Thank you.

Good evening everyone.

Thank you for joining us for our study session.

The City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Council Member Hicks.

Here.

Council Member Kamei.

Here.

Council Member McAllister.

Yo.

Council Member Ramirez.

Here.

Council Member Showalter.

Here.

Mayor Ramos.

Here.

We have a quorum with Vice Mayor Clark absent.

Thank you.

All right, so now we'll begin with our study session.

The purpose of this study session

is to receive city council input

on the proposed legislative program priority issues

to guide the city's regional, state,

and federal legislative advocacy during the 2026 session.

Reviewing and updating the legislative platform

at the beginning of each legislative session

is an essential component of the city's legislative program.

This helps to ensure that the City Council's

current priorities are reflected in the platform

and provide direction to staff

and the city's legislative advocacy firms

to enable efficient and effective engagement

on the regional, state, and federal issues

and initiatives that affect the city's priorities,

programs, and operations.

We're gonna skip that presentation part right now

and go straight to our intergovernmental

relations manager, Christina Gilmore.

Following Ms. Gilmore's presentation,

we will receive a presentation

from our state legislative advocacy firm,

California Public Policy Group,

and our federal legislative advocacy firm, MMO Partners,

followed by public comment.

If you would like to speak on this item in person,

please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

Following public comment, the item will come back to council for discussion and feedback on the state and federal platforms.

There will be a short break during which staff will compile major themes from the council's feedback.

Following the break, the staff will present the themes to help determine areas of council consensus.

We are also anticipating a visit from State Senator Josh Becker, but he is running a little late.

So when he appears, we will break from our usual scheduled program to have him join us

for his presentation.

So Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore, shall we?

Okay, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Christina Gilmore, Assistant to the City Manager.

The purpose of the study session item this evening is to receive City Council input on

the proposed legislative program priority issues to guide the City's regional and state

legislative advocacy during the 2026 legislative session.

Joining me this evening is Dane Hutchings, founder and CEO, and Jake Whitaker, director

of grant services from California Public Policy Group, who are the city-state legislative

advocacy consultant, and Kiriakis Pagonas, vice president of policy and government affairs

from MMO Partners, who is the city's federal legislative advocacy consultant.

Dane, Jake, Kiriakis, and I will present the proposed legislative program priorities to

the City Council for discussion and input.

Afterwards, staff, CPBG, and MMO will be available

to answer questions about the proposed platform.

As part of the fiscal years 2023-2024

and 2024-2025 Strategic Action Plan,

Council reaffirmed their commitment

to implementing an enhanced legislative program

and maintaining effective intergovernmental partnerships

under the organizational strength

and good governance strategic priority.

In 2021, the city engaged the services

of California Public Policy Group, CPPG,

to assist the council and staff on the city's regional

and state legislative advocacy efforts.

And in 2024, the city engaged MMO partners

to provide federal legislative advocacy services

to support the expanded federal legislative program.

The purpose of the legislative platform

is to serve as a guiding document for the city

to promote and preserve its interests

at the regional state and federal levels.

It provides direction for city staff

and the legislative consultants

to engage in a variety of legislative issues.

It allows staff and the legislative consultant

to quickly triage and assess legislative matters

because as we all know, there are hundreds of bills

that usually are introduced every legislative cycle

and advance very quickly through the legislative process.

And finally, it provides focus and supports

proactive council member engagement

to help advance the city's priorities.

So for a summary of our legislative engagement for 2025,

we were very active.

With the assistance of CPPG,

the city engaged on eight measures,

receiving, achieving favorable outcomes

on all eight measures.

Additionally, our federal legislative platform

was very robust this last year.

The city, with the assistance of MMO,

engaged on seven pieces of federal legislation

during the 119th session of Congress,

achieving favorable outcomes on four of those bills.

I will note that the Unlock Housing Act,

which was introduced in the House and the Senate

and authored by our Congressman, Congressman Liccardo,

was the result of city input to him on housing legislation

And then the Housing for the 21st Century Act was recently passed as of yesterday in the House.

So we're very pleased that the city has had some very good and favorable input on current legislation in the 119th Congress.

In addition to state and federal legislative engagement, we've also engaged in federal earmarks, obtaining federal earmarks,

and then state and federal intergovernmental affairs.

So our 2026 regional and state legislative platform

that we are here to discuss tonight

is based on the adopted 2025 platform.

We receive feedback from each of the city departments

on the platform.

It does carry forward 11 policy issues

that the council has prioritized.

It modifies 16, adds five,

and deletes one policy statement across six issue areas and it lists a total of 147 policy statements

i believe the staff report erroneously wrote 141 and so i'm updating that tonight it's 147 so

apologies for that error our federal platform is also based on our adopted 2025 platform again we

receive feedback from each city department it carries forward four issue areas that were

were identified in the 2025 platform,

and it includes the addition of one

and the modification of two policy statements

in one issue area, and lists a total of 52 policy statements.

So after the presentations from our state

and federal legislative advocates,

we'll return to the council to provide input

on the study session item.

I'll read the question here, and we can revisit it

later on if the council requires us to or asks us to.

But are there any policy issues, priorities,

or policy statements that council would like to discuss,

seek further clarification on, modify, add, or remove

from the proposed regional, state,

and federal 2026 legislative platforms?

With that, that concludes staff presentation,

and I will hand it back to the mayor.

Thank you Intergovernmental Relations Manager Christina Gilmore.

I guess what we'll do.

Oh, Senator Becker is not here yet so we can move on to CPPG.

Welcome.

Hello, hello. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Dane Hutchings with the California Public Policy Group.

Here to give you a little look back on 2025, provide some trends on what we think are going to be happening in 2026 so far,

and then dive into the platform discussion at the appropriate time.

I also brought with me today Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services.

Stacy's gonna provide, we're gonna do a little swap here

and he'll provide a little bit of insights

on municipal funding looking into this year as well.

Next slide.

Yeah, let's just roll that next slide.

So looking at the 2025 city of Mountain View look back

as Christina mentioned,

we did have some fairly remarkable success this year

on the legislative front.

I would say we highlighted a few.

The one I really wanted to highlight is Senate Bill 423.

This was really a last minute gut and amend

really towards the very end of session

that would have, when you look at it,

had a really profound impact

to the city of Mountain View in particular

because it would have suspended

all commercial real estate transfer taxes for 12 years,

multifamily for 12 years,

and single family for five under certain conditions.

And so, you know, a critical funding source for the city to provide critical services.

And so we're able to stop that bill.

I will tell you that there's a very high likelihood that this issue is going to be introduced again.

We've seen one bill introduced already specific to the city of L.A.,

but we do anticipate this being broadened or at least attempts to propose it in the coming year.

A couple of others, AB 382 by our Assemblymember Berman.

It took a couple of years for him to get this done,

but instituting pedestrian safety school zones for speed limits.

And then again, another, this one, even though it's Petrie Norris,

this is really kind of a joint effort with Senator Becker

when he was the chair of Energy Committee,

which helps financing options, permitting assistance,

and ratepayer savings in AB825,

all things that we currently support.

And really had a great conversation and dialogue back and forth

with your sustainability department on the technicalities of that.

So really, really sharp team that you all have here.

Next slide.

So looking forward to sort of like the policy trends that we see.

And again, we're early on in the first year, the second year of the two-year session.

The bill introduction deadline is until February 20th.

We probably will see another thousand or so more bills be introduced really in the next couple of weeks.

A lot of spot bills, but from what we've been able to see, and then some bills that advance out of their first house in January,

you know, local revenues, parks, infrastructure, transportation impacts, mitigation fee acts,

real estate transfer tax, all of those things are really going to be front and center this

year with respect to local revenues. One of the outcomes that came from a select committee on

housing construction, which is chaired by Assemblymember Wicks, is, you know, the

The goal of that select committee was to try to find ways to speed up housing construction.

One of the takeaways that I think is germane to local agencies is folks on the panel talked about more uniform code standards.

And so as we know, last year, reach codes were essentially suspended for six years.

And what we're already starting to hear is that they want to make this permanent, they want to have more regionalized code standards, thus to allow for larger multi-regional projects.

We're looking at Senate Bill 79, which was a fairly controversial bill with respect to transit-oriented development.

not so much on the aspect of wanting to increase density around transit, but one of the critical

issues in SB 79 is the inability to comply with some of those provisions, particularly the

alternative plan for transportation. There's an SB 79 cleanup bill underway. It's Senate Bill 908.

our team has pulled together. I just saw it actually as I was walking in. A fairly detailed

analysis of some of the challenges that the city could face and actually had a really good

conversation with your planning team and Assemblymember Berman's office in the fall to really

try to understand some of those implementation challenges. So we'll be giving you a detailed

memo with respect to what we're looking to try and perhaps modify. There was a bill that was

just announced from a Southern California lawmaker to try and expand HAP funding to smaller cities.

So this is a good thing, but it doesn't take away from the allocations to the Big Ten or Big 13,

but moreover allows the COCs or requires the COCs to really disperse those monies to local agencies.

And so again, you know, fairly helpful tool to get dollars out locally to help with, you know, our unhoused population.

Governor Newsom in his State of the State address specifically targeted the private equity sort of taking and purchasing the single-family homes.

is something that the state legislature

has tried to accomplish for some time,

even just trying to get transparency around the issue.

Those bills have been stopped,

but the governor kind of called for it this year.

And so there's Evan, I'm sorry,

Assemblymember Lee has taken,

Alex Lee has taken the charge on this one.

And so we anticipate some bills happening in that space.

I think more broadly, election year politics.

We're going to see a lot of election year things driving policy narratives, particularly around contracting issues and things like that.

And then, of course, we've already seen pieces of legislation that are in response to some of the things that we're going to be,

that I'm sure Kiriakis and team will be talking about on the federal immigration tactics.

And so lots in store in 2026.

Next slide.

And on the budget side, looking a little bit better than we had initially anticipated.

The last year we projected a structural deficit somewhere north of $13 billion.

We've seen additional revenues come in over projections.

And so about $6.2 billion just in January, numbers alone over expected revenues.

Overall performance of 22% revenues coming in over than expected.

Now, that's fantastic news, unfortunately.

Well, I shouldn't say unfortunately.

But Prop 98, some of the education obligations, a lot of those dollars are just sort of siphoned

off the top and are constitutionally obligated to go to public education.

Nonetheless, that budget gap is considerably smaller.

So we do think that this is an opportunity to present with our state lawmakers potentially

some priority projects to see if we can try and buy for a state budget allocation.

And so keeping our fingers crossed on that and working with your team to assess what

those projects are.

And then lastly, before I kick it over to Jake, next slide, just wanted to just go over some real

quick, you know, key dates. And so February 20th is that bill introduction deadline. I anticipate

seeing about a thousand more bills being introduced. A lot of them, unfortunately,

are these spot bills where it just says it's the intent of the legislature to modify, you know,

X, Y, Z in the government code. And so we have to then really kind of do some sleuthing and figure

out what's going on there and triage those bills. When March hits, we start really, you know,

rolling into policy committee season. Mid-May, we'll have the governor's May revise,

and then that'll roll us through budget season, so May to June 15th, and then we adjourn to summer

recess on July 2nd, and then really that last mad dash, August 3rd to August 31st,

is the last month of the session,

which would conclude the second year of the two-year session.

So if a bill does not advance in this two-year cycle,

it is officially stopped and halted and won't be proceeding.

And then, of course, September 30th being the last day

for the governor to sign her veto legislation.

So I'm going to step aside and let Jake talk a little bit about funding,

and then I'll wrap us up.

All right. Good evening.

So, again, I'm Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services.

I work with Intergovernmental Affairs Manager Christina Gilmore and staff to identify and support the city's efforts to apply for discretionary grant funding programs.

And two major themes that I just wanted to talk about tonight as far as funding outlook for 2026 goes.

And I know on the federal side, MMO partners will have more on that.

I know Service Transportation Bill reauthorization

is top of mind as part of your federal agenda.

But looking at FY26 is the last year of programmed funding

through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IIJA.

And so one thing that we've been looking at

that's top of mind for us,

we met with staff earlier today to talk about,

get an update on the Rank-Storff Grade Separation Project

efforts to potentially bring federal funding in to support closing that budget shortfall

and then looking at other opportunities for transportation investments in the city of

Mountain View. So there's a number of different programs authorized under IIJA that we're tracking

with the railroad crossing elimination the safe streets and roads for all and also looking at

funding through California Transportation Commission that's going to be coming down later

this year, a couple different programs around active transportation, around larger scale

investments to address congestion and goods movement efficiency. And also upcoming through

the MTC, the One Bay Area Grant is going to have its fourth round coming up this year at the

regional level and making sure that we're supporting the city's efforts to bring those

regional dollars into Mountain View as well. Next slide. And then the other major thing

THAT'S TOP OF MIND. SO THIS IS YEAR ONE OF THE ROLLOUT OF THE PROPOSITION FOR CLIMATE BOND.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THERE WAS IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT

EXEMPT THE CLIMATE BOND FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT WHICH HAS ADDED SEVERAL MONTHS

OF DELAY TO THE ROLLOUT OF THAT FUNDING. THERE'S AN EFFORT AND A BILL CURRENTLY WORKING ITS WAY

through the legislature to address and apply that exemption. But I know that at the agency level,

there's a lot of pressure to get these funds out and to. So we've started seeing draft guidelines

published by California National Resource Agency, Strategic Growth Council, etc. to begin moving

these grant programs into the competitive stage. And so they published the draft guidelines. They're

open for public comment and then we'll open up for applications. We're going to see a lot of things

starting to move as we head into spring of this year and into the fall and what that all entails

funding around sea level rise adaptation through the Ocean Protection Council also funding that was

allocated expedited in the last legislative session to the coastal conservancy. There's going

going to be funding for the statewide park development community revitalization program

through OGALS. That's kind of the $200 million allocation of the climate bond for parks that's

going to be coming out this year. And that's all the money for parks and the climate bond. So we

want to make sure that we're staying on top of these things because a lot of it's going to be,

it's only going to be one competition for a lot of these programs under the climate bond.

Resilience centers, urban greening, environmental enhancement mitigation,

A number of different things that we're monitoring and working with staff to assess.

One of the challenges that we have is that there is a requirement that at least 40% of the funds be allocated to disadvantaged communities for anything that's funded under the climate bond.

Mountain View does have a hard time meeting a lot of those statutory definitions and agency defined methodologies for determining disadvantaged status.

but looking for ways to find competitive,

where we can a competitive edge,

where we have strong projects to put forward.

So that is my update on funding.

Thank you.

Next slide.

So moving to the legislative platform,

I will spare you the reading of going through all of the slides.

The full platform is provided in attachment A.

But as a reminder, next slide, how we typically engage on your behalf, we use the platform once it is formally adopted to consistently engage with the state legislature throughout the process, not just the state legislature, but the executive branch and administrative agencies as needed.

just sort of outlining some of these examples.

So it's going back,

not only submitting our initial comment letter

or position letters,

but resubmitting those as they are amended

so long as they continue to align with the platform,

testifying and policy committees,

advancing legislation,

meeting with legislators,

their staff, committee staff,

negotiating amendments on the city's behalf

with respect to having a really good feedback loop

with your technical staff here,

you know, seeking funding for key programs, meeting with stakeholders. So really all of

the above, this platform really allows us to be able to screen out what's important versus what's

not important, you know, because there are about 2,000 bills every year that are active and moving.

And because full service cities, you know, from police and fire to housing, homelessness, planning,

public works, you know, and everything and beyond, you know, we're actively tracking

about 900 measures each year.

And, you know, we really want to pick our spots

on where the things are the most important.

And this legislative platform allows us to do that

and I think do it at a very effective level.

So very much looking forward to your engagement and feedback.

And I think from that point on, oh, next steps.

You know, again, how can we be in support of the city

and its advocacy efforts?

You know, are there critical funding priorities from your vantage point that we haven't heard from staff that we should be keeping in mind?

Major policy areas of importance that we need to be keeping a special eye on that isn't touched on in the platform.

You know, should we be assessing any major issues or projects or initiatives that we haven't heard from your departmental staff?

You know, things that really have an impact on your departments and, you know, the residents that you represent.

These are all things that we're sort of hoping to, you know, glean from you in this conversation.

and looking forward to hearing that.

And from there, I will kick it back over to Christina.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We are, I believe the state senator just confirmed for 530.

So we have like three minutes.

Hopefully he'll hop on.

I'm nodding.

Did you want to start?

And then when he comes in, we'll just.

However you want us to proceed.

We can go if you want us to go.

And then as soon as he comes in, we can swap in the senator.

All right.

Thank you.

So, do you want me to go?

Well thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members.

My name is Kiriakos Pagonas, Vice President at MMO Partners.

Appreciate the invitation to be here and anytime I can leave Washington, I'll take it.

So appreciate the courtesy and thank you for allowing us to represent the city in DC.

Really appreciate the trust and look forward to continuing to work with you.

Next slide.

So as Christina highlighted, and she did a wonderful job going over some of the issues

we've worked on, some of the funding, but I'll just do a quick synopsis here of those

things.

So FY26, appropriations advocacy.

Actually, first, let me just step back for a second.

I think last year we were here, this is February of this time, 2025, new administration.

First time you all had done a platform, a lot of questions about what the administration

was going to do.

and a lot of chaos, I think, a lot of uncertainty. We've certainly seen that play out. There were

about 200 plus executive orders, cancellation and pausing of federal funding, so a lot of

uncertainty at the time. I think stepping forward a year, I think if you had asked me at the time,

would we have passed appropriations bills with earmarks, would the courts have stepped in to

to sort of take control a little bit back from some of the steps that the administration's taken,

local governments stepping up. And so, you know, I want to say that I think, you know,

while things have certainly a lot of chaos still, a lot of uncertainty, Congress did pass 11 of the

12 appropriations bills, a major step. Last year we had a CR, no earmarks. So there has been some

progress made, I think. Congressman Liccardo, the two senators have stepped up, secured about $3.1

million in federal funding for the city's projects, both housing and on climate, the Charleston Slough

Title Gate project. That's still pending, but certainly advocated for. The council came back

and made the plea for these things, so appreciate your involvement. On the legislative side, we have

major housing legislation that's just passed yesterday.

All right.

Thank you so much.

We're going to do a temporary break on you, Mr. Kariakos,

to welcome our state senator.

Thank you so much.

We will get back to you as soon as we move him

from the attendee list to our panelists.

He is virtual.

There we go.

Hi, Senator Becker.

Hello.

How are you?

Good.

Can you hear us?

I can. Can you hear me okay?

We can hear you. Thank you for joining us.

Okay. I'm in my car because I'm out at an event.

Thank you for fitting me in here in the schedule.

I'm really excited to kind of give an update.

And if we have time for a few questions, tell me however you want to use the time.

But first, to give a little bit of an update from the legislative perspective from Sacramento,

for my legislation and then we can talk more generally first always start with the budget

on the budget this year is a little bit of a discrepancy between the governor's projections

and the lao legislative accounting office uh um projections uh right now it's trending more

towards the governor's projections he projects a smaller uh deficit than lao had projected so

we'll obviously continue to monitor that while we go um through uh to the end of the fiscal year

I wanted to talk about a number of things. Number one, really to make sure everyone knows, and I think many already do, about some of the implementation from previous bills.

So I was thinking about doing a blog called Year Six, because I feel like in my year six year, a lot of things are coming to fruition.

In 2023, I passed a bill called the Delete Act to let folks delete their information from data brokers.

We have over 545 registered data brokers in California.

These are people who buy and sell information about every one of us.

By definition, you have no relationship with them.

And they collect hundreds of pieces of information about each one of us, where we've lived, where roommates have been, what we've purchased, even our health history.

and we wanted to, you know, give people a chance.

I've been working on this for a long time.

How can we really tackle this?

So we set up a button called the drop button.

You go to privacy.ca.gov and you can fill this out now.

The first deletion doesn't happen until August 1st

and then it happens every 45 days after.

So it's a permanent deletion, a one-stop shop

to leave your information from all data brokers.

Already we've had 225,000 plus people sign up

which is quite remarkable and way ahead of our projections.

Happy to answer any questions about that.

We continue to add to that, and I'll have some more privacy bills this year as well.

This year brings about new committee assignments with our new pro tem.

I will be chairing two committees.

I'm one of the very few people that are chairing two committees.

I think there's only one other in the legislature.

So I'm chairing both natural resources, which is everything water, wildfire,

and, of course, forest resources and sea level rise, all those issues, as well as human services.

And human services really are safety nets.

So at a time when the safety net—I think you're probably hearing a little bit about that—

at the time when the safety net is really threatened from the Trump administration,

I'm excited to jump in and chair human services.

And I'll talk a little bit about a child care bill I'm doing in a moment.

So my bill package is focused on a few areas, energy cost reductions, building on last year.

I'll continue to serve on energy, by the way, and still be quite involved in that.

And we passed what many people said was the kind of most substantial energy policy in 20 years out of Sacramento.

And a piece of that was a bill to really tackle, rate the rising costs of utilities, particularly energy utilities.

And we did a lot of great work.

Happy to talk about that.

But there's still more to do, I believe, and we're going to follow on that this year.

Wildfire resilience, criminal justice issues, access to patient care, child care subsidy reform,

and then there's a computer science standards update that we've been looking at as well

around how do you incorporate AI concepts in that.

I want to say, first of all, I'm really glad that to see the Lot 12 housing project is moving forward.

I appreciate that the council reallocated funds to ensure that ground banking can move forward.

So I was really excited to obtain money.

I think it was $10 million a number of years ago.

But it's really taken all of you to push it over the finish line, and tremendous effort there.

I continue to chair the Bay Area Caucus.

This will be my last year as chair.

and we've continued to focus on affordable housing among other issues and I know that

funding for affordable housing continues to be a huge issue and it's something I believe we need

to prioritize this year with bypassing a housing bond in the legislature. And then I want to thank

the Mountain View Police Department and the council for taking quick action around the ALPRs upon

discovering that unauthorized law enforcement agencies were able to search information captured

by those cameras. It's more important than ever to protect ourselves from federal overreach as well

as core privacy issues. So I commend that quick action. And I want to congratulate the city for

being recognized for its excellence in financial planning and transparency with the Distinguished

Budget Presentation Award from the Government Financial Officers Association. That is a

recognition of a job well done. So with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Senator Becker. I'm just going to look at my colleagues to see if anyone has any

questions or comments to you in this session. Council Member Hicks.

Well, first, I'm going to say just thank you so much for taking time out of your event to come.

And just the one area that you said you could expand on, you said you made significant progress expanding, I think it was energy and sustainability.

So if you could tell us just a little bit more about that, that was the piece that I wanted to hear a little more about.

Sure. Well, last year we did a couple things.

Number one, I had a bill that was sort of unusual for Sacramento in that it was many bills in one, about 10 bills in one.

that was SB 254. And because we know there's not one silver bullet for reducing electricity rates.

So among other things, number one, we extended the wildfire fund, which we had to do because

ultimately wildfire victims are otherwise the ones who suffer. So that was a big part of it.

And we'll be back this year. My bill also called for a report by April 1st to look at liability

reform. So right now we have something called strict liabilities. So that means for utilities,

So even if I happen to be driving a truck and I run into a utility pole and it causes a fire, the utility is still responsible for it.

And ultimately, we're sort of paying for these fires on the backs of repairs, which isn't really a very equitable way to sort of go about it.

So looking at this whole topic of liability reform is an important one.

But number one, we send the wildfire fund, so that was important.

But we also put in language around bang for the buck for wildfire spend.

And the reason, if you look at the rise in rates over the last 14 years, the generation cost, which is, you know, actually solar wind and all that stuff, has risen at just really about the rate of inflation.

Even transmission costs have gone over 14 years from about a billion to two billion.

If you look at the utilities, their request for their rates, which really increases the distribution costs.

So that's the last mile of poles and wires.

And that also includes all the wildfire spend, all the money we've had to spend now to lessen the risk of wildfires.

Now, we want to spend that money.

We want to lessen the risk of wildfires.

But we've got to make sure we're getting bang for the buck.

For example, we can't underground all 100,000 miles of wires that PG&E alone has, right?

Even 10,000 miles would be prohibitively expensive.

So there's language in there around bang for the buck for wildfire spend.

There's the beginning of public funding of infrastructure, so estimates from TURN, the Utility Reform Network, we can save up to $3 billion a year if we did public funding of infrastructure, about 50% of the cost.

So we start that in this bill.

We require that the utilities spend $6 billion of the wildfire spend they do with securitized debt instead of equity.

If they do it with securitized debt, they don't get that guaranteed rate of return.

They don't get the 10% return, and they don't get to rate base it.

So $6 billion of that spend we want them to do.

We said you've got to do that with securitized debt.

You don't get to rate-base that.

There are a lot of other provisions.

Our provisions are on streamlining, making it faster, which is one of their complaints as well.

But it does add to costs if we have unnecessary bureaucracy, as Wade Krofit says, cutting the green tape, essentially, to get things built faster.

And then there's other additional scrutiny around the rate of return itself.

So that's my relatively short explanation of what was in that bill.

So that was a big piece.

The other thing that we did, of course, we extended our cap and trade system, and that will return $60 billion directly to ratepayers via the climate credit between now and 2045.

And then I took on the task of something that they've been working on for sort of 10-plus years, which is to establish a regional energy grid across the West.

And people are very excited for that.

this is only for that marginal those you know we're really our greatest strain between 40 and

100 hours a year um and we have a lot increased amounts of excess solar most the rest of time so

we'll let us sell our excess solar and then in those times when we have those extreme heat events

better share resources across the west so those are those were sort of three big things um that

we did last year thank you that's that's exactly what i wanted to hear a little more from you about

Yeah, it gets into the wonky territory, but hopefully that was helpful.

Oh, that's okay, Senator Becker. We're a very wonky council.

Good. That's why I like you guys, yes.

All right. Next we have Council Member McAllister.

Senator, good to see you. Are you still on the Transportation Committee?

I am not. We just had to shift, so I'll be on revenue tax, which, some of the stuff we talked about.

But I'll still be quite involved in those issues as chair of the Bay Area Caucus.

Okay.

Another couple of questions on energy.

We were talking about it.

With the refineries closing up in Benicia and those areas,

and the potential of our price of gasoline going up,

is there anything that can be done to try to temper that large increase?

We've heard some people are saying $7, $8.

And, you know, there's big environmental concerns,

But then there's the reality of we need fuel to run many different things.

So where are we on that with you?

Yeah, yeah, great question.

Another thing we spent a lot of time on last year, and I don't think we're in danger of hitting nearly those prices, but something we very much had to tackle.

So, number one, I'm certainly be very involved in efforts to ramp down demand, right?

We need to ramp down demand, and we're not ramping down far enough, fast enough.

So that means transition electric vehicles, which also means charging infrastructure, and that means charging infrastructure also in low-income neighborhoods.

That means charging infrastructure for renters.

It means a lot of things.

It means figuring out ways to tackle medium and heavy-duty trucks despite the Trump administration blocking some of our attempts to do so.

So we need to ramp down demand and we need to ramp down demand faster because we're still importing, you know, millions of barrels into every month into California.

I think probably every day, actually.

And so one of the things is we have the tightest environmental standards in the world.

So in an area like Kern County, in areas that does not threaten public health or is not in anyone's backyard or near a health facility, we said, yeah, we've got to go ahead and we've got to make it easier, actually.

And I sit right in front of the Republican senator from Bakersfield, Senator Shannon Grove.

She was quite happy with that piece of legislation that we passed through.

So we're in this kind of mid-transition period, as the CEC put it.

So as we ramp down demand, as we ramp down, we've got to make sure that we provide and we don't have the escalating gas price.

That also means things like we'll be importing more finished product.

And we want to look increasingly this year at that issue as well.

Like how can we maybe trade with other states?

Right now we have our own blend of gasoline, which makes us unable to do that.

Maybe that's something we need to relook at.

We did that because of air pollution, especially in places like Los Angeles.

Well, you know, as with the transition electric vehicles and much more efficient cars, that's still an issue, but less of an issue.

So how do we consider those issues going forward?

I also spent time in the Amazon, as you may know, representing our state and our country in Brazil, first ever COP council of parties that was held in the Amazon region and did a resolution last year.

We want to get off of oil from the importer from the Amazon.

50 percent of the oil that's extractively that sort of harmfully mined from the Amazon that's exported comes to California.

So with all those reasons, we need more of a comprehensive strategy.

And that's another reason I'm excited to chair natural resources.

Natural resources, all those issues that you raised and that I just talked about are squarely in the the squarely in the realm of the Natural Resources Committee.

So I think we took some bold action last year that I think across the board people are excited about, and we'll need to do more this year, too.

My last question is about roads.

There was talk about doing some equity ways of raising funds for our roads because they're getting pretty deteriorated, and some of it could be for the EV cars, the incentives that they're not paying their fair share.

How do you address that issue?

Yeah, well, there's an assembly bill that I don't know all the specifics of, but basically it really calls for a study of that issue.

And I think it kind of got reported in a way that scared a lot of people that there's going to be another tax on people who are already paying the gas tax.

And no, that's not the case. I think it was looking exactly at this issue that you talked about, right, which is with the deciding gas tax, what are the other alternatives for us to raise revenue?

We already did put a fee on for electric vehicles, drivers a number of years ago.

But we do expect the gas tax to keep going down.

It is going to keep going down.

And we have to figure out a way otherwise to pay for the roads.

So that's something we will continue to look at this year.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Council Member McAllister.

Council Member Showalter.

Hi, Senator Becker. Thanks so much for taking time to be with us. And also, yes, your gang,

your blockbuster legislation last year on the environment was just music to so many people's

ears around here. We were really delighted at Silicon Valley Clean Energy in particular

about allowing the marketplace, the energy marketplace that we can use.

It will be very, right, it will be very, very valuable.

But on the affordable housing front or building more housing front,

one of the things that we want to promote in Mountain View is condos.

And we hear again and again and again that construction liability is a real barrier to that.

Is there any progress on changing those construction liability laws?

Yeah, thank you.

First of all, thanks for the kind words.

Yeah, we will.

So Senator Steve Glazer did take that on a couple years ago, and I voted for it.

And I was on the B&P committee.

but it didn't get moved forward um and it it ties into some um you know some some deals in the past

some some struggles in the past some compromises in the past i you know but i've said myself that

i'm willing to take it on and i actually offered to carry something this year um i was told that

buffy wicks who um is a strong housing voice and i've talked to her she's my vice chair the bayern

caucus, she said she was going to take it on. So, and she's well positioned to do that, giving her

other housing work. So I'll check in with her on that. But I told her I will support it in any way.

I know it's a controversial issue, but it's one we absolutely have to address. So thanks for the

reminder. I'll check in with my team and I'll check in with Assemblymember Wicks. But she did

tell me she was going to take it on and I said I'll be fully in support. Well, that's fabulous.

Well, another thing I just want to do is brag, and that is it's in the natural resources area.

We are finishing a sea level rise protection project.

And what we are it is also a habitat restoration project.

It's the it's the construction on pond A2W.

and we've done all the construction to fortify the tongue of the landfill that sticks out so that it's well protected.

We've built the horizontal levee. There have been two breaches on Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek,

so tide water is coming in to raise the level of dirt there,

and we hope that in about 10 years we will see a marsh.

But another aspect of this that I think is going to be great fun for all of us

is the Stevens Creek Trail is going to be extended 1.2 miles out into the bay

on top of the Stevens Creek Levee on that side.

And we're going to have our grand opening on February 20th.

So I don't know if you can make it to that.

It would be wonderful if you could.

but someday I know you will want to ride your bike out there.

Well, that's fantastic.

Thank you for your leadership on water.

And thanks to the council.

And I'll make sure my team gets these.

You know, we want to be able to lift up those kinds of projects.

And as you know, I secured a lot of money in the budget last year

for coastal resilience and sea level rise.

But projects, and it's a huge priority up and down the bay.

So thank you to your council and to Mountain View for your leadership

and look forward to helping promote that.

That's super exciting.

Yeah, it is.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Showalter.

Council Member Ramirez, you had a question?

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Senator.

We appreciate the update and the generosity of your time with us,

and I don't want to take too much more of it.

I did want to ask if you could share a little bit more information

about the child care legislation that you described earlier.

I don't know if it has a number or if there's any way we can learn a little bit more about it and how we can support that work that you're doing.

Thank you.

It doesn't have a number yet, but it's going to revamp the child care subsidy system to, among other things, ensure a stable and equitable reimbursement of child care contractors.

So that's the focus.

We'll be working with a lot of the advocates on that, and I'll let you know as soon as we have a number.

we have a number. And I'll just say also, you know, I've told Senator Aguirre-Curry from the

Women's Caucus has been a leader that she's the full support of the Bay Area Caucus in really

focusing on child care this year. We know that's something that an area of great need. I served on

the Child Care Partnerships Council of San Mateo County before I was elected. So I got involved in

all the facilities, the workforce, you know, as well as sort of the policy side. So, you know,

We have done some good things since I was there around rate reform and around TK,

but I know TK also provides additional burdens for some of our basic aid districts.

But anyway, the point being that we know we need to do more on child care

and looking forward to working with folks locally as well as I know

the San Jose City Council is also focused on it.

So we'll work with them as well.

So I'll get you the number of that bill once we have it.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez. Councilmember Kamei, do you have some questions for our

dear Senator?

Hi, Senator. Hello from Washington, D.C. I'm on a different screen. I don't know if

you can see me on your phone. But thanks so much for being with us. Just like two quick

questions. So I know you held like a select committee hearing on economic development

and innovation. And being that we're Mountain View, it'd be really interesting to hear any

findings or things that we should be thinking about. I don't know, any feedback that might

impact the bills that you're going to be putting forward by next Friday. Just

thought I'd ask. Thanks. Yes. Well, thank you for asking, because that's something I am very

super, super passionate about. Kind of give my background. I was also on the State Workforce

board and actually had, you know, I really want to continue to bridge the gap between

the Valley and Sacramento. I had Irvine Foundation in my office today, the CEO of Irvine, as well

as with Mid-ER in Remotely. Those are two organizations that have focused a lot on funding

from the nonprofit side, the workforce development efforts here in the state. Also talked to them

about AI workforce is something we need to be in front of, given all the advances on AI in the

Valley. And particularly, you know, I did a roundtable first during the break last year,

and then we had this hearing, and we had WISC Aero, for example, at the roundtable I did in

the district. And, you know, that's an example of an industry, that vertical takeoff aircraft

industry. All three of those companies were founded in California. Two are already manufacturing

outside of California. They've already made the decision. We're not, can't unfortunately do it

in California, we're going to manufacture elsewhere. And WISC has not decided. WISC is

now at Moffitt Field. And so that's just an example. We don't want to lose those jobs.

Those are good jobs. And we want those folks to stay in California. We also had my round

table and in the hearing, Josh Richmond, who led the site selection for CyQuantum to build

the world's first quantum computer. They ended up picking Illinois. It's not a low-tech state.

It's not a low union state.

In fact, it's high tax and high union.

But they went there for various reasons that we heard about.

And so I think this is going to be an ongoing effort.

I think it will probably may lead to some stuff this year, but really probably more likely next year as we think more about doing strategic economic development here in California.

And I guess that's sort of what I'll say about it for now.

But we're working on the write-ups from last week, and I'll share those with you.

We did hear from cities and like to, you know, Fremont, for example, I think has done a lot.

And we heard from the city of Fremont there.

And it would be good to compare notes with, say, Fremont and Mountain View and some other cities in our district on what more can be done to, again, I mean, it sounds small.

But a lot of times it's just feeling wanted, honestly, for these companies.

They want to feel wanted, and they feel wanted by other states, and they don't always feel wanted by California.

So thank you for asking.

It's certainly a passion of mine and something where, again, we'll do some work this year, but I think it's going to be probably to your effort.

Great. Thank you so much.

And then just last, I just want to say thank you on your leadership for SB 747.

I'm assuming you don't need any advocacy from the city, but if you do, please let us know.

Thanks so much.

Those are my questions, Mayor.

thank you council member kamei and those are our questions from our city council senator becker so

thank you so much for joining us we know that you're your favorite we're your favorite city

you don't have to confirm or deny that um do you have any other um questions or comments for us

before we let you go to what's most likely your next event that you probably have to run to

yes i appreciate thanks for letting me join here uh remotely i'm not in the witness protection

program um just coming from my car but i i do appreciate being able to join remotely

um no thanks you've covered a lot of the big issues um you know uh you know i'll just say that

we continue um you know a big part of our job is constituent services um and uh we we have

a we closed 580 cases just towards the last half of last year so we um are here for your residents

for all those issues. And then, you know, a lot of the focus this year is also just going to be

dealing with HR1 and the fallout of that around healthcare and other human services. So again,

I'm excited to chair human services. I know it's going to be a big challenge this year,

but I'm excited to work with you as we try to keep the safety net as strong

as possible here in California. So thank you. Thank you again, Senator Becker. And thank you

to your staff as well.

Alex, Isabel, and Joan are always very helpful for us.

And you're always welcome to join us here

in your favorite city.

Well, good.

And looking forward.

And I also want to work with you, you know,

as we talk about, you know, additional housing

and talk about, you know, some of our corporate partners,

for example, I know Google that had committed various housing

and I've sort of been trying to stay on them as well

to make sure that that land's going to get either developed

or a turnover developer to make sure that,

because that's a significant amount of housing

that I know we're all counting on.

So look forward to working with you on that as well.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thanks all.

All right.

Bye, Senator Becker.

Bye.

All right.

Thank you so much, Mr. Kariakas.

I'm sorry we had to go to our,

now we're back to her general programming.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think we were talking about just the highlights for 2025.

We talked about the earmarks, legislative advocacy on housing, transportation and climate,

formula funding, and then development of grant program development, and then your actual

federal program development.

So next slide, please.

So as I was saying, as far as the community project funding, so with your guidance and

direction, the excellent work of your staff, the support from both senators and Congressman

Liccardo, $2 million was just signed into law for the Evelyn housing, affordable housing

project.

We have $1.145 million for the Charleston Slew Tidegates to deal with some potential flooding.

That's pending final approval of the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

But again, this wouldn't have been possible without your direction and city staff and the delegation's support.

So crossing our fingers that the Homeland Security bill with the funding gets through, but that's pending.

On federal programs, with your advocacy and direction, CDBG program was funded at FY25 levels,

so $3.3 billion, even though I think the president's budget eliminated the funding.

Congress funded it at 25 levels.

That's about $618,000 that the city receives annually from the program on home.

The House bill had zeroed it out, as did the president's budget.

The final bill includes $1.25 billion for the home program.

Again, some formula funding that the city receives on affordable housing.

Homeless assistance was funded at $4.1 billion.

That's $500 million more than FY25, so significant increase in homeless assistance.

Yes, in my backyard, pro-housing, there was $50 million included in the bill.

Again, it was zeroed out in the President's budget and in the House budget requests as well.

FTA formula funding at $14.3 billion, which is the authorized level.

And then discretionary funding for CRSY is $1.1 billion.

those funds, like for Chrissy, that we expect grant notices to be coming out in the next quarter.

Next slide. And then, as was mentioned earlier, H.R. 1, the one big, beautiful bill act,

was passed back in July. It's obviously a mix of various items. A couple of things to highlight,

though, that were also on the platform and included in the bill, there was an increase

in the low-income housing tax credit. It does protect and did not eliminate the tax exemption

from municipal bonds, which I know this council pushed hard against them cutting. It does cut,

significantly cut Medicaid and SNAP, and it does rescind significant energy credits that were

passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. It does also include an adjustment to the SALT benefit,

And so that will take place this year.

A couple other things that we worked on on legislation that will carry over into 2026,

surface transportation authorization, also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

That will expire at the end of September.

Congress is in the process of releasing a new bill, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

We expect we'll release a bill sometime in the spring.

The city did submit some comments to the delegation, one around the CRSY and RCE program, so the

Railroad Crossing and Elimination Program, to prioritize those projects like Rank Store

that are further ahead in design.

So those are comments that we submitted for consideration and also to ensure that future

funding is more directed at the local level like the Surface Transportation Block Grant

program does.

So a couple of those things we're pushing for, and we'll find out how we do it once this bill is introduced.

On the housing front, affordable housing front, as Christina mentioned, Representative Liccardo introduced the Unlocked Act.

That came from your city staff directly, talking about ways in which there can be tweaks to the CDBG program

to make that program more flexible to allow for some funding to be used for affordable housing.

And then we recently saw, as of yesterday, the Road to Housing Act comprehensive bill.

It's comprised of 36 other bills, two of which are Representative Locardo's bills,

that would streamline some environmental NEPA requirements and also to provide some other

incentives to reduce barriers to zoning. That passed, and again, your staff is looking at the

bill and we're expecting the House and Senate to come together at some point and pass a final bill

probably towards the end of this year is my guess. On climate, the council weighed in on the

Groundwater Rise in Infrastructure Preparedness Act.

We're also watching a bill that has passed

the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee.

It's the FEMA Act.

It's to reform FEMA, also to create a new mitigation program

that's formula-based as opposed to a competitive program

like the BRIC program.

So that's got some momentum.

It passed with significant bipartisan support

and we're watching to see how that plays out this go round.

Next slide.

So, this session of Congress, we're here to talk about your platform. As Christina mentioned,

there are a couple of tweaks that were made to it, but setting the stage for what's on the

congressional agenda, FY27 budget. The president will probably release the administration's budget

request in the next few weeks. We expect Congress to do earmarks again. In fact, we were just

earlier today talking with Representative Liccardo's staff about his process. The senators

are hosting a webinar on Thursday to talk about their process and guidelines for earmark requests

or community project funding requests. We talked to staff today about a potential project idea.

So the city is getting ready and it will be in a good position to submit projects when called for.

As I mentioned, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill, that's a major piece

of legislation that either has to get reauthorized or what probably is more likely as they do

a one-year extension of the bill.

I know a couple comments were made about EVs earlier, just to point out that when they

were looking at H.R. 1, taxing electric vehicles was on the table.

The House had included its version of the reconciliation bill.

The Senate did not.

But it's certainly going to be on the table for raising revenue for the next bill,

is making sure that, at least I think from some perspective,

that EVs also pay some use or user fee for vehicle use on the roads.

Housing, again, we've got two bills, both passed in the Senate and the House,

with tremendous bipartisan support.

So we think that this is a good year for housing.

Certainly they're talking about affordability

with elections coming up.

So we see some momentum around that.

The Water Resources Development Act

primarily funds the Corps of Engineers.

We do see Congress moving ahead on a biannual basis

doing that bill.

So that's gonna be marked up again probably sometime

in the first or second quarter of this year.

Last, you know, we're certainly watching, as Jake mentioned, you know, some of the federal

grant opportunities on CRSY and RCE.

We're talking to staff today about potentially looking at the next round.

There should be about $1.1 billion in CRSY money available.

I think some of you are planning to come back to Washington during the National League of

Cities conference.

It would be a good opportunity to go by and talk to DOT about Rengstorf and pitch the

project.

before any sort of grant notice is released. Next slide.

So that sort of ends our presentation. I just want to say again, you know, advocacy,

as you all know, is a team sport. You know, we wouldn't be able to do any of this without

your direction, your involvement. Your staff is tremendous, and your delegation is

is just doing a great job.

So I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kariakas.

We, because it's a study session,

we will first go to public comment

before we start with council questions.

So would any member of the public joining us virtually

or in person like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom

or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have three minutes.

All right.

Are you speaking on the side of Mr. Scarborough?

Yes, all right, go ahead.

Hello, City Council.

Nice to be back and see you all again.

As I was looking through the things

that you're gonna be looking at for the federal agencies

and for the federal legislation,

I was thinking about how we want to have a community for all

and how we have federal agencies that are very hostile

for many people in our community

due to however they've decided to focus on them.

So I was surprised not to see anything on there

addressing pushing back against federal overreach

or protecting our communities

and our vulnerable populations and all of us.

So that's just my comment.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Scarborough.

We will now move on to our virtual speakers.

Mr. Cox.

Thank you, can you hear me?

We can.

Okay, great.

I'm speaking for a livable Mountain View tonight

and we appreciate the city has prioritized many items

for federal and state legislation

that align with our city values,

particularly that of being a community for all.

We do urge the council also to prioritize items that affect Mountain View most urgently.

In particular, two that we want to bring up.

One is to support the introduction of legislation to clear up and extend the timelines for SB79 local alternative plans.

We thank you for the discussion that we had last time on this.

The state is doing a good job in cleaning up the definitions, but the timelines are

still unclear and the maps for each of the zones have still not been delivered to all

municipalities.

So since the council has decided to start work on the local alternative plan next year,

getting some clarity on the timelines is of utmost importance.

So please advocate for that.

I was glad to hear that SB908 may deal with that.

I looked it up on the legislative portal.

It's just a placeholder bill right now.

So let's get some real stuff in that bill and get this done.

The second thing is we want to echo a comment that Vice Mayor Clark made about supporting legislation that gives cities like Mountain View that have a pro-housing designation more flexibility in determining where new housing will be built.

But right now, Mountain View and Campbell, maybe there's a few others, are the rarities

in Santa Clara County in terms of being pro-housing cities.

And we really believe that if there were more flexibility in doing this, more cities in

our county would want to jump on the idea of being pro-housing cities.

And then that would be the much better path toward getting the housing problem solved,

which is a regional issue, something we've heard very much.

So anyway, those are the two things we wanted to talk about.

Thank you very much.

I'll yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Cox.

We now, that was all our speakers.

So council will now have the opportunity to ask questions and discuss and provide feedback

on the study session question.

Does any member of the council have questions?

All right, council member Hicks.

Well, I do have one question.

I think this would be federally.

There was my fellow council member asked about taxes on EVs.

I'm wondering, I've also, I read this and it was some time ago, so maybe you can clarify.

I read about taxes on, by weight of vehicle, which of course car use, I mean, I have a tiny, very light car and there are others much heavier.

Mine is not using the road very much.

Do you know of any legislation federally on that?

I believe this was a tax tied to registration, which is not the biggest tax you pay, but anyway.

So do you know anything about taxes tied to weight?

So there's probably several bills around that issue.

I don't have an answer on the specific, and we'll come back to you with an answer on that.

As I said earlier, there was language in that H.R.1, the House version, that would have taxed EVs, specifically electric vehicles.

So I don't think it was necessarily around weight.

And that would have, I think, generated about $15 to $20 billion for the bill for that five-year period.

So we'll come back to you and do some research on specific legislation around the weight.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Council Member McAllister.

While you're up there, thank you for getting out here.

I'm sure you said, oh, warm weather.

I'm out of here.

So I can drive a car.

Help me understand the process between the city, how you interact with Sam Liccardo.

Does it start with the city and then it filters through him or do you sort of go parallel with him or does Christine say, hey, get a hold of Sam, we want this.

Just give us a sense of how things work.

Yeah, I think it's, I don't think there's one clear answer.

I think, you know, on, for example, I was talking about the, you know, FY27 community project funding requests.

You know, the senators have local representatives as is Congressman Liccardo.

So in some cases, they'll reach out to the city before we interact with them.

And vice versa, it's sometimes us interacting with them and then coming back to the city

with information.

So I think it really depends on the issue.

Again, I think on the appropriations side, if that's what you're specifically talking

about, because we know the cycle starts and sort of when it starts, we proactively will

engage the delegation about getting their guidelines and guidance.

They all will send out information

sort of at one time to their constituents, and sometimes

Christina will get information before we do, and

she'll report it back to us, and we'll work with the delegation per

direction. So like with the money that the $1.3

million or so forth, so do we get it, and then you

Do you work with Sam and his to go advocate or to get votes for it?

So, yeah, on that particular issue, we had worked with you all, city staff, last year to sort of identify projects ahead of time.

And so when the process opened up, the city working with us developed an application, sort of a grant application that was submitted to their offices.

their offices will review all of the projects that come in.

So on the House side, they're limited to 15 projects that they can submit to the committee.

On the Senate side, before last year, they could submit as many as they wanted.

This year, under Republican control, they limited to about, I'd say, I think 400 or 500 projects overall.

So in that case, the senators will rack and stack, and so will the congressman,

because he's going to have a number of projects that are submitted to him.

And so I think, again, your advocacy coming back, talking to him,

talking to his staff here.

I know the mayor, Mayor Kamei at that time,

was talking to his staff about the priorities of the city.

And again, I don't think you can take any of it for granted.

I think you have to continuously update and educate.

And I think you all did that last year.

And I think that's why you got two out of his 15 requests submitted.

And since we have you here, go to the crystal ball.

What do you see in the midterms?

You know, I think, you know, it's hard to listen.

If I were to make predictions, I'd lose a lot of money.

So I think what you can say is looking at history, right?

I think history tells us that the president's party typically loses during the midterms.

I don't see any reason to sort of go against that sort of historical trend.

But, you know, I don't know how voters, you know, will react in November.

But, you know, I do think, you know, history is a guide here.

And so that's kind of where I'll stand.

Thank you.

Mayor, do we, are we able to ask to the state or are we just going to do the federal then go to the state?

Oh, this was all questions for all.

Okay, so if I had some questions for the state.

Yes, go right ahead.

Unless Chris has some federal, then I'll follow up with the state afterwards.

He's standing there.

Might as well get him.

Okay.

He's all warmed up.

I think he wanted to ask federal questions anyway, so go ahead.

It's just piggybacking on the prior question.

Should we just assume the reauthorization for the anything tied to HOV lanes, whether it's the EV decals or anything like that,

Should we just assume that's dead and probably not going to make it into any of the reauthorizations?

Because I know it hasn't made it in thus far and expired.

I just didn't know if there were any efforts to save it or if it's just gone.

Yeah, I wouldn't say that anything is off the table at this point.

I mean, we haven't seen any bill text.

And so I think, like I said earlier, I think if you were looking at what the House did during reconciliation on EVs,

I would expect to see that come up again.

I don't see why they would not take advantage of their majority.

And if they wanted to get it done previously,

I still think that's going to be on the table as a revenue raiser for sure.

The Senate will maybe take a different approach,

but I think they're going to be looking for ways to raise revenue.

And EVs under the current climate, I think, are ripe for that type of action.

Thank you for your time.

Can I ask somebody from the state?

Yes.

Okay.

So you were talking about park fees and I'm reading some of our items that were coming

up today and that we're going to have, there's a contradiction in park fees and housing development.

So the housing development, the YIMBYs and all that,

they're trying to make it less affordable,

I mean, cost less to build,

and so they're restricting our ability

to charge fees for parks.

And yet on the other side, you're saying,

okay, well, we want parks, so we're gonna get fees.

So why, is there any change that there could be

a swing in the pendulum of restrictions

so that we can actually afford to charge developers

to get things done in the city?

So I think that it's a case-by-case basis with respect to the jurisdiction.

From a statewide perspective, there was a recent study that's getting a lot of traction from the Turner Center,

which attributes less than 5% of total construction costs attributed to local government fees.

I think for folks like us who represent city government

I think that's a pretty good

being pretty good stewards of those dollars that are coming in

when you look at the dollars that come in

they are highly regulated, highly transparent

we have to have direct dollars that go right to those services

there are other aspects that drive housing costs

considerably more than

less than 5% on average

So speaking to it as a whole, I think that's one of the messages that a lot of folks who represent local agencies are trying to convey.

And I think that at least having the authority for the local agency to negotiate on those fees versus them being, you know, eliminated, cap, reduced, or otherwise unable to collect puts us in a position where we're not able to negotiate in good faith with developers on specific projects.

And so, you know, I think that everything's on the table this year with respect to trying to defend our ability to assess reasonable fees.

This city is doing a remarkable job, whether it's through land educations and upzoning policies of pro-housing designated city.

You'll have a really, really incredible story to tell that we are conveying to the legislature.

but we have to be able to assess fees

to provide those critical services

or maintain that infrastructure.

And so that's sort of the grappling

that we're dealing with.

I don't know if that sort of answers your question.

Open space, parks, quality of life

are very important to the residents of Mountain View.

And yet as we continue to do this development

and being, you know, sort of restricted by these outside groups saying you got to do this so you can get housing for it.

We're not, we're building more, but we're taking away from the quality of life.

So that's why I'm saying this there.

Oh, okay, I see.

Well, and so, and I don't, and I will say, I don't think it's mutually exclusive.

I think that a lot of the legislature, legislation is really trying to focus on infill development, you know, converting infill sites.

But I do think to a certain extent in talking with your planning folks and your park folks, you know, parks are important.

They're not just an amenity.

I mean, they reduce, you know, there's all sorts of statistics that talk about overall community health, accessibility, walkability.

You know, these are all things that get folks outside, build a sense of community.

You know, you want to provide amenities to those folks, you know, not just build high density housing with no amenities.

Right.

And so, you know, there are trade-offs.

But yes, I do think that there is a narrative

that continues to advance that local fees

are the barrier to addressing the affordability crisis.

And I would say communities like Mountain View

that are doing really phenomenal work,

I think may have a different narrative.

How do you define small cities?

How do I...

Yeah, you mentioned earlier small cities are getting into this thing, and I just wonder how you –

So, well, that particular bill is opening up HAP dollars to cities under $300,000.

So, you know, in that case, we would be a small city.

Really, you know, I can't really define what's a small city and what's not.

The legislature does that for us.

A lot of times I hear, depending on the issue, if you're a population of 30,000 or less,

oftentimes we've been seeing lately, even if you are a population of 30,000 or less,

but you're in a county that has a higher county population, then you're not a small city.

We saw that with SB 707 last year with some of the Brown Act stuff.

So, you know, it's not for me to define it, but it's, I suppose, a term of art with respect to who's a small city or not.

Thank you.

Small city, but big heart.

That's right.

That's right.

Thank you, Council Member McAllister.

Council Member Showalter.

Yeah, you mentioned that there was some effort to suspend reach codes permanently.

So can you discuss that a little bit?

So what I, and to be clear, there is not a piece of legislation that we have seen right now that will suspend reach codes permanently.

We saw what happened with AB 361, which was then effectively rolled into the budget.

So it put legislators in a very tough position to either not vote for the state budget or not.

They put policy in the budget, which we don't like to see.

But there are, when you look at some of the findings coming out of the select committee on housing construction,

one of the findings coming out, which really these select committees are a pretext to introduce a host of bills, right?

So, for example, Assemblywoman Wicks hosted or was the chair of the select committee on

permit reform.

And then right at the February deadline, there was a press release with 25 bills on permit

reform.

So we're waiting for these bills to start coming.

But one of the big sort of takeaways that we grabbed onto, we wrote memos and provided

to staff, was this sort of theme about, well, it's good that we've got the suspension of

these codes.

we need to think about longer term, you know, more, you know, uniform codes and really usurping local codes is what the theme we kept hearing because that was another impediment to rapid construction.

And so, again, it's a trend.

We haven't yet seen anything in print, but, you know, to answer your question, that's what we're saying.

Okay, well, please keep us informed.

That's really a very negative trend.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Council Member Showalter.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll try and be quick because we still have to discuss the item.

But I wanted to get a better sense of, we were talking about trends and risks.

What are the risks associated with some of the real property transfer tax preemptions

that you've described?

It seemed like there was some good news coming out of L.A., which I think is sort of the ground zero for a lot of this effort.

So is there still a threat to Mountain View?

What are you observing?

Yeah.

So Isaac Bryant just introduced a bill, and it's in the 1,000s.

And so I don't have it off the top of my head, but the bill was introduced, I believe it was yesterday,

specific to LA and LA County with respect to their, the mansion taxes they're referring to

down there. I can tell you in this forum that there are a contingent of Bay Area lawmakers

that are looking to try and expand this statewide. And you look at what was not what the end result

was last year with 423, but the RNs, the non-public versions of the bill that were circulating,

and they were really talking about two things. Number one, the document transfer taxes that

are assessed at the county level that trickle down to the cities, and then the real estate

transfer taxes, which in theory undermine the locally voter-approved statutes that you have.

But the impacts of that provision, particularly for Mountain View on the commercial side, was

the most I've seen even from much larger cities with respect to your unique commercial population.

And so the policy framework that we've been seeing is this 12-year suspension of real estate

transfer taxes for commercial, 12-year suspension for multifamily, and then five years for single

family homes. But that's if there was a disaster in that region, right? So when we were running

the numbers, and again, this was like back of the napkin with your team in the wee hours

of the session.

Some of these transactions were in the billions, and even a 1% or 1.5% fee on that was substantial

to provide those city services.

And so it is, I see, a major threat and an opportunity for us to really provide that

education to your delegation.

I actually had the opportunity to connect with your housing and planning director.

earlier today, we're going to be working with city manager's office too to really try and find ways

to tell the narrative, tell the story, what those impacts would mean for city services,

and be more proactive because this will be a very, very tough issue. And frankly, those big,

tough issues, they like to, you know, work into the very, very end of session or try to work into

the budget, which would be frankly the worst case scenario because then again, it puts those

legislators in those tough positions. And so really trying to drive awareness on that issue now.

Thank you. So it sounds like priority one for us, perhaps.

Yeah.

The other question, I had other questions, but I'll just limit myself to one more.

I know, I think this month was the deadline for, I guess, the conclusion of some single stair reform work that Assemblymember Alex Lee had introduced years ago.

Do you happen to know where that's landing?

Is the state legislature continuing to look at single stare, or is that no longer under consideration?

I am not familiar with that term.

You said single stare reform?

I'm sorry, I wasn't.

That's okay.

I don't want to pretend to be an expert, but it sounds like something we can look into and come back later.

Yes, I will.

Yep, I'm writing it down, and I can talk to his chief of staff and get the download on that before I get back to you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right, any other questions from council?

It's interesting, this is a question for Ms. Christina,

so I'll be ready to take your seat.

We'll probably have more discussion, that will be fun.

But Ms. Christina, as I'm looking through

the platform right now,

and there are some things that some members of council

may support or want to push to support,

but it's kind of under certain buckets of things.

We don't explicitly call it out.

Is it helpful for you to have things explicitly called out?

Or the existing language would be just fine?

So just to make sure I am understanding your question,

you're talking about adding specific policy statements to either platform.

And you're asking if staff would like you to provide specific language

or if you would just like themes or buckets

and that staff can go back, develop the language

and bring it back to the council for approval and adoption?

Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, so like Council Member Ramirez mentioned

single stair reform.

It's not explicitly called out in our thing.

But I was also thinking about how Council Member Showalter

mentioned to Senator Becker

about the condo liability bill kind of thing.

And those seem, could be under our buckets

of like item eight and 10 of support legislation

that would incentivize production of missing middle

or like support legislation that allows

for middle income and affordable home ownership opportunities.

Those kind of fall into that bucket,

but I don't know how staff would interpret that

in order for us to move forward

on essentially specific legislation should it come up.

Sure.

So I think probably the best path forward

would be for council to provide us with the themes.

So single story, sorry, single stair legislation

is something that the council is interested in.

The staff would, with our legislative advocates,

develop some platform statements,

vet it through our internal departments

and then bring it back to council for adoption.

And then we also recommend what bucket within the platform

that we think that would best fit.

All right, thank you so much.

That's helpful.

I see a hand from Council Member McAllister.

Yeah, I'm going to go straight to your question.

It says, are there any policies issue?

I mean, Council Member Showalter took my, one of my policies I wanted to talk about was the condo liability.

I've been pushing that for, I don't know, since 2014.

And when someone said it was a sticky issue, I'm going, hey, you do it or you don't.

So I would think that would be a high priority because if we're talking about middle income,

and this is where our former mayor, she likes that.

So that's specific.

I'd like to see that.

And the other with my businessman hat on,

the fervorless lawsuits that are coming through,

that have been coming through,

I don't understand why there hasn't been progress on it

because if you have an issue and you're not in compliance

and somebody gives you six months to say get it done

and you're getting sued the whole time,

it just doesn't,

I've seen businesses in downtown Mountview

go out of business because the lawsuits are,

you know, tens of thousands of dollars

where we just said, hey, give me six months, I can correct it.

So I would like to see that two specific issues brought to the attention of our distinguished

gentleman from Sacramento.

Okay.

Thank you, Council Member Kouser.

Council Member Showalter.

And I guess now we are moving on, because is this a question or are we moving on to answering

the question?

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Let's go.

Okay.

I put in a little bit of a laundry list in the questions.

It's on page two of the questions, question five.

Are there any policy statements to add?

And one is support legislation that rewards

pro-housing cities with funding incentives

and permitting flexibility to create great neighborhoods.

Anyway, you mentioned in your answer

that there was a little bit related to that,

but I personally think we should buff it up.

So I'd be interested in how other people feel.

Then the other one is support funding

for soft story retrofits.

That's a thing that, gosh, it's fallen through every crack.

It could possibly fall through,

but it should still be on the list.

It's important.

Support construction liability reform

under environmental sustainability.

Now under CEQA, we have to get consultation from tribes

And I'm just wondering if the tribes really have

the capacity to do that consultation

or if they need some sort of assistance,

training, et cetera, to better do that.

That's not so much a local thing

as it is more of a statewide thing.

And then support stormwater management implementation

with funding and technical assistance.

I know some of this is done by the regional board,

but again, it's a blanket thing

that I think is very important,

particularly as our stormwater management requirements

get more and more rigorous.

And then should we be adding something related

to regulations of ALPRs?

I didn't see that on the list, but it could have been there.

But anyway, I'm concerned about that.

And then as our consultant brought up,

I wasn't aware that reach codes

are conceivably on the chopping block.

As a civil engineer, I just have to say

that a disaster is a terrible thing to waste.

And the way that civil engineers are,

I mean, I'm sort of outgoing,

but a lot of civil engineers typically aren't.

They're working in their labs,

and they're trying, they solve problems,

and they don't really get a chance to tell people

about what they're doing very often.

And then there's a disaster that comes forward

and somebody says, well, how can we do this?

And these researchers raise their hand and say,

well, by the way, I've been working on this for 15 years,

this is what we could do.

And they're able to bring forward their research

and it can be implemented.

That's been very important from time to time

with earthquake requirements.

It's been very important with hardening against wildfires

and I don't know what the next disaster is gonna be,

but I just feel like I wanna share that idea

that that's what reach codes are for,

and we don't want to freeze the building code.

We want it to be a living document,

so that's my last one, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Showalter.

Council Member Clark.

I'm fine with most, if not all those.

The one thing that I would emphasize is the,

if there are, it sounds like there might be

legislative vehicles in this session that we can

utilize for,

a pro-housing city designation is hard to get

and it should be.

And I think one of the things that we're hearing

from the community is we're putting up with a lot of change

and in order to effectuate and build additional housing

and I think a lot of folks are uncomfortable with that

but at the end of the day are proud

that we're moving in that direction.

And I think the approach of the state so far

has been more of a stick approach

where it's whether it's SB 79 or other things,

it's kind of a everyone is treated the same

or the housing element process

where everyone has the same deadline.

And we've learned a lot about how maybe

to change all these things going forward.

But I think the biggest thing for me is just saying,

look, if you've gone to the effort

of getting a pro-housing designation,

you know, maybe in terms of processing

housing element applications in the future,

maybe there are different buckets, right?

So HCD isn't inundated,

and maybe the non-pro-housing cities go first,

and they have a deadline by which they need

something certified, maybe the pro-housing cities

are in a second bucket, and,

or when they submit, as long as they submit something

that's substantially complete, they're assumed

to have submitted a compliant housing element

and the clock stops unless HCD later says,

no, you need to make these other additions,

but you're not stuck in that window of time

where like Builder's Remedy applies.

Like there's an assumption that if you're a pro-housing city

that you're a good actor, right?

And I think that carrot approach would really go a long way

toward incentivizing other cities to take that approach.

I know there are funding benefits now,

but I think some relief in terms of

the housing element application process,

SB 79 set a really quick deadline

for us to adopt a local alternative.

If pro-housing cities had an extra six months or a year,

that would be an enormous benefit to us

because we can still produce the housing

or at least zone for the housing

that we need to zone for and comply.

But we also have, we're given the grace

to do it appropriately and not just on a quick shot clock.

And I think the only other thing that I would say

is to the extent that some of the other jurisdictions

that have that pro housing designation,

San Francisco, maybe San Jose soon,

those are powerhouses in terms of lobbying.

And so to the extent that we can,

instead of just saying, hi, we're Mountain View,

we want this thing.

If I think the, we're a wonderful,

if not the best city, very close to it.

But we would have, I think,

a lot more lobbying power and clout, thank you,

for if we were to partner with some of the other cities

that are either already housing designated

or are going for that.

And if we, I just think that's a better approach.

So the really big one for me

is just figuring out some way in the next year or two

to kind of change that dynamic

so that we're getting a little bit more credit

for all the effort that we're taking

and frankly some of the pain,

the political pain that we're suffering as a city

because of that, I think it will help.

It will help, actually it'll help us move housing,

our housing goals along.

Soft story retrofits.

As Council Member Sherwalter pointed out,

We don't wanna let any crisis go to waste,

and I feel like in this particular circumstance,

we're waiting for the crisis to occur,

and I guarantee you when we have the next big one,

there will be all sorts of political momentum

to retrofit soft story structures that haven't fallen down,

and I worry that we're going to lose lives

if we don't act sooner than later,

and I would really prefer not to act

after we have some sort of crisis that forces folks to act.

So, and then the other big one is just,

I know it's a, I know it's a hornet's nest,

but there has to be construction liability reform

for condominiums at some point.

I don't know what the right answer is,

but we're dealing with that in my current complex

because we're approaching year 10

and all the litigators come out of the woodwork

and the insurance, it really affects the insurance right now

and the HOA dues because it's almost impossible

to insure condo complexes.

Anyway, that's a whole other can of worms.

But, and the other items that were mentioned were fine.

The only other thing that I would mention is,

to the extent that if there is any sort of legislation,

I know, I don't wanna get into ALPRs,

that's a totally separate bucket,

but I am heartened by,

I didn't think it would be very successful,

but I'm really impressed by the data

that's coming out of San Francisco and the speed cameras

and safety, especially in school zones and other areas.

And so I think right now they've only authorized

a certain number of jurisdictions to do that.

And I think that any jurisdiction should have the option

to at least try those.

I think there are far fewer privacy implications

associated with that, but especially if you set

the thresholds high enough for speed and other things.

But it's really hard and expensive for us

to have the number of officers doing traffic enforcement

constantly in those areas, and if some of that

could be automated, I think we would end up

with much, much safer streets, and I think the data

is proving out that it's actually an effective way

to really reduce fatalities and accidents

and have an impact.

So that's the only other thing that I would add.

Thank you, Council Member Clark.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

There's a lot of new ideas,

and I think one of the things that we don't necessarily

have to do with this platform,

but over time it might be good to think about

a prioritization, the document over time,

risks becoming so sprawling that we'll have

400,000 different statements and it's not really clear

what we care most about.

I think there are some themes that are emerging,

I think, as clear priorities, including protecting

our ability to impose a real property transfer tax,

for instance.

So that's something I won't be around for much longer, but maybe the next council could think about.

There were a couple of things I wanted to suggest.

So I appreciate Council Member Showalter bringing up the soft story retrofitting, seismic retrofitting issue.

I was surprised that we've talked about this a few times, and that wasn't in the list.

That's been a concern for the city for a long time.

I wanted to flag C33, which is a very long statement that, in my opinion, is a little bit hard to parse.

And I wanted to suggest having staff think through sort of revisiting that to make it clearer about what we want to achieve.

And what I would suggest in particular is we're starting to see some, in my opinion, bad actor developers use the state density bonus law to reduce or eliminate our inclusionary housing requirements.

and in particular reducing either the number of affordable units that we would otherwise require

or reducing the affordability of those units,

which in my mind is just clearly antithetical to what the state density bonus law is supposed to do,

which is provide incentives to provide affordable housing.

So my suggestion or request would be for staff to think through this

and suggest some language to basically say

that we would support legislation that would enhance

or strengthen the city's ability

to impose inclusionary housing requirements

and oppose efforts that allow developers

to reduce the number of affordable units

or the affordability of those units

through the state density bonus law

or through other mechanisms.

And we'll see potentially one of those projects

pretty soon. And actually, so I asked the question, I appreciate staff reminding us about the state

density bonus law bill that the city of Mountain View ran with then Assemblymember Evan Lowe.

I'm grateful to him for carrying the bill, and it's unfortunate it didn't go very far. But I think

that's, this is, especially if we start seeing this more and more, I think this is a bill that we

should think about running again and maybe scoping it where it's clearer what we're trying

to achieve, which is preserving affordability or creating affordable units.

So that would be, and personally, that's my top priority, although there are a lot of

really good ideas that my colleagues are suggesting.

I don't oppose treating pro-housing designated cities differently, but I do think we should

be thoughtful in our advocacy.

I don't, you know, there could be a time and a place when Cupertino becomes a pro-housing

designated city and, you know.

Yes, I agree.

So, yes, it's hard to get.

We have it and it should mean, you know, it provides value for our city.

So thinking through that, I think, is important.

The last thing I would suggest is there's a statement regarding e-bikes and we got a

bit of feedback from the community. I don't know what the statement should be, but I do think that

we should advance safety and you know ensure protections for riders but without discouraging

or deterring the use of that technology. There are many people who will use an e-bike because it's

convenient and easy, right? And if it becomes too onerous then instead of using the e-bike they

might drive right so would have the opposite impact if we over regulate that technology

so again sort of thinking through that language and in the supporting efforts with we want

more people to use e-bikes it's better than if they drive but we also want to make sure

that they are safe to use right and that they're not causing challenges with with you know

multimodal facilities.

So those are my suggestions, thank you.

Thank you Council Member Ramirez, Council Member Hicks.

So in case Mayor you're keeping track,

I agree with all the items that have been brought up

by Council Members before.

Okay.

So I think that my bigger things are,

I assume that we will be tracking all legislation

related to SB 79, but I wanted to call out a few things

that in particular that I would like us

to pay attention to.

Like Council Member Ramirez said before,

all of these things, basically each thing we bring up,

you do thoughtfully, but I assume that that's,

for example, you had said incentives

for cities with pro-housing designation.

I assume that applies to everything we lobby for,

that we do it thoughtfully,

that if it's bad legislation,

even though it's under one of our rubrics,

we won't go for it.

But so that said,

track all legislation related to SB 79

and particularly alternative plan implementation challenges.

challenges. You know, I think from the previous meeting when this was on our agenda, we saw that our city was affected more than a lot of Bay Area cities, you know, over 20% of our land mass. But also when I when I've looked up what cities are affected, a lot of them, even though their land mass is affected around BART stations, for example, the only thing really affected is a very giant parking lot.

And that's really different than our situation where it's the heart of our economic vitality plan.

So because we're so impacted, I think anything that might give us, anything that might intersect with our pro-housing designation,

anything that might give us an extended timeline to implement SB 79,

and in particular possibly allowing a statutory CEQA exemption,

which is any legislation around that.

That is one of the more time-consuming parts of the alternative plan implementation,

in my understanding.

and let's see if I had any others yeah and anything protecting I think

transportation oriented development works best if it's mixed-use not purely

housing so anything that protects a mixture of uses any legislation that

speaks to that in a thoughtful way so that's one yeah a bunch of things

under the rubric of tracking legislation related to SB 79 and the alternative plan.

A second one is there's been a lot of changes in how homelessness is addressed,

both statewide and federally.

And I'm hearing some talk of how it might be.

I know this is a ways out, but I think it's better to talk early,

and also I will not be on council when it's closer.

Any talk about how homelessness is covered in the housing element?

I've heard rumors that, how do I say this politely, seem like they might just dump solutions on some cities.

And I think everybody needs to pitch in on this one.

So I would like to be a part of this discussion.

I think that people of all income groups have family members who have drug, alcohol, and

mental health problems and end up homeless.

And so I think all of us need to do our fair share.

And I want to make sure that the next housing element has everyone do their fair share and

has ways of doing that.

In particular, maybe adding a 15% AMI designation

might be one way, but again, do it thoughtfully,

look at all different approaches.

The rest of mine are kind of minor,

so I think I'm gonna skip.

Okay.

You wanna hear them?

I don't mind.

Okay, so I would like to see legislation

It allows or encourages addition of worker housing

to offices and other, so not to disallow that.

If an area is zoned for office,

I have seen certain offices allow people to park there,

people who are doing cleaning for the office

park their RV there in the parking lot

and use the restrooms.

I think there might be better solutions.

I've seen public storage including bedrooms

for people who are managing them.

I think there's an opportunity for workers

who are having trouble finding affordable housing

to have that sort of carved out of various places,

offices and public storage and so forth.

And I would hate to disallow that

or have people doing it in secret.

So any legislation around that?

I would also like any legislation

that facilitates offices used as homeless transitional housing.

I know there's talk of, in San Jose in particular and other cities, of turning offices to housing,

to apartments basically.

That's pretty hard to do because of some of the infrastructural changes that are needed.

But to use them as transitional housing I think could be a pretty quick fix for a lot

of people and kind of a game changer in the way that do I call it retrofitting hotels

has sometimes been so that's another thing I would be interested to see.

That's it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Hicks.

Council Member Kamei, did you have anything you wanted to add to the platforms?

Thanks, Mayor.

No, I think colleagues have been good about adding.

I just want to take the opportunity to thank staff as well as our state and federal lobbyists

who've been helping us achieve some of our goals.

I mean, over $3 million of federal earmarks during this administration, I think, is a

really huge win for our city, our community, our residents, as well as things that we're

monitoring in the state level, being able to work and I know advocate for in our capital.

So I want to take a moment because our state platform we've only had for, what is it, four

years going into year five and then just one year with our federal advocacy. And I think we've really

made momentum. So I also want to thank colleagues for moving in this direction. I think

we had discussed it for a while and then took the plunge in this direction. And I think we're

seeing all our hard work and forward thinking pay off. So I just wanted to take that opportunity.

And in that vein, really hoping that we can educate our residents on these accomplishments

that we've been able to make. I don't know if staff has an idea of how we're going to be

able to roll that out and educate our community about these exciting new funds that we'll be able

to use for our community, but would love to be able to make sure that we're kind of connecting

the dots on the direct, you know, we're hearing directly from the community. We're using that to

inform our legislative platform, and we're translating that into resources into our city.

And so I think, like, that would be a really great thing for us to be able to elevate. So

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Kamei.

I'll finish up before we take our five to 10-minute break so that the staff can capture

major themes and then read it back to us.

I agree with pretty much most of what my colleagues have asked for.

I'll do a heavy emphasis on condo liability reform.

I think that is one of the ... We're at a time where I think it's a strike iron now

that it's hot kind of thing because I do believe there's a lot of action going towards it and we

really it's not that we don't it's not anything against renters we just it's we want that option

to be homeowners to be available like we can't have barriers to it kind of thing um I also support

the the single stairway reform as well um the big uh thing is I'm thinking about I'm like is this a

good idea is this not, but I'm just going to go for it.

In the federal platform, someone from public comment mentioned about immigration.

And I did notice that we didn't mention, and I know it's something that's actually kind of scary

for our partners helping us lobby to the federal government.

It is a very antagonistic relationship on certain policies.

But I do think we should still hold certain policies.

As we mentioned, we are a community for all, and so we care for our residents, all our residents, regardless of immigration status.

And so we should support legislation or oppose legislation that causes harm to them.

I guess that I don't know how we would address that.

Our federal advocacy program is still so new, and so it's hard for us to navigate through that.

And this is a very unprecedented times when it comes to our federal government.

So I know that we need to approach that very carefully.

but I would love us to at least find a way to address it.

I see Council Member McAllister.

Yeah, I just want to add, I have a question about the condo.

So there's also the ability of condo conversions to take existing apartments and do that.

So I don't know if it's that a legislative thing or is that something internal that the city can do?

I'm not totally privy to that idea.

So if that's any part of that, that would be helpful too, so that we get them to build

them or that if they're taking a building and they want to convert it, that that's also

taken care of too.

So just to get both ends of that going.

And I did also want to comment on Councilman over Mayors.

I agree with him that this is rather robust of number of items.

And if there's some way that you can, and I'm sure you could consolidate it to really

get the meatier items in there

so that when we do talk about it

or we don't lose the,

I've started reading so many of them

they started blending together seriously

how they were very common in a lot of respects.

And so if that's possible to consolidate

and beef up the ones that we really want to get done,

then I think that will be good for the community,

for our advisors and for the council.

Thank you, Council Member McAllister.

I see your hand up.

Council Member Kamei.

Thank you. I'm sorry, Mayor. The time difference is already getting to me. So, I agree with

you on how we can double tap on our community for all. And I was thinking about that because

Senator Becker co-sponsored Senator Wiener's bill on the No Kings Act. And so, I actually

don't think it's just a part of a legislative or sorry a state or federal side it's also for the

state sorry um so i'd love to be able to adopt it for both our state and federal advocacy i was

looking through our list of priorities i don't know if it can something that can fit under you

know bucket d or um bucket j um but i think maybe a statement kind of similar to what we've done

before just supporting legislation that reaffirms communities for all or something like that and

something super broad and then um kind of gives us the ability to to be supportive would be

something that we could add that would just be a suggestion but thank you for um bringing that up

i had meant to to say that as well but thanks thank you councilmember kamei i didn't even think

about adding it in the state legislation i was like oh that's actually i think there's going to

be a lot at the state so probably uh more impactful at the state actually so um then kind of just

yelling at cloud kind of feeling um all right so with with that do we have any other comments or

oh go ahead council member clark just very quick in terms of prioritization

i mean you i think you've heard some themes in terms of prioritization for this year if

especially at the state you know if there are legislative vehicles that we can

that exists you know those are the conversations that we should it sounds like buffy wicks

has something around maybe condo liability reform based on what Senator

Becker said I don't know if there is a legislative vehicle for software

registrists it's important to me but if there doesn't exist a vehicle then maybe

this year unfortunately isn't the right time but it sounds like there might be a

legislative vehicle for some of the pro-housing city items that we talked

about so I I think there's just a given that will prioritize the ones that we

will actually sort of move,

maybe move forward this year at the state level

and the others are more as themes,

at least that's my opinion.

Thank you, Council Member Clark.

And with that, we will take our five to 10 minute break.

So we will, it is 1902 now,

so we'll take a 10 minute break

and we'll come back at 1912.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, welcome back everyone.

I call this meeting back to order at 19.20.

So now we have our staff bringing us back up

to what we all came up with.

Thank you, Mayor.

So staff took notes from Council's feedback, and based on what we heard mentioned by two

or more Council members, we have seven items or seven themes that we heard that the Council

would like to have added to the regional

and state legislative platform.

So I will read out the themes and then we will confirm

that we have a council consensus for these themes.

So the first would be pro-housing city flexibility.

This is an added statement and edit to item C33

33 within the existing or the proposed legislative platform.

Funding for soft story retrofits,

condo liability barriers,

property transfer tax,

which is an existing proposed statement for A-17,

community for all,

SB-79 alternative plan timelines,

which is also an existing proposed statement for C-32,

and finally single stair reform.

Sounds great.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I know these are themes,

but I feel like for the first item,

it may be worth breaking it up

into two separate things.

The pro-housing city flexibility is important,

and I agree is one of the themes that emerged from the discussion.

But I think that's different from state density bonus law reform or revision

to ensure that cities can continue to enforce local inclusionary housing ordinances.

So maybe clarifying that first one to differentiate the two.

Thank you.

Council Member Showalter.

Yeah, I think I was the one who talked the most

about the reach codes, but no one objected,

and I wondered if there was any other interest

in adding protecting reach codes.

Yeah.

I see a lot of nodding heads on my colleagues.

So.

Should we, how would we treat items

that only one council member mentioned,

therefore not on the thing, but.

So we have another slide, excuse me,

we have another slide that shows.

of the other items that we captured

that was only mentioned by one council member.

I can go through those as well if you would like.

Okay, so there's a separate slide.

There's a second slide.

So for moving on from this slide,

do you want us to have like a straw poll

being like, yes, this one?

Okay.

That'd be great, thank you.

So, are we good?

All right, everyone in favor of these added

legislative items, please raise your hand.

Unanimous, wait, yes, I see Council Member, unanimous.

All right, shall we move on to the next slide?

Okay, and so the next slide shows several items

that were mentioned by one Council Member.

So starting with reach codes, stormwater management,

automated license plate readers,

speed camera pilot programs, ADA frivolous lawsuits,

which is an existing statement in E8,

CEQA tribal consults,

e-bike safety without over-regulation,

which is an existing proposed statement in K20,

TOD mixed use,

homelessness in housing elements,

housing as part of office and public storage use,

and office conversions to transitional housing.

Thank you.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to treat this like a consent calendar.

And if people want to withdraw any of those items, we can vote on it separately.

But then everything else that stays on there, we could do a straw poll on that.

Does that sound like a plan?

Okay.

Okay.

So does anyone want to pull anything from these items?

I see Council Member Clark.

It's less to pull and just I don't know which of those.

even have, I keep saying legislative vehicles,

but I'm sorry, but have anything in the hopper this year?

Because if they don't, then it's fine for us to identify themes,

but I don't think they really rise to the level of priority this year for me.

So like automated license plate readers,

I don't know if there's any legislation coming this year or any of the other stuff.

But some of these vehicles, some of these things are just empty,

so who knows what they'll be.

But anyway, I just wanted to point that out.

Like I, these are all great,

but I don't wanna focus time and energy on things

that probably aren't even gonna move forward in this session.

Thank you, Council Member Clark.

Council Member Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't wanna pull anything either.

I agree, they're all important.

Maybe a slightly different spin

from the way the Vice Mayor placed it,

but as Council Member McAllister said,

it's good to prioritize and maybe,

This is why I think it didn't show up in either slide,

but maybe it would be helpful for the council

if we agree to give staff direction

to think about maybe having sort of like,

here are our higher priority items,

and here's in case something comes up serendipitously,

or some other way of differentiating the things

that we want to focus on from,

like this is good to have in our program,

but it's not the priority for today.

I'm not entirely sure how to put that in a straw poll.

But as no one seems to be pulling any items, we can move forward on this slide.

Oh, wait.

Oh, Ms. Audrey?

Or City, Acting City Attorney, Audrey, see you?

City Manager.

Why do I keep on mixing that up?

Thank you, Mayor, Council.

I think that a prioritization of the entire platform

would probably be a difficult achievement

for a return adoption,

and I'm not hearing that that's what's being suggested,

but just perhaps some things that get highlighted

as being of a higher priority,

in which case the prior slide of things

that had more council members.

Speaking to those things might be things

that we would note in that way,

and that would be an easier thing

than trying to go through the entire platform to prioritize.

There's alternative ways to address this list as well.

Reach codes was one that I think maybe you had,

I saw the nodding as you brought it up,

but not the people commenting towards it.

And you may or may not feel that same way

as a council for this entire list.

it's certainly up to you to prioritize more

within this list.

That sounds good.

We will now go, before I go back to Council Member Callister,

I'll go to Council Member Kameh.

Thanks so much, Mayor.

And through you, maybe I can just get clarity from staff.

So I think the way I view our legislative platform and our priorities every year is talking about the different themes that fall into our seven priorities.

And so with these different additions, I would suspect that staff would take these and put those under the different, you know, buckets that are called out and listed out.

So my understanding was rather than it being necessarily like a proactive exercise at this juncture, it would be kind of like a monitoring.

And so for the different items that we adopt in our platform, because it's so robust that both our state and federal partners are looking and flagging for us any legislation if we want to do letters of support or any advocacy or if they're seeing anything coming that might be a bill that we want to kind of weigh in on.

similar to kind of what we saw with like the unlock act so i would feel comfortable and maybe

i'm misinterpreting how we do our legislative process but i would be comfortable adding

everything that colleagues recommended because it kind of gives us this broad portfolio with

which we can kind of track as different legislation comes in um but i don't know that i would feel

ready to prioritize it at this point i would just kind of want to adopt and kind of see how things go

throughout the legislative process this year.

I mean, that's how I have envisioned

our adoption of the legislative platform and priorities.

And I think what has happened in the past

is staff has also been,

if they've heard certain things that we've said

or the community has brought certain bills

that they want us to support,

we've also done that.

So it's also iterative.

So I do, you know, I just wanted to share that

because I feel comfortable adding,

having them put them in the different kind of tranches and them keeping us apprised as the legislative cycle continues.

And I don't know if staff wants to weigh in and comment, but that's been my understanding. Thanks.

Assistant City Manager.

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Member Kamei.

Yes, we certainly can have these items in and we have different types of actions that we take

in the advocacy process,

and sometimes it's just a watch and monitor.

Sometimes it goes all the way

towards sponsoring legislation,

so having these there as things that we can act on

should there become an opportunity

certainly is very possible.

Great.

Thank you.

Council Member McAllister.

One way to prioritize things

This is like the reasons that I brought up the ADA for this lawsuits that was legislation

last year.

They were trying to get that moving along.

So there's some activity in the house.

Same with e-bikes.

That's being done.

So one way to say, hey, let's prioritize things that are actually happening at the state

capital that's hot topics and so that way our consultants can say, okay, yeah, this

is going on.

We actually have something to worry working on and let's get the momentum and push it

forward so that's that's one way to look at things to get it going if it's active out on the house up

there that's why i advocate for frivolous lawsuits because we need it

thank you council member mcallister so it looks like no one's pulling anything away from this

it looks like so on this list does everyone feel comfortable including it into our our platform

Please raise your hand if you are.

Yay, unanimous.

On to the next item.

Or next slide.

Oh, no more slides.

That concludes the council input.

So with that, staff will take these themes back.

We'll work with our legislative advocates and our department heads to develop policy statements

and incorporate them into the platform

and bring that back for council adoption on February 24th.

Wonderful.

So that looks like that is our items.

Thank you so much to our lobbyists

who are doing those big works

in our state and federal capital.

I'm excited to move forward with our platform

and seeing how we can push some weight in Sacramento

to make things a lot easier for our city and our residents.

I'll be excited to work with all of you.

Put me in coach.

Let's go.

All right.

We are now moving on to our regular session.

Well, we could do like a five minute break.

Oh, that was sarcasm.

Okay.

All right.

So let's move on to our 630 regular session.

We'll begin with a call to order.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Mount of East City Council

of February 10, 2026.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation, under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

And next, the city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Council Member Hicks?

Here.

Council Member Kamei?

Here.

Council Member McAllister?

Yep.

Council Member Ramirez?

Here.

Council Member Showalter?

Here.

Vice Mayor Clark?

Here.

Mayor Ramos?

Here.

You have a quorum?

Thank you.

And as we have a council member participating remotely,

all votes will be taken by roll call this evening.

So now we move on to item three, presentations.

Please note, these are presentations only.

The City Council will not take any action.

Public comment will occur after the presentation items.

If you would like to speak on these items in person,

please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

So we are moving on to 3.1,

Black History Month Proclamation.

We are happy to be joined this evening

by City Attorney Jennifer Logue to accept this proclamation.

Jennifer, would you join me at the lectern?

All right.

The proclamation reads,

commemorations, and this theme marks the 100th anniversary of the first Negro History Week

established by Dr. Carter G. Woodson in 1926, and whereas inequity and injustice still lingers in

our cities, state, and country, and it should be the aspiration and responsibility of every resident

to advance the American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

We honor the contributions of black residents who have enriched our community through their leadership, service, and cultural contributions.

Now, therefore, I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council,

do hereby proclaim the month of February as Black History Month in the City of Mountain View

and call upon all residents to reflect on the significant achievements of black Americans.

Would you like to say a few words?

Yes, please. Thank you.

First, I'd just like to say thank you very much, Mayor, for the honor of asking me to

accept this proclamation.

It is very much appreciated.

Black History Month is an opportunity to reflect on the enduring contributions, resilience,

and leadership of Black Americans.

Black History Month is not separate from American history.

It is an essential part of the institutions, laws, economy, culture, and democratic ideals

we live with today.

This month invites both celebration and reflection while also challenging us to continue to work

the work of building institutions and communities that are fair and inclusive and just.

I accept this proclamation not on my own behalf, but in honor of the many organizations, leaders,

educators, advocates, and community members who do the hard, often quiet work of advancing

equity, inclusion, and opportunity every day.

Their efforts strengthen our community and help ensure that everyone feels seen, valued,

and respected.

Thank you again for the recognition and for the city's continued commitment to being a

community for all, a place where diversity is not only acknowledged but is embraced

as a source of strength.

Thank you.

All right.

Now, for our next proclamation, Lunar New Year.

We are happy to be joined this evening by one of our graduates of the Chinese Language

Civic Leadership Academy to accept this proclamation.

Will you join me at the lectern?

right here, and then I'll read it out. So the proclamation reads,

whereas today we commemorate Lunar New Year and join families in Mountain View and around the

world in welcoming the year of the horse, and whereas the Lunar New Year, predominantly

celebrated by millions of Asian and Pacific Islander Californians, including people of

Chinese, Korean, Singaporean, and Vietnamese heritage, among others, is a time of joy and

renewal. On this special day, families gather to celebrate and prepare for the arrival of a new

year of good health and prosperity. Across the state, parades, community events, and family meals

illustrate the rich cultural history and diversity that define California. And whereas we look forward

to a joyous new year, we proudly reflect on the contributions of Asian and Pacific Islander

Californians who literally built California from America's first transcontinental railroad

to the farms and small businesses foundational to our state's economy.

We also recognize that discriminatory laws, xenophobic policies, and mistreatment suffered

by Asian and Pacific Islander Californians are a blight on our state's history,

and whereas today in rejecting past prejudice and embracing inclusion,

let us join our Asian and Pacific Islander friends and neighbors in celebration.

We also encourage California schools to take time to educate our students

about the traditions of Lunar New Year and the past and present contributions

of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in our state.

And whereas as the door to the year of the horse opens,

we wish good fortune, health, and happiness to all those who celebrate.

Now, therefore, I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountedview,

along with my colleagues on the City Council,

do hereby proclaim February 17th as Lunar New Year.

Would you like to say a few words?

Yeah, sure.

First of all, thank you so much for this proclamation

and for the city's continued support of our fourth Noonan New Year celebration on February 27th.

Noonan New Year is an important cultural tradition for many feminists in our community,

and we deeply appreciate the city's recognition of its value

and its commitment to inclusion and cultural celebration.

This support helps bring people together, strengthens community connections, and honors the diversity that makes our city so special.

On behalf of our community, thank you again for your partnership and continuous support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would any member of the council like to say a few words?

Council Member Hicks.

Well, I just wanted to thank Jennifer

for all her hard work, or City Attorney Logue,

and point out that in celebration of your accepting it,

you will be leading the next item on the agenda?

Is that, on our agenda, is that true?

I think it's...

Yes, I will be leading the next item.

The best way to celebrate a proclamation.

So as I promised in my inaugural speech,

I always lead one of the council meetings

with a call to action and call to service

and a call to community.

And so with that, just a small announcement,

as we mentioned with the Lunar New Year proclamation,

The applications for the 2026 Chinese Leadership Academy are now open.

We recommend people to this free eight-week long program that's now, the applications

are now open through Friday, March 6th for Chinese Mountain View residents to apply.

The city of Mountain View holds, it's the third Chinese Language Civic Leadership Academy

In March, 2026, the Chinese Leadership Academy

is a free eight week long program

for Chinese speaking Mountain View residents.

The program is designed to improve participants'

understanding of local government and city services.

Through the program, participants are encouraged

to increase their civic engagement, leadership,

and volunteerism in the community.

The Academy also prepares individuals to serve

on city council advisory bodies and committees.

So we highly recommend people to sign up and join.

It's a really good opportunity and one that a lot

of neighboring cities are very jealous of our program.

All right, I see no other hands from our council.

We will now take public comment for presentation items.

Will any member of the public joining us virtually

or in person like to provide comment

on the presentation items listed on the agenda?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom

or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have three minutes.

I see no hands up.

So we will close public comment on our presentation items.

We will now move on to item four, 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 an approval

of the balance of the consent calendar.

If you would like to speak on these items

or the next item, oral communications

on non-agenda items in person,

please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

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

Council member McAllister.

I have questions on 4.1 and 4.2.

Just questions or are you not pulling?

If I pull and ask a question, what's the difference?

I'll just pull for questions.

Which one are you pulling?

4.1, 4.2.

I'm not pulling them, I just have questions.

Okay, so yeah.

Council Member Showalter.

Yeah, I would like to pull 4.2

so we can have a brief description of the project

from the staff.

I understand staff is here ready to do that.

And I see that this project,

the transit center grade separation,

it's something, an access project,

it's something that is of interest

to many people in the community.

and how we're gonna do this pedestrian,

the pedestrian improvements and bike improvements.

People just wanna hear about it.

So I am not in any way opposed to it.

I just would like to raise the awareness.

Council Member Clark.

Just City Attorney Lowe or Audrey,

if we want a presentation or something like that,

Do we need to pull the item for a separate vote

or can we do the presentation and discussion

just without actually doing a separate vote?

You do not need to pull the items

for the information that's being requested

or to ask a question.

It's fine to have those questions answered

and the information shared

and then you can vote on both items together.

All right, so that's probably what we'll do.

So we'll start with Council Member McAllister.

Feel free to ask your questions for both 4.1 and 4.2.

Well, Councilmember Showalter sort of,

I will follow up on once they give a presentation on the 4.2.

So that was one of my questions there.

On 4.1, I just had one question.

Had ever the thought, and I don't know if I brought this up before,

was there any consideration to leasing the land, long-term lease?

And was there a possibility of, and if we did,

What kind of revenue could we generate for the city?

Good evening.

Jennifer Ng, the Public Works Director here at the city.

So this item before you for the notice of intention to vacate Fairmont Avenue was actually brought to the city council last year in November of 2025.

The reason why it's being brought forward again is because the public hearing date has changed.

Originally, the project was going to be heard in December, but because the new date is now March, we need to re-notice the intention to vacate this piece of public street.

So your question of did we discuss previously whether or not to do a long-term lease instead of selling the land, that question did come up previously.

It was determined that the lease of the land would not provide what the developer needed in order to have a cohesive development project.

this piece of street is bisecting their project, and in order for it to be a comprehensive project,

it needs to be basically one cohesive piece of land.

To answer your question of, you know, what type of revenue could the city see if it were to be leased,

it's pretty marginal. Estimates from our real estate group are putting this around $150,000 a year.

so over time it would think so was there any talk about putting an arch at one time

this came along some of this project was the started before i came on board was there any

thought of an arch over that street from the developer i haven't been here that long i've

only been here 15 16 months so i don't have the full-on history i have not heard of any mention

of an arch going over Fairmont previous.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

To finish this one up,

I'm going to register a no vote on 4.1.

Thank you, Council Member McAllister.

Council Member Hicks.

So I just have a question for City Attorney Logue.

I've been recused in the past from this project.

do I recuse, I think out of an abundance of caution,

and because I have not even spoken about this in any way

and always been recused,

I will continue to recuse myself.

Yes, you can recuse, you don't have to leave.

And I actually thought I heard that,

but I guess we didn't get an email to you,

but you can recuse without leaving since it's a consent.

Yes, I will be doing that.

All right, thank you, Council Member Hicks.

I guess the next thing is the presentation on 4.2

that staff has presented.

or brief exclamation, it might be.

Brief exclamation.

Not sure which.

Yeah, my apologies.

I don't have a formal presentation prepared,

but a quick explanation of what the project is.

Maybe I'll start similar to the other question

and just start with a little bit of history and background.

So once upon a time, we were moving forward as a city

with two great separations in the city,

one at Castro and one at Rangsdorf.

About 2023, we got word that the cost estimates for both of those projects had grossly exceeded the amount of money that the city had put aside for both projects.

And in early 2024, City Council made a difficult decision to prioritize Ringsdorf as the grade separation project that we were going to move forward with.

Good news for all of you. That one's proceeding on track.

But we're here to talk about Castro tonight. And so when the city council made the difficult decision to prioritize Rengstorf, a simplified project to close off Castro Street to vehicular movements at the rails was conceived and approved.

And so the project, in essence, is to create some permanent improvements to close off vehicular access in the northbound and southbound movements, crossing the rail tracks, and to keep pedestrian and bicycle access across Central Expressway north to Moffett Boulevard and south to the downtown intact.

Along the way, we'll be making some improvements, creating a plaza.

We'll be creating some bike lanes along Evelyn.

Evelyn from Hope to the west will be turned into a one-way westerly directional street with either Class 2 or Class 4 bike lanes along it.

There'll be some traffic signal modifications, some ADA curb ramps, those kind of things that come with civil improvements.

Council member Clark do you have a question just a quick follow-up so if we were to

if infrastructure funding were to materialize in the next few years

how difficult would it be to revive the the pedestrian and bicycle under crossing there

or are we kind of just writing it off it's about 271 million dollars was our estimate in 2023

So if a giant bucket of money fell from the sky and we found $271 million, we would absolutely, I believe as a city, we would, obviously you guys would have a vote in that, but I believe we would resurrect, is that the right word?

Resurrect the Castro grade separation as fully originally envisioned.

Okay.

But nothing we would do tonight would preclude us from doing that.

or none of these improvements would?

Correct, correct.

Thank you, Council Member Clark.

Council Member McAllister.

So I had a couple questions.

I always like to get data.

And part of your plan here is to reroute traffic

and you're gonna take it from the main street

through some of the smaller streets.

Was there a traffic count done before or after

to see what kind of impact rerouting cars from Evelyn through Bryant and Franklin Streets?

Traffic count in terms of number of vehicles that would have to reroute?

Yeah, because you're taking them off Villa.

I mean, you're taking them off Villa and you're going to put them on Evelyn for those cars that are going westbound down Evelyn.

So this was envisioned as a long-term interim project, right?

I guess it's sort of long-term permanent.

Traffic counts were done original to the transit center project was the original master plan for this project.

At that time, and when we were going to do the full grade separation, there was a connection envisioned from Evelyn Avenue up to Shoreline Boulevard.

So there'd be a direct T in connection.

Traffic counts were done back in 2019 for that.

I don't have those exact numbers for you right now tonight, but I can follow up certainly if you would like that data.

This is related to figure 10 vehicle circulation.

So that's where I was concerned.

That was my question.

Because you have them going down on.

Okay.

I mean, when we start redoing traffic, it helps to have some data to go with.

So now when you said the 275, that was the full-blown thing,

and it appears that our desire to do a full-grade crossing is not realistic,

but a pedestrian bike may be more realistic.

So with that in mind, what are we trying to accomplish with all this bike lanes,

this diagonals, all this?

Are we trying to simplify it?

Are we trying to make it simple?

or is it possible a case of over-engineering

where we've got a class two lane,

then it goes to class four, et cetera?

And so what is the goal of this deal?

Is it to move bodies or help me out here?

First and foremost, the goal is safety, right?

So closing off the intersection

between the rail and the vehicles

is going to eliminate a point of conflict

that is going to be a safety improvement for our community.

Another piece of safety that we're looking at

is having a wider and singular point of crossing

of the rail crossing on the east side

of the rail connection with Castro Street.

And what that does is it provides

a nice and comfortable 15-foot-wide pedestrian walkway

to get across the rail tracks.

We'd be making the necessary ADA improvements.

And we would be making sure that, once again,

the number of conflicts between pads and bikes

and potentially rail would be reduced to only one location.

So part of it, you start with a Class 2 bike lane

and then you upgrade it to a Class 4.

along the Castro.

Why is that

programmed in like that?

Class 4 is generally seen as bicyclists

as less stress of a bike facility

because there is a separation

of a vertical element

between typically bicyclists

and vehicles.

So a Class 2 regular bike lane

is just a stripe on the street

and it's really just a 6-inch stripe

that's separating the bike lane

from a vehicular lane.

A class 4 bike lane typically will have some sort of width of buffer along with some sort of vertical element, whether it's a channelizer or like the paddles that you see out on El Camino Real.

Or really in fancy cases, you could put up a vertical curb.

So on Evelyn, you're considering taking out 10 parking spaces to put in bike lanes.

Do you anticipate what information makes you think that there's going to be bicyclists going down Evelyn versus going down some other streets to take out those parking lanes and put in those bike lanes?

Well, Evelyn Avenue is part of the countywide VTA multimodal bike network.

And so it is identified as one of those elements in a countywide plan, right?

So it's more than just the city of Mountain View that is looking at Evelyn Avenue as a connector.

So we would anticipate that based off of that and other plans and maps that we have for envisioned build out of our bike network,

that this would be an amenity that could be used in the community.

we did talk a little bit about the loss of parking in the last ctc meeting that we had at the end of

last year staff did take a commitment to take a look at how parking could parking parking

elimination could be really reduced i know that's a double negative but how how we could retain

parking so we were we committed to taking a hard look at that design to seeing if there was any way

to reconfigure to try to save some parking spaces,

noting that there are businesses nearby.

Was there, I think I had one that my last question was,

is there possible if we can take,

are we taking money from the Castro project

and applying it to Ring Store?

Yeah, so back in 2024,

when Council made the decision to move forward

with the Rangstorf project, it was decided that we would retain the city's portion of the local

match for Castro, which is roughly a little over $6 million for this simplified project. The rest

of the Measure B money that was previously, 2016 Measure B money, I should clarify that,

the rest of that money that was previously earmarked at that time for the Castro grade

separation then was transferred over to the Rengstorf grade separation project in order to

make that project whole financially and continue on. How much is this project costing?

Overall project is just a little over six million. Construction is anticipated at our

estimate right now to be about 4.2 million. Six million dollars to put in bike lanes and

reconfigure the streets. It's building quite a bit of civil improvements as the rail interface with

Castro you know we're planning on building a plaza there are some stormwater improvements we're

putting in some trees along along Evelyn to the to the west of the transit center and so we're

really trying to make this you know a a nice project with the money that we have okay thank

you appreciate it you're welcome so uh no i was just understanding the the process here so

we're since it was pulled we'll have a single vote on this because councilman where shoalter

pulled it i i clarified that if the purpose for pulling it was to ask questions and get

information that it was not necessary to pull it and that the council could still act on the

consent calendar. Okay. With one vote. If there are no votes for either item,

council members can specify. Okay. So I'll make my comment then.

I'm also going to register a no vote on this one.

I think we're, I'm not still clear about

the amount of money that we're spending on some of these projects.

I hope as we go through these various processes of putting things in that we start looking at the data a little more.

We're looking at is there a way to accomplish the same thing with a little less money.

And, you know, some people say it's not a lot of money, but $6 million is quite a bit.

And we're not generating a lot of revenue.

I still believe in safety, but sometimes a second fresh eyes are important to take a look at something like that.

So those are my comments.

Thank you.

Council Member Hicks.

Yeah, I just was going to briefly thank the council members who highlighted this because I think it is of great interest to the community.

And when I first saw it on consent and read the title, which is Transit Center Grade Separation and Access Project, I was like, oh, my gosh, they're bringing it back and they put it on consent.

How did I miss that?

But I want to say to members of the public who are interested, the Council Transportation Committee did talk about this at length,

and that should be recorded and available if you want even more information than in this highlighted session tonight.

And in addition, a part of this, of what the recommendation tonight is to amend the title name from transit center grade separation, et cetera, to Castro and Evelyn bike and pedestrian improvements project, which is appropriate given the changes that are happening.

So I hope that further clarifies what's going on.

Thank you, Council Member Hicks.

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 city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have three minutes.

I see no one in the queue and I see no one's hands up.

So we will now bring this back for council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar

should also include reading the title of the resolution

attached to consent calendar, item 4.1.

As a reminder, all votes will be taken

by roll call this evening.

And Council Member Hicks will be recusing herself

on item 4.1.

All right.

I see a motion by Council Member Showalter,

seconded by Council Member Ramirez.

Take it away, Council Member.

Oh, wait.

I need to read it, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, I would like to move the consent calendar,

and that includes reading item 4.1,

adopt resolution of intention of the City of Mountain View,

the City Council of the City of Mountain View,

to vacate a public street and easement at 881 Castro Street

to be read and title only, further reading waived,

and set a date for a public hearing

to consider the vacation for March 10, 2026.

Thank you, Council Member Showalter.

Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour.

I was just noting that I saw a hand up with Council Member Kamei,

and I wanted to give her that opportunity to speak if she wished to.

Yes. Council Member Kamei.

Thanks. Thanks so much, Mayor.

Thanks, Mr. Inberg.

So I just wanted to also vote no on item 4.1.

And then for 4.2, thanks for the conversation about the transit center.

That item actually came to CTC, I want to say, two or three times.

And that might be the reason we've had ongoing discussion at CTC.

So I think there will be quite a few meetings that people would be able to watch.

but we actually we got a lot of public comment um at those meetings both um in person uh virtually

as well as written um so hopefully all colleagues got that too thanks mayor thank you i guess now we

will bring it to a vote did we have a motion in a second we did from council member showalter and

and then seconded by Council Member Ramirez.

Let's have the roll call vote.

Council Member Showalter?

Yes.

Council Member Ramirez?

Yes.

Council Member Hicks?

Yes, with Rick Huesal on 4.1.

Council Member Kamei?

Yes.

No on 4.1.

Council Member McAllister?

No, no.

Vice Mayor Clark?

Yes.

Mayor Ramos.

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right.

Before, we are now at item number five, oral communications.

I would like to make an announcement

before we move into public comment on non-agenda items.

We understand that there has been significant interest

in the city's automated license plate reader pilot program.

Last week, Mountain View's automated license plate

readers cameras were turned off.

Our police chief, Mike Canfield,

decided to shut off the cameras

after a police department initiated audit

discovered that Mount Review's data has been accessed

by federal and state law enforcement agencies

in violation of our approved policies.

Based on the information available,

there is no indication that federal access

was used to support immigration enforcement activity

during the three month period in 2024,

where the Flock Safety Nationwide Search Function

was enabled on the first camera that was installed.

In early January, as part of the police audit,

staff also discovered and turned off a quote,

statewide search function that had been enabled

without their awareness.

It is very concerning and disappointing that this happened.

At the same time, we are aware of how this technology

has helped our police department in their ability

to investigate burglaries, home break-ins,

and a reported kidnapping, which protects our community.

We also recognize that the most important tool

for public safety is the trust of our community.

Thank you to the community members

who have contacted the city council and me on this matter.

At our next meeting on Tuesday, February 24th,

my council colleagues and I will vote on whether

to formally end the contract with block safety.

Now onto item five, this portion of the meeting

is reserved for persons wishing to address the council

on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic

within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction

for up to three minutes during this section.

State law prohibits the council

from acting on non-agenda items.

If you would like to speak on this item

or the next item in person,

please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually

or in person like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom

or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have three minutes.

We will start with Greg Herrera.

After Greg, we'll have John Scarborough

and then Eva Tang, followed by Albert Jeans.

Good evening.

First time here.

My name is Bill Herrera, Greg Herrera.

I'm the owner of Family and Builds Towing.

I tow a lot of motorhomes for you people,

and they're very expensive.

And you have a project in place,

but it's confusing the way they want me to tow them and hold them.

It's costing me like $14,000 per unit to keep for 30 days.

And the city cuts it down where they only want to fund me $3,500.

for disposal only, not for towing it, not for storing it,

not for taking the garbage out,

not getting rid of the stuff inside, the fuel.

There's a lot of cost to it.

I don't think the city knows.

And I just want to bring it to your attention

that we could try to address it to pay for this fee

because I was able to do one a month,

you know, just do it out for business-wise.

But now there's, I mean, three or four a week,

and they're getting to be expensive.

It's costing the business money.

We have to tow them for the city to stay on rotation.

So I'm trying to see if we could talk about

how we deal with the expense of getting rid of these motorhomes

that you want us to get rid of.

Any comments how we go forward with this?

We're not allowed to take action on items

that are not on the agenda, this is open public comment,

so this is your time to speak,

and we might take action in a future meeting.

So where did I go from here?

I talked to you, so now what happens?

You can't talk?

Madam Mayor, our police chief is in the audience

and would be happy to follow up with the speaker.

Thank you.

So you could follow up with our police chief.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Scarborough.

After Mr. Scarborough is Eva,

and then after Eva is Albert.

Hello again, City Councilmembers,

John Scarborough as mentioned.

And I thought it was really great

that we had the party in downtown Mountain View on Saturday.

It was great, I caught the last bit of it.

The energy was great.

met some people I've not seen in a while.

So that was really a good surprise.

And I think it's really good that we have that space

to bring our community together and just,

you know, I don't think I thank y'all enough

for having that space there and for the other things we have.

One thing that I don't think

is building our community very well

is having the surveillance data and having it get out

and potentially be used by hostile agencies

that are targeting people in our community,

people in communities all over the country.

So I'm really heartened when I got the announcement

from the police chief saying that he was shutting them down

and I went out two days later

and checked out the ones on Ringstorf,

the one near Central had blue lights on,

the one up near San Luis had the blue lights on,

plus every time a car went by, the LED illuminators

would just flicker like that as if it was still on.

And I understand from the mayor

that there was some delay turning it off,

but they're electronic, they're Internet of Things,

they should be able to be turned off immediately,

so I don't understand that.

Anyway, I don't think we can trust that company,

and I think that we need, I understand that there

have been efforts to make sure that the data

is not getting out anymore,

that they are truly not being used,

but I don't trust them.

I think we should cover up the cameras

and remove them as soon as we can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Eva Tang followed by Albert Jeans.

Mr. Jeans, feel free to make your way up

so we don't have to wait for it.

Mayor, I am requesting permission

to move about the chambers during my comment.

I sorry let's try that again mayor I am requesting permission to move about the

chambers during my comment the problem is that we won't be able the people who

are on zoom wouldn't be able to hear you oh no that's fine well I'm just gonna do

this because I was right I know it's obnoxious to rub it in your face

like that, but I've spent years making public comment, meeting you personally, serving on PSAB

itself, and enduring MV voice article comments, putting me as clueless with no grip on reality.

I think I deserve to gloat and also scold you at least a little bit, because as counsel, I've heard

you brush us off countless times as young dumb activists. We've been educated professionals of

all ages, technical writers, researchers, educators, engineers, and programmers who understand

cybersecurity. We've had years of experience at the institutions you

supposedly respect. And even if we didn't, you still should have listened to us

because we are members of the community. My high school English teacher still

lives here. She lives in Wiseman. She keeps asking me when I'll replace you.

Lucky for you, I keep laughing at that. I was 13 when I spoke to a school board

for the first time in high school. I was playing a lobbyist in the California

Youth and Government program. I was the youth you would have patted yourself on

on the back for encouraging to participate in civics. I just grew up. I got less cute.

I'm not that nice and have different values from you, so your eyes glaze over whenever I speak.

So I hope you're actually ready to listen now. Chief, you're going to want to hear this too,

because while the chief has been praised by the community for his quick action in turning the

flock cameras off after supposedly discovering the data breach, I have to point out what everyone's

ignored. The voice requested a record of all the requests from outside agencies for Mountain View's

FLOC data in July 2025. You may or may not recall that is when I emailed council and chief about my

concerns with FLOC, which were largely ignored. My records request came in November and I was

denied this information once again in violation of the Freedom of Information Act in December.

If I hadn't mentioned this records request in my public comment on January 27th, when would the

public have known about this data breach? When the chief said January 30th that he couldn't tell

the voice why the flock data breach happened. An agency statewide could search Mountain View's

flock data supposedly unauthorized for over a year. Why is that? Where was the point of neglect?

The denial of my records request in December? The denial of the voice's record request in July?

Or the very beginning when our policy stated the special operations division captain

is supposed to approve every request from an outside agency? So we can blame flock all we want.

Thank you, Eva.

Next we have Albert Jeans.

You have a presentation?

Ah, okay.

Yeah, thank you very much, Mayor,

and Council Members.

I'd like to ask that you start thinking

about the Parkland Dedication Ordinance

because this came up last week at the EPC meeting

for row house development where staff presented

A NEW FORMULA FOR, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, COMPUTING THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE THAT WOULD BE PAID BY A DEVELOPER.

AND IT'S KIND OF SUMMAR, I WON'T READ ALL THIS OF COURSE, YOU CAN READ THAT.

BUT BASICALLY THIS FEE REPRESENTS THE PROJECT'S PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE COST FOR PROVIDING THREE

ACRES OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL SPACE PER A THOUSAND RESIDENTS.

AND STAFF CITED THE SUPREME COURT RULING, THIS RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING, WHICH SEEMS TO INVALIDATE

the current parkland ordinance, dedication ordinance.

Next slide, please.

So to try to understand this better,

I put this into a formula.

And basically it's not that complicated.

You have every, what do you call,

planning area has a certain amount of parkland.

And that's generally, except for Miramonte,

I think it's less than the ideal, you know,

Quimby Act, which is three acres per 1,000 people.

So there's a deficit.

So in this equation here under the red,

we have the Quimby Act amount of land is Q, you know, times the number of people in that area,

minus the actual area of park lands. That's a deficit. And then the new formula says,

take that proportion, you know, based on the population of the new people in the development.

For example, it's just 400 people. You take 400, divide by 80,000 people, and that's their

share of that park land deficit, and that's all the developer has to pay. So I simplified this

equation to see if I can learn anything else and see the next slide.

And it turns out you can rephrase that this is exactly the same, you know, simplified

equation.

And so what this means is the amount of land that the developer should give is equal to

the Quimby amount, which is just the population, the small n is the population of the new development

times the Quimby ratio, 0.003, minus the current amount of park land and its proportion of

population that's the N over N plus N. So in other words, if the new population is 4% of the

city's population, they only have to, they essentially get credit for 4% of the parkland,

all the parkland in the city and Mountain View. And so it is essentially a credit because it takes

away from the Quimby amount that they should be paying, which is the, you know, three acres per

thousand people. So next slide please. So essentially my question is why should the developer

be given credit for existing parkland which somehow automatically the new residents get a share of?

You know the new residents didn't pay anything they haven't been paying taxes.

You know it's true the existing parkland is not the Quimby amount but anyways this leaves the

city with a big deficit if this kind of calculation goes through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That seems to end our public comment.

I see no virtual speakers.

I see no virtual speakers.

We will actually take a five-minute break so that staff can set up for the next agenda item.

It is now 2023.

We will reconvene in 2028.

Are we ready?

Yes.

All right, calling this meeting back to order 2031.

We will now move on to item six study sessions.

6.1 Charter Modernization 2026 Ballot Measure.

The purpose of this study session