All right.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for joining us for our closed session.

City Attorney Lowe will make a closed session announcement.

And then we welcome public comment on the item listed for closed session.

Good evening, Vice Mayor, Mayor, and Council members.

There's one item on this evening's closed session agenda.

Item 2.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding one item of anticipated litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9d2.

Great, thank you.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda?

I am not seeing any in person or virtually.

So I will close public comment and we will recess to the plaza conference room for closed session and return to the council chambers at the close to continue to the regular session at 6 30.

Alright, good evening, everyone.

Thank you for your patience.

Welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community Meeting of October 14th, 2025.

Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilmember Clark?

Here.

Councilmember Hicks.

Here.

Councilmember McAllister.

Here.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Councilmember Show Walter?

Vice Mayor Ramos?

Here.

Mayor Kameh here.

Thank you, you have a quorum.

Great.

So we'll move on to item two, our closed session report.

City Attorney Log, do you have a closed session report?

No reportable action was taken in closed session this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we'll move on to item three, our presentations.

Please note these are presentation items only.

The city clerk, the city council will not take any action.

Public comment will occur after the presentation items.

If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

And so I will um head down to the podium for our first.

It's item 3.1, our compassion week proclamation.

All right, and tonight we are joined by Yvonne Murray, Compassion Week co-chair.

So I'll invite her up to accept the proclamation.

Hi.

Hi.

All right.

Yeah, we got to do the kickoff together.

All right.

And the proclamation reads whereas the city of Mountain View is a community that embraces, promotes, and values compassion.

And whereas the City of Mountain View appreciates the acts of compassion performed by community-based organizations, nonprofit agencies, and individuals every day to foster a kinder and more connected community.

And whereas the vision of Compassion Week is to build a strong, compassionate, and empathetic community that bridges divides by creating service and learning opportunities for individuals to expand their understanding of local and global needs.

And whereas all members of the Mountain View community, regardless of age, background, education, gender, religious beliefs, lifestyle, ability, or skills, were invited to contribute their talents and energy to participate in Compassion Week projects and activities and help make Mountain View a more caring and kind community.

Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do recognize and celebrate this past week that we just had of October 4th through October 12th as compassion week.

And so I just wanted to present that to you.

And then um wanted to invite you to say a few words if you'd like.

Okay, wonderful.

I would just say that we really appreciate both the city council, but more importantly, we would appreciate all of the uh people in Mountain View that helped make Compassion Week meaningful and help contribute to our thriving community.

Thank you.

Of course.

And so I'll just um add a little bit more because I think the compassion week got to kick it off at our plaza in front of City Hall.

And there was, I think, over what, a hundred projects that people could participate in.

And the city of Mountain View, we invited all residents to unite and service to our community through participation in the activities, and want to thank all the sponsors of Compassion Week, namely our Los Atos Mountain View Community Foundation, the Fremont Bake Mountain View Branch, Great House Family Foundation, and the Los Autos United Methodist Church for their efforts to bring community members together and service and offer thanks to our other sponsors of Compassion Week and every community-based organization, nonprofit agency, faith community, individuals who strengthen our city and improve the lives of our neighbors.

So we will stand back here and we can take a picture with all of our colleagues.

So let's give a round of applause for our compassion rate.

Thank you.

All right.

Item 3.2 is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

We're happy to be joined this evening by Sabana Unsahri, legal advocacy coordinator for my tree to accept this proclamation.

If you want to come up, all right.

And your proclamation reads whereas October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a nationwide effort to raise awareness about the prevalence of domestic violence, its impact on communities, and the need for support and prevention efforts.

And whereas domestic violence is not limited to any one group and can take many forms, including emotional, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse or sorry, economic abuse.

And whereas, although progress has been made toward preventing and ending domestic violence and providing support to survivors and their families, important work remains to be done.

And whereas Domestic Violence Awareness Month provides an excellent opportunity for residents to learn more about preventing domestic violence and to show support for numerous organizations and individuals who provide critical advocacy services and assistance to victims.

Therefore, I, Ellen Kame, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as domestic violence awareness month in the city of Mountain View and encourage our residents to work together to eliminate domestic violence in our community.

All right.

Let me present this to you.

And would you like to say a few words?

Wonderful.

I promise I'd be great.

Good evening, everyone.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and everyone here.

My name is Shabana Ansari, and I'm a resident of Mountain View.

I represent Maitri, it's domestic violence organization based in Santa Clara County, devoted to serving victims and survivors of domestic violence since 1991.

And I would like to take a few moments to talk about the issues of domestic violence that is pervasive in our homes, cities, state, country, and all over the world.

October is nationally celebrated as domestic violence awareness month.

Today I stand here as an advocate for victims and survivors of domestic violence to commemorate domestic violence awareness month, and I thank City of Mountain View for recognizing this proclamation.

Research shows that one in four women, 24.3%, and one in seven men, 13.8%, aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

Intimate partner violence or domestic violence is exist in all communities, irrespective of culture, religion, sexual orientation, financial status, or immigration realities.

Domestic violence is the third leading cause of homelessness among families in the United States.

Research also informs us about the lasting negative impact on children growing up in a household experiencing and witnessing domestic violence.

California has higher rates of domestic violence experienced by both men and women, when compared to the national average.

There were 124 domestic violence-related homicides in California in 2024, of which 93 of the fatalities were female and 32 were male.

Last year, Maitri provided culturally responsive services to 814 individuals.

Organizations around California served more than 57,000 individuals with life-saving support services within Santa Clara County, hailing more than 8,000 survivors who reached out alone.

The need for a comprehensive plan to address domestic violence in our communities is urgent, and we thank the city of Mountain View for providing much-needed assistance in many areas as well as request to step up the effort.

I request the city council and the residents of Mountain View to become partners with us in preventing domestic violence and facilitating effective intervention methods if it happens.

Here are a few things that I'm suggesting we are suggesting, create a supportive environment for everyone to seek out information and service related to relationship abuse, demand curriculum and practices that uplift healthy relationships at every educational level and professional spaces.

Enact and support policies that address intersectional approach to addressing domestic violence, homelessness, pay equity, reproductive rights, poverty, banning child marriages, to name a few.

Support funding for domestic violence services provided at the federal, state, county, and city levels, we all know what's all going around with funding everywhere.

Rethink law enforcement responses to crisis situation with special focus on stopping brutality against people of color and training on domestic violence, evaluate and improve language access at city facilities.

Offer training on cultural responsiveness to various local government employees and agencies, and involve non-governmental organizations as thought partners while planning city activities and uplift the voices of the minority groups wherever possible is they lack representation committees and other policy making spaces.

On behalf of Maitri, I really thank each and every one of UN City.

Thank you.

Sure.

Yes.

Alright, and we have one last proclamation tonight.

It's United Against Hate Week, and we're happy to be joined this evening by Nancy Ducos, our senior community outreach coordinator for the city's multicultural engagement program.

So Nancy, come on up.

All right.

And the proclamation reads, whereas the city of Mountain View stands for diversity, inclusion, and respect for all, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any characteristic.

And whereas we reject hate, discrimination, and violence, aiming for a prejudice-free community.

And whereas we collectively promote acceptance, respect, tolerance, and unity, enabling residents to live, work, and thrive without fear.

And whereas united, we strengthen and celebrate our city's rich tapestry of cultures and perspectives.

And whereas the city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial equity and justice as it strives to be a welcome and inclusive community for all, where every resident can live, work and flourish without fear of hatred.

And whereas we support the California versus hate coalition's mission to combat hate, prejudice, and intolerance, such as xenophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Muslim hatred, and other bigoted views by emboldened hate groups and individuals and intolerance from our communities, and encourages communities to report hate incidents to the California versus hate hotline.

And whereas the city of Mountain View seeks to join other communities in the Bay Area, California, and across the country in observing United Against Hate Week and sending a resounding message that we are united in our resolution in our resolve to combat hate and promote acceptance.

And whereas we call upon all residents, businesses, schools, and organizations to unite against hate, join events, champion inclusivity, tolerance, and unity.

And whereas we urge our community members to report any hate incidents to the California versus hate hotline at 833-8 NOHATE, or online at CA versus hate.org in order to combat hate effectively and promote a safer environment and community for all.

Now, therefore I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council to hereby proclaim the week of October 19th through October 27, 2025, and each and every day beyond as United Against Hate Week.

Nancy, would you like to say a few words?

Good evening, everybody.

Buenas noches.

On behalf of the City Multicultural Engagement Program, I am here today to accept this proclamation.

Through the city MEP program, we celebrate our communities' diversity and bring people together as a community for all.

The MEP program builds bridges between city government and residents, including English learners.

It is through this program that the city offers civic leadership academies for Spanish and Chinese speaking residents, facilitate translations and interpretation services, and host multicultural events like the upcoming Dia de Muertos celebration on Saturday, November 1st.

One of our city partners, stop API hate, is unavailable to be with us in person today.

However, they say they are very much with us in spirit as we stand united against hate in all its forms.

The latest State of Hate report for California found that nearly half, 48% of Asian American and Pacific Islander adults in our state experience some form of hate due to their race, ethnicity, or nationality in 2024.

This is a sovereign reminder that our work is far from over.

Here in Mountain View, we are united against hate and working together to build a safer, more inclusive community.

Muchas gracias.

We will now take public comment on the presentation items.

Would any member of the oh, sorry, would any member of the council like to say a few words?

Councilmember Hicks.

I'm just gonna say briefly for all three of the proclamations.

I found it in this kind of time that um of national discord that many people are feeling.

I know my neighbors and I talk about it a lot.

I thought it was refreshing to have all three of these proclamations tonight.

Um let me see if I can sum them up against hate, against violence, I guess domestic or otherwise, and for compassion.

I feel like that's something we especially need right now.

So thank you all.

I agree, thank you.

Councilmember Schwalter.

Yes, um, you said it very well.

I also wanted to add that um for compassion week, um, it wasn't just uh projects, which was a great idea to have volunteer projects, but I also attended a lecture on um the impact of ice in Mountain View, and um it was uh it brought together a lot of people who were interested in getting the information and also kind of wanting to talk about how they might help.

So I just wanted to um say thank you for the uh Compassion Week organizers for for thinking about that education component as well.

Great, thank you.

Uh we'll now take public comment for the presentation items.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue spear card to the assistant city clerk.

I'm not seeing any in-person public comment.

So I will um turn it over to virtual April Mac.

You can just hit the unmute button if this is for public comment on proclamations.

Alright, we'll we'll move on.

Um, we'll move on to the 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 approval of the balance of the consent calendar.

If you'd like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

Would any member of the council like to pull an item?

Councilmember Schwalter.

I don't want to pull an item, but I just would like to comment on a few.

Is it okay if I just go for it?

All right.

Well, well, um, uh there's always a lot of work behind these uh um consent calendar items.

So I think it's good to just recognize that.

And um item 4.2 was modification of the funding for the Linda Vista and Lot 12 Affordable Housing Projects.

This represents important progress on the Lot 12 project, as well as realistic transfer of funds from one project to another to make our current affordable housing program work better.

And I want to thank the staff of the city and Alta Housing for working out this deal for us.

Um and 4.3, it's a temporary rent waiver for Silicon Shores, um uh the shoreline boathouse kitchen expansion.

We are rebuilding the kitchen at the cafe out there, and while that's going on, um, a special arrangement has been made so that the uh owner of the business can continue to do business, but instead of doing it in the kitchen, which is under construction, which obviously won't be available, they came up with the innovative idea of using food trucks on site.

So I think it's um it's it's cool that they're uh being so innovative.

Uh thanks for thinking of that.

And then we always have several things related to infrastructure.

Uh we have um an addendum to the regional water quality control board plant basic agreement, and also um a completion uh construction notice on our water and sanitary sewer main replacement that crosses 101.

I um know from having worked in water for a long long time that um these uh projects are very complicated.

They um take coordination along um you know many agencies as well as contractors, and so um our staff deserves a big pat on the back for getting them finished, and thank you very much for doing that.

And then also um acceptance uh this one is with the police department acceptance and um appropriation of $75,000 for an office of traffic safety selective traffic enforcement um program grant.

This will help enhance our enforcement training and education to reduce DUIs, and DUIs are a big source of the collisions and uh injuries that happen in Mountain View um traffic.

So uh reducing that number uh will improve the safety of all of us.

So thank you.

Great, thank you.

Councilmember McAllister.

I had I just had a question on uh 4.3.

Okay, 4.3.

The silicon shores, yeah.

We can ask that now about pulling the item.

So let's see, the boathouse expansion is that public or is that we have our public works director here.

Okay.

Have a specific question about the project.

So I do.

Well, it's actually about the lease.

So okay.

What maybe you can ask the question and then the appropriate staff will make their way down once they know the question.

Okay, so we're waiving the the lease or the whole entire uh business down there, but they have actually two separate uh departments.

One is food and one is the the boathouse and the leasing of equipment and so forth.

And I can see with the the restaurant being totally shut down, we could wave the remote.

The other one provides uh they charge 10% uh of that.

So why did we waive the items that are not under construction that they're still able to still operate and uh therefore we're had the potential of collecting more, you know, some rent from that project.

Good evening, Jennifer Ing, Public Works Director.

So thank you for the question.

Councilmember McAllister.

Uh the simple answer is that we have a lease with Silicon Shows Shores, and that lease requires reporting of gross receipts across a multitude of revenue categories, yes, but we only look at it sort of on a gross basis, and so the two um businesses are interconnected with with respect to that.

We also feel that with the impact of construction on the kitchen uh facility, um, it's expected that the number of patrons that would be coming out uh to visit and utilize the um the water uh the water um what's the word I went?

The water features that are out there that they can avail themselves to um will be diminished and so um in the aspect of just uh total fairness to the tenant who has been a great tenant uh for the city.

We are recommending uh full waiver.

Do you have uh thank you for that answer?

Do you have uh any idea how much that uh water facilities and boats have they generate?

Um, yeah, I have that breakdown back in the office, but I don't have that with me right now.

Okay, you can get that.

Thank you for that's all I have.

Okay, great, thank you.

Uh 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 in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We'll take in-person first, but I'm not seeing any.

So we'll move to virtual speakers.

Um each speaker will have three minutes.

So it's a phone number 408 ending in 897.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi, my name is April Mack.

I tried to join virtually on Zoom, but I had to call in.

I couldn't unmute.

I'm sorry.

Oh, no problem.

Were you trying to comment on the proclamations or we're in um the consent calendar now?

Correct.

Yeah, I had a couple of problems with the phone.

I'm so sorry.

Um, is there a way that I can make comment about those or no?

Yes.

So I was calling I was coming to the meeting.

I'm not a resident of Mountain View.

My mother is.

Just recently moved there about three months ago.

Um last week, I had the unfortunate uh confrontation with Mountain View PD as well as the ordinance, I guess, for oversized vehicles.

And this is just basically touching on compassion week as well as you know, violence or domestic or non-domestic.

It could just be, you know, mutual violence, like councilwoman has stated earlier.

And then also hate.

So I was arrested.

Me and my employee, I run a food truck as well as I feed the homeless hot dogs for homeless is our nonprofit program.

Name my food truck is my most place.

I pulled up at my mother's um to unload.

I came out officers outside.

Um I was assaulted, arrested for something that in essence I should have just been given, I guess, a ticket on my vehicle and a 72-hour notice.

I I see you guys have ordinances there now.

Like I say, I'm not a resident.

I was just simply stopping by.

But all of this happened to me Monday, and I thought I took the proper steps to try to get in front of someone to talk about it, but I'm having a couple issues with you guys police department there.

Um, so I just wanted to ask the mayor if possibly someone can investigate that for me, or uh, you know, what channels I could take.

We're not able to comment on your your public comment, but we uh we'll be able to you can reach out to our city clerk, um, and they can they can follow up with you.

It's just city.clerk at Mountainview.gov.

Thank you.

I really appreciate it.

Of course.

Thank you.

Thanks for calling back in.

You guys have a great night.

You too.

No problem.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that concludes public comment on our consent calendar.

So I'll bring the item back for council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached to the consent calendar items 4.2 and 4.7.

We have a motion by council member Hicks.

Yes.

So I'm making a motion to adopt the entire consent calendar, including item number 4.2, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, rescinding appropriation of six million eight hundred thousand dollars from the city's below market rating loo fees fund and three, two hundred dollars from the city's local housing trust fund to the 1012 Linda Vista Affordable Housing Project, less any eligible expenses incurred to date, and returning all remaining funds to their originating account to be read in title only further reading waived.

And adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, uh number one, reducing the appropriation of six million three hundred thousand from the city's below market rate in Lou fee fund to the lot twelve affordable housing project by three million two hundred dollars and two, reducing the appropriation of five million nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars from the city's housing impact fees fund to the lot twelve affordable housing project by two million six hundred and forty-three thousand three hundred twenty-seven dollars and three appropriating three million two hundred thousand dollars from the city's local housing trust fund, uh one million eight hundred sixty-two thousand and fifty-six dollars in home investment partnership program grant funds and seven hundred and eighty-one thousand, two hundred and seventy-one dollars in home American rescue plan program grant funds to the lot twelve affordable housing project to be read in title only for the reading waived.

Also, adopt item 4.7, which is a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View authorizing temporary closure from public access of up to six parking spaces with parking lot number seven for up to 60 days to be read in title only, further reading waived.

All right, and that was seconded by councilmember Show Walter.

So let's vote.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

We'll move on to item five, oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during the section.

State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items.

If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

Would any of the member of the public joining us virtually on person like to provide comment?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We'll take in-person speakers first, and each speaker will have three minutes.

So I have Dylan Rich, Dennis Goldwater, and then Daniel Holsey.

So we'll begin with Dylan.

Why don't you wait?

Because then the timer I think is it right here.

And then you'll get the bell at 3 A.

Just want to make sure you're prepared.

Alright, so we'll start the timer.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is uh Dylan Rich.

I'm the director at Palo Alto Prep School.

Uh first off, I'd like to say thank you to the city manager, city attorney, uh, council members.

I know you guys all have uh very hard jobs and a lot of decisions to make.

I really appreciate you your great.

It's a great city.

I was born and raised here as a child, and I work here.

Um, and it is a really good city.

Um what I'm uh bringing up is really uh something to call to your attention.

Um I spoke uh in the previous council meeting, um, and I'm talking about the sight lines um that our kids have to deal with when navigating uh independence and window street.

Um and so what I have up there you can see wind-out going left to right and independence uh up and down there.

Um we're located over on the left side there across from uh midwife and the baker shout out, they're really good.

You guys should go there.

Um can I have a next slide, please?

Um so I took a picture, this was from Monday here on a biker's perspective, turning left onto independence, which is where some of our students would travel to go get lunch, maybe over at um Costco, McDonald's, um, even down the street further.

Um, and this doesn't quite do it justice because this is me walking in the crosswalk.

I put a little red dot there.

Um they would be a few feet back, but turning left there, you can kind of see there's a wall of RVs, and understandably they're blocking off a lot of the inside of the um RVs because they want privacy, but it doesn't allow for people to see through, and it basically creates a wall for not being able to see, so it's kind of a you have to enter into the traffic, and you can't make a good decision on whether someone's speeding or things like that.

I have an eight-year-old who I'm teaching to bike, and I try and teach him to be aware of the cars as like if there's someone in the car, they might open the door suddenly.

So you have to be aware of that.

Um they can't make a decision until the last minute coming across here, making a left turn here.

If I could go to the next slide, you can see a better picture of it.

Um, so you can see the wall that's up there of uh RVs.

It's a little bit worse today because there's another RV right where that car is.

Um, so it's hard to see through that.

Could I have the next slide?

Uh walking across independence.

This is me a couple feet into there, and you really can't see on that left side there.

Um, that's really just a couple feet.

I only got 40 seconds, so can I go to the next slide?

Um, you can get a better view there of not being able to see an oncoming car.

Um, can I go to the next slide, please?

This is the point where you'd have to walk into the street.

That's about 10 feet inward before you can actually see oncoming cars.

So you have to go that far into the road in order to see an oncoming car.

Um, next slide.

That's just a better view of it.

Uh taking a wide shot there.

Um, so this is just uh a safety hazard that I want to bring to your attention.

Um so I appreciate your guys' time.

Thank you very much.

And I did it with five seconds left.

Thank you.

Alright, let's see.

Dennis Goldwater, Daniel Holsey, then Brad Bulmer.

Hello, Dennis Goldwater.

I walked the Moffat Street entrance to the Stevens Creek Trail most days.

I want to talk about the new Ameswell Hotel Bridge.

I would think that the most important guidelines for the new bridge would be to ensure that it matches the theme followed by all other bridges along the trail and that it does not negatively impact the experience of trail users.

The city does not agree and seems to have exhibited a lack of foresight and a lack of oversight.

The bridge itself is fine.

However, there's a new 10-foot path connecting the trail to the bridge.

The path contains a wall, as do all bridges on the trail.

All other bridge walls follow a consistent, thoughtful theme, completely ignored by the new bridge.

First, for all other bridges, the wall from the bridge does not extend all the way to the trail.

They begin several feet off the trail so that no wall is visible from the trail until people are almost at the bridge.

For the new bridge, the wall is visible from hundreds of yards away.

Furthermore, because the trail bends at that area, when viewed from a distance, the wall appears to cut across the trail.

The wall reduces the previous beautiful trail view of several hundred yards by half from one direction and eliminates the view entirely from the other direction.

Second, for all other walls connecting to bridges, the walls are very short, about three feet long.

Many are longer than that, but any part of a wall longer than three feet is no more than a foot above the ground.

At the three foot point, the walls rise quickly, almost all to a height well below my hips.

The new wall extends onto the trail itself and is very close to shoulder height.

Third, all other walls have the same design.

Tasteful, well-crafted stone walls.

The new wall is tasteless, ugly, cheap-looking concrete.

And in you in our face blight on the city.

Does the city really think that most people will not notice and will not mind seeing an ugly concrete wall blocking the previous beautiful view of nature?

Does the city not care that the new bridge wall ignores the well-thought-out themes followed by all other bridges?

I would like to see the ugly wall removed.

Replace it with a wall like all others on the trail.

Short in length, low in height, made of stone, not easily visible from the trail.

Please replace this eyesore.

Don't lower standards at the expense of trail users.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Daniel.

So I'm just here to say thank you for two big projects that uh got just about complete this summer.

Right here in the view.

First one being uh the uh El Camino Real uh pavement project, which got us uh bike lanes on El Camino Real.

Uh if you told me before this project happened that I would be able to bike on this road and it would be totally fine.

I would not have believed you, it's a great project.

Other project is the California Street uh Complete Streets uh pilot.

Uh took that over here.

I live on the end of California.

Uh great bike lane, very happy with it.

Um, you know, I've got some time on my hands.

I wanted to just say thank you for these and thank you for you know all the things that come after it, too.

All right, thank you.

Brad.

Good evening, council members.

I'm I'm here tonight to speak about on behalf of the residents living at Wismouth Station.

Um, people who have endured years of relentless noise from the VTA trains.

Right.

Um, you know, and the council, while this council has basically stood by and sat on the sidelines.

We first raised this issue more than two years ago.

Right.

Since then we've seen signs from most of you with one exception, and that's John.

We really appreciate your help there.

What do we need?

We need the rest of you to get involved, right?

We're done waiting.

You guys have been a wall for our neighborhood.

We've suffered relentless noise changes.

It's gone up and up and up.

And we're tired of it.

We're done waiting.

We're demanding action.

We engaged with you over two years ago.

Nothing's changed, right?

You need to get involved.

You need to press the BTA.

You need to work with the CPUC to get the problem solved.

We ask for seven things.

A quiet zone, an immediate action to get a quiet zone between Central Express and Bay Shore and NASA.

Eliminate train horns at stations and crossings.

Reduce or silence crossing bells.

Install noise barriers or soundproofing along the tracks, regular maintenance of noisy trains.

Adopt quieter training technology and create a neighborhood committee with real authority to review and approve any VTA changes because they keep changing on us.

They keep raising, and this needs to stop.

You guys gotta get involved.

You have to press them.

These are reasonable and actionable and overdue measures.

We deserve peace and accountability.

We need our neighborhood back, right?

It's time for the council to stop ignoring RISM and start solving the problems.

Thank you.

That concludes in-person public comment.

Yes.

Oh, Brad, before you go, sir.

Oh, he knows.

Oh, okay.

This is for council.

Oh, okay.

Councilmember Calcer has an update for us.

Okay.

Yeah, um tomorrow, as it turns out to be, that the chief operating officer of VTA will be meeting me and Brad and Public Works Director and other concerned citizens at the Wisman Station tomorrow to address their concerns.

So we are stepping up our action.

And we are grateful that the chief operating officer is actually gonna be out here, not somebody else.

So we are looking into it and see what we can get this resolved, and it's been going on for a long time.

So hopefully we get some constructive uh action taken care of.

Did you want to share the time?

Uh, well, they know it's 11 30.

Okay, okay.

Just for colleagues or okay.

Okay, great, thank you.

Those of us who are recused for participating because they live in the neighborhood, appreciate you.

All right.

Um, thank you.

Um we'll move on to seeing no other public comment.

We'll move on to item six, which is public hearings.

Item 6.1, exterior alterations on historic structure 484 Loreto Street.

Would any council members like to make disclosures?

All right, not seeing any.

I will move on to the staff presentation.

Principal planner Diana Pancholi will present the item.

If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

Thank you, and good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Diana Pincholi, principal planner with the city's planning division, and I'm joined here tonight um by our assistant community development director, Amber Blazinski.

The item in front of you tonight is a historic preservation permit request to allow exterior alterations to an existing historic structure at Ford for Loreto Street.

The point one four acre project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection between Bush Street and Loreto Street.

The site is currently developed with a one-story historic residential building with a detached garage.

The general plan designation is low density residential, and the site is located in the R1 single family residential zoning district.

The surrounding uses are one-story single-family residential dwellings to the east and the south, and multifamily residential dwellings to the west and the north.

To provide some background, the property is currently listed on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.

City retained a historic consultant, Paige and Turnbull, as part of our ongoing work to update the city's historic preservation ordinance, including a citywide survey of historic resources.

As part of this work, Paige and Turnbull prepared a historic resource assessment for this property, confirming the eligibility of the existing single-family home for the state and national registers under criterion C/3-C as a notable and forced in the development example of mission revival architectural build within the stylistically diverse Palmita Park Subdivision during the 1920s.

The project is before the council tonight as our city code requires properties that are eligible for the California and National Historic Registers to be reviewed by the City Council to determine substantial compliance with the U.S.

Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties.

As mentioned previously, the city is in the process of updating the historic preservation ordinance, which will take into consideration how minor modifications which have no impact on the historic significance of a structure may be reviewed and approved in the future.

City Council could consider removing the council review requirements for such single-family residential modifications as a policy change as part of the historic preservation ordinance update or as part of other efforts to update the city code.

Staff will bring the historic preservation ordinance update back to the council for direction on several items, including the above-mentioned process modifications tentatively scheduled for December 9, 2025, and for final ordinance adoption in 2026.

Now a little bit about the project scope.

It consists for a request of a historic preservation permit to allow exterior modifications to the existing single-family residence.

The proposed modifications include modifications to the openings on the rear facade of the residence, construction of a wood deck at the north elevation, and addition of a new openings at the east end of the detached garage.

For compliance analysis of projects like these involving historic buildings, one of the four sets of standards is selected from the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Given the scope of this project, the standards for rehabilitations were selected.

These standards allow changes to the building while ensuring its historic character is retained.

The compliance analysis concludes that the proposed project would not result in an adverse change to the historic resource and minimizes impacts to the physical characteristics of the historic resource that convey its historic character.

The proposed project would also not result in any adverse change to the historic resource and minimizes visual impacts to the character defining features or physical characteristics of the historic resource that convey its historical significance.

Additionally, the proposed project preserves the residence's primary character defining feature, including the overall massing, stucco cladding, pedimented gables, and all street facing fenestration.

Alterations are limited to the north elevation and east end of the detached garage, which are not visible from the public right-of-way.

The proposed project is compatible in scale and materials and sufficiently differentiated from the original construction.

As a result, the project will allow the historic home to continue to express the features, design, and context that makes it significant for its mission revival architecture.

For these reasons, as mentioned just now, and with the support from the compliance analysis memo, staff recommends finding that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources.

In conclusion, the proposed project will not result in any substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource, maintains and enhances the appearance of the community, and is in the compliance substantial compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a historic preservation permit pursuant to the conditions of approval attached to the council report, and find that this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Equality Act, pursuant to Section 15331 for historic resource and restoration rehabilitation.

This concludes staff presentation.

I would like to note that staff, including Community Development Director Murdoch, is present here tonight for any council questions.

I believe the project applicant is also present here tonight and has prepared a brief statement.

Okay, well why don't if the applicant has the brief statement that maybe we should do that and then um we can go into questions, and the council may have questions for staff or for you if that's all right.

Okay, wonderful.

Welcome.

Yeah, welcome.

Thanks for uh your attention on this matter.

Really appreciate your your time and uh attention again.

Um so um that's actually all I want to say have to say at this point.

I'm open for questions, and um yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thanks for joining us.

All right.

So does um any member of the council have any questions?

I am not seeing any.

That's good news.

So, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on any item on the um or sorry, on this item.

Sorry, I was reading that.

Um if so, please click the raise hand button or submit a blue speaker card.

I am not seeing any.

So we'll take the item back for council questions and deliberation.

Please note that a motion approved the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report.

Councilmember Hicks.

Um, so before we go to Council Member Hicks, I just want to say there is a motion to approve by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Vice Mayor Ramos, and in the queue to speak is Councilmember Hicks.

So I will be supporting the motion to approve.

Um, I just wanted to thank the applicant and the staff for the work they did on this, and um say that it's uh it's an issue that's important to me.

I live in Old Mountain View, although far enough away from you that I don't have to be recused from this particular uh agenda item.

But I know that a lot of my neighbors and probably yourself and your neighbors, it's in part the history of the neighborhood that drew us to the neighborhood.

Um, and it's also uh one of the things I think that gives our city a sense of place and a sense of community, and certainly um, you know, I think it's not only the people living there close by who appreciate the sense of history, but um, you know, legislation is far flung as from Sacramento as SB 79, which is an upzoning uh measure, recognizes that we need to add housing and upzone, but we also need to protect our historic places and sense of character.

So I think it's widely recognized.

All that said, um, uh I think that we could streamline the process, particularly when you're I'm I'm glad that staff reports that this has improved the compatibility of the project.

But when you're working with the backyard and things like that, I think we could I look forward to streamlining it.

And I also look forward to any engagement you might have with how with how it might be streamlined, what was helpful, what was not.

Um, so I look forward to that entire process.

Um, and in addition to that, I do want to note for people that although the process was longer, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, you do did get more development opportunity in terms of grandfather den setbacks that I know other architects I've I know who've worked with properties in Mountain View, have had problems expanding because their setbacks were not, their house was not historic and their setbacks were not grandfathered down, if I'm using the right terms.

Okay, I am good.

Um, so um, yeah, thank you for being patient with us in going through this before we've streamlined the process, but any feedback you might have, but I think what you're doing is important, and any feedback you might have would be welcome with that.

I um I will be supporting the motion to approve.

Thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you Mayor I'm going to move to approve the staff recommendations including adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving a historic preservation permit to construct exterior modifications to the rear facade of an existing one story one thousand eight hundred and twenty one square foot historic single family residence with a basement and detached garage on a 0.14 acre site located at four eight four Laredo Street APN one five eight three zero zero six zero and finding that the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only for the reading of two.

Great thank you Councilmember Showalter.

Yeah I'm really pleased that this is going forward and I I just had a uh wanted to make sure I understood one thing that I think you said in the presentation and that was that basically the historic evaluation that the consultant did was paid for by the city.

Now would that normally be the case or was that because we were have we're you know you're in the process of developing the historical ordinance or how does that work because I really thought that was very good because uh you know if you didn't have a historic um building you wouldn't have to incur that as a cost.

Thank you for the question Diana Pancholi principal planner so just want to clarify the historic assessment that was done by Paige and Turnbull established that the subject property has a significance and is eligible to be on California our national register once that has we know about that fact and the applicant came in for the project alterations or I should say exterior alterations the applicant has to prepare the report but our same consultant um prepared the report uh specifically for this project um and presented it so the applicant submitted the report so they bear the cost.

I think just to clarify so the report that the applicant is providing us is the report that tells us that the changes that they want to make to their property do not create any you know maintain that historic integrity.

And how how elaborate is that is that you know a three page report a 10 page report how how big kind of a kind of an effort is that I think it really depends from project to project and the scale of the modification that is being done.

We have seen two recent projects with varying degree of analysis um this one was pretty short but it can be longer depending upon how much modification is being done.

Right.

But that seems appropriate given what you know that it's outside of the okay thank you so much for helping me understand the process and yes I will be supporting this.

Great thank you all right so seeing no others in the queue we can vote and just excited when the ordinance comes back and we can finally talk about it.

So thank you won't have to go through this again.

Great all right and that passes unanimously thank you to to staff we'll move on to item 6.2 which is our gatekeeper process amendments to chapter 36 zoning of the city code to implement council policy G-9.

Community development director Christian Murdoch and assistant community development director Amber Blazinski will present the item if you'd like to speak on this item in person please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now and we'll begin with a staff presentation Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council.

My name is Christian Murdoch, and I'm the community development director.

Joined on the dais for this item by Assistant Community Development Director Amber Brzezinski.

We're here this evening to discuss amendments to the city code to align with the City Council policy G9 on gatekeeper applications adopted by council in June of this year.

The proposed ordinance makes a number of administrative amendments to effectuate the city council policy, but does not include revisions to the substantive provisions and requirements in policy G9 for review of regular and streamlined gatekeeper applications.

As a reminder, a gatekeeper application is a development project that requires a legislative amendment, such as a change to the city's general plan or zoning map or standards, because the project as proposed would not comply with the adopted regulations.

The proposed ordinance, once adopted by council, will conclude a multi-year effort by the city council to update the city's gatekeeper process.

Policy G9, along with the City Code amendments to conform to policy G9 will mark the first time all of the city's gatekeeper requirements have been written down and made available in advance to the public.

Now that the council has established the substantive components of the gatekeeper process in policy G9, it's necessary to amend the city code to remove conflicting provisions and also to make reference to policy G9, where it governs the aspects of the gatekeeper process.

The proposed ordinance would amend three divisions within the zoning code related to the requirements for precise plans, general plan amendments, and zoning amendments.

Because these are zoning provisions, the proposed ordinance was first presented to the Environmental Planning Commission for a recommendation before City Council consideration of the proposed ordinance.

The Environmental Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance on September 17th and recommended by a vote of five to zero that the city council should adopt the proposed ordinance.

At this time, staff recommends that the city council introduce the proposed ordinance based on the recommended motion provided on screen and in the agenda report.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Does any uh member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Hicks.

Yeah, I just wanted you to clarify, you've sort of said this in your comments already, but we've gotten a number of comments from members of the public that, and maybe you can say this better than me.

But at this point, we have kind of a two-step process that's left.

You showed multiple steps from the past.

But one is to, if I have it right, what we're doing now is um we're looking at ordinance updates to the gatekeeper process, and that we will have another bite at the apple later, which you're going to come back to us with um, let me see.

I wrote this down.

With uh with uh recommendations on how to incorporate some criteria that council made earlier this year regarding things like mixed-use commercial residential projects, neighborhood serving commercial, etc.

etc.

I won't give you the whole list.

But the reason I'm asking is that um when I first read this, I was a little confused, but also it seems like some members of the public are bringing forward tweaks they want to make that would be better made during this next bite at the Apple.

So I just wanted, in case there's anybody in the audience listening, them to know that there will be another time to make those tweaks.

Um that's my question and statement at the same time.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Uh, you're correct.

So uh the gatekeeper process as it's been um established by the city council includes a city council policy, which the council adopted in June.

And that laid out all of the detailed requirements, the types of criteria, community benefits, uh, ways projects can demonstrate their exceptional design, and so forth in the policy adopted in June.

These City Code amendments do not contain those uh sort of performance criteria or substantive requirements.

These are essentially administrative components in the city code that refer back to the city council policy G9 or have a limited number of sort of basic application information requirements to uh provide that code connection by ordinance to the gatekeeper process, but then refer back to the city council policy for the more uh detailed information about how projects demonstrate their meeting community needs and so forth.

So you're correct.

Um in the council's action to adopt the uh policy G9 back in June.

They identified five different uh future amendments that they wanted staff to further study and bring back as part of a policy amendment.

We have not identified a date to do that.

I think our intention at this point is to see how the first batch of gatekeepers function so that if there's any other uh improvements that the council desires at that time, we can bring them as a batch.

Thank you.

And I just wanted to establish that because we did get email, and I want people to know if we don't address the things they brought up, it's not that we're not interested.

So yes, that was my question.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Show Alter.

Okay, I have a couple of questions.

Um, and I I do think that that uh where we are really interested in making those policy changes and perhaps other ones, and um I think part of uh what we didn't necessarily see here, or if it was here, I didn't catch it, is um when will we be re-evaluating it?

Will it be after one cycle?

Um, will you come back?

Will it be, you know, a calendar year?

Will it be two years?

I mean, that sort of thing.

And um that's that's really um of interest.

And anyway, on policy, uh the policy one uh document, page eight E.

Um I question about what is meant by adjustments.

Uh could you please specify where you're looking for?

Yeah, the policy um document, not policy 9G, you know, attachment or item number three to the agenda report.

I think it's attachment two, and then you said page eight.

Yeah, item E.

And then page eight.

Page eight, and then which item E.

E.

So let's see.

Um, yeah.

So it's the staff recommendations.

Right.

A compilation of proposed amendments or adjustments to the gatekeeper project aimed at enhancing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and advancing other city objectives.

So for regular gatekeeper applications that come before council for an authorization hearing, one of the elements of the council report that council established in the policy was for staff to evaluate a project and determine if there are recommendations of changes to the project that might improve compatibility.

That could be anything from an architectural stepback to some sort of change in building height or a change in the intensity of use potentially for projects that are adjacent to sensitive uses.

So just using staff's judgment to make recommendations that council can incorporate in their acceptance and authorization of the project to file an application, or you know, go in a different direction if that's what council desires.

Okay.

Um, and that's really something that staff does all the way through all processes, really.

It's not really any different in this than um normal.

Well, I think what's different here is that for a gatekeeper application, the council has extensive discretion in a way that differs from a project just coming through for a hearing on permits, and so this is where staff has an opportunity to offer suggestions to council that might improve the project and make it more compatible for the community in staff's judgment.

Okay, and and that's different because we have more we have more uh discretion on gatekeepers.

I mean, that's right.

So uh if you uh contrast a gatekeeper application with a regular project application where they're simply coming in for permits, our obligation largely in that case as a city is to compare the project against the adopted code for a gatekeeper project, they are coming in to change the city's code through a legislative action, such as a zoning amendment or general plan amendment.

So the council has broader discretion about the type of project it wants to authorize when it's enacting legislative changes.

So it's using a different authority of the council rather than adjudicating on a project, you're legislating about the zoning or general plan.

Okay, and so you would you would do this at both um you would do this when you were making the council report for the recommendation about um based on the application package that you've received.

Yeah, for the gatekeeper uh authorization hearing, correct.

Okay.

Because I asked because it seems like you know, when something goes to the DRC or you know, some of the other um processes that we have, it seems like we're always working with applicants to make the projects better.

I mean, we certainly strive to do that as staff.

I think for certain types of projects like housing projects, the state has limited staff's ability to.

Yes, and that's getting more and more.

That's correct.

For these gatekeeper projects, by and large, the council will retain significant discretion.

So that's where staff is going to offer its uh recommendations.

Okay, another question that I um wondered about is can you share what is this historic preservation fee?

Uh how how what's the kind of range of money that's gonna be?

I know it'll diff it'll differ depending on you know the project, but um what level of fee do we?

I'm not we don't use this very often, so.

Right.

So it is a new uh component to the city's gatekeeper process.

Uh it was one of the uh community um benefits isn't the right word, but um council priorities for um providing favorable review for a project.

So there's two different ways that this uh is applicable in the gatekeeper policy.

Uh one is for regular gatekeeper projects, which do not have to provide any particular level of historic preservation contribution or action, and then for streamlined projects, the policy provides a specific funding percentage, so uh 0.5% of the appraised value of the land for the project.

So it depends on the size of the project and the value of the land as to how much a project would need to contribute in order to be a streamlined gatekeeper project.

For any project that does not want to provide that specific dollar amount, they can come through as a regular gatekeeper application and choose to provide less or nothing at all in relation to the historic preservation criteria.

Um that's all I have a bunch of comments, but that's it for now.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have uh I appreciated uh Councilmember uh Hicks's uh question about uh the uh time frame for the review of the policy, which I know is distinct from the implementation ordinance because that was uh I know something that uh came up in in public comment.

So thank you for responding to the to that question.

Um I have a couple of uh clarifying questions.

So if memory serves um in uh either the policy or the implementation ordinance, there is a time frame by which you have to submit an application.

So you get your authorization, you have to submit an applic, like your application.

Is that is that in the policy or is that in the implementation ordinance?

Uh that is in the policy if memory serves.

So I believe it's a one-year application timing from authorization by council to filing of the application, the formal planning application.

Okay.

Um we authorized two gatekeepers in the last cycle, have either submitted an application.

Uh not at this time.

Um do you know roughly when their uh approvals would expire?

Uh so I believe that authorization hearing was in September of 2024.

Um so um we would need to double check whether there's anything in the city code currently.

It would take me a moment to search for that, whether there's a a time limit on that.

Um, but council did delay the um authorized filing period for both of those applications, and so uh I believe one was deferred until January 2025 and the other to June or July of this year.

So it's possible that that one year clock um started later than September.

Uh okay, so so the one in January could expire as soon as January next year.

It could.

And that applicant uh for uh the Charleston Plaza gatekeeper, which was the first one authorized to submit, um, has uh reached out recently and indicated their intention to submit relatively soon.

And so um perhaps we'll see that application move forward uh in your future.

That's helpful.

And then um I I know the we're not gonna entertain gatekeeper proposals this year, right?

But the intent was to prove the policy and the implementation ordinance in time to initiate a process for consideration of gatekeeper uh proposals early next year.

Do you have a time frame for for that?

Right.

Uh so I need to first clarify my earlier statement.

The one year timing component um is in the ordinance, and so it's in the proposed ordinance uh before council tonight.

Um regarding the uh timing of a gatekeeper authorization hearing.

So uh applicants can submit their applications currently um since adoption of the city council policy that's been an option for applicants.

I think what we were anticipating is that by the time anybody submitted and their application was complete, that they likely would not uh be complete prior to the 90 day timeline in the policy for going to an authorization hearing.

And so I think we had just estimated that that would push us into 2026 for the the soonest authorization hearing.

At this time we don't have any gatekeeper applications filed under the new policy, and so we don't have an estimated timeline of when we would come for an authorization hearing.

Uh so no gatekeeper I suppose the development community is aware that we have the new policy.

Uh so it's it's not like you have some folks who have submitted an application under the the old way of doing.

Uh so we have uh I think three uh gatekeeper applications pending under the prior quote unquote gatekeeper exemption that are going through various stages of the processing requests for discretionary legislative effort.

Correct, no new uh regular gatekeeper applications have come in since the last authorization hearing.

Got it.

Okay, that's helpful.

And then that one year expiration, that's in the revised ordinance or was that in the is that in original limitation.

Um that would take me another moment or two to uh to determine.

It's certainly in the new uh provisions and uh provides explicit authorization for that one year to start after any deferred application period authorized by council.

Okay, those are my questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yes, thank you.

So uh I guess I'm gonna go on the thread that uh council member Hicks and I think Councilmember War uh Lucas did.

Sorry.

Um since I wasn't here during uh yeah, I mean you showed a lot of hearings that we've gone through, four or five, six uh you know, a bunch.

So there's been a uh a lot of opportunity for the public and council to mold this together.

So pretty much.

I mean that would be staff's perspective that this has been discussed extensively by the council and the committee.

And that these uh potential tweaks that people are calling about will be addressed somewhere later down, but will be addressed.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, okay, that being said, um I'd like to make a motion that we uh accept the uh staff report.

Recommendation, yes.

We'll do that right after we do um public comment.

I can come right back to you.

I'll just do that.

Okay.

All right.

Um are there any other questions from colleagues?

Mayor to um clarify the one year uh timeline is in the current ordinance.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And there's additional clarification in the proposed ordinance.

Right.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Um we will bring the um uh go forward with public comment unless anyone else has questions?

No, okay.

Um would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide a comment on any um on this item?

If so, please click the hit raise hand button and zoom or submit a blue speaker card.

I'm not seeing any in person.

So we'll move on to virtual and our virtual public uh speakers will have uh three minutes each.

First, we have uh Manuel Salazar.

Yes, hello.

Can we hear me okay?

Yes.

Wonderful.

Hi, uh good evening, Mayor Kamei and Council members.

My name is Marissa Lassad, and I'll be speaking tonight on behalf of SDL.

Uh first, I'd like to thank staff for their thoughtful work on this item, you know, and their continued effort to improving the gatekeeper process.

Uh the updates that they outlined tonight in the staff report reflect a really sincere effort to bring, you know, greater transparency, clarity, and predictability to what for a long time has been a pretty comp like complex system.

Uh, that said, however, I do think that despite these improvements, the gatekeeper process is still, you know, a process that presents significant challenges that undermine mountain use housing goals.

The policy continues to require much needed housing developments to wait as long as a year for a council hearing and offers little clarity on how community benefits are prioritized.

These delays and uncertainty added cost and risk, making it harder to deliver homes to the city needs.

After speaking with some local partners, we actually wanted to offer three key recommendations to ensure the policy better supports the city's housing element commitments.

Uh, after hearing what uh the deliberations were, it sounded like this might not be the space for that, but we'd still like to um offer them up for council consideration.

Uh firstly, creating a separate more streamlined process for rezonings.

Most city processes rezonings uh those things are done directly rather than through a separate system.

Uh establishing this kind of pathway would remove unnecessary procedural barriers, align with HCP's guidelines, and make it easier to accommodate project-specific rezonings.

Also broadening the eligibility for streamlined gatekeeper uh tracks to include mixed-use projects with meaningful onset affordability, particularly those near transit and within growth areas.

You've already somewhat done that with the uh developments that are 100% affordable, but you know, maybe expanding that um universe of potential projects would be wonderful to see.

Uh lastly, removing the selective community benefits requirements placed on smaller streamlined projects.

These add costs which make high density mixed income developments harder to finance.

And housing itself is a community benefit.

You know, the policy should be incentivizing, not decentivizing production.

Uh with that said, taking together these changes would help transform the keyper process into a procedural from a procedural bottleneck that it currently is into a tool that genuinely supports Mountain Use housing goals.

Uh, I thank you all for your leadership and your commitments to this item, and I hope you can do the right thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Katz.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, Peter.

Little gravelly.

Hi.

I can't see if you're hearing me or not.

Um your gravelly.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm assuming that's what I'm saying.

Okay.

Maybe Peter, Peter.

Peter.

Can he hear me?

Okay, so maybe we can mute him and then come back to him.

Thank you.

Um, maybe we can let him know that he sounds like a you sound like a kind of robot.

We can't understand you.

There's so much feedback.

Do you want to try calling back?

Okay, let's go to Robert and uh Robert Cox, and then we can try to come back to Peter.

Um wonderful.

Okay.

Robert, are you there?

Uh yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and members of the council.

And thanks for this opportunity to talk about the gatekeeper process.

I mean, I would I I want to say emphatically that you know the purpose of the gatekeeper process since uh, you know, it was first conceived is to provide, you know, flexibility and zoning in exchange for something that the community feels overrides, you know, what would be given under normal circumstances.

And so I want to let you know the livable mountain view still does support that concept um of getting something back from the community.

In particular, we want to say that we support the historic preservation fee that's listed there.

I mean, it's turning out that I mean, if you don't in in uh impact zones for SB 79, if a building is not historic, uh there's a real chance that uh it may not be able to give get any preferential treatment.

Um we're concerned about buildings like the Rogers building on uh Castro Street in the first block, you could lose this local historic register status unless the facade is restored, and so um we want uh we want to support that historic preservation fee.

We want to support the recommendation on the park fee as a community benefit, realizing that even though it says 24 percent, uh it's an alternative to the park and loo fee, and therefore we feel that it's a justified.

We need more open space in Mountain View if we're densifying, and we also support removing the community facility benefit.

Um it's just you know, I mean, a little bit of time using somebody's office space, you know, especially when Zoom is available now, is not comparable to the other kinds of benefits, and so we don't want that to be the benefit that ends up getting chosen uh uh as an alternative to something like the park fee benefit, which really matters.

So thank you for listening.

I know tonight might not be the time to uh act on this, but since people are talking about it, I want to get in and give our two cents.

Thank you much.

Thank you.

All right, Peter, let's try again.

How about now?

Is that better?

Yes, much better.

Great.

Wonderful.

The wonders of technology.

Thank you, Mayor Kameh and members of the council.

I'm Peter Katz, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber is very grateful to city staff for proposing critical updates to the gatekeeper program.

At a recent briefing on the state of Silicon Valley, the host noted the answer to every question is housing.

We need to make sure that housing projects can happen faster and be creative in our approach.

In Mountain View, we want to make sure that we continue to be a community for all and to continue our leadership in innovation.

We also wish to preserve our character and charm, and we need these projects to be feasible.

As we've stated before, gatekeeper remains an important tool for doing all of this, ensuring our city can attain its housing element goals as well as encouraging innovative mixed-use projects.

With that in mind, we'd like to make the following recommendations.

Although the proposed city council policy states that there shall be at least one council authorization period hearing per calendar year, this commitment does not appear to be included in the amendment to the zoning ordinance.

It should be.

Second, as was noted earlier, Mountain View has a special gatekeeper authorization hearing where all rezoning applications are reviewed simultaneously through a costly, cumbersome, and often competitive process.

To truly streamline the process, aid economic vitality and promote retail environments.

We recommend exempting rezonings from gatekeeper or create a separate streamlined process.

We also recommend amending uh amend streamlined gatekeeper eligible eligibility criteria.

There's a mouthful.

Um allow residential mixed-use projects in addition to residential only projects to be eligible for streamlining processing, eliminate all selective performance criteria for streamlined projects as they are unnecessarily burdensome and a disincentive to housing production and particularly disastrous for smaller residential developers.

And finally, we recommend removing the requirement to execute a development agreement rather than have it remain a voluntary agreement as intended.

We need to encourage housing, not put up barriers.

Thank you very much.

Great, thank you.

Alright, I'm not seeing any other um folks in the queue.

So I'll bring the item back and um at this time we have a motion um from council member uh McAllister for the staff recommendation, and that's been seconded by council member Clark.

Um we'll start with Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate the members of the public who uh provided comments.

I think there are a lot of good ideas that we ought to consider at the appropriate time.

Um the council policy is not on the agenda, uh, and as uh the community development director had shared, um, there will be an opportunity to review it once some of the uh the previously provided direction comes back to council to explore things like uh allowing mixed use um uh projects to be included in the the streamlined gatekeeper uh pathway.

Um so I I think that will I I don't know if I'll still be in the council when that happens, but I think that would be a good opportunity to review whether uh the policy is working as intended if we don't get uh any projects.

Then what that tells us is it's probably maybe a little bit too restrictive.

Uh we won't get any community benefits if we don't get projects, and right now we're not seeing a lot of projects actually getting built.

Um so I I think at the appropriate time it'll be good to review uh some of those um uh recommendations.

Um I uh so uh Councilmember John, you were you know a little ahead of of the gun and and made the motion.

I was gonna suggest some changes, um, and I know that you will probably reject them as friendly amendments, so I'm going to uh move to amend the motion, which is something that is rarely done in the city of Mountain View.

But I'm gonna um move to amend the motion to include uh two changes.

One is, and I've I've shared these with um the staff in advance.

One is to um uh exempt uh from the gatekeeper process uh applications for a conforming rezoning.

So basically, if you want to rezone your property to align with the existing general plan land use designation, you shouldn't have to go through the gatekeeper process.

And we have a number of misaligned uh parcels, including not too far from where I live, the uh Bruce Bauer, right?

The zoning is industrial.

The general plan is I think uh medium or medium high um uh uh residential.

Um, and it it doesn't make sense to require that property owner to go through uh the gatekeeper process to simply align in that case the the zoning with the general plan land use designation.

So I think that would be a clarification that I hope we include.

And the other is um in the application um to no longer require floor plans.

I think none of us really investigate uh proposals at that level of detail.

We do care about certain things, right?

We want to know what the project will look like and how you know that the massing will affect the neighborhood.

I think those are valuable pieces of information, but we don't necessarily have to know the configuration of every floor, and especially knowing that this is even before we get an application, right?

It still has to go through a completeness process, then it has to go through design review.

Those floor plans I expect will change considerably, but it's very expensive to put that level of detailed information together for the stage where you seek permission to submit an application, and I think it acts as a de facto deterrent to submitting gatekeeper proposals all together.

So those are actually in the implementation ordinance.

They're not in the policy, so that would be the motion I would like to make.

So it would be the staff recommendation, which I think Councilmember McAllister, you'll probably have to read eventually.

Um, but with the two changes to exempt from the gatekeeper process conforming rezonings, uh rezoning that aligns with the existing general plan land use designation, and to no longer require floor plans in the app the actual application submittal.

No, it's a it's a amend, it's not a substitute.

So we need to write we need to first see if the motion maker is open to the amendments.

Um, there's been a lot of opportunities to bring these items up in the past and prior things.

And um staff spends a lot of time trying to get this across the board.

So when we do these uh last minute tweaks or amendments that I'm always concerned that why weren't they brought up sooner?

So uh I want to get this thing clear, uh, get a passed, and then we'll have time to bring it back.

So no, I do not accept the amendment.

We'll make it a substitute motion if we have to.

Okay.

Well, he didn't he didn't make the substitute motion yet.

So I think he's maybe feeling where others are at before he does that.

That would be my guess.

Council Member Schulter.

Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought.

This was one of the things getting the gatekeeper going again was one of the things that I um uh campaigned on in 2020, so it's a long time, and we've made progress.

We finally had a gatekeeper hearing, which we hadn't had for many years.

But um I think one of the things that's really important when we think about this is at the point of the gatekeeper hearing, what we're really making is is kind of a um a comprehensive land use decision.

We're not making the decision on the project proposal, that information comes later.

We're making the decision on whether or not this is a project, this kind of project is something that we think would be good for our community in this particular place, and so when I think about that, and I think about well, what do we need to make that decision that land use decision?

I think we really need the site plan because we need to see how much of the site it covers, and is there enough room for um ambulances or um uh fire trucks or trash can uh trash trucks to get on and off, you know, that sort of thing.

Um we uh we don't really need the floor plans because they always change and they're very expensive to produce, and um uh we um we don't want to put forward unnecessary barriers.

We do need um information that tells us about kind of um the massing of the project and how it's gonna fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, which is what I think that the elevations and the conceptual um uh renderings provide.

So, so I I really feel that we we want to make sure that our processes are appropriate.

Our requirements are appropriate for where we are in the process, and I think because this is much more of a land use decision, you know, I think that what um council member Ramirez brought forward is is really very germane, and you're right, a lot of stuff has been um discussed uh council member McAllister, it has, but as people think about these things and look at the details, um questions keep continue to arise because it's complicated.

So I don't think that we should be saying that well, everybody's had their chance, we've been doing this a long time, we we knew it was finished.

I think this is this is more of um uh kind of a living process, and um we we it's it's really appropriate that we um you know we change it a little as we think about it more, and that's where we are right now.

So um, so I I think this is a very important change, and um and I I I guess the other thing that I'm a little concerned about is we put this, we put this uh one year uh requirement in, and it's in part of the housing element that we have a uh gatekeeper um hearing every year, but if we put so many barriers in that nobody ever applies, then what do we do to meet that requirement?

We just we have a gatekeeper hearing with with no projects.

I mean, I I guess we could do that just as a formality, but but we want to have, we want to encourage housing, we want innovative projects to come through, so we don't want to, we want to we want a pri process that's right-sized for us, and I I really appreciate the um the suggestions that council member Ramirez has made.

Councilmember Hicks.

So I I was totally ready to support uh councilmember McAllister's motion.

I think we we have been uh through this process a lot, and I I read the report thinking I would mostly be just rubber stamping.

Um, but I I will say the the um couple of uh suggestions that council member Ramirez brought up, I'm willing to go along with.

I think that um the uh zoning if it conforms to the general plan.

So the big concern for me, and I guess I'm gonna disagree with you a little here, Councilmember Show Alter.

I think the gatekeeper process is more than a land use decision, because what it is is you're looking at the you're changing things usually, except for the zoning one that we're talking about now.

You're changing things that have come together through a public process with the public during the general plan.

And you know, a year after a general plan is agreed to, we'll have a gatekeeper process, and I don't want it to be that the council at that point can just say, can just overturn what the public can came to.

I think it needs more boundaries than that.

And I think that we've, and also for that reason, because we're going against what uh the public has agreed to, sometimes for good reason, because maybe it's not a year later, maybe it's 10 years later, and and things have changed, but still we haven't checked in with the public.

And we're also looking just at the site that's before us.

And the the great thing about a general plan is you talk about how that site connects to all the sites around it.

And frankly, sometimes I think we gloss over that when we look at gatekeepers.

So I think we've been through a thoughtful process and come up with a better process, and I'm sure we'll continue to uh improve it.

In the case where the zoning does not conform to the general plan, we would be allowing it to change to what the public has agreed to.

So I'm willing to let that go through as council member Ramirez is in a more um more streamlined process.

And also taking the floor plans out, I can't imagine a smaller tweak.

That and that's something that uh was brought up by um by folks from Alta Housing, and so but everything else would be in there, elevations, etc.

etc.

So those are those two I'm willing to go along with.

I still want a process that is the thoughtful one we've gone through, and that makes sure that gatekeeper processes are not just land land use decisions, they go above and beyond and really give the public something more, which I think is what we were working on.

So I would be willing to uh support those two tweaks, we'll list out because I think they're small.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

I am planning to support the substitute motion.

Um I would have gone farther had I been uh allowed, but I I understood that this is not the time to do major policy changes, but these do seem like small reasonable changes.

Um I'm actually surprised we we actually make them go through a gatekeeper process process when it's essentially two different kinds of um requirements essentially that our city has.

So, like if they meet one and the other one's like conflicting with it, it feels kind of weird.

Um, so getting that fixed is reasonable.

And I remember I was talking to um it was someone representing a developer a long time ago when we were we uh uh there were being tours around when we were doing work around the housing element of like tours on El Camino, and I remember talking to a developer um saying that, like, they they don't even understand why they would put floor plans into their gatekeeper process because it changes so much once it goes through staff and then comes back, um, they might as well just throw anything out there because then whatever comes back is they get a better sense of what staff wants, what they want, as when they could finally turn in their application.

So this feels like a reasonable um tweak to the ordinance and not a major policy shift.

Um I was willing to do a major policy shift, but um I'm happy to this happy compromise.

City attorney Logan.

I just wanted to find out what motions are pending and make sure that we're following the process.

So if we have a motion to amend or a motion to subscribe, so we yeah, I I can clarify.

So I think that um vice mayor was talking about a substitute motion that does not exist.

Right now, the motion on the floor is the existing uh motion, which is the staff recommendation.

Uh there was, I think, nuance in comments that somebody might make uh a substitute motion, but none of those were done, and as I think one of my colleagues was doing a temperature check.

Has the motion to amend been withdrawn?

Uh it was not supported by the original motion maker.

That's not how I okay that's not how it works, that's why I was asking.

A motion to amend needs a second before it can even be debated.

I think not.

I think it got a second from Pat.

Okay.

Okay.

But and John did not agree to the amending.

Lucas asked to amend Pat Council Member Show Walter agreed with that discussion.

Councilmember McCallish said no, then we started going through comments.

Okay, I understand.

I just wanted to clarify.

Okay.

When a motion to amend is made and you have a second, you take a vote on the motion to amend.

If you have majority to amend, then you can debate the motion to amend and it becomes the main motion.

So what you had was a motion and a second and no vote.

It wasn't John that could kill it.

You needed to vote on the motion to amend after it got a second.

So right now it's a motion to amend and a second still.

And so you have to vote on the motion to amend first.

And so if if you have majority support for amendment, then you can move forward, or you can withdraw and you can start over.

But right now you've got a motion to amend and a second that needs to be dealt with.

Not per your rules.

I'm I'm I just simplify it.

I'm happy to wait.

I'm in the queue.

I'll make the substitute motion to allow everyone to provide comments and ask questions.

I appreciate the opportunities to clarify.

As I look to staff, staff is always welcome at any time to interject.

Staff did not interject, and the conversation continued because I looked in the queue and I looked to staff.

I did not I did not see that procedurally we needed to take a beat, which I'm always happy to do.

So this is now given the discussion, I'd like to understand how we will proceed.

So I thought, as is customary, we ask our colleagues for a friendly amendment, which I find to not be as formal as a I would call I guess a formal amendment.

And my understanding in how council member Ramirez asked Councilmember McAllister was that it was kind of a friendly, would you be open to this?

If it was a more formal, then that's fine, because there was support of the discussion, and Councilmember Show Walter quickly said that she supported that discussion.

So shall we pause and continue and take and vote on the amended item which had two items, or shall we discontinue discussion and have a vote on the original motion?

I think I I was unfamiliar with our rule set and how we deal with motions to amend.

So I'm I'm happy to withdraw that motion to allow council member Clark and others to continue to provide comments or or ask questions, and then when when it's my turn in the queue, then I'm happy to make the sense too.

Okay, so now I will ask for verbal confirmation from staff.

Does that sound fine?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

All right, so on the floor being discussed currently is the original motion, which is a staff recommendation.

Moved by Councilmember McAllister, seconded by Councilmember Clark.

We have people in the queue who have not had the opportunity to speak, including myself.

So we'll go to Councilmember Clark since that was withdrawn.

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilmember Clark.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So it's just uh it was just a question about the two tweaks that are being proposed, um, mostly for staff.

So I assume uh allowing uh something that would conform to a conforming rezoning to come forward probably at the end of the day makes people's lives easier including staffs or or not really.

It probably makes it makes policy sense.

I just don't know what the impact is to you all.

Sure.

So I think uh on the surface, yes, it makes sense, and it's common sense to have the zoning align with the general plan.

I think in practice there will be some complications from time to time where a general plan land use designation may be very broad, and so a particular zoning uh change could align with the general plan and be consistent, but perhaps not be exactly what the city council would desire with the specificity that typically comes with zoning.

So I think that's a potential outcome uh that would arise from this, but that wouldn't automatically approve the amendment.

It would just put it on a simplified process to come before the council where council could ultimately make the decision.

So there's a little bit of judgment at the staff stage to determine whether or not it's consistent with the general plan, and then ultimately council would decide.

Okay, that makes sense.

And then um I I did pull up the draft ordinance, um, and I was surprised that it we actually list floor plans in the ordinance, not in the um sort of the overall sort of implementation piece of it.

If if we were to eliminate the floor plans requirement from the from the ordinance, I assume it all it lists conceptual renderings, elevations, site plans.

I assume we'd really detailed floor plans for me of bedroom, you know, exactly where bedrooms and bathrooms and other things are aren't as important as just understanding the floor plates.

Um I assume the site plan concepts conceptual renderings elevations.

I just don't know where you draw the line, because a floor plan can be super super detailed or it can not.

So I just didn't know how we how we strike the balance there.

If removing floor plans means we'll probably still get most of what we need to make a go-no go on a on a rezoning, but right.

I think it's hard for me to imagine how we describe, you know, basic but not overly detailed floor plans in a sort of succinct way.

Uh I think you know, this process will likely function largely as it's intended without the floor plans.

When it comes time for staff to describe the project, and if council has questions about how the project would function, we may be unable to answer those questions without having a floor plan.

Um sometimes there's you know helpful detail about how much of the floor area and in what locations would be particular uses.

Would commercial be closer or more distant to residential or other some uh sensitive uses.

We won't be able to answer those questions potentially, but again, this is at a very preliminary stage, it's not an approval of the project, and ultimately the project will come before the council for a final decision with that uh significant additional detail uh in the way for floor plans at later stage.

Okay, and and I think you said you ran this by certain one or two staff members.

All right, so before we get um back to council member Ramirez, I think that um uh while these tweaks um see.

I find excitement in moving forward with our gatekeeper process.

And I find it difficult to each time we talk about gatekeeper make tweak, tweak, tweak.

It's difficult for me to understand what the the final product is and um we approved a new process with which we haven't even gone through one cycle.

And I am open to the greatest flexibility.

And while these um two changes sound like they could be um as Council Marshall Walter said, very very germane, it's difficult for me to have a perspective yet because we've made um so many other changes to gatekeeper that I'd love to see in aggregate.

Um what else we might want to change after going through at least one one round, one cycle.

Um and I I feel like I'd love that that opportunity.

Um and then that way as we go through that first round, I could be thinking about these two items and if there's honestly anything else that we would need to to change.

So um I feel openness to it, but this is the first time I'm I'm hearing it.

And I think one of the things that council member Hicks mentioned is something that I have found so important as we've gone through this gatekeeper process over the last two years and I think like eight meetings on discussing it, which is having the opportunity to hear from our full public and putting ideas and and tweaks out there for them to comment, um, versus getting an email a couple hours before our meeting and and not having the opportunity for public discourse.

It just puts me in a position where I would just prefer um the opportunity to um gain wider perspectives and I think finally approve our gatekeeper process so we can see just how well it works after all our hard work on it and and our our commissions and our staff.

So um I I think should uh substitute motion go forward.

Um I just won't support it at this time, but it's mostly just because I want to find learnings from our initial process before making tweaks and hopefully colleagues can understand that.

Um Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and uh make uh a substitute a motion.

So I'll move to approve the staff recommendation, including uh introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City Code to update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning, general plan, and precise plans, and finding finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only further reading waived and set a second reading for October 20th, 2025, and then include um two changes uh to exempt conforming rezonings from the gatekeeper process, and specifically those are zonings that are rezonings that would align with the existing general plan land use designation, and then also to uh no longer require floor plans from uh the application package for um uh an applicant seeking uh a gatekeeper.

Um, and and very quickly, I think there's a lot of um helpful and and uh thoughtful uh remarks and perspectives shared.

The most important change I think that we've made is we've taken a lot of the key elements of the gatekeeper process out of the Municode and put it in a policy, which means it's a lot easier to change.

So we can uh make changes as we find, for instance, you know, a lot of developers are choosing to pursue one route, right?

Maybe that's not actually what we want to emphasize in our community benefit requirement, for instance.

So the council uh can then modify the policy to say, you know, we're not interested in community facilities for instrument for interest, uh, for instance, you know, we want to focus on something else.

Um so I I think that's that's why uh you know, I hear what you're saying, Mayor, and I I agree.

I think some some a few cycles, I think we will have a much better understanding of uh the impacts, you know, what's working, where maybe we want to course correct a little bit.

Um there are a few things that are not in the the policy, though.

Um so I I wanna um I think you know different and valid, equally valid perspectives.

Um, one way of of thinking about this, at least in in my view, is uh it's very rare that we have an opportunity to actually, you know, have on the agenda opening up the zoning ordinance to include uh some of these changes.

Um, and you know, I was certainly not intending to to you know suggest that they were significant deviations from from practice or policy or or major things.

It's things where it's like it in my mind, you know, it it feels um like we're asking for a lot more than we really need to make the dis decision about whether to um give permission for an application uh to be submitted, and then there's you know multiple years of design review, um, you know, planning commission review and and then the council often will have an opportunity to talk to to developers.

So there will appropriately be a lot of changes in the design.

Um but if these things were in the policy, I'd say absolutely let's wait for the policy to come back for review, but they're they're not.

And I think you know, if if if we don't take the opportunity now to to make some of these tactical changes, um it it may not be for a very long time that we'll have the opportunity to go open up the zoning ordinance and and um and make these changes.

Uh it's just a lot harder.

Um, but uh I appreciate a lot of the the comments and and staff's engagement on this, so um uh happy to answer questions that are directed at me, but I think probably most most appropriately directed at staff at this point, but those are the the comments I wanted to share.

Thank you.

Second end by Chris.

Council member, pardon me, Mayor.

Um, when it's appropriate, uh I would like to read specific language for that amendment for the council's consideration um related to the zoning amendments to conform with the general plan.

Okay.

We'll go to Councilmember Calliser, then we'll go to you and then I have I can pass this.

Okay.

Um I understand that these are maybe considered simple adjustments, but um I'm gonna not support this because I've seen the time that staff puts into the things, the opportunity to give feedback and it's a more of a principal no or that as a council we need to be constant uh aware of what the staff puts into it.

And anytime we tweak something, it always has a tendency to drag on a project or delays a project.

And these type of last minute things, as the mayor said, doesn't give council the opportunity to really understand what's being asked, and we need to take the time to thoroughly investigate or understand or have a dialogue or discussion about any of these tweaks.

Now, yes, this might be simple, but I've seen other times where people come along and they do something at the last minute, and I don't think that's good governance.

So when we do these promo uh the tweaks or adjustments, we need to take it seriously and be mindful that the staff has been involved in the beginning that your council has a chance to really understand these things.

And we just need to make things sometimes easier because in this particular not necessarily easier, but this particular project, there are going to be opportunities to do it.

And again to the mayor's point, we should let these policies or some vet and air and and breathe and see what happens before we start immediately making tweaks to them before we actually got them implemented.

So going forward, please consider that.

So that's the only comments I want to say is we need to just take some time and thoroughly let the process take its place.

Councilmember Hicks.

Yeah, I'm gonna be supporting this new motion because I do think that these are relatively small changes, but I I do share the reservations of the council members who've said they're not voting for it, because I do feel like this came to us as uh after a long period of consideration when I think most people in the public and members of council thought this was going to be a frankly a rubber stamp of things that we talked about.

And I do think in particular, like we did get, I guess the mayor said this.

We did get uh letters from um uh from the development community and business community mainly at the very last minute, um, several hours before the council meeting, and the rest of our community I think was pretty left out.

Um, so I I don't want to repeat that in the future.

I will be voting for this one because I think the changes are relatively small.

Council Mr Schalter.

I'm I'm gonna be voting for it too, but I just want to say that um I I'm a little uh non-plussed by the comments about getting the the uh responses at the last minute.

I mean the council report comes out on Thursday.

We have the meeting on Tuesday.

Uh yeah, I I would like to get the letters, you know, by noon at least on Tuesday.

But it's hard to get those letters together.

They don't have that much lead time.

So I think that that's just the nature of our process that that um you know people hear about items or they're coming before us for a long time, but they can't they don't really know the specifics of it until Thursday night when that that that um you know the packet drops and then um people start to read it, and so it's just the nature of it.

I think we we have to respect that um uh the people who have put those letters together felt strongly enough that they felt it was worth the rush that they would have to do.

So anyway, I I just I think it's just part of the process.

I'll turn over it over to Director Murdoch.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um regarding the uh two components to uh council member Ramirez's motion.

Uh, I think the second component uh the floor plan component rather is pretty straightforward.

We'll delete that from the application requirements for general plan zoning and precise plan application requirements.

Um for the other component related to conforming zoning amendments.

Uh, I'd like to draw the council's attention to attachment one, top of page 10.

Uh we're looking at section 36.52 point five five E.

Which currently reads for app.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time?

Yeah, uh top of page 10.

10.

Okay.

Yeah.

Of the ordinance, yeah, attachment one.

Okay.

Um it's paragraph E at the top of that page.

For applications for zoning amendments, yes.

So uh I think the language that would um staff would recommend to accomplish that amendment, adding to the end of that paragraph E, uh, the following.

However, applications for zoning amendments to achieve consistency with a parcel's existing general plan, land use designation may proceed directly to a formal planning application and are exempt from the requirements of city council policy G9, gatekeeper application policy and procedures.

Okay, so the motion maker gave a thumbs up, the seconder.

That's just what I was in the queue.

I I didn't second the oh it's that's a carryover.

I think it was Pat.

I think it's just a system.

Okay.

I think the original motion I don't think I can second to substitutes, it'd be awkward.

So can we all withdraw at my okay perfect?

And then council marshal.

Okay, great.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions to what Director Murdoch put forward.

All right.

Let's vote.

All right, and that passes uh what is that five two?

Thank you.

Oh, sorry, four three.

Sorry.

Four three.

Um thank you.

All right, thank you to staff.

We'll move on to item seven, which is council staff uh committee reports.

Does anyone have a report?

Oh council member Schulter.

Yeah.

Um I have a couple more of a couple of them actually.

I I got to be the um uh marshal of the trailblazer race again this year, which was great fun.

And I brought um enough uh finisher medals for everybody.

Um I think the uh did it did I find a few more of them?

Yeah, here we go.

Um, yeah.

Uh the uh the Stevens Creek Trail is something that is a great amenity in the city of Mountain View, and the Friends of Stevens Creek have uh um have a uh this race every year, and this was the 31st, and they um support the trail and and um do cleanups and and uh help figure out projects that need to be done and um just I just really appreciate their uh their assistance for the city.

And then the other thing I wanted to share with you is I went to the Silicon Valley Clean Energy October meeting, and the vast majority of it was really our evaluation of the uh CEO.

Um and but before that, we also um talked about um the clean power procurement, and um the Silicon Valley Clean Energy is been investing um in lots of projects, literally billions of dollars, um, so that we have certainty in the future about clean energy.

You know, these projects produce clean energy, and um they're mostly uh um solar projects with batteries, but we also have um uh invested in quite a few wind projects.

Most of the wind projects are out of state, however, because the um the pervasive winds aren't as common in California.

Um then we also heard a uh presentation on the challenges that um Silicon uh Silicon Valley Clean Energy faces.

Um they're not surprising, but they're real.

Uh regulatory uncertainty is certainly a big one.

Um load growth uncertainty.

You know, with the advent of ad AI, nobody really knows how much power that's gonna take.

Um we are heavily dominated.

Another um challenge is we're heavily dominated by solar, and um, so that means that in the middle of the day uh we have more, we're producing more energy than we need, um, but uh at other times of the day it's not quite so good.

Um, and then project costs.

We've all heard about how construction costs have really um shot up over the last five years.

That's a big issue for Silicon Valley Clean Energy too.

Um we've recently been required to look at um energy use not just on a kind of uh uh whole year basis, but actually on an hour by hour basis, and um so they've developed some charts of where our clean energy comes from on an you know an hour by hour basis, and it's not surprising that the the um the vast majority of the the chart is covered by solar.

Uh pretty much as long as the sun is up in this area where we're being powered by solar, but um in the middle of the night, um fortunately when our power needs are less, we import a lot of wind energy, and that's where that comes from.

So it's so the requirements as time goes on have become um not just that overall we have to provide clean energy, but that on an hour by hour basis we want to move to make sure we have clean energy.

So if you have any questions about that, I'd be glad to answer it either now or just offline.

Thank you.

Alright, and I'll go next.

Um it's been a long time since we had a council meeting, so there's a lot of stuff going on.

So there's the meet and greet on Castro Street where our very own uh community um development director, uh, Kristen Rodok, uh moderated a panel with local businesses on Casho Street to see how our city can and uh encourage more economic development in our downtown.

I went to the housing and child care symposium, um, and it was really cool because they actually uh did a tour, it was in Redwood City, and it did a tour of an affordable housing project with the ground level being child care, which was really cool.

Um next was um uh that we had the council youth services committee, which was a joint with the the youth advisory committee, which was really good.

So it was me and council member Clark um uh leading the youth uh to greater pastures.

Um, and then there was a celebration of service, and and pretty much most of our colleagues were there.

Um the big thing though was I did go to the California League of Cities or Cal Cities this uh past uh last week where um and that that was that was paid for by the city.

Thank you, City.

Um, and I got to uh check out some of the panels.

I now also sit as the secretary of the API caucus for Cal City, so yay, fun times.

Um, I think that is it.

Oh, there was the ribbon cutting for the Caltrans.

Uh Caltrans, Caltrans.

Um, bike lanes, yay bike lanes, and that's it for me.

Councilmember Callister.

I also had the privilege to represent the city of Mount View at the California League of Cities.

Uh, attended a couple of uh classes on parking, transportation.

Uh along with the mayor, had a photo opportunity for our beacon uh award that we had, which will be coming along in a 12 foot size uh bronze statue with the two of us holding this thing.

So that should be nice.

And I also attended the peninsula division of California League and made contact with the new uh president who's uh is uh Sergio Lopez, who's also the mayor of uh Campbell, and we discussed being appointed to the California League of Cities on Transportation, and he said uh we'll be appointed to that committee, so we will have representation at the statewide on the uh California on transportation, which is always important.

So that's uh what oh, and then I went to a VTA board meeting, I was sitting on the board and I brought up grade crossing, a grade separation with the director of Caltran, and I asked where's Mount Views going, how are we doing?

What's our priorities?

And I also asked them if they're gonna have deficits, are we still gonna be getting our grade crossings?

And they said, Well, it's gonna be determined like in anything else with money.

So that's a little update on uh myself.

Thank you.

Great, thanks.

Alright, just a quick update.

Um at the end of September, we had our last concert on the plaza.

It's so exciting.

Got a lot of great feedback from folks about how they're happy that our concerts extend all the way through into September because everyone else's fun ends that summer.

So that's really great.

The um 63rd readiness unit has a new major general, and so got to attend that on behalf of the city.

Um attended the Denver AI, they call it Den AI, talking about how our partnership with Google and how cities can responsibly use uh AI.

Um we talked about our celebration of service.

Um we had our um view firefighter pancake breakfast, and then Fabmo had their 15th anniversary, which I got to see Council Member Schulzer at, and then we had our Caltrans State Route 82 ribbon cutting.

That is it for my report.

So we'll move on to item eight, which is our adjournment.

The next city council meeting will be held on October 28th, 2025.

This meeting is adjourned at 9 10.

Have a great night.