would do it would just allocate the uh this assumes there are other people who agree with me but the way that I would do it would be to all for example Stevens Creek Trail or Permanente Creek Trail if there's access you know if it if it bifrocates a planning area and there's access from both planning areas very easy access you know Silvin has a very expensive bridge

that we built uh to access the Steven Street trail then I would allocate the section of the trail that runs through or bifrocates those two planning areas to both planning areas. So, um instead of just having it all allocated to either either unallocated or North Bay shore. And I was just looking at the map and I think it wouldn't be it's not something you can do in five minutes, but it's um and I'm also sure it won't be without controversy. But um but I I do think I do think that is a great amenity for the for the planning areas that have easy access to it. uh both the permanente and the seams trail plus all the money and time and energy that we put into getting licenses for the HCH hetche right ofway in certain areas over in San Antonio and then in in the Whisman area. So I think that I think there should be some allocate some credit given to those things um because uh otherwise it it just feels feels strange to me not to not to allocate those to the areas that have easy access to those amenities. But those are my those are my only comments. Otherwise, I think this is this is an excellent um step forward. Folks have talked about implementation. We that a big part of this will be the CIPs and prioritizing um the various projects within this which we'll we'll end up doing as a council. Um but I think overall this is an excellent plan.

Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council member Sha Walter.

Okay. Yes. Um, question one. Uh, I do think that this is an accurate picture of the the parks and I would concur with what, um, uh, Council Member Clark said about allocating the, um, the space along the trails. I think everybody doesn't, you know, you don't go on the trail and go the whole length. You might just take a short walk on it. And, um, so I think you're, you know, the people who live adjacent to it are more likely to use that section of the trail. And I guess another question another thing associated with that is we in the future we'll be able to allocate that nine acres to um uh to the um southern portion of of the this the um town. Okay. Um does the council agree with the draft vision goals and strategies reflect what the city should focus on? I would really like to change the um the the vision a little bit and really that's in response to um how parks are. Um I think I think for for parks we should put nature first. That's I mean we go to parks to walk around to play on the equipment but but mostly we go to parks to have an outdoor experience with nature and we have beautiful parks. We should be very very proud of that parks. In fact, one of the things I wrote was that um uh a lot of the community feedback has been positive. Residents love our parks. They love all the events. They love the classes, but we don't want to do this process just so we can pat ourselves on the back. Although patting yourselves on the back is not a bad idea. You've done a really great job. Um, we did it

because we understand how important parks are. We know they are significant amount of infrastructure that has to be maintained, refreshed, and evolved with changing community interests like pickle ball. We know that during the pandemic um people came to treasure our parks even more. And we know that increasing population there is always increasing needs. Um so I you know I really want to put that message of putting nature first out there. Um and and we've heard that from uh many people. I um I took a a stab at at well in a conversation with um one of the um PRC members, we took a stab at changing the vision and um the vision we have the original is a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable community where accessible parks, open spaces and recreation opportunities inspire connection, well-being and stewardship for generations to come. And we thought it might be a little better if first of all we put our name in it. Mountain View is an inclusive, resilient community with where a rich network of parks, natural open spaces, and recreation opportunities builds community enhances physical and emotional well-being and inspires care for our natural environment. So, I would be willing to I mean, maybe we could share this with staff and you could think of it going forward or know what my fellow council members think, but the idea that we should put nature first and um we should add Mountain View in there. Um so, that that's two things I would like to see change. And then um we talk about I guess it's strategies or maybe it's actions and the actions uh on question three um I really thought this was a great

list of actions but I did come up with a couple more that people might um might want to think about. One is um continue to emphasize learn to swim activities. The city has had a robust swimming program for decades and that's just as it should be because swimming is very important from a safety point of view and also it's just wonderful for physical fitness. So, I think we should explicitly have that as part of our, you know, goals and actions that we want to do that um for the there's a lot of pools that, you know, because we have 65% of um Mountain View population is renters and apartments. There's a lot of pools that are um basically not watched very carefully. So, it's really important that our children learn to swim. So that's why I I would I would like to have that added. Um continue to emphasize learn to swim activities. And then another one um kind of relates to our active transportation and that's I'd like to teach bike safety and how to ride a bike to um as part of our programs. So those are two actions I'd like to add. And um that's the end of my comments right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sha Walter. Council member Hicks. Thank you. Well, I also agree that it's a it's a very good report. I would say more on that, but it's 10:30, so I'll go to I won't be labor that. And I'll go to my comments. So, I have So, question number one, do we agree that the draft plan provides an accurate accurate picture of mountain views, parks, etc. Um, or is anything not clearly shown? I'd say yes, it's generally good. My big addition is uh what council member Shoalter also highlighted and many of our residents have over the via email and in person. Um that we could call out natural parks and park space I think more than I think we could enhance that part of the plan. Um, and I actually think this is a paradigm shift we need to make. I think that when we were actually I have a a neighbor who um lived was a a child here in the 1920s and 30s um he's since passed on, but he told me that uh back then when this was a more rural place and even even decades later, you didn't need green space in parks. you could just go. There were orchards all around. But we're not like that anymore. And we're not going to be we're going to get less and less like that. As you could probably tell if you were here for the first item on our agenda, we're becoming a more and more dense place. So, we really do like most dense cities that I know of, whether it's Golden Gate Park or Central Park, you need a green respit. Not that you'll make one as big as Central Park, but um big enough for us, I hope. So I think that that has to be infused throughout

the plan and we have to think like a more urban place that people need that sort of green retreat. Um I let's see and and so I'm going to put that into some of the action items. I agree with what people have said about allocating the trail basically the way they said it at the access points and so forth. Um and you know the other big item is what people have called out park equity. Um and unfortunately the fees we can charge are being greatly reduced. So that's something that we we have to park equity and how to get it is of course something we have to keep our eyes on. Um so uh so question two the draft vision goals and strategies. I hardily agree with what council member Shoalter suggested as a change to the vision. Um, one of the things that I saw is that the vision and goals and so forth don't call out um our parks as physical spaces and I think that that that vision does that. So I'm and I also like that council member Sha Walter used the world word beautiful when she talked about the parks. I mean, I think we have to see them as actual places that are, you know, green with trees with, you know, more than things like playground structure and trash cans, you know. Um, so, okay. So, that's the vision I would change. Um, I don't know whether that that changes the goals or strategies. Um let's see uh and the rest of my comments are for

question number three which is the action plan. So there a number of places a lot of this is putting the um nature-based some nature-based changes. Um one so I do think that the resident that said Fairmont Park might make a good dog dog park. It might make a good maybe you have reasons it shouldn't be but it might make a good dog park. Um then uh 1 point I'm going to call them out by number mostly when I found the number. 1.3.1 is expand tree canopy and parks. I think this really needs to be emphasized. I would add more funding to that category if possible. And I would work very closely with Canopy. They do a great job. Um and you know the more we work with them the better. Uh so 1.3.2 says establish an enhanced native and pollinator gardening etc. I would say that either needs to be emphasized and expanded or add another category because um survey responses include a lot about serving people of all ages and particularly how adult needs are often given short shrift and but the surveys also show that adults most often requested more areas for walking, running and green respit in one's own neighborhood um and not adjacent to as we heard from the the um pickle ball in Questa Park, not adjacent to chain link fences, noises, etc. So, I think that that section could be embellished or add a section on that. Um 3.1.3

said establish dedicated biodiversity expertise. I would expand that to include design for natural parks, not just expertise on biodiversity but also on like I said design for natural parks. Um then 4.1.7 says evaluate and enhance potential establishment of a foundation. I I would say that will take some time. In I'm repeating myself, but in the short term, we already have a nonprofit and that's Canopy. We used to have a nonprofit called Mountain View Tree, but it was not easy to run one and it was easier to combine with Canopy. So, that may still be true. Um although I understand the foundation and Canopy would have different roles. Um then uh 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 which are about enhancing parks and updating parks. These sections as they're written, they talk a lot about adding unnatural things to parks. signage. I think we talk about signage a little more than we should, but anyway, signage, shade truck structures, recreational infrastructure. I think we need and one of our commenters said this, we need to conceptualize and name natural elements and those should be also 7.4.3 says amenity investment areas. For all those sections, I think we need to conceptualize and name natural elements that we would add. Um, trees, vegetation buffers, natural play structures, treelined walking paths, groves of trees, um, green meditative spaces. These are all amenities as well.

And I think these are the things that we're leaving out. Um, and I think we need more models of more natural parks. um commenter mentioned the Charleston retention basin which is probably my favorite park in the city and it has no lawn but all the models that we picture have lawns. I would like to be able to when people in neighborhoods are designing parks that they have some different models. Um and Stevens Creek Trail Pat you said add a parkour. I agree. Add a parkour there, but um a natural parkour, not a like metal and plastic one. Um so, uh I think those are most of my comments that Oh, and find opportunities for linear parks. Uh we had a resident that mentioned possibly along Shoreline Boulevard. That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Hicks. So, Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to belabor the point that Council Member Hicks did not want to belabor it, and that's uh how well staff uh has done in, as I shared in the briefing, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. I feel like a few years ago uh the plan was in a very precarious state. Um, I heard uh I think all of us heard some uh constructive criticism from members of our community. Um, but I think in part because of um uh excellent uh guidance uh from uh from the PRC and from the community um and uh staff's uh as uh a member of the public had shared um uh willingness and interest to to dive in and and take charge of this. it's landed in a very good place and I agree with council member Mallister which is something I don't often do. Um that uh this is one of the best plans that that I've ever uh read through and I think it serves as a very as a standard for for future work of the city and uh and a very high bar. So I hope other departments are listening. Um but it's uh I'm going to be a little bit more uh high level. I think there's um a lot of uh very uh important and and useful feedback from both the community and from members of the council. Um I want to be careful uh not to get lost in the sterile quantification of parks. I think it from my perspective whether the number attached to my planning area is one or seven. It really doesn't make a difference in practice. Do I have access to the park in my neighborhood? Is there a park in my neighborhood? I think um there is certainly value in uh and I think the as you had explained to me uh the exercise that you've done in uh and the quantification is is not uh it's not a waste of time. There's a lot of like the the work that you've done to you

know append whatever the GIS information is to every asset in every park means that it's easier to conduct maintenance right and to keep track of of what's there and and what needs to be updated. So that's that's useful stuff. Um, but I I you know I work for a city that pretends to be data driven, right? And then makes decisions that are completely uh unrelated to what's what's actually what the data actually would inform the city to do. So I'm I'm that's important and I don't want to diminish it, but I also feel like um there's uh a lot of value in in just listening to what the community is is sharing with us and and I think many of the comments from my colleagues uh speak to that. Um so the I did have one question um there I think we got several uh uh me several members of the community had shared about uh further elevating the biodiversity elements that tie into the the biodiversity strand which I think uh sorry biodiversity plan which is already very strong in the plan. Um, but is there is there value in having almost like a like a new goal that is explicitly related to the implementation of the biodiversity strategy and also um elevating or enhancing some of the the natural unpaved unprogrammed elements of parks and open space that uh Council Member Hicks and other members of the council have shared. Is that a trivial task? Is that non-trivial? I'd love to get your sense of whether that's a good idea.

Thank you for the question. Um, so I do want to point out that strategy 1.3 we did update in this version to incorporate stronger language to biodiversity. This is also um an area that we expanded the number of actions. So there are five actions associated with biodiversity just in that strategy alone. Um, if the council wishes to elevate this to a fifth goal, I would propose elevating all of strategy 1.3 to being a goal and then we'll have to um I guess then update a strategy with it. Um, or just update a goal. So, I think it can be done um and that could be something we can look at in a revision.

And I echo uh what Crosby has said. Um, however, I think there I'm trying not to put the cart before the horse, if you will. Um, I think, um, once the community sees and also council sees the the biodiversity urban forest plan, maybe you will see more of that that connection um, naturally compared to trying to because this one's coming first. Is there a push to try to put more of that language into this because of the timing sequence? If we were going with the biodiversity plan first, would there be more of a request to put more of some of these elements in? I don't know. Um just trying to put things into perspective.

That's helpful. I think that's um that's important for us to consider, too. I I I don't have uh I'm not going to suggest that we take a straw poll. I just wanted to get staff's take on um the the value of of a recommendation like that. um for the questions. Um question one is hard because I I I feel like I'm not in a position to independently corroborate the work that you've done. I I trust you. I I know that you've done a lot of great work to incorporate community feedback. Um and um I I I I don't know if I have any any value add in in um in responding to question one. Uh question two, I I'm supportive of the staff recommendations. Um for question three, the only thing uh I'd love to uh suggest that we um explicitly include and this um also is something we we talked about in the briefing. So if staff has had a chance to think about it and has some recommendations, I I'm very interested in in how you'd want to um include this. But we have uh in I think you had suggested action 4.1.2 which is utilize the park impact fee nexus study process to evaluate and update chapter 41 uh of the city code including new or revised parkland dedication requirements uh and fee structures. One of the things I've been interested in is ensuring that um development standards for for new uh for new well with the Nexus study both commercial and residential development um facilitates the dedication of parkland and facil facilitates uh uh to the extent you know they are desirable um popas. Uh so I I I would be interested in learning more about how CSD and CDD collaborate uh during

private development review uh and whether there is an opportunity for CSD to um provide some input in updated development standards uh to make sure that you know we we have standards that actually help achieve the goals that are in the parks and recreation strategic plan. Um, so I'm not suggesting that we um be prescriptive in what those development standards are, but we're looking at R3 uh next month. Um, we've provided a lot of guidance today on uh a TOD um alternative plan uh development standard and and we also have the objective design standards. a lot of work that's going to be done in this. And it also feels like an a good opportunity for uh for community services uh department staff to to work with CDD and say, you know, if you're thinking about, you know, this particular development standard, here's something you should know, something that we've heard about in working with uh with developers. Uh so, you know, love your your take or your feedback on that. And similarly, I think it it's also, you know, more implicit than explicit, but uh uh including standards for for POPAS and thinking about um ways to to streamline that process. There's certainly value in in fees, but in fees are are tough um because they uh um will uh lose purchasing power fairly rapidly. Uh so I think where we can get dedicated land ideally right that would be I think that that's the hardest thing to get um anything that we could do to facilitate that including through um uh updates to development standards and then um having greater clarity or or guidance for for POPAS uh when we would want a POPA instead of a you know a city-owned

public park. Um, those are the kinds of things that I feel like could go into 4.1.2, but would would defer to staff on whether there's a different way to to include some of those considerations. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ramirez. Now, Council Member Kame.

Great. Thank you. Um, well, I'm grateful to go after Council Member Ramirez because I had written some notes that will be similar, but first and foremost, I just want to thank staff. Um, I know that this was just a journey and we're here. Um, and it's just I I just want to say thank you and thank you to our community who stuck with us um through this uh process. But I think what we're reviewing tonight is such a better plan and product and tenure roadmap of what we'll be able to do. Um, and I ag, you know, like like anything there's room for improvement and we heard from some of the members of our of the public tonight on what we can do, but we know this is kind of like iterative work. Um, and so I'm just really grateful. And then something that I just want to reflect on um with colleagues is, you know, in the city of Mountain View, our parks and wreck fall under community services. And I think that's so fitting um because a lot of cities like the one that our colleague works for, it's a it is just kind of parks and wreck um but it's so much more than that. And what we're seeing too is a plan that reflects community services and just how this department is so interwoven throughout um uh every element of our city. And that's one of the things that I had noted was just this plan really highlights cross departmental work and I think there there um I don't know if it's like should be added but I just you know just a comment which is I think that cross departmental work allows council to think about maybe as the CIPs come forward or as we're talking about work plan how we can help support and trying to maybe pull the thread of okay which department might be leading lead and then which department helps um support

uh especially when we're talking about things like land use decisions. So um but for question one on the um the plan um I think staff has done everything that they um were able to do to try to make sure that it was as comprehensive as possible and I just want to you know say thanks again for that. Um, and if anything is missing or not clearly shown, I know a resident will email us after this meeting and let us know. So, I feel like we are headed in the right direction might be how I'd answer question number one. And then for two, on the vision, goals and strategies, just appreciate the comments from my colleagues, especially the additions from um, council member Sha Walter on um, on how we might be able to do that. And then um for the any actions um moved down moved up on the timeline. I think there's just some things that I wanted to highlight. Um, I think that what I appreciate about the uh plan is it is honest about where about the assessment of where we are at in our community. And um I think that it's great in terms of transparency to say we're going to share those performance metrics. I would I know staff is currently working on what that might look like. Is it a website or does it live on the community services um page? I would just say when we when it's decided on how we're going to be sharing these performance metrics, if we can make sure that we inform our community, um so that could be highlighting it in the view or you know going to get in trouble for saying this, a citywide notification or something

just so for the community to know. I think that this has shown to be of the level of interest that putting it out there would be greatly appreciated. And then as we're doing so, working closely with our um multi- um cultural engagement program to make sure we're doing that in other languages and also maybe trying to double tap it in our Spanish civic leadership academy, our Mandarin um civic leadership academy for people to to know um and they can be able to track work. I think um when we were talking about some of the things that the city can work on um pro programming came up and so further exploration on how we might partner with the nonprofits in our area as like I would say existing resources. So for example at the senior center we have our Avanita's Rose Kleiner Center. I'm not sure how much collaboration we're doing in terms of programming um together, but maybe that could be a way for us to mutually share resources without it being a resource drain if that if that makes sense. Um and so that's just kind of one idea, but I know um continuing to expand like our programming for youth and teens is something um that that we can work on. And I feel excited that we have Yak and they've come up with so many great ideas and maybe being able to tap into Yak on what other program we can we can do. Um we know that they've been leading our um youth mental um health summit for the last four years now, 5 years, 5 years. Um and that came out of our youth. So if they want to do anything else, we can ask them. Um, as we're talking about doing improvements on our parks, I think one of and and apologies if I the very uh dense document missed it, but just making sure we're highlighting accessibility. I

think one of the wonderful things that was highlighted for a magical bridge is just all abilities, all ages. And so we're thinking when we're thinking about accessibility, having that lens for all of the improvements that we have going forward. Um and I think one of the other things is how we might balance uh this ambitious plan to [snorts] gather funds that are very scarce resources is something the the city and the council are going to need to be um increasingly creative about. And so, um, I just wrote like popa in my notes [laughter] and I think, uh, council member Ramirez highlighted it. I you know I think with our inability to gather fees as much as we have in the past and having a popa option finding ways and I know that it was called out on the plan on making if it's a popa not necessarily making it feel I think right now a lot of our popas feel like popas but finding ways to make them feel as much as possible as a I don't know lack of better word, like a regular city park. And I know that there was language in the document that talked about that. Um, and really if there's any carrots we can use, I think would be um great um as we're talking about um more accessibility. um and appreciate Council Member Mallister's comments on the use of our of our paths and you know um being able to to find a way to calculate that, but that's a challenge for for staff that they will continue to try to mount. Um and I think um I'm trying to I have a

note here that I'm trying to recall. Um, I think one of the things too in the plan is I think highlighting what the city is able to do, but also maybe how we can h use our community members, our nonprofit partners, our our private sector partners on how they're part of the solution as well. um is something that I think we can think about more um with with the plan. I think uh everything we're not going to achieve these ambitious goals ourselves and so um I think making sure that it's not just all on the city um but a a creative and collaborative partnership. So thanks mayor.

Thank you council member Kame. Now we have council member Mallister.

Um, uh, council member Ramirez, we do agree on some other stuff, so I'll just we'll get there. But I first have to do a shout out to our assistant city manager Audrey, to John Rashant, to Christine, to Tim, to Colin. I mean, that is collaborative work. I mean that is uh I understand we had some consultants but that you guys took the bull by the horns and really uh really went on it and so that is a great example of what can be done if we let you alone. Okay. Um [laughter] uh but I that I we just have to shout it's really nice and and I wanted to say now it's they put all this work to and Lucas and former mayor Ellen both mentioned financing and this is where council has to step up and decide what they want to do about financing or getting these things and you guys meant pulpa you know private property public access. Now, if uh Chris and Pat, you may remember when SBO was putting their property up in North Behore, we were having a discussion and they came in and they wanted as much private property to be used as their park dedication fee. And then we went through a process of trying to figure out yada yada yada. And so we came to a point, well, maybe we might want to review that and say, "No, we really don't want you you you're not going to get credit for doing this landscaping. We need the city. We need that money to be put towards the whole city and start looking at that as a revenue source to get us to where we need to get." And that's important. Also, when we're looking at our land u fees and so forth, I know a lot of you wanted to reduce fees to get more housing, but this is a need that we if we're serious about it, we need to start

looking at that says, okay, we want to build housing, but we really need the parks to be accommodate all this growth. And so, we need to look at that when something comes along and says, I know the state says, well, we have to reduce our fees. how this council can figure out how to find other avenues to get those fees to help accomplish this gold which is something somebody the people really love in Mountain View. Um to Pat's thing about the vision, you get to play with AI a little bit. This is the second time I've done it. And you throw in the uh adverbs and adjectives and all of a sudden it comes out, you know, and go but I mean there's to your point is yeah there's a lot that we could do to you know offense to you guys to uh spice it up and so it was really nice but um you know I can't uh everything that everybody says this is a we've had a tough early start but this is a great way to finish the day on a great report. I know we're not done yet and council member mayors and I are upset that we couldn't vote for the 10:00 closing. Uh but [laughter] we went right past it. Um but this is this is a really great document and you know it's a great start and praising it for all whatever it's worth and it's good. I see our our public works director here and they're going to work great together because she has a vision. She's energetic. She likes to pour into this and I know great things are going to come out of that collaboration and we're the third wheel you might say to make sure that gets funded and all that and when Lucas former council member or mayors and former Kame and former Hicks they go I was part of this my name's on it and you'll be proud of this project. So I'll leave with that note but thank you guys for everything.

Thank you Council Member Mallister. I would like to point out that you don't have to vote past 10 because you only do that when there's a new item. [laughter] All right, we're going to go back to council member Shoalter.

Yes. all these wonderful things that people brought up. Joged, another thing that I wrote down several places in the um in the uh draft fan. And that was the concept of putting together um friends of various parks groups that could help with maybe planting flowers or helping to plan or whatever. And and I think we could we could help do this maybe through the neighborhoods um program. So just just the idea of putting together or allowing um friends of various parks to

All right. Um bringing it back to me. Um writing this down. Um okay. Uh for the first question, I generally agree that the the the draft plan provides an accurate picture of Mountain Views, parks, trails, and open spaces. I agree with um finding ways to allocate trails so we get credit for that. Um I kind of view trails as linear parks. Um I I remember like um it was a development proposal before my time here on council, but I was watching council and they're like, "We're doing our parks by having a linear park." And I kind of had an eyebrow raised, but I will take credit for I I will I will I will get those credits uh so that we could get closer an inch closer to that that uh three acre per thousand as we can. Um for question number two um that the draft vision goal strategies I agree with some of my colleagues before me of uh elevating nature um even though I am that nature is not something that I um I'm generally associated with. So um uh however I I actually do support the idea of ele elevating essentially um you gave the idea of of 1.3 of elevating it to an actual goal. Um I kind of thought that like looking at the the the strategies and you had the different uh categories of them. I would have actually just taken number three out of the parks, trails, and open space and just moved that up because I and and I know that we do have a separate biodiversity, but I feel like actually elevating it would make a better

connector point. Um, and I really don't want another tree rebellion. Um, so there's that. I agree with uh council member Kame's uh the make use of partnerships. like the Yak is is wonderful and um things like our our civic leadershipmies and how they have these wonderful events including Lunar New Year coming up um and the the work that they do. We really want to leverage our community. I really do like the idea of council member Shaw Walters, the friends of insert neighborhood park um uh idea and and having that actually look through with CNC. It does actually remind me of how in the CNC we were looking at how we define neighborhoods and I was looking at how we define these planning areas and it does not make that much sense to me to begin with. So, I don't know if if it's just if it's a major lift, but just something to kind of think through and how we divide our city is is is really kind of odd. I used to live in uh Shoreline West and I actually viewed Rangorf as my neighborhood park kind of thing. Like there's Mariposa and then you could walk past that new pocket park that's going to be in the tillery and then you have Castro. I mean, I'd rather walk to Rangorf than to Castro Park. Um, so, uh, like it's really weird how we define that. And then you have like Thompson, which is really pretty much monoloma and like why are they the own area? I don't understand why. Um, so like some things to kind of think about uh, as we view our city strategically and how we we divide up not not that I want to divide ours, but you you know what I mean? how we divide, especially if we're looking at things like equitable pole park space when it's

divided up really oddly. How does how does that really actually define um that part? Um I I'm trying to write all the Oh, and then um yes, I also agree with um looking into how we can take take advantages of popas um more. Um, I know we had this conversation when I had my briefing with you. If I could get away with getting more land by having like a multi- um multilevel um recreational facilities, I totally would, but I was told that that doesn't fly. I mean, I would love to get our park banned by having freaking pickle ball towers, but I see that that's not gonna that's not going to fly. Um so I guess so yes one yes two but I I would love to elevate um the biodiversity language to its own goal and um other than question three generally there I agree with most of my colleague actually I I I don't see anything I would oppose any of the um things that my colleagues have put in I don't know if you have I'm I'm hoping that you you kept track of what we need to straw poll on so you get clearer things and I think we are ready for said straw polling um if necessary. So if you can get started with that. All right, we're going to tag team here. We haven't debriefed amongst ourselves, so we're going to help each other out. Um I think there were some there was some clear consensus. One looking at the trail uh trail acres by planning area. We heard that from the majority of you.

Um and then going to council member Sho Walters looking at the vision. If you'll send us what you put together sounded like there was enough consensus to look at that. um which you incorporated the utilization of the city name with within such. Um I think where I would like uh consensus or clarity on from the council is the elevation of a biodiversity goal. I believe I heard uh two um council members reference that um and want to know if that is something um others are interested in. Council member Hicks.

So I would be interested in that especially if we could combine it with what so many residents said about elevating natural parks um which I think is overlapping but slightly different than biodiversity. Um, that's how I and then I would agree with it. All right. Shall we do a straw poll and let's clarify elevating? Okay. Let's um elevating uh biodiversity and natural parks as a separated goal. Um, Council Member Mallister, do you have any comments on this possible travel?

I just want to make comment on it. Uh, I'm going to vote no on it because we don't have a a plan. So, it's a little hard to say incorporated. So, once we get a plan, yeah, I'm all for it. But to do something early is I'll just say no. Why?

No worries. Um my understanding is that there because there are things here under uh the parks trail and open space and then there's items here relating to it's interesting because like if you break down the action items like the parks trails and open spaces had 19 actions. Biodiversity is inside that. So it feels like you could actually even out the actions too uh by separating it out. Um so I guess without any comment any more comments we're let's take a straw poll uh elevating uh biodiversity as a um as a separated goal um or

biodiversity yes bio biodiversity and natural parks um as was mentioned before all in favor please raise your hands Two, three, four, five, six. 61. Oh, wait. Actually, all oppose. Okay. One. And then all abstensions. So, 61.

So, another item that was coming up frequently and that has to do with the popas and looking for different ways to to look at um increasing park space. Um I think that would be more in the greater um context of updating chapter 41. Um so and I think there's a um director Murdoch and I talked earlier today um about how we look at this um goal or action um whether it's through both the the parks and rec strategic plan also it's part of the nexus study and some of the other work that CDD does um and so if if I can maybe look to I'll say broaden the idea of which is to look for opportunities to be creative within um creating partnerships with the development community such as POPA's update the POPA um ordinance and look for other opportunities um to create those types of new parks, new open spaces. I'd like to just make that a little more broad if that's okay with you.

Council member Mallister. So that there's a ratio. So would you be looking at the ratio to what they say is public and private and then try to because that's that's one of the deals where they they're allowed to do something right now. So that would require council action if a popo was to come forward or the the the ratio. Yeah. Yes. Correct. Okay. So that would be part of your review to say, hey, this that is correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh the straw poll is expanding out um some options for staff to look into popas and part of the update to chapter 41.

As part of the update to chapter 41. All in favor?

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Unanimous. Yay. All right. And then I do have one more that came up and that had to do with the friends groups. Um I think staff's going to have to think about that one a little bit. Um I am all for it. Um, creating friends groups also requires certain agreements with the city requires um, insurance and some other types of things that um, whether or not we have an umbrella foundation and then we can work underneath that to create those types of um, other types of friends groups. One of the um programs we're working on as part of the council work plan is the volunteer groups and bringing forward some ideas how we can do things differently. We are in the process of that um to also forward some of the ideas that you brought forward. Um if there's a specific desire to to do a straw poll on the idea of um friends groups, that's fine. But I think um we may have a little more work to do to to make that a little more overall encompassing. So I'll look for direction on that.

All right. So do uh all in favor please raise your hands. I'd like to clarify what we're voting on. [laughter] Whatever you said. Okay. Um so I would say to focus on the existing volunteer program update number one. Number two is to um look at opportunities to create some friends groups and possibly also incorporate that into the foundation work if there if one was to be created. Those are those are the two elements.

Before you continue, I do want to point out that the volunteer program is already an action item and looking at it in alignment with the council work plan. Um and so to slightly modify what director Marshant has noted is possibly looking at the action item that is related to looking at foundations to explore the friends of groups through that process and that's item 4.1.7. Sounds great. Um so is it a straw poll? Okay. I I think we understand where the okay the the desire okay

and what we heard from the group and I think there's there is consensus there we'll just try to put that and massage that a little bit more perfect all right any other straw polls not unless any of the other items that council members brought up we we missed. All right. Does everyone feel Oh, council member Sha Walter.

Yeah. I was wondering, did you include the um encourage um encourage uh swimming and um bike programs? That is something we can we can straw pull it. Yeah. All right. All in favor to include um the the program continue to encourage um uh learn to swim activities. Yeah. It's not like a new program. Correct. No. No. Okay. All right. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Unanimous.

All right. I think that's all the straw polls unless uh Council Member Hicks So, I liked what one of the residents said, and I tried to encompass it, but maybe not very much. The naming some of the um green and natural elements as actual amenities instead of only sort of equipment type stuff. Is that something we need to straw poll on or is that something you would just do?

I think that's something um of feedback in general that we've received that we'll look at incorporating um and we will um do that through this next iteration. Okay, sounds great with that. I think I think we're good. All right. Um, uh, there there's nothing else that we have. So, okay. Mayor to provide or ask staff for summary of majority council. Okay, we're good. We're good. So, that closes out our item for our parks and rec strategic plan draft review. Thank you so much, staff. Um, we are now on to our next item, council staff and committee reports. Any council staff and committee reports? Uh, council member Scho Walter. Yes, there was um a Bosa meeting last week and um for the first time in 25 years, you might have seen this in newspaper, the um the drought map for California doesn't show any areas of drought. This is um really quite something. Um it's uh it follows really three wet years and previous to that we had 12 dry years. So there's a lot of variation. Um we had a long discussion on the water demand study and this uh this is formally designed to provide all the member contractors with the information that they need for um for our water management demand I mean our wa urban water management plans which we're required to um submit to DWR and um the nature of the urban water management plans is basically for each city to say if we build out to the maximum that's allowed in our zoning, will we have enough water for it? And so

that's, you know, that's a very different view than um is that a realistic amount of our water demand. So there was a lot of discussion about kind of both of those viewpoints and um where Bosa should be planning because if you plan for the most possible you could ever use, you obviously have to have more water, you have to have more um uh sources and of supplies, all of those things. So, it's um it's a philosophical argument that we will continue to wrestle with. If anybody wants to talk to me about it, I would be glad to talk about it. Um also, we had a Silicon Valley clean energy meeting. It was um our January meeting was really our organizational meeting. So, we voted Larry Klene to be our chair and Sally Meadows to be our vice chair. We also appointed the executive committee and um we met on Friday and I was elected the chair of the executive committee.

So um that should be pay raise.

Yeah. Comes with right another another sandwich. Um and um we um I I wanted to announce to everybody that on February 20th we're having an event. You probably got a a notice from the the clerk about the opening of the um pond A2W project. And the thing that I think we're we're all going to have um the most fun with is that it includes a 1.2 mile extension of the Stevens Creek Trail into the bay. So, that means that my go-to exercise, which has been riding down to the end of the Stevens Creek Trail and back, is about to get 2.4 miles longer. But that's pretty cool. So, anyway, so I hope as many of you as possible can make it. Uh, that's uh um it'll be 10:00 a.m. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Shoalter. Council Member Mallister.

Yeah. as uh a newly appointed member of the California League of Cities Transportation Committee. We had a committee meeting up in Sacramento. I attended that. That was uh we were getting updates on various bills as it relates to transportation and funding. And so that was a a great ex, you know, get to see some people. I actually came across the mayor. We were sitting in the things so we go hi. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see the city manager and our former mayor, Alan Kame, hear their great speech on how to work together, but it was nice to meet with other city uh city officials to say what their transportation needs are. And the big thing that really came out of it was ebikes. Everybody was talking about how do we control ebikes? How do we get a handle on it? They were talking about people get the accidents that are all occurring and what's a legal bike, what's not, helmets and so forth. So, I know uh the CTC has been talked about it and actually the city leagues has a webinar. They had a webinar on it and so they brought in a lot of people. So, uh we'll keep you tuned on that because it's going to come here. I mean, just yesterday I thought I was going to get run over by a ebike on Stevens Creek Trail. So, but uh so that was nice to hear other people and they're working to get uh collaborations with best practices and so somewhere along the line when if we get to the point where we're going to talk about it, there's a lot of cities have already gone through the practice and will help us uh finetune our our policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Mallister. Council member Kame. Great. Thank you. Um, so as uh council member Mallister mentioned, city manager McCarthy and I got to participate in the annual uh League of California Cities, Mayors, and I think it's new council members um academy last week uh where we spoke about developing an effective city council and city manager team, the key to good governance and city success. Um, and I also wanted to put forward an item seven. I typically an item eight, but now tonight is an item seven. So, I don't know if I should wait until people are done with their reports and then I can circle back to myself. Mayor, if

you want to do that. I don't know if you have a report. I'm actually okay. Would you just

Okay, great. Okay. All right. Well, I'll put forward an item seven. Um so I just um wanted to see urge my colleagues support um you know in in light of recent events and I think what's coming in in two weeks which is a Super Bowl members of our community have I think asked probably all of us um what we're doing in terms of um safety protocols and I think it's an opportunity for us to once again reaffirm firm being a community for all. And so I would ask for um two items. Um one at information on our website. We have um our our FanFest page, but it would be a really great opportunity for us to put on safety protocols and how we're we're protecting our community um and and different resources. I think it'd also be an opportunity, the second item for an offag agenda memo for to council on what's being done to support our community. I know that our police chief is very much in touch with many of our um community partners, our nonprofit groups, but um not everyone is connected to those organizations or those groups. And so I think it would be um really great for us to have that information so that we might be able to pass it on and make sure that we're also have that information to pass on in other languages. I know that that there might be, you know, quite a bit of focus on those um who may be um undocumented or immigrants, but we also have those who are green card holders um here on H-1B visas. And so it' be I think everyone would probably be interested in those resources. So ask if uh colleagues would be supportive of that as an item seven tonight. Thank you. So there's two ask.

There's two asks.

Oh, go. Okay. Um, so one ask is to update the fanfest page um to include information and resources as um this is a a big event that's coming to our general area. Um and there has been seen as increase in um activity uh that many people have found concerning uh in our immigrant communities. And so to have to provide some information on our our FanFest page and then also to another another vote. we're going to do too um on an offag agenda memo um to see what our city is doing in response to some federal actions relating to immigration and their agencies relating to that. So we'll go with the first uh vote um which is the updating of the fanfest page. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven. Woo. Um that is unanimous. All right. And then we have the second one, which is the off agenda memo. Um, all in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Great. Congratulations, Council M. Unanimous on both counts. Um, next we have Council Member Hicks. So as you all may remember we reconstituted our senior advisory committee and I'm also the liaison to Avanidas that serves our senior community. Um I have uh Nirvano Nokadu who is on the senior advisory committee and I have taken up visiting the various locations of Avanas. Um, and so we recently visited the Chinese Community Center. Really worth a visit in my opinion. I don't

know how many people may have ever gone. I had never gone before. It's an extremely active community center. It's at the the Cubberly in PaloAlto. Um, but it gets participants as far coming from as far as Fresno and San Francisco once a week. Fresno in San Francisco and also virtually from places like um London and so forth um because it it offers a lot of very rare senior programs in uh Cantonese and Mandarin and um very active with an art show and um and uh singing and language and um yeah they would they would welcome welcome any visitors.

Wonderful. Um, I have some updates. I also went to Sacramento for I am on a Cal's policy committee. I'm on the governance, transparency, and labor relations commit committee. We got some reports on the AI coalition. Um, and uh, a lot of discussion about civility and safety issues for elected officials. Um, I'm very happy where I'm out of view because we don't have a lot of those issues. Um, they also went over some of the changes with the Brown Act and and more advocacy relating to that to make things um, manageable for cities as the state uh, does a lot of changes to the Brown Act. Um, and some cities are are struggling adjusting to those changes. Um, I also went to the AAG meeting um, on the 15th. I I was I'm well I'll get to that update. I am the alternate in a bag. Um and they went over um mostly the the only action item that they had that day was um selecting the members for the advisory board. Um and so that was that was nice. Um I did the city's association meeting the um selection committees uh which is usually sat on by mayors. Um, so the new we have two new ABA uh representatives uh Rob Moore from um Loscatos and um Dan Fertado from uh Campbell. Um and congratulations to me and Council Member Clark. We are both alternates now to the AAG. Um and uh Council Member Clark also became an alternate for I don't I don't even remember

SV R I A [laughter] Um, and also they also voted on um the air quality district uh rep for the city's association and that went to council member Linda Cell from uh Sunnyville. I I can't recall the exact name of it. I just remember the initials pretty much spell as bad. Um it's like B A D. I Yeah.

Yeah. Bay Area Air District. They dropped the queue. Um, and so, uh, with that, we move on to adjournment. Tonight, we are adjourning the meeting in honor of city employee Leon Rosario, who passed away in December 2025. Leon worked for the city for nearly 17 years, starting in community services as an hourly laborer, eventually rising to the position of a postclosure environmental systems specialist in the public works department. Leon cared deeply about the Mountain View community. Over the last few years, he spearheaded efforts with students at Alta Vista High School in Mountain View to introduce them to careers and public works through presentations, career fairs, and conducting mock interviews. He shared his background and job responsibilities with students and offered advice on how they could succeed in a similar career path. Leon also worked tirelessly for days and weeks in a row to make repairs at the closed landfill during emergency situations. He even holds the wastewater sections record for the most sewage sewer pipe repairs made in one day. He was a wonderful co-orker motivated in everything he did, always willing to barbecue at city events and share his pride and knowledge about the landfill. Leon will be remembered for his infectious smile, sense of humor, generosity, strong work ethic, and dedication to his family job, and the city organization. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones. I'll also note that uh we um uh some of us went to his many of our city staff went to his uh memorial service this past weekend, including uh council member Kame and uh the city manager. Um so he will be dearly missed. Our next council meeting

will be held on February 10th, 2026. This meeting is adjourned at 230033 and and that means uh 11:33 and we are adjourned.