All right.

Thank you for joining us for our study session.

The assistant city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Councilmember Hicks.

Here.

Councilmember Kamei.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yep.

Councilmember Ramirez?

Here.

Council Member Show Walter?

Here.

Vice Mayor Clerk is absent.

Mayor Ramos?

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

All right.

We will now move on to item 3.1.

City decarbonization goal and five-year plan approach and actions.

The purpose of the study session is to review and provide feedback on the city decarbonation goal and draft actions and strategy.

Chief Sustainability and Resiliency Officer Danielle Lee and Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour will present the item.

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

Go ahead.

Good evening.

This evening, we are going to be discussing the city's decarbonization goal and proposed five-year action plan approach and actions.

Okay.

The purpose of our discussion is really threefold.

We'd like to confirm the city's 2045 decarbonization goal, confirm the five-year approach to planning for our decarbonization actions, and then to delve more deeply in and refine and confirm the draft priority actions that were included in the report to council.

A more extensive background on the city's sustainability efforts was provided in the memo, but a few of the main drivers that got us to this evening's discussion include the council's carbon neutrality declaration.

We've also in the in this interim period been working on significant action related to decarbonization through the actions identified in our city's sustainability action plans.

Also by way of background, I want to highlight some of the significant efforts that have been undertaken by the city.

Mountain View has long been a leader in sustainability work, and you'll see that we have not only been planning over the last stretch of time, but also doing the work.

So as we began to undertake this analysis in the early part of 2025, we were really struck by this shifting policy landscape.

And you know, of course, I would like to acknowledge that that's a recurring, it's a regular factor for the policy landscape to move, but in the last 18 months, we have observed significant changes at the federal and state, and even regional levels.

One example that I'd like to highlight is at some point mid-2025, the EPA rescinded a waiver that it had given to California, which would have allowed the state to ban the sale of non-electric vehicles starting in 2035.

So by 2035, California, one of the largest automotive markets in the country, would have only allowed the sale of new electric vehicles.

As you can imagine, that would have led to a significant shift in our emissions.

Revoking that waiver has shifted significant responsibility to the local level to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Our initial analysis of emissions showed 7% of emissions remaining by 2045.

With the revocation of this one waiver, it pushed our emissions up to 40% of all emissions being responsible.

You know, the city being responsible for or the local level having to deal with.

So, you know, I can say the shifting policy landscape.

We happened to be undertaking analysis right at this moment.

So we have numbers to put to this to really underscore just how significant the impact has been.

Obviously, this landscape helped inform our analysis.

We we had many insights from it.

I think it was a fascinating time to be to be asking these questions.

We could see in real time what how significant the impacts are from the state and the federal levels, and how important coordination across all these levels of government is to achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

But we don't throw in the towel because of this.

Local actions are insufficient, but they are essential.

You know, we enable broader policy success and implementation by accelerating policies that are adopted at the state level or the regional level.

Cities help to fill policy and market gaps.

You know, if you think about EV charging, for example, we've seen a proliferation of EV chargers.

You know, we have it at workplaces, we have them at grocery stores.

The city has been installing them in parking garages, but where we don't see them uh being installed as much, uh, are at places like multifamily dwellings.

And so, you know, we're using this plan as an opportunity to fill a gap where the market might not solve for it, and that's a one of the critical roles that local governments can play.

And then finally, at the local level, we can pilot solutions that can be scaled regionally and statewide.

REACH codes are a great example of this.

Many of the most successful building code changes were piloted at the local level through REACH codes and then eventually adopted statewide.

So it's this model for change that cities can help to instigate.

Before I walk you through the actual items that are in the five-year plan, I just wanted to point out that the draft measures before you are highly focused on buildings and transportation, and that's because 90% of our emissions come from our buildings and our transportation systems.

So you'll see in the five-year draft action plan that that's where our focus is as well.

Some of the key actions related to um building electrification.

We've just chosen a few to highlight here, but you know, we were trying to think about how can we lay the groundwork for things.

You know, this that includes electrification readiness.

Some of our reach codes included pre-wiring requirements.

So we won't make you have an electric appliance, but we'd like you to have the electricity available there so that if your appliance dies, you can buy an electric one.

Targeted outreach and education.

Maybe you saw me dressed up as a heat pump water heater on Earth Day or at other events, Miss Lucky as well.

Um we all get the chance to do that, but really reaching out to the community, engaging with folks and talking about appliances and making that fun.

We're exploring incentives for small businesses, lower income households, trying to think about pilot programs.

How can we find those unique opportunities to achieve scale?

There is a program right now that Mountain View is currently on the list as one of the potential participants for, which is basically zonal decarbonization where the utilities would cover the cost to electrify a small area of a neighborhood in lieu of investing in the natural gas infrastructure.

So in places where natural gas pipelines need upgrades, um, we could instead take those funds and electrify the homes.

Additional items include uh end of flow of natural gas, policy advocacy.

We've been active at the regional and state level to help spur our partners on, you know, the air whether it's the air district through the sprint to nine six rules making group or through at the state level to the legislature through the local government climate alliance, and then of course, we're building in contingencies.

If one measure in our plan fails, what can we do?

What would be the plan B?

Or in this case, C or D.

You know, we've seen many policies be removed.

Some of the transportation related actions include providing better access to EV charging, especially in our multifamily residences, um, exploring mobility hubs, uh, the development of a transit benefit district, expanding our shuttle service.

You know, what is what are all of the ways that we can both electrify our transportation options and get people into public transit or into more active transportation modes?

So, why this approach?

Why five years, why the shorter term and the focus on the local?

We've really tried to hone in on our highest impact options.

There are so many things that we could work on and many great ideas out there.

What we've tried to do through this analysis is understand what will have the most impact and what fills the most important gap.

This approach will enable faster implementation and hopefully lay the groundwork for broader policy program and technology changes.

As we do this work, we're also keeping an eye on the regional collaborative opportunities that we have.

How can we work together with our partners such as joint venture Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, the County, our neighboring cities?

You know, what are they doing?

Where can we work together?

Um we also took direction from the council of sustainability committee, and the committee really emphasized rapid execution.

What can we do?

What are the next best things that we can do?

CSC also suggested that we uphold our existing carbon neutrality goal rather than accelerating it, and uh directed staff to prioritize the creation of a five-year plan, knowing that it's very hard to predict out to 2045.

Okay, with that, uh Mayor, I would like to turn it back to you.

We have two questions for the council this evening.

Thank you.

Uh we will now move on to public comment.

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

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

We will take in-person speakers first.

I am not seeing any.

Oh, there's no one showing up on IQ.

But um, do you know how many people speakers are there?

Just two?

Okay, you get three minutes then.

I'm Bruce Carney.

I had the pleasure of chairing ESTF 1 18 years ago and ESTF2 nine years ago.

I've spent 18 years trying to understand Mountain View's greenhouse gas emissions and how they can be reduced.

One of the things we learned from both of those uh task forces was that presenting too many recommendations to the council is a really bad idea.

And I'm glad to see that in bullet two uh staff is asking council for additions and in particular deletions.

I would recommend that you add workplace charging as a very high impact, very important thing in this jobs rich city.

The people who commute from far away to work in Mountain View contribute a vast amounts of GHGs to the measurement that we use to decide whether our city is growing its emissions or shrinking them.

And they over the last five years have grown, not shrunk.

And this is largely because Silicon Valley Clean Energy in 2024 had a lot of carbon in their product.

Uh the staff proposal doesn't mention that, but it does inherently assume that SVCE is going to keep providing carbon-free electricity into the 2045 timeframe.

That assumption really needs to be thought about because Silicon Valley Clean Energy is facing some financial challenges that may cause them to back off of their 100% carbon free goal, which they've had for 10 years.

So let's talk about how you would sensibly delete some of the 36 recommendations in attachment one.

What I would recommend is that you say, will this idea, this proposed thing that's in attachment one, reduce our emissions within five years by one percent, or in 10 years by 3%, or is it a small thing that doesn't deserve staff time or city budget attention?

In ESTF2, we were most proud of recommending the creation of a new chief sustainability officer role, adding staff to the sustainability department, which used to be Steve Atinger, a one-man army fighting climate change, and increasing the budget for sustainability.

I'm sure you're going to need to increase the budget and the staff again, no matter whether you have five objectives or 36 objectives, because we are absolutely convinced, or the task force was absolutely convinced that staff and budget are the gating factors for achieving GHG reduction.

And it's interesting to me that in the staff report there's no mention of changes to either staffing or budget.

I don't know why that is.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Alex Brown.

Hi, friends.

Uh I'm gonna start with the request.

Uh we have six mobile home parks in the city, and almost as far as I know, every mobile home is constrained by supply for electrification, where they could not, if they wanted to fully electrify.

A lot of them you have to have gas for heating or for the dryer and the stove.

Uh if that's something that the city could help with to help the parks to upgrade their infrastructure, that'd be a great place to start.

Uh I appreciate all the images in the presentation, but we have to move beyond corporate Memphis.

It is just so boring.

I think the looks good overall, but we could do better.

Anyway, uh, yes, thank you.

Decarbonize.

Alright, seeing no more speakers, I'm gonna bring it back to council.

Mayor Ramos, we have Anthony from Silicon Valley Clean Energy on Zoom.

Who'd like to speak?

Oh, there we go.

We have our virtual speakers.

So Anthony.

Okay, I just like to confirm you can hear me.

I did unmute.

We can hear you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Hey, I oh you've got a okay.

Um I just wanted to start by really acknowledging your staff and the leadership that they uh display.

You know, I get to work with staff from every uh city in our territory, and really uh you guys should be extremely pleased with the outstanding staff team that you've put together, and that's really reflection of your community and your leadership as a council and funding um this you know group of folks.

So thank you for doing that because uh for ideas that are implemented by Mountain View, it displays leadership and makes it that much easier to spread these good programs throughout the region.

Uh so from SVCE's perspective, I just want to say that we're continue to be reign uh to remain willing and able to partner with the city on a variety of initiatives.

Um currently, you probably know that we're jointly operating a uh heat pump water heater rebate program.

That's a program SVCE has stood up, and the city is contributing to to make it especially feasible for folks in Mountain View to transition to a heat pump water heater.

So I think that the plan as drafted is a very reasonable approach.

I love the looking at things in in smaller chunks of time because as we as Ms.

Lee reported, things do change rapidly, and so it's really important to have some flexibility.

Do what you can when you can and um move on as things change.

Thanks very much.

I'll I will be here um throughout the study session if there are other questions for SVCE that comes up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will bring it back to council.

Oh, wait, uh sorry.

One more uh virtual speaker, May Mary Datio.

Um good evening.

Um I just want to say that I appreciate the focus on buildings and transportation and IRS the city of Mountain View to maintain its focus on climate change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we will now uh bring it back to council.

Council will have the opportunity to ask questions and then discuss and provide feedback on the study session questions.

Does any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Hicks.

Yes, I do.

Um first I wanted to thank staff for the presentation.

I am on the council sustainability committee, and I feel like um without bleeding too much into comments, there's just been a sea change in um unfortunately uh from the federal level.

If anybody has read read the paper, if there are such things anymore over the past couple years, um in terms of uh downscaling uh policy addressing uh climate change, and on the council sustainability committee.

We've certainly talked about that, but it seemed like time for a check-in from the full council.

So I really look forward to hearing and and with the public, although they do come to our CSC meetings.

Um, and so I really look forward to hearing everybody's questions and comments.

As for mine, um, my first question is um so uh Mr.

Carney's uh uh suggested that we should look at possibly adding actions, but also maybe deleting some.

And I'm wondering, I guess I saw your list of actions not so much as a list that you had to complete every single one, but more that we're in um very much changing times.

I mean, I never know what's gonna happen next.

And um I hope for positive change in November, but I I have to say I'm just crossing my fingers.

Um do you so I was kind of seeing them as a menu that you could pick from as appropriate, and I'm hesitant to delete anything in case it becomes appropriate.

But I would love to hear from you.

Do you think deleting I figure that you can delete them yourself if you uh feel that they're not, you know, that they don't rise to the top.

But please tell me how you think about them because I certainly don't want to give staff too many assignments.

I also don't want to take things off that may become appropriate, say in November.

Thank you for the question.

Um the way that you described it as a menu um with an assumption of the need for contingencies is exactly how we've been thinking about it.

So for example, the air district has rules that it's considering related to appliances, natural gas appliances specifically.

And if they move forward with the rules, they would basically ban the sale of natural gas appliances in the Bay Area.

Um, at which point we could assume significant electrification in buildings without local action really, aside from spurring adoption.

Um, if those rules are modified, you know, if they have significant loopholes, if you will, or exemptions that are added, if their implementation is delayed, we have also included policies that could act as a backstop that would achieve some portion of the building electrification that would have been achieved by the air district rules.

So we do have kind of an overly exhaustive list because the policy landscape is moving so quickly.

Okay, so I'll take that that you would like a rich menu.

We would, um, if that's the council's pleasing.

Okay, and um my second question is this maybe I don't know that this may be more for the member of the public who spoke on this, um, or maybe staff will know.

I don't remember ever talking about mobile home electrification, and that is a significant number of households in the city.

I would like if anybody knows, like, from it sounds like not much have been has been done here in Mountain View.

If it has, it's been done behind my back.

Um, I'd like to know what the first steps generally are.

Uh, if you know, I hopefully there are other examples out there outside Mountain View.

Certainly.

Um I think that decarbonizing mobile home communities is uh uniquely challenging.

Um often the constraint is driven by the power supply that's available to those given sites, and so the electrification measures that could be pursued can be constrained.

It's a site-by-site analysis, though.

We have had some very initial discussions with Silicon Valley Clean Energy about looking into this as an initiative that we could undertake.

Um I think it would be slow going in the sense of each site being have having to be analyzed um on its own.

There it's it's a less cookie cutter than other types of electrification.

Um that being said, it's it's been under discussion.

We did not include it in this list, but this is only the draft list, and we would not be bringing the final list to council for adoption until later this year, so we could certainly evaluate that further and see if we recommend including it.

Okay, thank you.

Um then let's see, other questions.

Uh in the staff report, there was mention of implementation of a renewable battery, renewable energy battery storage.

I think can you give me more details on that?

Was that here?

That was that within the city?

I mean, within the city.

I think it's a model that we would love to see um both in municipal facilities and in people's homes, places of residence.

Um the city has been pursuing municipal solar, and we are also installing battery storage, I believe, at the community center was our first battery battery installation.

So as we as we start to have more of these assets, the next opportunity is how can we connect them better?

Um, you know, the renewable battery storage is solar plus battery.

So on the sites that we have solar, is there an opportunity to add battery to make it a more functional asset?

And then eventually, you know, once we have practiced what we've preached, we would also like to promote it across the community.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Councilmember Scholter.

Well, I was going to ask you about the mobile home parks because it's definitely something we haven't really talked about.

But we do have at least five mobile home parks, and I'm sure that other communities in Silicon Valley, Clean Energies, territory have a number of them as well.

So something to kind of take back to the board and um, you know, I am the rep at the moment, and um Chris Clark is the uh the alternate.

So we um, you know, we uh we are glad to answer any questions people have privately and talk about things.

Um I have to say serving on this board has been um a great pleasure, but it's also really been a technical challenge.

I was just surprised, I mean, very surprised at how long it took to kind of feel like I knew enough to not be embarrassed by the questions I was asking, and but I found out from talking to my fellow um uh board members that everybody has the same uh experience, it wasn't just me.

Most of us don't know very much about the power business, is the honest truth, and that's what you know, Silicon Valley Clean Energy is about.

Anyway, I I digress so um I wanted to ask you about what you feel kind of gets the most bang for the buck and decarbonization at the moment.

I think that the basic two buckets of building and transportation electrification are really our biggest opportunities.

So you'll see the city is investing in heat pump water heater rebates.

You know, we see the air district contemplating these rules, and so our biggest and best effort should be to getting the community ready for this major transition.

Heat pump water heaters are extremely effective at reducing emissions, they're cost effective for homeowners.

So it's a great move, a first move uh in decarbonization.

And once residents undertake that first move, they they might be just a little more likely to then when their furnace dies, consider a heat pump or you know, the next thing in their decarbonization journey.

So because of the regional regulations that are being contemplated, we think that heat pump water heaters and then also heat pumps within the context of buildings is really one of our biggest opportunities.

And and just to give my colleagues uh kind of an understanding of the order magnitude of how important this is, we heard in a public comment at a meeting that get that essentially the average heat pump water heater and the average family gas car use produce the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

So it's not a minor thing in terms of decarbonization to to get a heat pump.

It's like taking a you know, it's like it's like getting rid of a gasoline car.

So it's a big deal.

Absolutely, and then the other side is of course uh electric vehicles.

The, you know, people drive a lot, and we would of course like to see people getting out of their vehicles, but we see electric vehicles as the as a bridge solution really to quickly decarbonize transportation emissions.

So you'll see we have the focus um proposed on getting more charging to uh multifamily properties where adoption of EVs is lower than the average within the city.

So we want to have everybody have access to charging because charging lack of access to charging is a significant barrier for people to make the decision to buy any V.

Will you tell us a little bit about that program we have don't we have a pilot program going on?

We do we're just about to launch it or maybe it's just gone live but we will be working with multifamily property owners to um bring EV charging to their properties at no or very low cost.

Okay and and how many um properties do you think this is going to impact this particular pilot will only be able to install Miss Lucky is it 100 ports approximately 100 our our sort of bigger goal in this space is to have 25% of residents who live in multifamily have access to EV charging.

So it will leave us with a ways to go but I think the idea is really in the proof of concept you know what are the ways that we can get charging into apartments.

Multifamilies are sort of this hard nut to crack for many issues you know recycling composting many sustainability initiatives struggle with how to deploy into multifamilies so in this so in this pilot we're going to learn what are the what are the problems exactly and how how to work through them and then we'll look to scaling it okay thank you sure thank you council member show Walter Councilmember McAllister.

Thank you for this report it brings up some uh quite a few questions and some uh good memories that I had with Bruce in 2015 getting uh Silicon Valley energy off the ground so I my first question is to the Silicon Valley uh representative and it relates to uh home batteries are you talking about Anthony all right he has hand raised and the question I'm getting I'm ready Mr.

McAllister now the question is we've talked about batteries uh again Mr.

Carney got me involved with solar uh our house we were very we did that and he was very instrumental and very informative for us but uh what's happening with Silicon Valley with home batteries we're talking about all these other places getting batteries and are there any incentives to provide for uh home uh batteries off the solar we have taken a deep look at this opportunity in um run the numbers in a number of different ways and as of yet we have not discovered a path where it makes sense for there to be a local incentive for home batteries the reality is that the new tariff structure that the state has adopted uh dramatically compensates customers who install batteries just through savings on their electrical bill um and so basically we the the new tariff has changed the home solar market such that the vast majority of home solar installations are now installing batteries because it makes economic sense to do so it's completely different than it was just a few years ago where batteries were sort of a very much an extra um but now the economics of it do are point in that direction along with ongoing reductions in the cost of batteries so the simple answer is no we do not have an incentive um nor is there one um about to be released uh disappointingly we'll report to you um but that's why it's effective but you don't have a program for it um we we do not have a program the batteries are happening they there's no need for us to have an incentive but they're getting installed now at look with um folks that have solar already and of course the when people look at the pros and cons of installing a battery the part of the equation that isn't monetized is that resilience factor of having power uninterrupted whenever there is any interruption in the power.

That doesn't even enter sort of the economics of it, but it sure does enter into people's psyche and and their thoughts about why to have it happened and somebody also mentioned the Silicon Valley is looking at some potential uh financial uh issues.

Uh the SVCE board has had several sessions as council member Sherwalter will attest over the past year on financial um options that we have if the market for electricity continues to fall.

So without getting into too much detail, when prices fall, um, it affects our finances such that we um can run into the red.

And so while we do have reserves and ample reserves at that, uh you can't rely on reserves for too many years, and so the board has um as recently as last week provided uh direction to staff on sort of how to implement reductions in um how to address financial challenges and one of the options as Mr.

Carney mentioned is to consider other mixes of power other than a hundred percent greenhouse gas free.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so all this okay, good, because this leads into some of my questions that I had.

Um, one of my the basic question I have is equity, uh, and is it is it fair?

And to the people of mobile homes or for multi-homeowners, multi multiple units, these are are gonna be large costs, and if we have 14,000 uh rental units in the city, how is the landlord gonna be incentivized to replace all his items and not be able to recover the costs in a relatively short period, considering that so answer that question and I'll follow up with another one?

Thank you for the question.

Um the air district rules at 94 and 96 are based on a point of sale model.

So when a given appliance reaches the end of life, the only option for replacement will be an all-electric one.

I think that the district uh was considering the financial impact of these rules, and uh this is a gradual rollout.

We're not going to be pulling any equipment out before the end of life, um, so that no significant costs will be incurred at a single point in time.

It'll be gradual as the equipment uh retires at their properties.

So, you know, ideally not all of their units would go out at one time, helping to defray the costs.

There are savings operationally, and so if they have a minimal upfront costs and then they're able to achieve some savings the time by the time the next appliance comes around, they will have accrued sum savings to help offset that higher up front cross up cost for the next water heater that has to be replaced.

So the multi- uh landlord will have to pay for the retrofitting of that apartment, and there are some cost to it, so their uh is what you're saying.

Is that they will regain that cost by the savings, but in most apartments, the the tenant pays for the utilities.

So, how is that going to help these apartment complexes that are fairly new and older going to be able to be again be encouraged to do these sooner than later?

It is hard to encourage um property owners to prematurely replace the equipment.

Um in many cases, the water heater is a swap out, or it involves minor um retrofit.

It's not a retrofit of the whole unit, for example.

It's it's just taking out the old water heater and replacing it with an electric water heater.

Sometimes there are panel upgrades that are required, but there are financial incentives available both for the water heater itself, um Silicon Valley Clean Energy has rebates, the city has a supplemental rebate that goes on top of that.

There are also rebates for the um retrofit costs if a panel upgrade is needed or more power to the property.

So we're trying to mitigate the cost.

You know how much it costs to retrofit, put in a like uh electric, which is probably uh for a range.

So if there's a need for a panel upgrade or if there are space constraints that limit where the water heater could go, the installation costs could vary, and then also the size of the unit.

Um I do know that our rebates when stacked with the other rebates available currently have brought the cost to be nearly on par with uh replacing with a natural gas water heater.

Um not in every case, you know, not 100% of the time, but um we're getting close.

Okay.

And so I'll follow up.

I have to ask the question is where are these resources gonna be coming from?

And the response was that we're gonna get funding for incentives will be considered multiple sources, utilities, federal grants, or whatever.

At some point, and we just heard the Silicon Valley Clean Energy is having some financial that the grants, I mean, if are not guaranteed, and that that's this is something that would make eventually have to come from the city funds, um, so very it's very and somewhat ambitious, but do you think there's enough grants out there over your five years or ten years to cover the cost of all these replacements?

I don't believe that there are enough grants.

Um, this draft plan doesn't contemplate a funding plan to accompany it.

Um, and I guess I would really want to underscore that the available rebates is really a point in time sort of snapshot.

These are the rebates that are available right now.

It's hard to predict um when those funds will be expended uh and if new funding sources will come online.

And uh another last question is you were very um encouraging EV vehicles, which again goes back to the equity thing that most people can't afford an EV vehicle, and yet you're relying a lot on well, we're gonna put these EVs here, and people are expect people to buy the EZVs and putting in these charging stations.

So how do you address the is there a way to address the uh equity component of we're relying on these EVs to come about, but people can't afford them?

Yeah, we were um very disappointed to see the inflation reduction act retired prematurely because within there one of the most significant components was incentives for EVs and additional incentives for income qualified residents, um, and we were building a whole program around that.

The measures that are before you today just reflect the reality of what's available.

These are the levers that remain for us, and among those choices, addressing the barriers in multifamily housing for EVs is our best choice.

We would love the IRA to be back.

We're EV vehicle sales going up or stagnant.

Uh it's very early to tell.

Um, the inflation reduction act incentives only expired in October, and I think that global um fuel prices have sort of buoyed EV sales, maybe more than would have naturally occurred.

I think there might have been more of a drop off.

So I think the longer term trajectory of EV sales is very hard to predict right now.

Were you expecting?

I mean, well, it's hard to estimate, but were you expecting a 5% increase in EV sales, 10%, 20%, based on some of the programs that you were thinking that would help reduce?

We were predicting I can't remember the numbers when we were conducting the analysis initially, and we actually plan to come to the council's sustainability committee next week to walk through the in-depth analysis.

I do not recall, Miss Lucky, do you remember the initial projections for EV adoption?

Thank you, Miss Lee.

Rebecca Lucky Sustainability Manager.

So the analysis was using a 41% projection in Santa Clara County where most new cars that were purchased were electric vehicles.

So the analysis was using that as continuing on forward.

Now that did include the tax incentives that were available, the and and this is also another point that's difficult to predict because now we have fuel prices rising.

So that could be another motivating factor for people to get into an EV.

Thank you.

And the other one, let's go along with Council Member Shoulder Walk.

I asked, are these can the action items be put in a cost effective order?

And I'll example of helpfully better understand the question.

BTA has an action plan for on their strategic plan, there was 24 action items.

18 of the action items only contributed two percent to achieve their goal.

So I'm asking, do you have yours similar type of cost effectiveness that, yeah, we can do these, but it only does a little thing, whereas we can do if we know these are gonna give us the biggest bang for the buck that we'll do those versus yeah, we pat ourselves on the back, we got 18 things done, but they don't really accomplish.

Thank you for the question.

Um that question is uh what I kind of set out to ask as well, and over the last 18 months I found out just how hard it is to answer it.

Um, with climate change in particular, the coordination among across federal, state, regional, and then within our own city actions, is really important and it really drives the effectiveness of different measures.

So if the air district does pass its appliance rules and we invest money in outreach related to those same rules, that could have a very high cost effectiveness.

But if the air district then backs away, we might not achieve nearly the same results.

And so on a per ton of carbon, it's it's very hard to calculate the cost effectiveness because it's contingent on other people doing other things at the same time.

You know, it's better together, so then when pieces fall out, it's hard we'd have to do like indefinite number of scenarios to really try to cost it out.

So we we moved away from that model.

We did set out, I kind of set out with exactly that question.

It's the question we kind of all want to start with, and then we moved to what are you know, which actions have the highest GHG potential, and we found that at the local level, none of them have a huge impact on our emissions.

You know, the 10 measures that we model, I think only addressed maybe 10 or 15 percent of the emissions that we have to deal with, but we weren't able to quantify the effect of our local actions that's spurring activity in the legislature to change the whole context across the state, or you know, support from our city and cities all across the barrier of the air district to move forward with their rules.

We couldn't quantify that because it was sort of one step too far removed.

So we've we've ended up with a hybrid plan really where some of our measures are quantified.

We have done the analysis to say this will lead to this many GHG reductions, but we haven't left off of our list the measures that we couldn't quantify.

We still think they're important, even if we can't describe specifically the exact amount of emissions that will result.

My last question is I didn't see a lot about local local shuttles that we know, because it's 58% and on a VETA board.

I'm always looking, let's let's get our transportation lists get our shuttles working, and yet I don't see anything really pushing.

Let's spend some money.

If we spend money on this particular deal and increase our shuttles and increase our spots, that we will see that uh bigger payback.

Um we consulted with many departments uh on this draft plan and including uh public works and the transportation team, and they asked that we include measures around the shuttle service expansion of the shuttle service, establishing better regional transit partnerships, looking at equity equity and affordability within transit access.

Excuse me.

And then also looking at mobility hubs and micromobility opportunities to really integrate our shuttle service with the regional transit that's already available.

So we certainly will be continuing to focus on that and looking to our colleagues in public works to really lead the charge, which they have been doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Kamei.

Great, thank you.

Thanks to staff.

Lots of exciting things that we're doing.

Just a couple questions.

So I recall, I was trying to recall which program staff is coming back and presenting on, but there was, and I've talked to this with our SVCE friends a bit, is just the adoption on some of these programs, particularly like the incentives and the rebates for our most vulnerable communities.

And just curious, have we been able to increase that participation?

I know you go and you present to our Mandarin, Chinese, and Spanish leadership academies, and has that education helped, or I just remember us having that conversation.

I was trying to remember which project it was, but would love to hear an update if there is one.

I don't have an update that includes numbers, but I will say that our multifamily program in particular is really designed at some of our most vulnerable residents.

We also, of course, did the tool lending library for the day worker center so that clients there could have access to all electric landscaping equipment.

And then we had an income qualified um e-bike rebate, which depending on your income, provided the electric bike nearly free of charge to residents.

So we do have some of our programs that are really focused on equity considerations and others that are focused on broad adoption and quick adoption.

We're trying to balance those two needs.

Absolutely ask.

We did survey the recipients of the electric bikes, and we can bring information from their kind of experiences.

It's less quantitative, but I think qualitative feedback, you know, from people who have not participated in many government programs, um, would be valuable, and we can get data from the tool lending library as well, and we've been in discussions with uh community development to understand permit data better and find out who is taking advantage of our incentives and how many more water heater heat pump water heaters are we installing.

And then, of course, you already mentioned, but we've been actively trying to enhance our outreach and education.

Um, we had a cool block cohort that we had um a Spanish language facilitator for.

So we're we're trying out many different things.

Um we're trying to be persistent as well.

We don't always have immediate results.

I think there's a you know a longer path to building trust in the community, but it's not keeping us from continuing to try.

Can I ask if Anthony has anything that he wanted to share?

You're there, Anthony?

Sorry, I had muted, I had a hard time unmuting.

Uh we do have, I'm proud to say that we do have programs oriented, particularly to uh those that are most uh at risk and have the fewest resources, so we do are doing some direct installs at affordable housing complexes where we actually go in and electrify the complex at no cost to the owners.

In addition, um we offer that to single family homeowners who are income qualified as well.

So those are of course deeper incentives that those folks get, but they are are important to make sure that we're serving collectively that both the city and SPC, the full range of customers.

Um, because as we know, there's a full range of people out there.

Right.

Thanks so much, Anthony.

Yeah, that's exactly where my mind was going, not to like teeter into comments, but just perhaps as we're seeing more changes from the federal side, making sure as we're seeing, you know, affordable housing projects in particular, but just development where we can incentivize um those those types of utilizations or just a little space for like the tool lending library or other things like that, right?

I that seems like the next iterative step of trying to make that possible and meet our decarbonization goals.

I was just going to add that um SVCE staff also connected with our department of housing to identify the affordable housing opportunities within Mountain View to make eligible for this program.

And then we have been in discussions with our housing department around um pairing housing preservation initiatives with decarbonization opportunities.

So we're looking at all the angles of trying to integrate these issues.

It sounds like we're gonna need to be even more creative, and that kind of goes into my next question.

So we have some resources now, they're obviously finite, we don't know how long they last.

Has there been continued energy for those resources?

Seeing that we're in California and our federal government is making these changes, or do we feel like we may not have those resources in the future too if things continue down this path?

I know that I'm just maybe what staff is seeing.

I'm just uh we have the climate bond.

So POP four funds are going to be made available across California.

And in fact, um coming to the council soon will be uh staff seeking permission to apply for PROP 4 funds.

Right.

Um, at some point before the you know, as the funds are released.

Right.

Okay, okay, perfect.

Okay, good.

Um, all right, those are my questions.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Can I council member Ramirez?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh some of the questions for my colleagues inspired a few questions of my own.

Um I'm curious uh about the interaction between uh the sustainability division and the departments who you mentioned sometimes have to take the lead on certain policy initiatives.

Um can you explain or can you share when there are uh policy considerations that are housed within, for instance, public works or CDD?

Um, how does the sustainability division get looped in and to what extent do you influence those decisions?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Um I would say overall that it's an incredibly collaborative environment to be working on sustainability.

Um, when I came to the city, many of the department heads actually reached out proactively and wanted to tell me about their work.

They already saw themselves as doing sustainability work.

I think that the sustainability action plans really laid the groundwork for that because they didn't identify just things that the sustainability team could do, but they're really sprinkled across all of the city departments.

In fact, we have the minority of measures, really.

The departments are doing the heavy lifting, you know, they're building buildings all electric.

They are helping to make our transportation systems decarbonized.

So they're um helping to establish parks and sequester carbon.

So many of the things that our departments are doing are already seen by them and by us as sustainability.

So really the task is to make sure that we communicate well to each other and work diligently to stay aligned.

You know, there's many priorities, and it's easy to get out of alignment, you know, like just as we move so quickly, and so staying in really frequent communication, looking for those opportunities, like, oh, you're working on housing preservation.

We've been thinking about, you know, I think in in the council sustainability committee, the request was made to look at seismic retrofits and decarbonizing at the same time, and then housing was asked to look at seismic retrovits in the context of housing preservation.

So could we build something just based on this opportunity for alignment?

So it's this constant sort of searching for opportunity.

I feel like I'm kind of just rooting around across the departments and checking in with my colleagues, and um, I've consistently found um open and collaborative partners.

If I could add on to Miss Lee's comment, I think one of the advantages to having a strong sustainability team is what you um called rooting around is being more on the cutting edge of identifying whether it's a best practice or a funding opportunity, and then finding creative ways to move forward that add capacity through the help of the sustainability team, because with the great collaboration we have and the commitment that staff and all the departments have to be part of sustainability across the organization, the big constraint is capacity in terms of really looking into, for example, um solar and how to make that rebate work within the time frame that is required in order to get the reimbursements and what are the different financing options and how to bring in design build so that there's some resource that augments what staff in public works might not have the capacity to do.

So there's that kind of multiplier of capacity and just being on that cutting edge of finding the funding opportunities and the best practices, the the receptivity is not the issue.

Thank you.

That's helpful, I think, to a point.

I'd love to better understand, for instance, um the opportunities for the sustainability team to influence some of the uh very heavy policy work that we're initiating or that will occur soon.

So I'm thinking a lot about um the standard details or the objective design guidelines, right?

There's a lot of opportunity to enable or advance sustainability initiatives, but it's very rare for us when the council's actually reviewing a scope of work or you know, working with CDD or public works to hear from sustainability staff, even though the nexus is very clear.

Um so I'd love to hear.

Are you given an opportunity to weigh in on things like you know um active transportation projects at the design level or as we're working on objective design standards and guidelines for private development?

Are you and your team given an opportunity to talk about here or ways we could advance our sustainability goals?

Can you help us learn more about that type of interaction?

I think that that occurs um the most within our municipal operations because we have such specific goals around decarbonizing our facilities.

So as we look to electrify the fleet or install EV charging capacity for our facilities, solar and storage, that certainly occurs with um very technical issues such as the transportation ones that you mentioned, or um standard details or objective design guidelines.

We really look to those departments as lead and as technical experts.

We're not um technically expert in every element that can be related to sustainability.

We are happy to um roll up our sleeves and kind of look for answers together.

So we have had um discussions about zoning incentives, for example, related to decarbonization, and we have been in discussion with the community development department about that, because they have not implemented it either, and so we're we're trying to help figure it out together.

Um it doesn't happen in every instance, and sometimes things are actually more technical than our background um allows us to comment on substantially.

We can certainly do more of that though.

Um I'm interested in that, um, and maybe I'm wondering if this is an opportunity to talk about ways to uh further integrate you and your team into some of the other policy work where there's very clearly sustainability, you know, related work that could be achieved, but we're you know, once we're in the discussion about, for instance, right uh standard details, you and your team are are not ordinarily part of that discussion.

So, how how can we make sure that there's an opportunity to talk about sustainability in that other work?

Uh council member Romero, so we are actively starting the long-term planning process and strategy for both the objective design standards project um that CDD is working on, and then the standard details that public works is um leading that piece of it.

These two projects are running parallel and are complementary to each other.

Uh, there is funding included in the recommended budget as council learned about in April and during the CIP discussion for both of those items, and uh we are actually kicking off uh the planning for this, which includes our assistant city manager who leads the sustainability um piece of it.

Um so uh yes, sustainability will have a seat at the table and will be part of these discussions as we move forward, as they will also be part of the discussion with the parks and rec strategic plan um and other very important policies that we're finishing up uh this month and next month.

So they will absolutely be part of those discussions.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

All right, so I believe that is all the questions.

We will now move to comments by the council, which should include feedback on the questions staff has posed in the staff report uh beginning with question one.

We could do feel free to answer both of them uh when you when your turn is up.

So, council question one, does the council agree with the approach to develop a five-year plan focusing on local actions for building and transportation electrification that seeks to support the success of regional and state actions to move the city toward a 2045 decarbonization goal to the fullest extent possible.

And council question two, feel free to put it on the screen if you like.

Does council agree with the draft actions for the five-year decarbonization plan or have any input on any additions, deletions, or modifications?

Um, I don't know if this wasn't your initial uh council member Kamei.

Um Council Member Schoalter.

Well, thanks.

I'll take first and um uh I I just want to start off by saying yes to both.

We had a very um good presentation at the council sustainability committee, and and um and and staff has come back with uh kind of the updated version of what we talked about, so I'm I'm very um pleased with it.

And and I just wanted to to say a few comments about why um one is because of all the policy changes, I just keep coming back to the concept that we need to worry about right now, we need to worry about what we have control over, and we need to move forward on those things that we have control over, you know, and um uh that's we we were able to take a little more a broader view uh when the the federal administration wasn't uh changing so many of the policies, but that's not the case right now.

So, so you know, we just need to move forward with what we can control, and that's really primarily what's on this um uh on this uh uh list.

And then on the other hand, we need to advocate because um uh our voices are are really valuable.

And um on the state, uh we you know we have we have we have reps that are um very responsible to our suggestions.

Uh Josh Becker is kind of the lead in the Senate on environmental and sustainability issues, so we're very fortunate to have him as our representative.

And um, you know, California's the fourth largest economy in the world.

The the the kinds of policies that we get set up and um and and can demonstrate here have very global implications.

So you know that state advocacy is is a big deal, and we you know, we have we have the lobbyists, that's been helpful, and we um we advocate through Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and we um on the state level, and there's Cal Cities Association, and um we uh there's also a association of um the CCAs, the California Community Choice Aggregation Association, which we just had our um 10th uh anniversary conference last last week.

Um so all of those things are are really significant.

Then another thing that's important because PGE um is responsible for so many of the costs and for the transmission.

Um, you know, SVCE, we we buy the energy.

So, you know, when you look at your energy bill, and I'm we that the generation is what's Silicon Valley Clean Energy, but the transmission and all the other costs, um, which are pretty major are PGE's, and they are regulated through the California Public Utilities Commission, and um we do do some advocacy through that, but that's something I hope that we'll be able to step up.

And I know that um the California community choice aggregation is working hard on that, but but that's another kind of advocacy that's really important on this subject, and then of course, on the federal front, um uh we want to be ready to move fast when either the Congress flips or um the administration changes, so that um these these policies that have been reversed um can be put back into place quickly and or even better ones.

So I I just wanted to mention how how really important advocacy is in this in this situation, and we do that through um NLC and SVCE and our our um you know our our uh our lobbyists, and then another thing that I I kind of think is is goes along with working um working thinking about things we can control is how do we communicate to homeowners and small business owners and um apartment owners.

And I think one of the things that we I hope we're gonna step up is the communications that we do through our neighborhood meetings.

We did that the last time at the last meeting, and and and I think that was really good.

We shared more information about heat pumps and our people to talk to, but but I do think that that that's a um you know that is a an internal resource we have in Mountain View that we could we could maybe use better, and then the other thing is I I don't think we should have one of these study sessions where we don't say thank you to um carbon-free Mountain View.

You know, they really have provided um a lot of technical information to us over the years and inspiration and just kind of continually hold our feet to the fire.

So I want to say thank you to everybody that's involved in that too, as well as we have a great staff.

So that's my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Schoelter.

Council Member Hicks.

So I want to start by uh thanking Ms.

Lee and the rest of staff for bringing this back to us.

I feel like we've undergone the last time uh council addressed this issue, we uh kind of said, can can we make it by 2035?

And then we kind of galloped off in that direction and got the rubric rug ripped out from under us while we were charging off, and we've made a lot of changes on the council sustainability committee, but have not brought it back in a thoughtful way to the rest of council.

So I I want you know, we kind of turned on a dime, and I wanted to make sure that that was okay with everyone else on on council and get your your feedback.

Um so and so I've been listening intently and looking forward to hearing the rest of it.

Um so uh yeah, and I I, of course, like the suggestions in the staff report because I was part of making them, so but I do think it's appropriate to still have a goal of 2045, not be completely, or at least I actually I like the way you put it as a target, not be targetless, and then plan in five-year increments.

Who knows?

Hopefully, come November, we'll say uh two-year increments that things are just getting better and better, but um, but I can't guarantee that.

Um, and uh I'm you know, of course, I like all that you have principles.

Uh I think there are five, yes, five principles uh identified to guide us um forward, and I I agree with those.

I want to say also in the staff report, I'm particularly um, I particularly like the um the regional groups and lobbying.

I think that's I want to highlight how effective that can be because I think that so the regional group that you name in the staff report is the uh LGCA, the local government climate alliance, which is a coalition of 15 cities, counties, and growing um, well, I'll just read the rest of what you say that aligns state and local action and advocates for and creates high impact climate policies at the state level.

I just think that you can be a powerful part of that, and in a coalition, a powerful part of creating state-level policy that then hopefully can go nationally and beyond.

So I think it's one of the ways of our staff being you know, one of the more powerful things that you can do.

Um, so I wanted to highlight that.

Um and then along those lines, the things I the things I think of adding, but you know, you can add them to your menu or take them off as appropriate.

I do like the idea of well, I'll say there are a number of them that are uh for electrification of for electric vehicles, and I should say I I seem to know a lot of people who are in their twenties at this point, my children, their friends, other people, and other low-income people that I know, it is very hard for them to find charging.

And um, so that's that's one of the things that I'm particularly interested in because I see that again and again.

So workplace charging, um, because many of those people in their 20s have to drive to work, they can't find a job right next to where they live, and they can't charge in their apartment.

Um also um also if there's any way to lobby for incentives for hybrids, then if you can't charge sometimes, you can still um uh drive that electric car.

And I just want to say to Council McCallister as a side note, I have an electric car and we save a ton of money by not going to the gas station.

And I know that changes.

Who knows what the gas prices will be next month, but um I just would not um put my money on the idea that uh gas car is gonna save you money because I don't think that that's a sure bet.

Um, and then I have heard that they may make uh tiny electric cars in Canada now, and uh any lobbying you could do to get to get tiny cars here, and you know, there I see a great uptick in use of electric bikes and so forth, but I think for some people, you know, rainy day and so forth, electric bikes are not appropriate for everyone, but we tend to be forced to buy much larger larger cars than at a much greater expense than many of us need.

So um, um and then the other things I would mobile home electrification sounds um sounds like a great thing to add if that's appropriate.

Um, you know, any kind of financing for water heaters and so forth to take uh council member McAllister's point.

That sometimes I just also want to emphasize we are not making anybody rip out their current water heater in 27.

But if it's more expensive, I think it may be it may or may not be more expensive for you to install a heat pump water heater, but over time you should be saving money, so financing would be great.

And let's see if I have any last words.

Um, I think that may be most of it, or I'll come back and say something on a second round.

I think I think that's it.

So thank you again, and I'm I'm very happy with the way we're moving on.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks, Councilmember Kamei.

Oh, wait, no, no, no.

I just I'm gonna unclick my button this time, so I remember unclick.

Um so uh once again, thanks to thank you to staff, our community members, the public who always make sure that sustainability remains one of our top city priorities.

Um my answers to questions one and two are yes and yes, and just a couple reflections.

I just want to thank the council sustainability committee.

Um the five guiding principles that you put together or agreed upon or staff put together for us um are really great.

I really appreciate number five, which talks about how we emphasize the community engagement and outreach to educate and the partnerships.

I really feel like um whether it's Air District, SBCE, um Carbon Free Mountain View, the State Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

There's so many different partners that it's takes to um reach these um audacious and amazing goals, and so I'm I'm very happy to see that called out.

Um and I want to I think uh as we I mean hopefully November will bring change, but um I think we have at least two more years with this current federal administration and so I think that allows us to uh remain flexible and um continue the creativity necessary to to try to um keep these efforts at the forefront.

Um and then just a note on the attachment, um I appreciate the the color coding of the action plans, it's very easy to read.

I do feel if uh possible that having a call sometimes uh staff puts together a column to let us know like is it in progress, is it completed?

I think that that would be something I I'd love to see, and I'm looking to my council colleagues to to see if that could be of interest because um part of uh doing good work is also sharing the good work, and similar to what to the different programs we've been um creating um and doing outreach for our most vulnerable communities, being able to get that data as well, um, the cross-departmental collaboration, I think it's just really great to emphasize and highlight just how at the forefront um I think um Miss Seymour mentioned kind of cutting edge we are.

I I'd really like to be able to highlight that.

Thanks, Mayor.

Great.

Thank you, Council Member Kamei Council Member McAllister.

Thank you.

Um I do support a five-year plan, but um and I have some concerns, sort of in bigger context, but uh there's a large uh reliance on EV vehicles, and uh, council member Hicks is lucky that she can afford some.

And yes, you'll save a lot of money, no doubt about it.

But it's not something that the most people can afford.

So it's just be don't rely so much on it.

I mean, I'd rather see you rely on our city shuttles and what we could do in town.

I don't uh again, we're relying on incentives and grants and programs.

Is that sustainable?

And to, as you hear me talk about all these plans, and I think Mr.

Carney brought it up too, is we need to have financial sub plans on how we're gonna get these things, how we're gonna implement them, are they gonna be sustainable?

And I put that in the context that tonight we're gonna see three different plans.

We see this is a goal, which is great.

We're seeing the economic vitality plan, and then we're gonna look at parking recks.

And they all have require money and all require staffing.

And somewhere along the line, everything gets diluted and doesn't get taken care of.

And if taking care of greenhouse gases and the climate is a priority, then maybe we need to shift some resources over to that and to get it done.

So that's something that we need to be doing across all programs we have.

Again, I think we're we're putting a lot on them.

I mean, it's great to see this.

I remember back when the environmental sustainable task work in 2019 was out there very active, and we appreciate so I got an early introduction to it.

And so that's a concern.

So try to make things that and that's why I asked about cost effectiveness of programs and keep it local, what we can do, and I know we can do local transportation, we can do that.

So those are everything you have as a goal.

I hope we get there, but I rather see a plan and implementation and a funding source that will help get us to those goals and not rely on the reliance again, EVs or the you know, we got the 14,000 apartments, we got the mobile homes.

Those people don't have excess that much funding that even if you say we're gonna go to this mobile home park where Mr.

Brown lives, we're gonna put in electricity.

I mean, we're gonna make it all electricity.

One, the park owner doesn't have the money, and does it can't he pass it on to cover cost recovery to the people?

So those are great goals, work with it, but it's very aspirational, and so uh those are my comments that let's go in forward, let's see it, but let's see you can get that cost effectiveness, and stop and again just rely on what you can do, which you said you're gonna do is try to keep it local and do that.

So those are my comments.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Do we have answers for the two council questions from our two remaining council members?

Just yes and yes, I'm on the sustainability committee and I supported this at the committee level and I'm happy to hear um the feedback and overall it sounds like we're heading in the right direction.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Clark.

Um so uh I guess that leads with me.

It's also a yes and yes.

I also support the looking into the mobile home um necessarily not necessarily like working with each individual mobile homeowner on electrification.

I the the fact that there's some infrastructure issues for them to actually use the grid to the full amount.

I think that that should be looked into uh so that like when incentives and all that stuff comes back that they'll be ready for it.

Um, and we have six mobile home parks, so even if it's a one-by-one situation, we could look at the likely mobile home parks that would be um wanting to do it more so than others.

I think I think we have a general sense of uh the nature of that.

I could imagine which mobile home parks would be wanting to do that more versus others.

Um it might be a good use of the the joint petition process.

It reminds me of um I I think a lot of us remember uh Sunshine Gardens.

And it was such a really good example of like the landlord and the tenants working together, and it was a rent-controlled unit, and they I don't think they actually had to increase the rents higher than what they need to do in order to do all the sustainability changes that they want to do.

It was such a good example.

Um, I think with with the mobile home parks the way they are, I think that would be an interesting pilot for us to go and and see what lessons we could have learned from like uh a situation like Sunshine Gardens.

Um it was mentioned in the public comment earlier about um uh EV charging at workplaces.

Because we we do have a lot of um we have a lot of jobs here in Mountain View.

Um it's interesting because in the draft action plan, the closest thing is the EV charging infrastructure for multifamily buildings, and it's really funny because when you read the description of it, it's a very broad way of saying it.

So I I don't know if you want to rename that action but um but like including as an option of like workplace uh EV charging as well.

Um I agree with uh Councilmember Kamei's adding a essentially a progress bar um to to the draft seeing where we are what's the updates on it um uh generally so those those are overall my um thoughts uh putting in and I see Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you mayor I wanted to speak last because my worldview is pessimistic and bleak.

I figured it was a good way to conclude the study session.

So I I um I I do support the staff um approach recommendations um a part of me feels like um it is too late that there is nothing we can do but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try right that it that we should give up the fight but the thing that struck me as I was reading the staff report and I I watched the CSC meeting I do appreciate the work of my colleagues and and the staff in in putting this together but I what I what sort of struck me is how I felt that this was a fairly low stakes study session.

And that's because we're not making any decisions that will actually reduce carbon emissions or impose the type of regulations that we really need if we want to make a meaningful difference right those decisions come later and I often feel like when we have to make a hard call um we we end up not doing the thing that we need to do or um you know impose the the the whatever the bad tech tasty medicine that we need to actually reduce carbon emissions to a point where we're not going to experience global destabilization.

And so I you know I'm not gonna be here um for for very much longer um so I won't really have an opportunity to make those decisions but I I think about the next council um and I think about those of my colleagues who serve on regional bodies or you know our friends uh at the state and federal level who have to make the hard decisions and and often it's let's do an easy thing and make money available and that's important we need to have a lot of money but often it's not let's you know prohibit the use of natural gas or let's um you know eliminate parking minimum requirements or implement uh maximum parking requirements or it's you know very hard to get a road diet it's hard to it's hard to do the things that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions um and I just I don't believe that we're we're gonna have we're gonna summon the political will to actually reduce carbon at the the rate that we need to before things actually get bad and by the time things get really bad we might at that point summon the political will to do something but it will be too late.

My favorite movie growing up was Terminator 2 judgment day.

And I remember uh there's a sequence when maybe this is between 50% and two thirds of the movie uh the Terminator and John Connor and crew have you know escaped and they're in Mexico and they see that there's John Connor and the terminator and they see these kids playing around with guns and you know bang bang I got you and and John says we're not gonna make it are we people I mean and the Terminator responds it is in your nature to destroy yourselves and that line has influenced my worldview to a level that is perhaps unhealthy.

Um, I hope that we do the right thing when those decisions come to us.

I'm not confident that we will, but while I'm here, I will do whatever I can to maximize our ability to respond locally in the way that we need to, if we're serious about decarbonization.

Thank you.

On that happy note, we're not we're not encouraging this, y'all.

Uh um, okay.

On that happy note, thank you so much to staff and on your work and to my colleagues for providing your input on it.

Does staff feel that they have the input that they need to continue on?

Uh yes, we do.

There are a few actions that were proposed for inclusion in the draft list.

Would council prefer to take a straw poll, or would would you like to direct staff to evaluate consideration?

I think we could do a straw poll.

Um, which uh items uh do you feel need more clarification?

Well, I think there were two that got mentioned by multiple um council members, and so perhaps there's just a confirmation from the council as a whole that you'd like to include a look at mobile home um electrification challenges and um workplace charging.

Um those are the two things that I heard.

I would also point out that there is already an action plan that includes um looking at mobile homes, and we'll um start there to see if that language um uh would be um better strengthened.

Um and then there were a couple of process things that we heard that we can certainly just take into the next stages of plan development around um having a good way to communicate progress and also looking at cost effectiveness and funding.

All right.

Before we do a straw poll, does anyone have any objections to those items?

Seeing none that that works.

I do see I searched mobile homes and I see it's in the equity focus electrification for hard to electrify buildings and neighborhoods.

Very nice.

Um and with that, thank you to staff, thank you to my colleagues, thank you to the public for weighing in.

It was a long journey, and I am uh optimistic enough to last much longer than Councilmember Miraz on this.

So um we will take a break before we go to our uh regular session.

I'm gonna give us about five minutes so we will reconvene back at 6.45.

All right, we're gonna get started with the meeting.

Feel free to mosey down to the dais.

All right.

Um good evening, everyone.

Uh, welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and the Shoreline Regional Park Community of May 26, 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.

The assistant city clerk uh will take attendance by row call.

Councilmember Hicks here.

Councilmember Kamei here.

Council Member McAllister.

Yo.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Here.

Council Member Show Walter?

Here.

Vice Mayor Clark.

Here.

Mayor Ramos.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum with all members present.

Thank you.

In recent weeks, the city, along with a few of our neighboring elected decision-making bodies, have been subjected to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments.

The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe and inclusive community for all.

The council welcomes respectful, non-threatening public comments on matters within our jurisdiction.

Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code may be grounds for terminating a speaker's comment period.

We will now move on to item three, presentations.

Please note, these are presentations only.

The 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 assistant city clerk now.

We will now go on with um we are happy to be joined this evening by uh Tracy Chu on behalf of Great Streets Mountain View to accept the proclamation for the bike Month Proclamation.

Tracy, will you join me at the lectern?

Okay.

So the proclamation reads whereas for more than a century, the bicycle has been an important part of our lives of most Americans, whereas today, millions of Americans engage in bicycling as an environmentally sound form of transportation, an excellent form of fitness, and a healthy family recreational activity.

And whereas the education of cyclists and motorists as to the proper and safe operation of bicycles is important to ensure the safety and comfort of all users, and whereas the League of American Bicyclists and Independent Cyclists throughout our state are promoting greater public awareness of bicycle operation and safety education in an effort to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities, and whereas Mountain View has been named Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists.

Now, therefore, I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, to hereby proclaim the month of May as bike month in the city of Mountain View.

Yay!

Yay!

Now, Tracy, would you like to say a few words?

Thank you very much.

So good evening, Mayor Ramos, and to the members of the City Council.

On behalf of Great Streets Mountain View, thank you very much for this proclamation for the bike month of May in Mountain View.

Mountain View has for a long time been a city that values sustainability, health, connected neighborhoods, and bicycling brings all of this together.

So when a person chooses to bike, whether it's to school or to work or to shopping or downtown or anywhere in the neighborhood, they help create a safer, healthier, and more vibrant community.

Bike month is also a reminder that great streets don't happen overnight.

They're created only through a sustained dedication of our elected officials, our city staff, our residents, our advocates, all working together over many years to make our streets safer, more connected, and more welcoming for everyone.

So I'd like to thank all of our community partners who support bike month and work year-round to make biking safer and more accessible.

We're very grateful for your partnership, and we're very excited about what we can continue to achieve together.

So happy bike month, everyone.

Thank you so much.

All right.

And so now we'll move on to item 3.2, Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month Proclamation.

We are happy to be joined by uh Ling Xie, uh graduate of our 2026 Chinese Language Leadership Civic Leadership Academy to accept this proclamation.

Ling, will you join us over here?

All right.

So the proclamation reads, whereas May is Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, A-N-H-P-I Heritage Month to honor the history, culture, and contributions of the AANHPI communities in the United States, AANHPI encompasses all of the Asian continent and the Pacific Islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, which embodies a diverse and vast groups of people, languages, ethnicities, and traditions, with more than 50 different ethnic groups included, and whereas the official designation of May as AANHPI Heritage Month was signed into law in 1992 and celebrates all AANHPI, whose variety of contributions have built our culture and society, and whereas the theme for this year's observance is Power in unity, strengthening communities together, which focuses on community empowerment and whereas we acknowledge the contributions and leadership of many AA and HPI who have played a significant role in Mountain View in fields of agriculture, arts, commerce, education, government, science, and many others.

Now, therefore, I am Leanne Ramos, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Mountain View.

Ling, would you like to say a few words?

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor Ramos, and thank you to City Council for giving me this opportunity to represent Eastern graduates of the Chinese Civic Leadership Academy and accepting this proclamation for AAPI Heritage Month.

It is important for us to always remember and celebrate the cultural heritage we all share in this community.

But through the recent journey of Chinese Civic Leadership Academy, I've also come to realize something equally important.

Our language, our culture, and live experiences are not just things to preserve, they're also powerful tools for civic engagement, community building, and public discourse.

Mountain View is a city shaped by many cultures where every community brings its own stories, traditions, and perspectives.

And what makes a city so special, in my opinion, is not only our diversity, but also our willingness to actively engage across communities, to intentionally listen to different voices, learn from one another's unique perspectives, overcome our differences, and ultimately unite around the values we share.

I'm grateful to be a part of a community that continue to create space for this conversation.

And I hope AAPI H AAPI Heritage Month can keep reminders of that culture, identity, and civic participation can always go hand in hand.

Thank you so much.

We will now move on to item 3.3 update on the summer of soccer World Cup events and public safety and security.

We are happy to be joined this evening by Economic Vitality Manager Amanda Rotella for an update on the city's summer of soccer World Cup events, public safety and security.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening, Council Mayor.

I am here to present on our summer of soccer activations and public safety and security around our activations.

And so we've established three goals for our activations around all of these international games.

Uh, the first being to boost local economic activity.

We're really looking to support local businesses, increase foot traffic, and maximize the economic benefits for both our local business community but also the city.

We also want to enhance community engagement opportunities both through city-sponsored and community-led events and activations.

We're hoping to bring the community together around sport.

And then lastly, we want to be able to continue to elevate the city's visibility and continue to position Mountain View as a real key destination for visitors and sports fans.

We had really great ratings from our attendee survey, and also had over 8,000 views of our fanfest map, which had all of our business promotions.

We very quickly be started pivoting to summer of soccer, which is our activations around the World Cup tournament that start June 11th.

And we have a variety of things that are in the works.

So first we're creating opportunities for play.

We're gonna have a six-hole foot golf course at Cuesta Park that'll be available for open play June 11th through July 19th.

Foot golf is like Frisbee golf but with a soccer ball.

We also are going to have a mini pitch in the downtown, so essentially a small soccer field that we're going to be installing in the downtown in July, also available for open play.

We are working with some of our local professional sports teams on pop-up activations at the mini pitch and also with our youth soccer organizations to do some clinics and pop and activations at the mini pitch.

Again, we are looking to engage and work with our businesses.

We're collaborating with the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce on outreach to our business community and really making sure that businesses understand the opportunity that comes with the World Cup activations.

So we have our business survey available at the Summer of Soccer webpage.

Businesses can share with us.

Are they having deals, promotions?

Are they hosting events?

Um are they doing a trivia night?

We want to know, and we want to put it on our promotional map, our promotional calendar, include them in both city and chamber marketing and promotions.

And we also have opportunities at the mini pitch.

So we are inviting businesses if they want to do pop-ups in various afternoons at the mini pitch.

Are you a coffee shop?

Are you an ice cream shop?

Do you want to uh come hang out at the mini pitch and engage with the community while they're enjoying some play?

And then everything will be culminating with our watch party weekend.

So we are screening both the bronze and final matches at July 18th and 19th in our downtown.

We will also have live music before and after the games, free family events, face painting, oversized games.

We will be activating our entertainment zone, and again having business specials in the downtown.

Safety and security is incredibly important to us, especially as we are testing out our pilot entertainment zone.

And so specifically for our weekend culminating events, we will have age verification, so ensuring only those who are 21 and over can participate in the entertainment zone activities.

So we will be providing wristbands and alcoholic beverages will only be served in city approved containers.

We're working closely with our Mountain View Police Department partners on establishing our safety plan, and we will have police presence on site during the event.

We're we will have clear signage and also monitors of all of the boundaries of the events, and then we're working in close collaboration with our businesses who will be looking to participate, ensuring that they all understand both the rules and responsibilities of their business being part of the entertainment zone.

It's also important for us to continue to reaffirm our commitment as a community for all, especially in response to concerns being raised by community members over any potential immigration enforcement by federal law enforcement officers.

We want to continue to be clear that Mountain View Police Department does not ask about immigration status or any of any crime victims, witnesses, or other individuals who contact the police department for help.

The Mountain View Police Department does not participate in federal civil immigration sweeps and will not detain or arrest anyone on the basis of their citizenship or status under civil immigration law.

And immigration status is never a factor in the Mountain View Police Department's interactions with the community.

We have a number of resources listed on our 2026 games webpage.

We want to ensure that people have all the information they need to participate and feel safe.

We will also have the Rapid Response Network and our Office of Multicultural Engagement tabling at our July 18th and 19th events to answer questions and provide resources.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you to staff.

Would any member of the council like to say a few words about any of our presentation items?

Remember, it was bike month, AANHPI, History Month, and the update on the summer of soccer.

All right.

So before we go to public comment, my last comment is as the uh mayor call to action, call to service, call to community.

Um, the volunteer opportunity I will highlight today uh will be the Rapid Response Network.

I recommend that people sign up for that.

It is the network that allows um community members to protect our immigrant communities and each other.

So I I uh feel free to search online.

I believe the Santa Clara County arm is uh held by the Amigos de Gualupe Center, um, and it is I highly recommend that.

So moving on to public comments for presentation items.

This is item three.

Uh we will now take public comment for presentation items.

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

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

We will take in-person speakers first.

I don't see it.

No, we don't have any comments.

Uh we have one hand raised online.

So niche speaker will have uh two minutes.

So uh the oh, we have two public comment speakers virtually.

So we'll start uh with Deb Henningson.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

And uh my name is Eva Henningson.

I am a Mountain View resident and a member of the Rapid Response Network of Santa Clara County.

So thank you, Ms.

Mayor, for pointing out the amazing volunteer um opportunities that exist with the Rapid Response Network, helping Mountain View and Santa Clara County be a truly welcoming and safe place for all of our residents.

Um I greatly appreciate the economic development director mentioning event safety related to the summer of soccer.

Thank you for listening to the Rapid Response Network's concerns about community safety related to immigration enforcement.

My specific ask of all of you today is to help our community truly be safe during this incredibly exciting World Cup bonanza for everyone by ensuring immigration enforcement activities are not happening anywhere on city property.

I already really appreciate that the um that our public safety departments do not actively cooperate with ICE and don't check immigration status when it comes to any kind of um law enforcement or community safety activity.

That is amazing and makes me so proud to be a resident of Mountain View.

Just want to encourage the city to officially declare city property off limits to support immigration enforcement activities.

We just don't want to see that happening on city property here in our welcoming and uh very safe city.

Thank you for your time and I appreciate you listening to these concerns.

Thank you, Deb.

Uh next we have John Shatter.

Um, Madam Mayor, I was just curious if this is the public comment item.

I can't see the agenda.

Oh, this is well, it is a public comment, but it's a public comment on our presentation items.

Oh, I apologize.

No worries.

For the next public comments.

Thank you.

Perfect, thank you.

All right, moving on to our next item, 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 the approval of the balance of the consent calendar.

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

Councilmember Michalester, do you have an announcement to make?

I am recusing myself from participating in any discussion or determination about item 4.4 Stevens Creek Trail Extension due to the proximity of my personal residence to the trail extension project.

Thank you.

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

I see council member Show Walter.

I don't really want to pull an item, but I'd like to make a few comments.

Should I do it now or after public comment?

Uh let's list them first and then we'll.

Okay, I'd like to do a comment on 4.3, poor point four, and four point five.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to pull 4.3, which I think is the economic vitality strategy item.

Okay.

So we have polled 4.3.

We'll go to public comment and then we'll go back to Councilmember Show Walter so you can speak on 4.4 and 4.5.

All right.

So would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items?

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

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

I have the first commenter, Alexander Admaroso.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Council.

When you guys said you're gonna pull 4.3, I'm like, I gotta get in there.

So I did have a couple notes from 4.3 pertaining to what was discussed earlier about the EV situation.

So this is actually a caveat from that a little bit.

So in regards to an economic vitality plan strategy that the city could lead on, is potentially just suggestion having uh our public transit lead in that sense where we have more EV, more hybrid-based, like you know, buses or public transit in the city.

Just an idea, so in case you don't put the economic burden on folks trying to go more electric.

That's one idea.

Another thing is uh when it comes to the economic vitality, we could absolutely uh lead as a city when it comes to providing more expansion on support for job opportunities, and also especially since I live off of El Camino Real.

I did notice that a couple of businesses are going out of business.

So when we make a plan for uh inviting more businesses to come here to work in the city and to establish themselves in the cities, consider El Camino Real because there are some businesses that are gonna be coming due, gonna be uh closing out so you can bring more uh industry-based like you know, businesses to that uh expressway, and that could be an idea, and that could also caveat with uh career-based housing so you uh better incentivize folks with specific roles and jobs that are going to be effectively um important to the city, and you can just caveat, like you know, inviting those businesses and building that housing here so you bring in the workforce and you also bring in the businesses that are gonna be needed in the future.

Just a couple thoughts and suggestions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, that ends public comment.

Um, so I will bring it back to council.

Um, and so uh 4.3 has been pulled, so the balance of the consent calendar is available for a motion.

Um, so uh council member showalter, would you like to speak on 4.4 and 4.5 in the meantime?

Sure.

Um, yeah, I wanted to talk about 4.4 is the Stevens Creek Trail extension.

And I'm really glad to see this moving forward.

Um, it's uh just a couple of blocks and end at the moment, is just a couple of blocks from my um house.

It's it's only like across the street from John's house, but anyway, and um I I have to say uh one of my uh comments usually is that the Stevens Creek Trail is my gym.

I mean, I I really use it uh frequently, and um I'm not alone.

Many, many people do.

So uh it's very important for this to be moved move forward.

Um I wanted to ask staff uh a little bit about the timing, um, and kind of what's the timing on the finish and the finish of design and the expected um time for construction.

I got the feeling by reading the staff report that we had a much better um feel for how long the design would take than the construction because of funding.

So I just thought you might give us a little update.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh Ed Orango, Assistant Public Works Director.

Uh thank you for the question.

Uh, Council Mr.

Show Walter.

So as far as timing, um, this is this phase of the project is really the preliminary design and the environmental um review.

So we're uh looking to identify alignment options for the new trail, and then identify what the environmental certification process is going to look like.

Again, preliminary design, environmental review.

Um we expect this to take about two and a half years to get through this process.

Um Stevens Creek, because of the creek and the sensitive habitat, it is going to be a longer process.

And it's um it's a complicated project, as simple as putting a trail in place may seem um over a creek next to a highway, and looking at uh retaining walls with Caltrans, the bridge over 85 for access to Mountain View High School is complicated.

So once we get there, um we'll have a better uh with the alignment, we'll have a better understanding of what the overall cost would be, and then we can go to the next phase of the project, identify a funding strategy, and then get into the design.

So I don't have a timing for when design would be completed because that was um that would be a component of the alignment in the complexity.

I would expect it to be about two years, though, after we get the uh preliminary design completed and the environmental certification through.

Um, and again, it's um the funding strategy.

We do expect that it probably will be a phase project considering the uh cost of the project.

So so you think that the uh preliminary design and the sequo will take two years?

Approximately two and a half years, that's correct.

Two and a half years.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, all right, and then um uh the lot five.

That's uh 4.5 lot five parking structure.

Um actually that might be you as well, I'm not sure.

Um I'm not sure what aspects of this project um this appropriation is supposed to cover.

It's 10.5 million dollars.

Seems like, I mean, it may be what it costs to design it, but it seemed like a high cost to me for design.

So I'm just asking, is this is this um money for um only for design, or what what parts of the project does it cover?

Does it cover some of the construction?

It certainly wouldn't cover the whole construction, but but um what does this 10.5 uh million dollars cover?

Um again, Ed Orango, assistant public works director.

So we anticipate that this um component of the funding would cover um at the minimum the design phase and could um also uh provide some funding towards construction.

You know, we expect construction to be um four-level parking garage in the downtown somewhere in the neighborhood of I'm trying to think through.

I want to say about 40 million dollars.

Okay, so this will get this may get us started.

Uh, this was absolutely getting started through design.

That's correct.

We'll be able to completely uh go through the design process, environmental review process with this funding.

And again, the action tonight for council is appropriating um the funding into the project.

And what kind of CEQA is required for this sort of a structure?

Um we haven't started um this effort yet, so um, we're gonna put together the scope to identify what that sequa um scope is gonna look like.

Okay, but it's not necessarily one of the things that's been automatically exempted because it's not housing.

It's correct, it's not housing, and um it is a new structure, and we'll have to identify what that scope looks like.

But it's in field design too.

So okay, go figure it out.

Well, thank you very much.

Keep us posted.

Thank you, Councilmember Show Walter.

Uh so there uh 4.3 has been pulled, and I will note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinance and resolution attached to consent calendar items 4.1 and 4.2.

Um I will also like to say I had a great adventure on the Stevens Creek Trail this weekend, so that was really kind of excited.

I I walked from the Moffat entrance to the the Landall's entrance.

That was that was a nice little chunk of blocking that I don't do usually.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Clark and a second by Councilmember Miras.

Go ahead, Councilmember Clark.

Excuse me.

The the motion is to approve the consent calendar, um, which is all the items except for 4.3, and that includes item 4.1, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View.

Repealing and reenacting Chapter 10 or Article 10 of Chapter 19 of the Mountain View City Code to establish a new transportation demand management program to be read in title only for the reading wave and item 4.2 adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View appointing Janaid uh Karashi.

Sorry if I got that wrong, to the downtown committee and appointing Mary Yen to the Human Relations Committee to be read and title only for the reading wave.

And that item passes unanimously.

Congratulations to our new appointees, too.

Now we will take it to item 4.3.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, I want to uh express my appreciation for staff for the work over the past year to implement the action items in the strategy.

I think we're making great progress.

I uh also appreciated the response.

There were multiple questions submitted in advance, and I appreciate all of the responses, but I particularly appreciate the response to my question, which has to do with the performance metrics or the measures of success.

Um there is one that I was uh interested in uh modifying, but I wanted to make sure I understood it.

Um, towards the end um of attachment one, the measure uh is listed as number of square feet supporting commercial or industrial activities, target is 26 million square feet.

Just to clarify, uh, is that um the amount of square feet of building available for industrial commercial uses?

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, council members, Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Yes, the figure that you uh described is the building square footage of those land uses.

Okay, great.

Thank you for the clarification.

So then I think this might be useful.

I um uh council member McAllister and I uh have uh shared concern about the erosion of the industrial base.

Uh and I I'm open to other ways of expressing this, but one way to express it is to um monitor uh the uh percentage of land that is zoned for industrial uses in particular, um, and maybe giving staff some flexibility, but I would like to uh move to approve the staff recommendations, but to include it an additional measure of success um uh kind of like the one that we were just talking about, but um explicitly incorporating the um the percentage of uh land in Mountain View that is uh zoned for industrial uses, and then uh equally important a target percentage.

So we know as we approach that percentage, we should start to be very mindful about industrial to residential conversions or um any other uh land use change that that continues to erode our industrial base.

So that would be the motion I'd like uh my colleagues to consider.

All right.

So we have a motion, a second.

Councilmember Schwalter.

I just had a question about this one as well.

And I um I was wondering what actions uh the the uh economic vitality staff thinks are the most effective.

And um, and also is there anything that council members can help you carry out?

Good evening again, Amanda Rotella, economic vitality manager.

So I'd say really when we're looking at the broad needs of our community when it relates to economic vitality, having lots of different strategies that can support different types of businesses, different types of uh different areas in the city are important.

I'd say some of the work that we've done over the last couple years around zoning updates, uh making it easier for certain businesses to locate in different parts of our city have been really effective.

Um I'd say all of our small business programs are really effective.

The facade improvement grant program is is providing financial support to our businesses.

Some of the other programs that we have where we can provide one-on-one support to new and upcoming businesses.

So I'd say we've been we've done a really effective job at having a broad portfolio of programs and strategies.

So I I don't have a favorite or one that I would highlight.

I would just say, you know, as you've seen with our economic vitality strategy, we have 164 items.

So we heard very clearly from the community that there are a lot of priorities and important areas for us to focus.

And so we're trying to be really targeted in addressing all five of our goals and really spreading staff support and capacity across all five so that we can meet the needs.

Of those 164 action items is really helpful, continuing to support and provide feedback and direction on our zoning updates and refining our small business programs.

That's all very valuable.

You've seen what I've laid out as our year three priorities is really around continuing to keep the momentum going, um, continuing to kind of resource our programs and looking at new ways that we can continue to kind of spread our spread the work to new areas of the community.

So kind of a roundabout way of answering what you asked.

Um did I get get it there?

Yeah, yeah, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, I have a question about there was a uh program or that we're potentially gonna pave the streets so that they're the sidewalks are level across going one.

Is that still in I guess that's public works potentially?

That downtown will have so we have the step down where the curb is, instead we'll just have that going from one across the level.

Good evening, Edorango again.

Um, so there is a project in the plan for the um the interim ped mall project developed um concept for what the ped mall is gonna look like.

Um, as part of that effort was some interim improvements, which we're working on now in intersections, but the long range goal is to, as you said, bring up the street to the sidewalk level.

So we're removing the steps that step down to the street and bring lift everything up and bring it up for the three, I believe the three blocks of 100, 200, 300 block of um castrel.

That may come along.

Timing of when that would happen.

Um, I don't have the timing.

Um we we would be looking at sort of a next phase project um within the next couple years to introduce in the CIP as far as uh a design effort for that, and then um it is a very substantial project, which means that it's very um expensive.

So we would need to define a funding strategy to how we would be implementing it.

Or five years, early.

I would expect at least two years before we would um identify a project to start this effort of design.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

I look forward to doing K-pop dances with you when that happens.

Um, so we will uh we will um now take the vote.

The motion was made by Councilmember Ramirez and seconded by Councilmember Hicks.

Motion passes unanimously.

We will now take item five, oral communications.

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

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

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

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

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

Our first speaker will be Ronnie, followed by Eric Poikan, followed by Monica Tycher, and then followed by John Scarborough.

So Ronnie first.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much to the mayor, to council members.

Really appreciate the opportunity to speak here.

I'm Mountain View resident, and I want to be, I'm here to bring up public safety.

I grew up here.

I love the city.

My husband and I chose to move back here in 2020 specifically because of the amazing job that you guys have done with vitality of downtown and just keeping up the development in the city and making it relevant.

I have a young child and I spend hours.

I've probably seen anyone who walks around downtown, like I I've spent hours and hours and hours walking by people smiling at people making friends.

I go to the parks just walking around the streets.

And I've noticed over the course of the last five years that public safety has really degraded.

Um, just in the last week, I just want to list an example of things I've personally experienced.

This is the last six days.

I walked by a man welding a machete and whacking bushes.

Um, another man on my street with a bat um chasing another woman.

Uh specifically on Castle Street.

Um, I was approached by a man who was screaming in my face as he passed by several other people screaming in their face.

Uh walked by three people injecting heroin on Castor Street.

Um there's someone who regularly defecates in Pioneer Park here, and a woman who regularly urinates in Pioneer Park and uh Eagle Park.

Um, as well, there are a lot of people who don't have children who wander around the playground areas.

I mostly spend my time in Eagle Park and at Mercy Bush.

Um I'm asking for two things.

Uh I thank you.

You're at time, unfortunately.

Um, if if you want to compete, uh, you can send an email to us to complete those ask, that would probably be helpful.

Thank you.

Uh next is Erico Eric Poikan, followed by Monica Teicher, followed by John Scarborough.

Oh, yeah, and their timers right over here.

All right, perfect.

Uh, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

My name is Eric Boitgone.

I'm a resident here at Mountain View and a member of the Rapid Response Network.

Thank you for the work that you do for Mountain View and for the commitment to protecting the well-being of our most vulnerable residents.

I'm here tonight to ask that the council adopt a strong policy prohibiting the use of civity property for civil immigration enforcement.

This matters because people in our community are scared right now.

Families are making everyday decisions on whether to go to work, take their kids to school, attend our events, report a problem, or access local services.

Our city spaces should be places where people feel safe, not places where they feel the where they have to worry about being targeted or separated from their families.

And while the World Cup makes it this urgent, this is a much bigger uh this is much bigger than one event.

With the possibility of a new ICE facility in Dublin and Gilroy, our region could see increased immigration enforcement activity.

Mount TV has already shown leadership on these matters, and that is exactly why this moment calls for a clear proactive policy.

This is not just about creating conflict.

This is not about creating conflict or suggesting the city has it has been absent.

It's about building on the work the city has already done, setting clear expectations, and making sure our community is prepared.

The last thing any of us wants to draw is unnecessary intention or escalate tensions, but being prepared is not the same as inviting conflict.

A clear policy would help establish boundaries, support public trust, and make sure our community understands where Mountain View stands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Monica, followed by John Scarborough.

Hi, Council members.

As you can see, I'm ready for the World Cup.

My name is Monica Teicher, and I'm a longtime resident from Mountain View.

And I appreciate that you include the rapid response network in all the city activities.

But that given that the World Cup is near, I would like a guarantee, like my friend said, that the city is not going to cooperate with ICE enforcement since they play fast and lose with due process, civil and human rights.

I would like a policy that prohibits the use of city property for civil immigration enforcement to protect everyone's safety.

We know that San Jose and other cities already have restricted the use of local government property and have safe site protocols.

So please, I would encourage you to look to their policies and craft one that's similar to theirs.

And as we know, ICE is looking to potentially open FCI doubling as a detention center, even though it has been decommissioned for over a year.

We also know that they are actively working on an enforcement and removal operations center in Gilroy.

We know and acknowledge that our county is fighting back, but as we as a city need to do our part in denying ICE a foothold in our area.

We the citizens of Mountain View do not want them under our under our watch.

The World Cup brings Latinos by the droves from local and abroad, and we want to minimize the chances that uses ICEUs as this opportunity for their enforcement.

I would like also an update on the flock cameras.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have uh John Scarborough, and that's the last of the in-person public comment before we go to our virtual public comment.

Hello, Mayor and City Council.

Um I agree with what they both just said.

And I would like to tell you a story about last week.

I went to a park in San Jose, and it's a park I've been to many times.

It has a playground, has a nice bathroom, has a lot of green space, trees, it's a wonderful park.

Like many of our parks.

And at the opening of the park, right on the light, there was a sign, maybe this big, and it said this property is owned or controlled by the city of San Jose.

It may be only used for city purposes and may not be used for civil immigration enforcement staging areas, processing locations or operation spaces.

So I do encourage you all to get a policy that would do that.

And the feeling that I had going and seeing that sign was this is a community that cares about us people and takes care of us people.

And I think that's our community too.

So I think the signage would be really good as well as a policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we will move on to our virtual speakers.

Zoe Chien.

Good evening, Mayor Ramos and fellow City Council members.

My name is Zoe Chen, and I'm a high schooler and resident of Mountain View.

I'm here to talk about the unofficial model policy proposal I've sent in regarding single staircase reform.

Affordable housing has been a longstanding challenge.

Currently, multiple multifamily residential buildings require two staircases under California state regulations.

The single staircase reform proposes an alternative by removing one of these staircases and centralizing the other in the middle of the building.

I argue that this design is not only more cost and space effective than the traditional two staircase design, but equally as safe, if not safer by condensing the building's footprint and minimizes the distance from each unit to the staircase while also reducing the number of families sharing any single staircase.

This approach has already been modeled in California cities like Santa Monica, which leverage California Building Code section, alternative material design and methods of construction to authorize local building officials, including those here in Mountain View to approve alternative designs given the same level of safety as demonstrated.

As an extension, Santa Monica's interpretive brief 2025 01 provides a pre-approved path allowing developers to move forward without the need for separate local ordinance.

I respectfully request that the city considers researching the adoption of this approach.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Zoe.

Next we have John Shatter.

John?

Uh hello.

Hello.

Hi, good evening.

Thank you, Mayor Ramos and City Council members.

Um, I am talking again about requesting your vote to save the Shoreline Twilight memberships.

Mountain View Parks and Rec's stated goal is fostering community connection, promoting cultural diversity, and encouraging health and wellness.

The Shoreline Golf Course Twilight Membership Program meets this goal, but Parks and Rec is canceling the program.

Council members, did you read the Mountain View article published last week about the Shoreline Twilight memberships?

Please do in the Mountain View voice if you haven't.

Parks and Rec's goal and Council Member McAllister's goal, who was gracious enough to meet with us, is for the golf course, and it has nothing to do with community.

The goals are simply to make more money.

Let me share with you a number.

Council members, please wake up.

Canceling these twilight memberships where so much community has been built over the last 12 years is utterly ridiculous.

Please contact Kemper Sports.

Do not approve their contract unless they continue the Twilight memberships.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Yeah, like to uh correct the individual.

I did meet with the folks, but I said yes, I would like Shoreline to make to earn more revenue because there's quite a bit of deferred maintenance on the golf course that needs to be reinvested into the golf course to make it even better.

So I just want to add clarity and context to what he was saying.

Thank you.

And that closes our uh public oral communications for public comment.

We will now move on to item six, six point one, the five-year update to the urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan.

Water resources manager Elizabeth Blagel and Assistant Public Works Director Lisa Ow will present the item.

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

And you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, members of the council.

Tonight we will be presenting on the five-year update to Mountain View's Urban Water Management Plan, which includes the city's water shortage contingency plan.

The California Water Code requires Mountain View to update its urban water management plan every five years.

The city's previous plan was adopted in June of 2021, and the current update is due July 1st.

As part of this update, staff notified the County of Santa Clara, neighboring water agencies, and local resident and business groups.

The public was given an opportunity to review the draft plan prior to this hearing.

The urban water management plan links Mountain View's land use and water planning efforts and provides a long-term look at our ability to meet customer water needs.

Also included is a description of our water conservation efforts and a plan for responding to water shortage emergencies such as drought.

The city's evaluation incorporates information from our wholesale water suppliers based on their own risk assessments conducted for their unique systems based on their unique experiences.

The urban water management plan analysis is based on approved growth identified in the city's adopted land use plans and policies, which include up to a 76% increase in population.

As a result of this potential development, the city must plan for a possible increase in water use over the next 25 years.

Estimated at approximately 32%.

This bar graph depicts Mountain View's actual water use between 1975 and 2025 and projected water use through 2050.

The majority of our water comes from the San Francisco Regional Water System, shown in blue.

Other supplies include valley water in orange, local groundwater in green, and non-potable recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant in purple.

San Francisco has been the primary water supply for many years, though historically groundwater also made up a large percentage of use.

Connection to valley water was completed in 91 and the current recycled water system installed in 09.

Future demand increases are expected to be met mostly using San Francisco water.

However, investments in recycled water are expected to increase its use considerably.

Based on Mountain View's 2025 urban water management plan analysis, the city has sufficient water to meet customer needs during normal and dry years, including demands from future development that may occur pursuant to the city's adopted land use plans and policies.

State actions related to the Bay Delta plan have a potential to reduce San Francisco's dry year supply from the Tualney River.

And staff continue to them to monitor the situation as it evolves.

Mountain View's local groundwater is a critical backup supply during dry years and is part of the city's planned water shortage response, along with short-term and long-term conservation measures.

Following this public hearing, adoption is scheduled for June 23rd to meet the July 1st deadline.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um does any member, thank you.

Uh, does any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Hicks.

I have one hopefully simple question.

Um the population estimates in the staff report.

I have not memorized the number, but if I if I remember it correctly, I it was uh by 2050, 148,000.

Um, whereas when I look at Plan Bay Area 2050, it's 100,000 to 110,000.

Is the number in the staff report, the water report, is it like the upper end of a range, or where does that number come from?

Because it wasn't footnoted.

So this number is based on the city's adopted land use plans and policies, which include the general plan and the housing element.

And Eric Anderson is available if you have more specific questions, but that is the short answer.

It's based on our housing element.

So it's if we built out everything in the housing element.

Correct.

Now I get it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Council Member Calester.

Thank you.

Before we made the uh revised agreement with the San Francisco public utility, what was our minimum water that we had to buy?

Thank you for the question.

Uh our previous minimum purchase requirement was 8.93 MGD million gallons per day of water.

And now they are supplying us with 12.4, so it's a higher the higher number.

The 12.4 refers to our maximum, our individual supply guarantee, and the 8.9 was the minimum requirement, which has now been revised to 6.047.

Okay.

So when we were I was when I was working on the general plan back in 2020, 2015 or 2015 is over 2012.

We were always concerned about as the population grew that there would be a always uh plenty of water, and we were always assured by the staff that yeah, there would always be plenty of water.

But now that we have this revised minimum, and we don't have an actual maximum, so our minimum is lower than when we used to have.

Um, how is it gonna be able to project again with the population growth that's gonna go quite high?

We still be able to go in there, and you said based on the housing element and our general plan that we'll still have sufficient water from San Francisco if there's not a drought year to support all this maybe 10, 20,000 new residents or so.

Thank you for the question.

Yes, uh, we do not project using all of our supply guarantee from San Francisco during normal years to support the housing element.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Does anyone uh else have any questions from the council?

No other questions.

All right.

Uh would any member of the public on the line like to uh provide comment on this item?

Uh if so, please turn in a blue speaker card or click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

Um I see only one speaker for this item.

Uh Alexander Amaroso.

Um before you start, what does it look like?

Okay, there we go.

Go ahead.

I'll be brief and bold and gone.

So uh this item is definitely something I have uh a lot of like you know, work experience with on the uh the federal side.

Uh both of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy.

Uh, so I really appreciate the amount of time the staff has taken to account for the amount of water we have.

One thing I would absolutely push forward is also the quality of that water.

So pollution is a massive issue, and I have been in places and spaces around the world where bad water leads to health issues among the populations.

So not only should we be uh persistent in making sure that our waterways are clean from random pollution, make sure that our local businesses and corporations are processing that pollution correctly, because even with the deregulation processes with the EPA going on right now, it is uh behoven to cities and localities to make sure that those waterways are clean and we have a healthy population.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other in-person speakers, I'm looking at virtual speakers, seeing no virtual speakers.

I will bring the item back to council for questions and deliberations.

Councilmember Clark.

Uh, thank you.

Um, I'm just gonna I'm not sure exactly what's needed here, but I'll move the staff recommendation.

Um, and just note that this is one of my uh favorite little fact factual nuggets is that if you if you look at the population and water use, um we hear all the time that you know, as we grow, we need to grow sustainably, um, and people worry a lot about growth and development um creating environmental impacts and um and because we've uh because of this council and prior councils and our goals to grow sustainably, um, we have dramatic our population's grown 20 plus thousand people and our water use has gone down, not up.

And if you look at the projections, we can go from you know approximately 85,000 people today to um almost doubling that with very little increase in water use, and that is because of all of the sustainability measures that we're taking, and that all of those new residents and businesses are much more um uh have much more efficient use of water um than some of our legacy infrastructure.

So the combination of uh conservation that occurred during that drought year starting in 2014.

If you look at that graph, um, it has really really paid dividends that combine with um the sustainable nature of of new um of not just new structures but also um adaptation of of old structures.

So that and um we're very lucky in that we have a few different water sources.

Our primary water source is SFPUC as we've pointed out.

That is some of the the cleanest, most healthy water uh that you can get, and we are very lucky to be to live in the Bay Area and have access to that.

It requires very, very little treatment.

We have uh Valley water that we can lean on for some of our other um areas, a little bit of groundwater, and then you'll see the growth in recycled water, and that's thanks to the investments we've made uh in recycled water infrastructure that I think will pay dividends for generations to come.

And if you look at the projected water use, um the recycled water portion of that grows.

Um, and so a big chunk of the increase in water use that we have over the next few decades uh will actually be met by some of that recycled water.

So enough of my lecture.

Um I've moved uh the staff recommendation.

It looks like we have a second, so I'll stop talking.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Clark.

Um the the staff recommendation is hold a public hearing to accept and consider public comments on the draft 2025 urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan is required by the California Water Code section one zero six four two.

So it's just opening it up kind of thing and listening.

Um so that uh motion was made by Councilmember Clark, seconded by John McAllister, and uh next we have on our RQ is our resident water expert, Councilmember Show Walter.

Well, I was gonna give a little bit of the same lecture that uh Vice Mayor Clark did.

He did a really good job.

And um, I'd just like to say we uh we kind of have stars in um in our uh water staff.

Uh, I serve on Bosca, the Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency.

That's kind of a mouthful, and basically it's the um, it's all the contractors outside of San Francisco who get hedgehogy water.

And um, we're really uh kind of all around the bay.

Um in Alameda County, uh in San Mateo County, uh us in Santa Clara County.

Anyway, we are we we uh Elizabeth has um Miss Flagle, sorry, has made a uh an incredible reputation um by her uh um her representation on our on their their board of staff members who works together on a monthly basis.

So I'm really I just wanted to share that with you because we always you know we we need to hear we we always need to hear wonderful news about our staff.

Um and uh the other thing I wanted to to mention as as um the vice mayor mentioned is that the range of of um sources we have is really a best practice.

You don't want to have just one source of water, you want to have um some other sources.

So if something goes wrong with one, you can um you can fill in with the other one.

And um uh there was a while when we talked about not kind of turning off our groundwater wells because we weren't really using them very much on a regular basis.

But after after studying that for a while, we decided no that wasn't a good idea because if wells go on and go off and go on and go off for a long period of time, they don't necessarily come on as well.

You you know, you have to they work better if um if they're they're worked fairly regularly.

So um so that mix of uh of sources we have is really a valuable asset to our community and um uh it's something that we should um we should be proud of, and that's it.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Showalter.

Let's take it to the vote.

All right, that motion passes unanimously.

Yay.

We will now move on to item 6.2 city code amendments to allow streamlined administrative approval for housing development projects utilizing assembly bill 130 and other minor updates.

Principal planner Diana Pacholi and community development director Christian Murdoch will present the item.

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

And we are ready whenever you are.

Well, good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner with the City's Planning Division.

And I'm joined here tonight by community development director Christian Murdoch.

Tonight's staff is presenting City Code amendments to allow qualifying housing development projects utilizing assembly bill AB 130 and other minor code amendments.

Directed staff to prepare amendments to the city code to allow staff level approval of projects eligible for the AB 130 streamlined CEQA review without requiring a public hearing.

Such streamline approval process also recognizes the city's obligations under the state law to comply with accelerated project approval timelines and ensures the city can meet its timing obligations in all cases.

Under city's current review processes, several projects require multiple hearings, including administrative zoning, environmental planning commission, and council hearings.

Reliance on any public hearing process, especially an environmental planning commission and a city council hearing could jeopardize the city's ability to act on qualifying projects within the timelines required by the AB 130 state statute.

The proposed code amendments tonight support implementation of the city's housing element, specifically program 1.1, which ensures consistency with the state law, and program 4.1B which streamlines housing development review processes.

To qualify for an AB 130 statutory exemption from CEQA, projects must satisfy certain criteria, including maximum acreage, consistency with the applicable zoning and journal plan standards, and minimum density.

Table 2 in the staff report presents a detailed list of these criteria.

While staff continues to work on a ministerial approval process, at this time, staff recommends an administrative approval process due to several challenges associated with adopting ministerial approval procedures within the time constraints of the current ordinance amendment process.

An administrative approval process involves no public hearing unless requested in a timely manner, but still includes the exercise of discretion where objective standards are not in place to enable a ministerial approval process.

As per the proposed amendments, the projects will also have to meet the noticing requirement as directed by council at the January 27th study session.

Once the project is deemed complete, staff will send a notice to neighbors within the 750 foot radius, informing them about the project under review, and public will have 14 days to provide public input with an option to request a hearing for final decision on the project.

If a timely request for hearing is received, another notice will be sent with details of the hearing at least 14 days before the decision hearing.

Options to request a hearing and the right to appeal to the city council are changes that are proposed post the environmental planning commission review.

Further amendments to allow administrative approval for non-residential housing impact fee alternatives are proposed as part of the current code of dates.

Additionally, changes to the city's current affordable housing program for objective review of the BMR alternate mitigation plan were reviewed and approved by the city council earlier today and will be effective in June of 2026.

Other minor code amendments to Chapter 36 are also proposed in response to the council input and questions associated with the February 24th council hearing earlier this year.

These minor updates are specifically for the city code compliance with state laws, such as AB 752, SP 234, AB 2162, and AB 101.

These amendments include changes in land use provisions for child care centers, large and small family child care homes, supportive housing, and low barrier navigation centers.

Details of these amendments are described in Table 5 of the staff report.

At a public hearing in April earlier this year, the Environmental Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Chapter 36 zoning and recommended approval with a minor cleanup.

Following the EPC recommendations, staff did further analysis and recommends additional amendments to Chapter 36, including providing an opportunity to request a hearing, opportunity for appeal of an administrative housing approvals to the city council, and an update duties and power of subdivision committee and the city engineer for consistency with the Chapter 28 amendments being proposed.

In addition to Chapter 36 zoning, associated amendments are proposed to Chapter 28 subdivisions and Chapter 41 parkland dedication or fees in lieu thereof.

The amendments to Chapter 28 establish a corresponding administrative review and approval process for preliminary parcel maps and tentative maps associated with qualifying housing developments.

In addition, the amendments to chapter 41 establish an administrative review and approval process for privately owned publicly accessible POPA credit applicable to such projects, thereby ensuring a streamlined and coordinated review framework across related entitlement procedures.

Additional amendments to Chapter 28 and Chapter 41 are also being proposed to achieve greater consistency with the state laws and within the city code, improve usability and align the city code with current procedures and practices.

These are summarized in Table 6 of the staff report and details are included in attachment 2.

Now this concludes the summary of all the proposed amendments being presented tonight.

What happens next?

Following this hearing, a second reading of the ordinance is scheduled on June 9th.

If approved, it is anticipated that the new updates would be effective in early July.

Additionally, these changes, if adopted, may precipitate text changes to the various precise plans to ensure consistency with the zoning code.

Staff will undertake this effort as resources and workload allows.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the city council adopt the two ordinances amending City Code Chapter 28, Chapter 36, and Chapter 41 of the City Code, and find that these amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Thank you for your time.

Staff including assistant community development director Blazenski and planning manager Anderson, along with staff from city's public works, housing, and community services departments are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Does any member of the council have questions?

And I see Councilmember Ramirez has a question.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, uh, my uh great appreciation to staff and the city attorney's office for um a significant amount of great work, in my opinion.

I'm looking forward to uh approving the staff recommendations, and I also really appreciated the uh amendments that were incorporated that were not explicitly related to AB 130, but the amendments to uh uh chapter 28, for instance, and um some of the uh reconciliation with state law were were great to see.

So thank you very much.

Um I have a couple of clarifying questions about um the hearing and appeals process.

Um so just to clarify for the public hearing, is that both the applicant and any member of the public could request a public hearing?

Thank you for the question.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um and then uh for uh an appeal.

Currently, if there is an appeal, um there's a cost recovery fee.

Who pays for that?

So the Toyota appeal that we heard um a little while ago, who who that was um I think an a neighboring residential community that that filed, did that community pay for the appeal?

Correct, the appellant piece for the appeal.

Okay.

Um so I wanted to clarify from the staff responses to the council questions for the appeal.

It looked like um staff time and noticing costs associated with processing an appeal would be charged to the project's cost recovery account.

So in this case, um if it's the applicant that's appealing, it you know, very clearly would be the applicant paying.

But just to clarify, does this mean if there's a member of the community that appeals, the applicant also would pay for that appeal?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Um so uh a little bit of an explanation here in context related to the appeal fees.

Um we have two sets of fees.

We have one for R1 zoned projects and one for non-R1 zoned projects.

Uh those fee amounts are different.

The R1 zone project fee is lower than the non-R1 single family residential zoned uh appeal fee.

Those include assumptions on uh noticing work, uh hours of staff time uh by various staff.

Um those are intended to capture the city's costs related to preparing the appeals.

There are instances where an appeal is particularly complex where those hours may exceed what the fee uh amount covers.

And we have an opportunity then to charge additional costs to uh reimbursable project deposits when it's for that type of project, which would be the case for these types of projects.

I think that went over my head.

So I just want to clarify.

So, so for instance, um, with the Toyota appeal, the applicant did not pay for the cost recovery, right?

That was the appellant who pay.

So there is an appeal fee that's required to file the fee, and the appellant pays the fee in order to file an appeal.

And so uh that was under I think a prior fee that maybe didn't have the same cost assumptions as the current fee, and so we've updated that um in the course of updating many development related fees over the last year.

And so we have better assumptions now intended to capture the costs of appeals baked into the appeal fee.

So we think in most instances the appellant alone is likely to be paying the costs of the appeal.

I just point out the fact that where we have cost recovery projects, as all of these would be.

Um, there may be an opportunity to charge any of those additional costs that exceed the fee to the cost recovery account to continue uh the cost recovery approach.

Okay, I I I still don't think I'm quite capturing it, but it but is it fair to say in this process the appellant would continue to pay the fee?

That's correct.

Okay.

I I that's probably good enough.

Um and then for that the public hearing as well, right?

If the applicant wishes to offer a public hearing, it makes sense for the applicant to pay.

But is it is it fair and right to impose that cost on the applicant if there is a member of the public who wishes to pay the fee?

Is that is that logic?

So that aligns with our current cost recovery approach, and applicants uh sign an acknowledgement when they submit their planning application that they will reimburse the city for all direct and indirect costs of processing those cost recovery applications, and that explicitly includes things like report preparation and attendance at required meetings, and so that would be the requested hearing, an appeal hearing, or whatever other meetings might be required to process the project.

Wait, so wait, the applicant would pay for that potential cost in advance.

So applicants submit deposits um and then we charge against those deposits, and when the deposits are depleted, we request additional funds.

We charge the actual staff costs uh accrued and associated with processing projects.

So this is probably not likely to happen, but in the event that the deposit exceeds the cost, right?

So for instance, we presume that there might be a public hearing, but there isn't one, and there's a cost savings.

Does the app does the applicant get that money back?

Yes, at the conclusion of processing, we refund any uh surplus deposit that remains on account with the city.

Okay, but but otherwise, since that's not likely to happen if there is a public hearing that a member of the community uh requests the applicant would bear all of those costs.

The member of the community who sought the public hearing would not pay anything.

Correct.

There's currently no uh fee associated with requesting a hearing under uh this proposed ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Um any other council questions?

Oh, council member committee.

Sorry, thank you.

So I just I'm just trying to clarify.

I was refreshing my memory.

So for slide five, when we had the four projects that came to council.

Basically, after council adopts this, um, should council adopt this tonight after July 9th.

Projects like those four would not come to council.

Correct?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Um seeing no other questions, we will now move on to public comment.

Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please submit your blue speaker card now, or click the raise hand button in Zoom.

Um, or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

We have one in-person comment, um, and that is Peter Katz.

Mayor, how much time would you like?

90 seconds.

Thank you, Mayor, and esteemed members of the council.

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

The chamber is grateful to the council for your direction and to the city staff for the time and energy working on streamlining processes in light of AB 130.

This is important work and will significantly help our economy and our ability to build newer housing.

We do note that the city council directed staff in January to create a ministerial process for qualifying projects under AB 130, and staff noted they needed more time to do so, which is understandable given the complexities.

We note that the interim changes that are being proposed tonight to the zoning create an administrative process for AB 130, which is not as streamlined as a ministerial one.

As noted in the staff reports, an administrative process still requires SQL reviews, public hearings is requested, and the city adopting adopting findings, all of which could delay or otherwise impact AB 130 projects.

So while the chamber fully supports the changes being made now as an interim measure to comply with state law, we want to encourage the council to direct staff to make the changes in the code necessary to create a ministerial process for eligible AB 130 projects as quickly as possible, and hopefully no later than by the end of 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Katz.

Uh next, we will now take virtual speakers, Kevin Ma.

Evening, Council, my name is Kevin Ma.

I am going to echo some of the points made in the letter from Mountain View Yumby that we understand that staff has a lot of work on their plate, you know, various plans, various zoning efforts, various housing element programs, and recognize that there's a lot of work to be done to harmonize the zoning code, which has pretty much assumed the city has heavy amount of discretion on any project with state law that that focuses on objective standards and a timeline.

Um we note that appeals was not brought up at EPC, so we're kind of surprised.

That actually assists anyone because as mentioned before, we have had meetings involving state laws and local laws that boil down to nothing can be done at the meeting level.

In which case it's in some cases it could be more harmful to have a meeting that doesn't really have a potential of any change.

As well as the costs it has on timelines, right?

Appeals are not do not have any set timelines except for subdivision projects, and there's as mentioned, the advocate still pays for the hearing, even if they didn't want it, which seems a little bit odd because the appeals one does have to charter this time.

And we do hope that the council directs out to work further, though, ministerial project review because it might just be required next year anyway.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I will now bring this item back to council for um questions and deliberations.

Councilmember Hicks.

Thank you.

I was actually gonna make a I actually intend to make a motion and um for the staff and the staff recommendation, but I wanted to say, so I guess I I can do that now.

Um, uh, so I wanted to say that I really this is not this was a rather dry staff report.

It's not the most colorful staff report I've ever read, but that I I really appreciated it.

Uh, you know, I think we um direct in the the um wanting streamlining and being pushed in that direction as well.

Um uh we asked uh staff to do uh ministerial um uh approval, but I think as I read this, I really appreciated that for now an administrative approval would be a better choice.

Um and uh I hope your reasoning is the same as mine as I read it.

You know, thinking of myself as an urbanist, I want to create urban places that people like to live in and like to be in, and I could appreciate as I read this that uh you could not create objective.

I mean, we're throwing a lot out, you know, but you could not create objective development standards that we would end up appreciating uh as quickly as our direction uh told you to.

So, um, so I really as I read through the staff report and understood your reasoning.

I really think, you know, if we don't if we don't do start with the step of um of uh of uh administrative approval at this time that will be throwing out all sorts of precise plan things that the community has spent really a long time on, and that you need time to work through that thoughtfully.

So that is why I am uh making a motion to um to uh do what you recommend in the staff report.

And I also should say that when I talk to developers about the objective standards, they are very appreciative of the um, you know, of the fact that you and we are doing this and want to be involved and and want it to be done thoughtfully.

And I'm I appreciate that they'll be able to be a part of the appeals process, if and uh hopefully we can develop good objective standards over time that we'll all be proud of.

So, Councilmember Hicks, I should note that the motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report.

Yes, I will do that.

If I can find it here.

Here it is.

I have it.

So I am moving to introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City Code to authorize streamline administrative approval of housing development projects that are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resource code section 21080.66, and to make other minor modifications to Chapter 36 to align land uses in the residential and commercial zones with state laws and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act as recommended by the Environmental Planning Commission to be read in title only further reading waived and set a second reading for June 9th of 2026.

Also introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 28, which is subdivisions, and Chapter 41, which is parkland dedication or fees in lieu thereof of the Mountain View City Council, the Mountain View City Code to authorize streamlined administrative approval of housing development projects that are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 and to make other minor modifications to Chapter 28 and Chapter 41 to achieve greater uh consistency with state laws for internal consistency within the City Code and to align the city code with current permitting procedures and practices and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for June 9th, 2026.

Um before we get to the vote, there were some council members in the docket.

I think Councilmember Ramirez was next to speak.

Go ahead, Councilmember Ramirez.

We'll just figure that out.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'll be supporting the motion on the floor, and I appreciate Councilmember Hicks um reading the uh requirements into the record.

I did want to clarify with the staff, you are going to continue to make the amendments needed for a ministerial approval, so we don't need to provide additional direction, right?

Correct.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Um I um I agree.

Um I think this is a good interim step.

I think there are um occasions where um some amount of discretion will continue to be necessary.

Um it's not going to be uh easy to find uh truly objective standards for every circumstance, and we can talk about some recent examples where there was a discretionary element, right?

I'm um this is going away, but we have in our VMR ordinance an alternative compliance option right now, where in recent history we had an opportunity to work with an applicant who was proposing uh an alternative uh compliance uh pathway and uh there were many different right answers, right?

And when you're talking about um equivalence and you know whether you want, for instance, you know, more less deeply affordable units or fewer more deeply affordable units.

That's a policy call, right?

It's not there are some objective standards we could uh design around that, but it was helpful, I think, for the council to be able to weigh in on that decision.

And so I don't envy you for having to make those types of discretionary decisions on our behalf when sometimes there is no clear and obvious answer.

Um, but because of the very um strict uh deadlines imposed by state law, this is a good approach.

Um, I'm I'm looking forward to the objective standards that we'll be introducing over uh the next um uh several months and years.

Um, I do think also uh because there is an element of discretion, it's appropriate to have an appeals process.

Um, sometimes the applicant may decide um that the city you know didn't interpret um a regulation quite the right way, or um that you know the discretion applied wasn't you know what they were thinking or anticipating, so providing an opportunity for the uh the applicant to go to council and say um I think that there's a different approach that ought to be considered is is totally appropriate.

And similarly, because there's an element of discretion, it's also appropriate for the members of the community to uh be able to file an appeal and say, you know, I'm not sure that the city got it, you know, quite right.

And you know, council, I think it's important for you to to weigh in.

Um the the request for a public hearing, you know, I I kind of go back and forth on I think it would be great for applicants voluntarily to provide a public hearing if they wanted to.

Um and we've seen some do that.

Uh they will provide a community meeting, because I think they've heard from the council that it's important to us um that they go to the community and solicit input.

Um when it's a member of the public requesting, I I can see some value in that, but I think the danger is um kind of like that appeal, uh I think it was a tree removal appeal from a little while back where there was almost no discretion, it can be a very frustrating experience too for members of the community to say we don't like something, and then for you know the city staff to say, well, I we appreciate your input, but state law um overrides our ability to make any determination on whatever issue that the community is is um requesting some changes to.

So I think we should go in eyes wide open.

Um, you know, that that until we have a ministerial approval process that is based entirely on objective standards that there will continue to be, you know, I think some um some frustration or or uh uh you know disappoint disappointment associated with public hearings where people I think in good faith approach and say, Well, I thought this was an opportunity for us to you know make a change and they find out that it wasn't really, except for in those nar narrow areas where we do have some discretion.

Um so uh looking forward to supporting this.

Thank you very much, staff, for your work on this item.

Oops.

So um I don't have my cue anymore, but I think Councilmember Schoalter also wanted to speak.

Yeah, I wanted to make a couple comments.

Um one of the things that uh is part of this is things that are exempt from CEQA.

And um I wanted to talk a little bit about the things that aren't exempt from Sequa to kind of um uh maybe uh just to daylight them and and maybe put some people's mind at ease, because there are certain things that really shouldn't be exempt from CEQA because the the public needs to be protected.

And um, so on you know, you have those listed and t on table two, and particularly environmental conditions, like if if it's over a hazardous waste site or a toxic waste site, they still have to do CEQA, which is completely appropriate, or if it's located in a coastal zone or in a floodway or on a wetland, or um in a very high fire area, areas where you know there really are significant um environmental conditions that need to be considered.

They aren't exempted.

So I just wanted to bring that up.

I think that's a very important um unexception.

And I'm you know, I'm really glad to see that um these important protections for the public and the the environment are are still included.

And I I'm happy to support the staff recommendation.

Thank you, Councilmember Schoelter, Councilmember Kamei.

Great, thank you.

Um so I just had a couple comments.

So one just really want to um thank staff.

I um really appreciated um the addition of the inclusion of the child care centers and everything associated with that.

I'm very proud of our mayor for signing um a letter supporting uh AB 14 or 1914, which is if you make I think three changes to your general plan, you can you need to include child care centers and knowing that we are making these amendments, we're already doing it, so it's really great to see and have that included.

Um, I think we've been hearing that need from um from residents.

Um and then I have a I guess a comment slash question.

Um, but I thought um I appreciated um the changes in attachment one after the EPC hearing, it's on page three.

Um my understanding about the potential hearing would be that it could be um a place for community members to speak.

I think when I was looking at the slides of the four projects we saw, I want to say at least three of the four projects had no community meeting.

Um and they opted out of that, and residents came forward wishing they could have at least way weighed in.

Um yes, we did share that it's important to us, but uh if there's nothing there and if they don't have to do it and they can opt out, I don't see an applicant having a community meeting as we experienced with uh three of those four projects.

And considering the size and the scale of the development and that it is going into existing communities and neighborhoods, it I think there is value for people to be able to voice um what they'd like to see.

While I I hear the concerns of Council Member Ramirez, I think on the flip side of that with the project that we were able to see from I believe the applicant city ventures and terabella, there was discussion and integration of where the path to the potential, you know, the upcoming city park is, and I think there was um uh some some pavement that was chosen, knowing that children and families may play in the driveway.

So I and in aggregate, I think it made it a better project versus um not wanting to see that development go forward, which I understand the concern, but um as we noted with that, the comment cars that they solicited um for that city venture project said, you know, no notes, it was great, right?

And that would be my hope is as we're seeing development go forward, potentially, um especially um high density development that residents can feel like they were part of the process and instead of not.

So I do appreciate that change that staff um noted, and that's how I interpreted what you were staff was saying, kind of a threading of the needle.

I'm hoping that I'm interpreting that correctly.

Um, but I just wanted to voice that because I I think it's important, and then lastly, some of these developments particular, as was noted, um moving from like commercial or industrial to residential, widening that radius so people know, um, or else the only um people who would know for some of these projects are the other, you know, vacant commercial buildings.

So I just want to make sure that um as we're seeing the especially like land conversion that that we're we're uh letting people know.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kamei.

Um, with that, we're ready for a vote.

Yay!

And the motion passes unanimously.

Yay!

All right, item 6.3, North Bay Shore Area of Plan Amendment.

Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews and principal management analyst Laurel James will present the item.

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

And we uh are letting our staff settle in so they can present their beautiful presentation.

And then we are ready whenever you are.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city council.

Uh the item before you is an update to the North Bay Shore Area Plan amendment, which was last adopted and updated on 1993.

As you can, as you might recall, the shoreline regional park community was created by the state legislature in 1969 under the what's referred to as the Shoreline Regional Park Community Act.

That act embodied a lot of tenants of what the vision for the future of the shoreline area was, and one of the ways we go about trying to provide those benefits that were envisioned in the act was through the adoption of what was the North Bay Shore Area Plan, which was first adopted in December of 1977 to fulfill the requirements of the Regional Park Community Act.

Those amendments back in 1993 updated some of the landfill closure activities, public transportation facilities, including bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and incorporated the general plan by reference at that time.

Various plans advancing the goals and purposes of the SRPC, both specific to the North Bay Shore area but relevant throughout the city, need to be formally incorporated into the North Bay Shore area plan.

Tonight's update incorporates all the current plans, policies, and goals that have been enacted since 1993.

So there's two specific areas of update to tonight's amendments.

It's incorporating additional public services.

And for that, we are explicitly incorporating schools and school services into the plan.

It also authorizes the use of tax allocation proceeds to fulfill the current education enhancement reserve joint powers agreement that we signed with the schools last year, the new tenure agreement, which we are currently one year into.

And then the addition of affordable housing and homelessness services to the public services listed in the plan.

The shoreline area plan was envisioned to provide housing, and that provision or lack thereof also means that they have a responsibility for some of the societal ills that go along with a lack of housing.

Since 1993, there's been a lot of existing and new plans, and so those are being incorporated by reference.

And here's a listing of those: the North Bay Shore Circulation Feasibility Study, Shoreline Sea Level Rise Study, the Shoreline Landfill Master Plan, the North Bay Shore Precise Plan, Gateway Master Plan, Google North Bay Shore Master Plan, Shore Life Wildlife Management Plan, Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Plan, and Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan.

As you can see, it's prudent to be updating the plan at this time, given a lot of the progress and work that's been done over the last several decades.

So the recommendation for you tonight as the board of directors of the SRPC is to adopt a resolution of the board of directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, amending the shoreline plan to incorporate additional public services, including schools.

Incorporate existing precise plans to advance the goals and purposes of the Shoreline Regional Park Community Act, update the cost and revenue projections, and this is to be read by title only.

Further reading waived.

That concludes our presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Does any member of the council have questions?

Uh, Vice Mayor Clark.

Just a very brief one.

I just uh in the council questions.

I just wanted to clarify that the you listed everything, thank you.

The Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan that incorporates the burrowing owl preservation plan, right?

Burrowing owl preservation plan is kind of part of the wildlife management plan.

Or no.

I don't want to speak on behalf of our parks department.

I don't know if it is explicitly referenced in that plan, but as you'll notice from the rest of the staff response, we feel that it's already incorporated just through the general maintenance and ongoing administration of the shoreline area park.

That being said, if the council would have greater comfort with it being referenced, we're happy to do so.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Clark.

Council Member Hicks.

I was gonna ask a question about referencing it, but I think I'll switch that to comments to just to just saying it should be referenced.

And then a question, you know, in the staff report it said it said you're definitely adding phraseology on schools, but the homeless homeless services may be necessary.

Is that as definite or is it less definite in the way you're you're adding it?

I wasn't clear on that.

No, it has been incorporated as an item that the SRPC should also share proportional responsibility for.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh I did have a quick question about the burrowing owl preservation plan.

Um, would we need to change anything in the motion to do that?

Or, like, how would we do that if we wanted to have it explicitly referenced?

Thank you, Jennifer Lowe City Attorney.

Yes, when you make the motion, just um add a statement that's saying with the addition of a reference to the burrowing owl plan.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other questions from my colleagues, uh, would any we'll move on to public comment.

Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item?

If so, click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

So we actually have one in-person comment, Dr.

Tracy Ferrieth.

Go right ahead.

Thank you.

I just want to really support having the brewing owl preservation plan added to this explicitly.

And thank you.

Thank you.

We will now take virtual public speakers.

Um Mary Dateo.

Uh good evening.

And um I'd also like to um ask that you include the borrowing out plan explicitly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Rashmi.

Hi, yes.

Um I'm on board with all the other comments saying please explicitly include the borrowing owl plan.

We've had a lot of conversation about the burrowing owl and the threat that it's under, and um I just think it's very appropriate to call it out explicitly um as a plan in its own right.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

And that looks like all our speakers.

I will bring the item back for council questions and deliberations.

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

I'm going to let our speakers on the dais on first before we talk about the motion.

Uh Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a suspicion I'll be supporting um the motion uh once it's formally made.

Um, I did want to um uh thank staff for uh the work on uh this amendment and uh share um I think it was in the staff report.

I put it on a separate word document, so I don't remember exactly where this was listed, but um the shoreline regional park communities purposes, which are codified in state law, were provided to the council and uh there are four separate items that reference housing.

Uh provide one, provide uh needed additions to the general housing supply, two, provide opportunities for innovation in housing and community development technology and land use planning, three and large housing employment and investment opportunities for encourage and uh encourage a diversified local home building industry, uh and and there are several other things that are referenced, but thinking about just that one purpose suggests strongly that there's a lot more work to do.

Um so I'm grateful to staff for explicitly incorporating some of these purposes, which are in the state law into the amendment that's proposed tonight, and uh I'm excited for the future of this portion of the city.

Thank you.

You could be excited and optimistic about things.

All right, Councilmember Hicks.

Yes, so I will I I assume I'll be supporting the motion since I seconded it.

Um maybe I'll I'll withdraw my second.

Um but I wanted to say I've been uh some members of the community have asked that these are relatively minor updates, important.

I mean, housing and homelessness and burrowing owls and so forth are all important.

Um but I know some members of the community thought that we would be seeing a much more holistic look at the shoreline community, and I have to say, because of, you know, because there there was a lot of community input into the North Bay Shore Precise Plan and so forth.

I think since there have been changes, there may be some expectation that we would revisit it at some point.

And I think that although it's appropriate now to do these minor updates at some point, and it probably won't be when I'm on council, but at some point I think we will have to take a second look at what the as things evolve and things have been very much in flux with uh you know all the uh the pandemic and all the the virtual work and all the economic changes and changes in tech.

I think at some point we will be making a more holistic look at um at what the shoreline community should be.

Um with that, I think I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Uh so councilmember Kamei, please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report.

Take it away.

Uh I move that we adopt a resolution of the board of directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, amending the shoreline plan to incorporate additional public services, including schools, incorporate existing precise plans to advance the goals and purposes of the Shoreline Regional Park Community Act, and update costs and revenue projections.

And an addition to reference the borrowing owl plan to be read in title only, further reading waived.

All right, let's vote.

And that motion passes unanimously.

Yay, we're all getting along today.

All right.

Now we will go to item seven, unfinished business.

Item 7.1, the parks and recreation strategic plan adoption.

Assistant communities services director Christine Crosby will present the item.

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

This is also be the great time for you to figure out if you anyone's seating time.

So get that settled.

All right.

All right.

Good evening, and thank you for your patience as I get settled.

My name is Christine Crosby, Assistant Committee Services Director.

Here with me tonight is Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour, Community Services Director John Marchant, as well as assistant committee services director Brenda Sylvia, Parks and Open Space Manager Tim Youngberg and Recreation Manager Colin James.

Also joining us virtually tonight is Neile Bott from Next Practice Partners, our consultant assisting with this plan.

Tonight I will highlight updates made to the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and recommend that the City Council adopt the plan.

The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan process has included multiple discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission beginning in September 2023 with continued updates and input provided throughout the planning process.

The commission first reviewed the draft strategic plan on November 17, 2025, where staff received helpful feedback that informed revisions to the document.

An updated draft was then presented to City Council on January 27th, 2026 during a study session where council provided additional direction on several key elements of the plan.

The plan was then updated again and presented back to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 17th, 2026, where they made a recommendation for the city council to adopt the plan.

At the January study session, City Council provided direction on key elements that are noted on the screen as well as an attachment three of the staff report.

Council direction included establishing a dedicated goal focused on biodiversity and natural elements, refining the vision statement, and allocating trail corridor acreage by planning area to better align with the park access analysis.

Direction also included adding an action item to expand learn to swim opportunities, exploring partnerships with Friends of Parks type volunteer groups, and including a review of the city's privately owned publicly accessible POPA standards.

Based on council's feedback, the vision statement was refined to more clearly reflect the community values that emerged throughout the planning process, and the refined vision statement is displayed on the screen tonight.

The updated vision emphasizes inclusion, resilience, and the role parks and recreation play in supporting physical and emotional well-being, while also highlighting stewardship of the natural environment.

The updated draft includes a new goal focused on biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements within the parks and open space system.

To support this goal, staff developed two strategies that focus on strengthening ecological function in parks and trail corridors and integrating biodiversity stewardship into park planning, design, and long-term asset management.

Existing action items related to biodiversity, tree canopy, native planting, and habitat enhancements were reorganized under these strategies.

In addition to the new goal, council provided direction to staff to allocate trail corridor acres to planning areas.

Historically, all approximately 52 acres of trail corridor land were assigned to the North Bay Shore Planning Area, even those corridors extend across multiple parts of the city.

Based on council's direction, the acreage was reallocated to the planning areas the trail corridors actually traverse, with about 34 acres now distributed across five planning areas Rangsdorf, Wisman, Stirling, Central, and Grant, with the remaining 18 acres in the North Bay Shore planning area.

This change provides a more accurate picture of park access and shifts the focus of the plan from planning areas below 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents to those below two acres per 1,000 residents.

The table on the screen is table 18 within the plan.

It shows the updated park and trail level of service by planning area, reflecting the reallocation of trail corridor acreage.

I won't walk through the entire table, but the key takeaways highlighted in the red box, which identifies the six planning areas that currently fall below two acres per 1,000 residents.

That includes San Antonio, Central, Steerland, Sylvendale, Thompson, and Ranksdorf.

For additional context, the table also shows the citywide level of service with and without the North Bay Shore Planning Area, which illustrates how that planning area influences the overall acreage per 1,000 residents.

With the trail corridor acreage now allocated across planning areas, the parkland shortage calculation was updated in the plan.

To reach three acres per 1,000 residents at today's population, and based on the updated planning area level of service, the plan now estimates a current shortfall of 53.5 acres when excluding the North Bay Shore planning area.

Using the planning level cost assumptions in the plan, this translates to an estimated shortfall of roughly $722 million for park acquisition, design, and construction at today's cost estimates.

The updated plan also includes two new action items bringing the total actions to 52.

The first focuses on continuing to expand learn to swim and recreation swim opportunities, building on the city's existing aquatic programs and identifying ways to increase access.

The second adds an action item focused on incorporating inclusive access improvements in existing parks, guided by the city's Americans with Disabilities Act Self Evaluation and Transition Plan, ensuring that upgrades and renovations continue to improve accessibility and usability for people of all abilities.

Council also provided direction on refinements to existing action items.

Milestones were added to two action items to explore opportunities to work with friends of parks type volunteer groups, helping clarify how that concept could be evaluated and implemented.

In addition, the action item related to updating chapter 41 of the city code was expanded to include a review of the city's privately owned publicly accessible POPA standards as part of that broader policy update.

Following the city council study session in January, staff refined the draft plan to incorporate council direction and return to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 17th with an updated draft plan.

The commission expressed general support for the updated plan before recommending that city council adopt the plan.

The commission emphasized the importance of prioritizing future park and open space expansion in underserved planning areas and evaluating those areas using multiple factors, including acres per 1000 residents, reliance on school fields, and access within a 10 minute walk.

In response, the final plan was refined to more clearly define what an underserved planning area is using this multifactor approach and to emphasize prioritization of future park and open space investments in those areas where feasible.

The commission also emphasized the importance of near term improvements across all parks and open spaces, particularly through expanding native canopy trees and native landscaping in alignment with the forthcoming biodiversity and urban forest plan.

This plan defines native as California native, regionally native, and near native in alignment with the biodiversity and urban forest plan.

The reference to near native species recognizes that plant selection must consider a variety of factors such as climate resilience, long-term tree health, drought tolerance, site constraints, urban growing conditions, maintenance maintenance needs, and overall ecosystem function.

The intent is not to replace locally native planting, but to balance biodiversity goals with the range of considerations involved in creating a healthy, resilient, and sustainable urban landscape over time.

All of these recommendations were incorporated throughout the final plan and include including updates to park design guidance, action items, and prioritization criteria.

In addition to the formal recommendation from the commission, the commission and community provided broader feedback themes.

Attachment four of the council report provides a detailed summary of these themes and where refinements were made in the final plan.

This included acknowledging that achieving the goal of three acres per 1000 residents is not currently feasible in every planning area and emphasizing the need to prioritize future expansion opportunities.

Feedback also emphasize prioritizing locally native species and elevating the role of trees and biodiversity within park design.

The commission and public also raise questions regarding funding availability and staff capacity to implement the plan, including an interest in understanding which action items may be fully funded, partially funded, or not currently funded.

Staff acknowledge these concerns and committed to include an update on funding availability and progress towards securing and appropriating funds for action plan items as part of the plan's ongoing annual reporting process.

Following adoption, implementation would begin with the plan's immediate action items while also initiating foundational work needed to support short, mid and long term actions.

Staff would also establish baseline baseline data for each of the plan's performance metrics to consistently track progress over time.

And as outlined in the plan, staff would return with a public facing dashboard and annual progress report approximately one year after adoption, followed by annual updates thereafter.

With that, staff is recommending that the city council adopt the parks and recreation strategic plan.

This concludes my presentation, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Now, would any member of the council have questions?

Councilmember Hicks.

So thank you.

So does the uh Sylvan Dale area have access to the Stevens Creek Trail, or can it be given access?

It's not listed.

As having access or having an allocation from the Sylvens Creek Trail.

And there's no you can't think of an easy way to give it would be nice if they had access.

Anyway, so the understanding.

Yeah.

So there is the bridge over 85.

That does give, yeah, that does give access to that neighborhood, but um actual trail itself is not part of Sylvandale, which is why it's not incorporated in that.

It wouldn't be fair to allocate to the to them, but they do have some amount of access.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I wish we could expand their access, but I won't assign that to you tonight.

Um let's so I don't know you you don't have to answer this next question, but um, you know, I I've there's been a lot of thought on council and a lot of comments from uh from residents on making sure we have an equity focus in terms of underserved planning areas, and I know we're also looking at purchasing.

Have you prioritize purchasing land?

Is that uh prioritized at this point in the land purchase you're as you're looking at?

And I know when we're purchasing land, we can't announce all the details, but is there anything you can share about you know how you've prioritized equity in recent possible purchases?

Yes, thank you for the question.

Um this updated plan does include defining what an undersurve planning area is and using that multi-factor approach.

So not just looking at 1,000 uh residents or one, sorry, three acres per 1,000 residents, um, but also looking at the 10-minute walkshed and um reliance on school fields.

That um that formula has allowed us to focus down on the six planning areas that fall below the two acres per 1000.

Um and so those are the planning areas that this plan would be prioritizing.

The prioritization criteria that is within the plan was also updated to bring that criteria up to the very top, um, and as long um along with the near-term improvements for biodiversity within parks.

Those two are the top two uh prioritization criterias.

Um, and so we will be actively looking for land in those planning areas, okay.

And I think you have been actively looking at it.

Yes, we have been historically in the future.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Council Member Show Walter.

All right.

It's so exciting to be at this this point in the process.

Um, I do have a couple questions.

I'm still a little little confused about the use of near native landscaping.

Have we just axed it from the plan?

Or is it still included?

I mean, seems like it's something that we should get rid of, but I wasn't sure exactly what you had landed on.

Thank you, Councilmember Show Walter.

So we are in this dynamic of which we are working on multiple plans at one time, of which the biodiversity plan has not come before you for final adoption.

Um, and there were some questions that were just brought up today in relation to that terminology.

And so it is up to council as to giving us direction in determining if if that is a change you would like to suggest.

Another way we can identify this if if council would um like to do so is um just within the parks and recreation strategic plan.

We can just date um use of natives as described in the biodiversity plan in case there's some additional conversations that will happen before that gets adopted.

So that's just another option that we can we can use to get through tonight.

Um and then it would just be identifying what will be in as a final language for the biodiversity and urban forest plan.

So it's just pointing to that document rather than trying to um define it within the settle solid on the dias yeah yeah well I know that being involved in restoration work for several times um that people uh argue endlessly about what native plants mean and um so we don't want to do that tonight um or I don't want to do it tonight but but at the same time uh I did see uh some phraseology that said something like near native was anything on the North American continent that's that's just way too broad so I hope that you know when you are having that discussion you'll you'll take a little more focused look perhaps we could look at west of the Rockies or California or you know not necessarily a small area but the whole continent is really that's that's a lot and then the other thing I think is that um you know although we do talk about the importance of uh of native plants particularly in these anchor areas that um uh you don't have to have native plants everywhere you just want to you know do we just want to have a preponderance of them so that they provide some habitat and I I don't know that that was really discussed very much but um uh I think particularly I mean we have many many plants in um in our tree palette that are not native but that um uh that that provide you know good shade and are beautiful and I don't we certainly do not want to get rid of all those trees by long shot um so we would like that language to be present in the biodiversity plan yeah and not necessarily being defined within I think that I think that is better okay and then um I wanted to also ask a little a question I got a comment from um someone about um routes to bike routes to parks um I think it's on page 86 in the plan and there was some concern that they had identified the area around Cooper Park as deficient or hard to get to and they were kind of upset about that so I just I wanted to bring that up somebody do you do you think that the Cooper Park is hard to get to thank you for the question.

So this question has been posed uh to staff in the past and we have shared it with our colleagues in public works for verification that the language that's within the plan matches um their um perception of what's in the field um and was stated that what we have is is accurate um we can certainly go back and look at it again um but that was something that we refer to to our public works colleagues for for feedback.

Okay.

Living just a few houses from Cooper Park I I find that odd but yeah so please take a look at that again.

And then I wanted to ask a there's been some talk about adding things there's been public comments about adding things for implementation.

And when I look at um uh some of the reporting that you are planning it seems like um the the first year's annual report kind of functions as an implementation plan and in particular on slide 13 you say um initiate foundational steps for short medium and long establish baseline data for each performance metric and develop a public dashboard and annual report after year one that seems to me like it's kind of the the um the structure of an implementation plan is that what you have in mind.

Thank you for the question.

Yeah it's gonna be an opportunity for us to report out where we are with each of the action items showing what progress has been made over the last year what our priorities will be for the next year, and being able to report out, especially on those short, mid and long term progress that we've made on those fan foundational steps.

Additionally, we'll be able to report out for the performance metrics that are to be recorded on an annual basis, how they um how they fare compared to the baseline data that we'll be doing following tonight's hopeful adoption.

And then as also stated in the presentation, we'll also be including um what is the latest on our funding for each of those action items.

Are we um do we have funding partially funded or not funded to help us um be able to gauge where we need to focus funding efforts in the future?

Okay, is part of the process also going to be to um uh a uh a general reassessment of or not not reassessment, but maybe um uh fine-tuning of the priorities as you step into the plan and say, okay, you know, we we found that this was the amount of work we could we could undertake this year, and so that's how we're gonna do it, and then we'll have next steps for what you think will be the work for the subsequent year.

Is that gonna be part of the process?

Yes, it is.

Thank you for sharing that.

Um the plan is a living document, one that we can respond to as things change.

And so if there is uh an emerging trend that is being requested, um we can take a look at that and see if that needs to be uh added within a milestone of existing action item or its own action item.

If something is no longer relevant, we can bring that up and say, okay, this was a really great idea at the time, but based off of new information, we will not be pursuing.

Um so it does allow us to be um adaptive over the years.

Um the plan also calls for um a general update at the five year mark, um, which does align following the 2030 census.

So we'll be able to um take a look at our population data and how that um has changed with any park land that that we have um brought online in the same period.

Um, and then at the 10 year mark, we'll do a comprehensive um update to the plan.

Okay, um, that that sounds good.

I know in um uh in scientific work, you often describe it as adaptive management, and basically that's kind of you, you know, you you adapt your plan as you learn about how well it um is working or isn't.

That sounds like exactly what you're talking about.

So that's great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Schoalter.

Next we have Councilmember McAllister.

Thank you.

Um great plan, a lot of effort.

I like when I see a true strategic plan.

So a couple of questions.

Uh one of your criteria for the underserved areas was you decided you wanted to get them up to at least two acres per thousand.

Yes, um right now our citywide goal is to be at three acres per 1000 citywide.

We're meeting that.

However, when you drill down on the planning areas, um there is a six of them, so majority that fall below two acres.

The previous draft that you saw in January did say 1.5, but with adding the trails, um it bumped up um everybody just a little bit, and then San Antonio was the sixth one, it was right below two acres, but not much different from the one below it.

So we decided to change the to two acres per 1000.

Okay, and I I did see I liked the citywide without North Bay Shore, and you got that at 2.38.

Hypothetically, if there was enough land in certain part of the city that you could buy that would get us to 3.0, would that would you take the opportunity to buy that land?

Over the precise all these other areas.

Yes, um, so although the plan does prioritize those six planning areas, if an opportunity allows itself in one of the four planning areas that already meets three acres per 1000, we would like to be opportunistic and be able to add that to our park system.

Okay, and the other question, and this came up on administrative too, the PUPA.

So, um I'm always concerned about the inclusion of that on a lot of projects.

So, how did give me understanding the background of what you're looking at and maybe tie it into what administrative climate is going to be?

Thank you, Councilman McAllister.

The part of our nexus study um related to related to park fees, or that is going to be looking at the um city code in relation to POBA and whether that based on how the Nexus study comes to fruition, whether there we would be recommending uh a higher percentage compared to now, or some other changes to encourage encourage that use.

Developers now you're saying we're trying to get it to make it a little more accessible.

Well, when you percentages could be moving around.

So are we still being able to revise their uh preliminary report and say no that doesn't meet our criteria?

So there is no preliminary report related to POPAs at the moment.

We will be bringing in the fall the nexus study, and then uh subsequent to that, um, we can utilize POPAs and look at that percentage if we are looking for other ways to reduce the cost for developer.

Okay, the rest I'll say for comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a few questions about uh the prioritization for um uh the funding that we will work to uh to to accumulate for for the implementation of this plan.

Um and I can think of three uh near-term opportunities to articulate to the public how we will use that money.

Um I'm gonna get to this plan later, but I'm gonna start with the hypothetical bond measure uh that we may place on the November ballot in June.

Um, by law must include a capital improvement plan.

Is that right?

That is correct.

Awesome, okay.

So that will be one opportunity for the public to provide input on if that bond measure were to pass uh to provide input on how we would spend that funding.

The second is the Nexus study that we will adopt later this year also has to include a capital improvement plan, right?

So the funding generated from new development must also have a capital improvement plan for us to uh to show the public how we intend to spend that money.

Is that right?

That is correct, and the council finance committee reviewed uh the initial preliminary results of the nexus fee, and we anticipate bringing that to council in September.

Great.

So that's two opportunities, opportunities for the public to provide input on capital improvement plans associated with revenue generated for the implementation of this plan.

Um, and then the third is the uh prioritization that you've described in this plan.

Um, and I'm hoping if you wouldn't mind, uh, if you can go over the response to the council question submitted in advance, it's very long, but I think it might be helpful for the public to hear at least preliminarily if you were to have near-term funding, how would you spend it?

Thank you for the question and acknowledging the length of the response.

I appreciate that.

Um, so hypothetically, right?

So this is all hypothetical.

If I had a crystal ball, um, so as the plan states, we would prioritize the six uh planning areas that fall under two acres per 1000, as well as looking at those near-term improvements related to biodiversity and tree canopy for all of our parks.

So we will be focusing on those areas.

Um and thank you for the question of providing us with three dollar amounts to work with.

Um and this is not set in stone, this is just to provide um an example of what potentially could be done, and this is based off of cost estimates of today, so using the um cost assessments that are within the plan.

Um so if this all comes through for ourselves in 10 years, costs could be different at that point.

Well, first we want to focus on acquiring land and focusing specifically on acquiring land of the size of a neighborhood park, which is between one and five acres, because we can do a lot of different things with a property of that size.

And the first area of focus would be maybe looking at the three lowest planning areas.

That's Ranksdorf, Thompson, and Sylvandale, and seeing if there's an opportunity to acquire land in those areas.

Secondly, as I just mentioned, the near-term biodiversity improvements that we could look at doing in all parks, looking at completing update improvements to San Verone Park, which is within the Steerland planning area, again, one of the six under planning areas.

And then also looking at designing and constructing the land that we call Calderon Park that we purchased a couple years back.

That is it within the central planning area, an area of which we do not have funding for at the moment.

So if the opportunity exists, we'd like to be able to develop land that we've already acquired.

So take everything I just mentioned within 25 million and add to that, acquiring additional land, now maybe expanding our scope, not just looking at the three lowest, but maybe again looking at the bottom six and looking for again a neighborhood-sized park between one and five acres, designing and constructing the land that I mentioned in the 25 million dollar scenario, completing update improvements to Rex Manor, Thaddeus, and Varsity Parks.

These three parks fall within the Stirland and Thompson planning areas, completing enhancement, sorry, enhancements improvements to Klein Park, which is in San Antonio planning area, and then again looking at property that will be dedicated to the city, which is maybe designing and constructing the property at 555 West Middlefield, which is in the Steerland planning area.

The final funding scenario provided was $75 million.

So take everything in 25, everything potentially in the 50, and adding to that again acquiring more land if it's possible in one of those six planning areas, designing and constructing the land mentioned in the 50 million dollar scenario, looking at completing update improvements along the Stevens Creek Trail, which traverses multiple planning areas, and then incorporating inclusive design improvements in existing parks guided by the city's Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation Transition Plan.

So that's just a range of projects that are identified within the action plan currently that does not either have full funding or any funding tied to it right now.

So that just kind of I hope paints a picture of what could potentially be done with the different levels of funding.

Thank you.

And then it is staff's intent to use that preliminary prioritization to inform the bond measure capital improvement plan and the nexus study capital improvement plan.

Yeah.

So the projects that I just spoke about are all projects that are on our capital improvement plan.

I guess you could say list that we've created for both of those opportunities.

And so if those move forward, those are things that we'd be able to fund.

Okay.

And then council member Ramirez.

So more specifically, yes, it would be on the plan that council and the public would see as part of the uh recommendation for council to consider on the agenda item.

Okay.

Um that's helpful.

So this is there's a meaningful opportunity now for the council to provide input on that list of priorities, and then also the list of priorities will inform how staff will provide the council recommendations for the bond measure and the nexus study.

Um, and then the last question is to provide the community the assurance that this is gonna happen.

We have a legal obligation to use hypothetical bond uh measure revenue on the things that are on that capital improvement plan.

Correct.

And then that's also true for revenue generated based on the Nexus study, right?

We have a legal obligation to use the funding for the capital improvement plan that we adopt with the Nexus study.

Correct.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember Hicks.

I'm sorry, I'm back for a second round of questions.

I never know whether to put put what I have to say into questions or comments.

And I I've come to think maybe this would be better first as a question.

So I these questions are around the subject of uh of uh nature-based parks.

And uh when I when I read through the plan, and I have to say it's a lot of reading.

I've done a lot of reading for this meeting, and so I hope that you know this plan better than I do.

Maybe you can um maybe you can tell me more specifically.

But I I think there were three kinds of model parks, um, in three different sizes, and they they all seem to be a little bit of kind of throw a little bit, a little bit of uh a little bit of recreation, a little bit of tree, a little bit of et cetera.

Um I'm I'm wondering how we might, but but certainly all our parks are not that way.

So for example, um, but many of them are, but like Heritage Park, for example, or Pioneer Park, don't have a little of there's no place structure in uh Pioneer Park, for example.

So I'm a I'm uh I would like to be able to give people an example, a wider variety of things that they might be able to choose from, not just you know, a large little bit of everything, a medium little bit of everything, and a very small little bit of everything.

Do you think what suggestions might you have for doing that for um because I I feel that people do better, at least I do better if I'm presented with something and I've given a wider variety of examples.

Um it looks like you have an answer to that question.

Yes, thank you for the question and acknowledging that chapter six, um, which goes over different design guidelines.

Um, there is a section that focuses on what could be done in a community park, which is over five acres, what could be done in a neighborhood park, that one to five acre range, and then what could be done in a mini park, which is less than one acre.

Um, and it what I like about this is it kind of provides options.

It gives us a starting point of what we may be able to suggest as we look at a new property that we look to design.

Each um new property would be going through our community park design process where we might provide some um thoughts of what could go in that space based off of um what we have here in the plan as well as our experience with designing parks, and then we will see how the community responds to that.

Um, a really good example was as we went through the design process for pyramid park.

Um, we had a a thought of what could go there, um, such as putting a soccer field, and um we heard very strongly for the from the residents that um they would like to see just open grass nothing programmed um and then look at other variety of of amenities.

Um, and we were able to respond to that and adapt, and it's I think such a beautiful park that um the city has designed.

Um, and so that's how this um chapter helps us function with the design process.

It does give a variety of um active and passive recreation opportunities to look at um and ways to enjoy nature um and not necessarily in a um active play area or sports field, but maybe in areas for self-reflection or meditation or um to be able to look at birds.

Um so those quiet activities that help center somebody.

Um so that's how this plan would help us function um and be able for us to um have starting points when going through the design process and then be able to respond how the community would like to see their neighborhood park.

So I may end up asking for.

Because we do have those in the city, but so it could be even a picture of a current park, but just so that people could see the variety of kinds of things that they that they can ask for.

You could also include an example of a park that's purely recreation, you know, all pickleball courts, for example.

You know, I just would like people to know that they don't have to pick, particularly for mini parks, to be honest with you, that they don't have to pick one of every one of each, one of each of the above.

And I feel like we're not giving that example very well, and that we're uh relegating nature-based parks, nature to maybe a small corner of every park, and that it's seen mostly in terms of biodiversity, but not people, although you do sprinkle that throughout the plan, people being that people thrive in nature sometimes too.

Yes, thank you for that.

Um one thing that we did add in this version of the plan since it was last brought to city council is this idea of a biodiversity anchor.

Um, and so for example, um, on a community park, which again is much larger, um, we have four different anchors that we would look to have in that park a recreation anchor, a community anchor, active recreation, and then biodiversity.

But then when you look at a neighborhood park, um we drop down to a recreation anchor and a biodiversity anchor.

Then we go to mini park, and the only anchor is biodiversity.

Um so biodiversity does still remain consistent through each of them.

Um, and we are looking for opportunities as we design uh our future parks of what nature-based amenities that we can incorporate, much more than just putting it in this corner, but how can it be fully integrated in the full design?

Okay, that that is my concern.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Seeing no other questions from council, um, would any we're gonna move on to public comment.

Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

So our first speaker is Alexander Amaroso.

That'll be followed by Zoe Zarowski, followed by Dr.

Tracy Ferria, and then followed by Jim Zarowski.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, thank you, council.

Um lots of really great items to say, and this is why uh I like to speak today.

But the staff has left me not a whole lot to say because you've kind of hit all the targets that I like to see, especially when it comes to the urban forestry program and the biodiversity plans you guys are talking about.

I just wanted to bring up a couple of notes to just kind of like you know, bear in mind for this project, uh, one of them being just kind of like a general idea about um building not just for this project for park recreation, but just in general, like you know, maintaining a balanced budget that is going to integrate between new housing, new buildings, and new parks to making sure that everything that's being built is ecologically sound and using uh environmentally friendly materials.

Also, as a quick note, something that was said about the Council Member Hicks and Cousin Show Alter said about native plants as well as like you know uh wider green spaces for like your nature-based parks.

I would love to see more of that as well, especially when it comes to even the addressing of invasive species and endangered species.

We could cover that with this program as well.

So maybe a more of a collaboration to U.S.

Fish and Wildlife on a more general cross-reference list of how to manage invasive and endangered species.

I could I work with the friends of Stevens Creek, and uh we got the uh Italian thistle.

We got to take care of that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is Zoe Zarowski.

All right, thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Zoe, and I live in Mountain View, and uh Monoloma Park has been my park that I grew up with.

It's now Monoloma uh school field.

And uh it is a restricted field now.

It doesn't stop me from finding a good park.

I'll go to Sunnyville, Palo Alto, San Francisco, uh, any time.

I have the time and the uh a car.

Um and but uh the word go shows the privilege that I have uh in finding a good park.

Uh many of my neighbors don't have this privilege.

And uh not everyone has a car.

Not everyone, a family can afford gas uh or transit there, or a simple afternoon outdoors um to go that far.

Uh parents juggle or uh work, uh, can't load their kids into onto a bus across town.

Uh senior and people with disabilities can't always travel far from home, and uh child shouldn't have to leave their own neighborhood just to find the safe place to run and play.

Uh, it's getting harder, even those for uh who use our existing fields to enjoy them.

Our parks and fields are more crowded every year, and much of the field space is rented out to organize leaks.

Uh, when that happens, a neighbor who just wants to use their own park is locked out, the field is taken, and there's nowhere else nearby to go.

A park you can't reach by car isn't really your park.

Uh, a field you can't get onto isn't either.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Tracy Ferrier.

Followed by Jim Zarowski.

Um I'd like to encourage the city to prioritize locally native plants wherever feasible as these plants and trees provide habitat for local birds, bees and butterflies, and that's what we want for our kids and our grandchildren.

Um locally native is not defined appropriately uh in the plan.

It in fers local to mountain view or its surroundings.

However, the strategic plan report defines locally native to include all North American plants.

This definition should be changed.

In the same spirit, the use of near native, which includes all North America is overly broad and misleading.

We ask that near native plants be struck from the documents and as it blurs the distinction between locally adapted native vegetation and non-native species, which provide lower ecological value.

Um the use of the of these terms also creates an unfortunate precedent for other jurisdictions and plans by implying that broad categories of non-local species are ecologically equivalent to locally native vegetation.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jim Zarowski.

Oh, okay.

I gotta run the back of my car.

You don't have a slide deck.

Holy shit.

Okay.

No slide deck.

Oh, okay.

Here we go.

Okay, ready?

Yeah, he's got it on his phone.

You're like, you know, there you go.

I can start.

I'll do the best I can.

Hi.

I'm speaking, I'm speaking on behalf today of Robert, Eric, Ida Rose, Celia, and Paul, as well as online.

I'm very honored to have both uh Lisa Matichuk and Sally Lieber.

These are all people who are citizens that are careful, they have nothing in common with a lot of things.

Many people have served on council with some of these people, and you notice they've had their disagreements over the years, but they all agree that parks are important to our community, and that having good parks are items that are of importance to maintaining a healthy community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

Pat has often spoken about the importance of mental health to the community about having good parks.

Alison was there when we tried when we uh worked with Measure G, as was Lisa, to uh make sure that not with Measure G, with the school board, with the MVWSD, and she went to every meeting to see why that should not be fenced.

John has been very much active in making sure that organized sports and the people using organized sports have enough places to play and enough play uh fields so that our kids are not like my daughter who have to drive around to find a place to to run and play.

Emily came late to this game, but I've seen her many times at the at the pollinator garden helping with pollination.

So I think not only did the candidates for council, the prior members of council, but our current council very much understands the importance of parks to the community.

One of the things we've we in we are very much a lot of people said this was not a good plan, and maybe I'm one of them.

I think it was a great plan.

I don't think it was a good plan.

I think it was a great plan, but it needs to be a great report.

But I think it needs some work to be a good strategic plan.

And what it needs to be a strategic plan, we have a much unfunded, lots of things we want to do, but no clear mechanism for funding it.

Frankly, I don't think we have it.

But even if we did, we don't really know where we're gonna put it, how we're gonna get there, and that 160 acres of land is gonna cost somewhere around two billion dollars.

So when we give a estimate that says top end, Lucas, 75 million, that's 4%.

We're not gonna get there by 4%.

Granted, we're not gonna get there in this planning cycle.

We're not gonna find the uh the end point of this whole cycle, but we need to show the community progress.

Paul was involved in the 2007, 2003, uh the PRC from 2007 to 2013.

Ida Rose is there now.

These people, oh, you got it.

Who found that?

Wow.

Okay, where we go.

You okay, good, yeah.

Okay.

Um, what we what what the plan has done well is done a planning area analysis of showing where we're short.

It's quantified our deficit at 720 million.

It's done a decent biodiversity framework.

Next slide, please.

But at the same time, we need some key actions in order to convince the community that this is just not another can kick.

75 million is only four percent of the two billion dollars we're gonna be short.

That's not much.

If other priorities, and there are a lot of them, there's priorities for roads, there's priorities for administrative infrastructure, there's priorities for downtown.

If they're getting 80 to 90 percent of the money they need, and the community's only seeing 4%, the community's not going to be impressed.

We need to see that the council, this council, the next council, and the previous council, hold our parks as something that they put as a priority for our community.

And they can did a great job of capitalizing the police station.

We could do the same thing with Measure G.

Audrey understands completely how good management and goal setting involves real goals that are time-based, labor-based, they're actualized, and that they're there's something that can be measured and evaluated.

We don't have that now.

We have aspirations.

Aspirations aren't gonna work, aspirations aren't gonna get bonds passed.

What I'm recommending is that we look at the plan and we say, what do we need to do to number one look at the elephant in the room?

There's nothing right now except the fact that we're growing from not 87,000 to 140,000 people.

That's gonna create a $2 billion deficit.

There's nothing that says we're gonna do anything to meet it other than have a report every year.

We've tried that.

We're skeptical.

We haven't seen it work, it's not likely to work again.

We'd like to see something from council and something from staff to say, okay, we can meet 10% of it, we can meet 20% of it.

But how are we gonna meet this in a way that's gonna make a dent and what are we gonna do with it?

Otherwise, it just looks like another can kick to the community, and the community's not gonna go for it.

The other thing we we want to do is that we want to look to see where this growth is going to happen.

Most of the growth is going right now into the areas that don't have any parks.

My daughter talks about she doesn't, she goes to Palo Alto, she goes to San Francisco.

Well, she has a car.

I know a lot of people in the California Street area that we used to drive to soccer that don't have cars.

They don't have the ability to go somewhere.

They can't.

They need a park, and we need to provide them that.

And if council can't provide them with that, the community's gonna be continue to be frustrated.

So what I'm saying is, the staff has the skills to address this.

We need to look at the shortages that we're seeing.

It's two billion dollars.

It's a lot of money.

We're not gonna make that.

We made a good start in prioritizing it, but it needs more teeth, it needs more substance, and it needs the ability to go forward in a way that is actually going to give the community confidence that that's where we're going to go.

And I thank you all for your time.

I thank you all for your efforts.

I thank the people online, Sally, for her work with with uh with the with the park on Bush for making sure that it was biodiverse, and everybody in this room who was working with me, because we all want the best mountain view we can have going forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our virtual speakers.

So we will start with Dash Leeds.

Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds.

I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Lumber Creative chapter.

Uh, we strongly support the recognition that biodiversity should be integrated into parks, large and small.

Uh, in particular, we support the concept of biodiversity anchors throughout the park system.

That was a great inclusion.

Uh, thank you so much to staff for your work on this plan.

Uh, my comments tonight reflect our concerns we expressed to council on our joint letter and that have been discussed tonight regarding the use of near-native plant species throughout the document.

Uh, this term, as was discussed, is defined on the draft biodiversity and urban forest plan with an overly broad definition that could allow for any North American plant to be considered near native.

Uh and that term pops up in a lot of places in this document.

Uh, native plants, alternatively co-evolve with local species and provide superior biodiversity and habitat value.

We ask that near native plants should not be listed, especially in the criteria for biodiversity anchors, as is listed for many parks on page 163 of the plan.

And we ask that you remove the term near native from the parks and recreation strategic plan entirely, and consider revising the draft biodiversity and urban forest plan to not include that definition as well.

The plan can still use the California native and regionally the native species as defined in the current draft biodiversity and urban forest plan.

We also ask you to please strengthen your plan language to clarify that locally native species are not only prioritized but clearly established as the default.

Thank you.

And next is Albert Jeans.

Good evening, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Great.

Uh yeah, this is Albert Jeans, the steering planning area.

I agree with everything that Jim Zeloski said, so I'm not going to repeat that.

I just like once again to emphasize that school fields are a poor excuse for a park and should not be given as much credit as they are.

They're currently allocated based on access time.

But you know, the majority of the daylight hours from four days from eight o'clock in the morning to four in the afternoon are occupied by the schools on weekdays.

And on evenings, especially for Clinton Field, which is near my area, they're often organized sports playing there in the evenings or on weekends.

So for a resident in our area who just wants a park to go to, there's not much choice, you know, for a majority of the area time.

And so giving us a score of two acres per thousand, I think is way, way too much generous, too generous.

If you exclude school fields, we're only at about half an acre per thousand people.

And yet our area is going to see a population growth of about a good 3,000 people in the near future.

So I know you're not going to change much in this.

I'm I'm glad that couldn't, I mean that our areas prioritized, but I think the situation is a lot worse than it appears in the report.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Rashmi.

Hi everyone.

Um so thank you.

Yes, I've been following the plan very closely since um the first draft was released.

And um I would say that first of all, I want to thank city staff for their hard work throughout this process.

They've done a good job of including a lot of um feedback, especially related to the importance, especially related to the importance of green and natural spaces.

There's been a lot of great improvements there.

Um but I want to echo um what other speakers have said today about removing the term near native from the definition of native plants.

Um there certain certainly is, um, like council member Showwall just said a time and a place where non-native plants might need to be used, and I certainly don't need want to remove native non-native trees that provide canopy, but in new plantings, um, it's important to establish locally native species as the default planting whenever possible, and only use um non-native species when there's a really good reason to do so.

Um, and then when we do so, let's not call it near native, but let's call it out for what it is, um, and that it's serving a specific role.

Um, so yeah, that's all I wanted to say, and thank you so much.

Um I'm excited about the adoption and implementation of the plan.

Thank you.

Next is April Webster.

Thank you.

Um I also appreciate the improvements staff made in the current version, especially around biodiversity and underserved areas.

Um the plan has the right values, but those values need to carry through more clearly into implementation and outcomes through the actions and performance metrics.

Um, I'm asking council to direct staff to incorporate the three action and two performance metric updates I included in a letter I sent in.

Um the intent of those is to make equity measurable, as well as natural, shaded, biodiverse, and climate-resilient parks, and then improve connections to parks through um shaded green complete streets and nature-based traffic calming.

Um the current underserved planning area analysis is useful, but underserved isn't the same as equity.

A park acres, a 10-minute walk, and reliance on school fields show service gaps.

They don't show, however, who faces the greatest barriers.

We also should consider income, vehicle access, transit dependence, as a few speakers already mentioned, and environmental burden.

San Francisco does this through its equity zones.

We have something similar in our active transportation plan.

Once those areas have been identified, the city should report data not just by planning area, but also by those equity areas, so we can see whether new parks, investments, ecological quality, et cetera, are being prioritized where the need is greatest.

Finally, park quality should not be understood only as built amenities or open grass.

Those matter, but so do trees, shade, naturalized parks, linear parks, etc.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Mary Datio.

Good evening.

I also find the term near native confusing.

The whole point of native plants, as far as biodiversity is concerned, is that many native insects, such as native bees, butterflies, and moths co-evolved over centuries with native plants.

So without the native plants, many native insects will become extinct.

And without native insects, native birds become extinct.

It seems unlikely that any biodiversity benefits would be offered by plants from other areas of North America.

The second thing, I want to thank staff for the many native plants they included in the planting around the magical bridge.

I was excited to see those.

And finally, the recently the list of 10 most uh used tree species in Mountain View contained only one native and that species, and that was redwood.

So as far as trees are concerned, um many trees in Mount View are chosen by private property owners.

So it's outside the city's influence.

I propose the city set a policy for itself when it's using a tree species on city property to always consider first using a native species.

And if no native species meets the guiding principle of right plant right place, then consider using non-natives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker virtually is uh Ronit Bryant.

Yes, thank you very much.

Um, the plan before you is innovative and informative.

I thank council, the community, staff, the PRC for having worked really hard on this.

It's much better than the first draft we have.

Um, I have a major problem with having seen on the staff report that staff defines locally native plants as including any plant that grows on the North American continent.

And frankly, that's ridiculous.

Imagine if you asked me for a recommendation for a local coffee shop, and I gave you an address in New York.

You wouldn't be happy with that.

Similarly, when the community speaks of locally native plants, we mean just that.

Plants that grow in our area are adapted to our climate, provide food and shelter for our birds and butterflies, and the creepy crawlies that live in our soul and support our ecosystem.

So please make clear to staff that locally native means locally native, native to our area.

Uh, and that that is what the community wants, and get rid of the near native.

And in the biodiversity plan, there is a category called regionally native that's very close to locally native, which is what the community speaks of.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um that completes our public comment.

I will now bring the item back to council for questions and double liberations.

Please note that a motion to approve.

Well, wait, that's the wrong one.

Yeah.

I'll bring it back for council questions and deliberations.

There's no language that you have to do to apply it a motion.

So who wants to go first?

Councilmember, Vice Mayor Clark.

I'll jump in.

Um I think overall, I mean, just this is a huge milestone tonight.

Like we've been working on this for a long time.

It's gone through many iterations, it's gone through I don't know how much community input, probably through multiple macro economic and other events.

Um, and we've landed at where I think is a really really good place.

I think um folks have brought up a couple of things.

Um I will let my other colleagues chime in on all different different definitions of native plants.

Um the and and we're all wherever you all land, I'm happy to land.

I will just say that I what I care about is that we prioritize plantings that will thrive in our environment.

And I think we have to recognize the fact that while I wish it wasn't true, our climate has already changed, and um whatever was native, hopefully what was native 50 years ago is still somewhat native today, but there are probably now other things that would thrive better in a slightly warmer climate here than would have thrived that would have been on that list 50 years ago.

So I I'm not trying to I don't want to discount any of that, but I I what I care about is that you know from a from a the majority of the planting, like we we should be our our focus should be to plant things that are locally native um or or regionally native, that they're drought tolerant, and if we and when there are times when that isn't feasible, then you should be able to I trust your judgment to figure out what um should go there.

So I I don't want to be too prescriptive.

I understand the intent of the folks who've spoken, and I think they have spent a lot of time and effort on this, and I don't think that their opinion should be you know discounted, but um, but I also want to recognize that this is a long-term strategic plan, and we should give ourselves the flexibility that we need to create um uh you know the spaces that'll work best for our community.

Um so overall, you know, I'm going to vote to move this forward.

Um the only other thing that's just really been bothering me, and I just want to um express my own personal opinion, and I mean this with all due respect.

I think everyone in this room can respectfully disagree, and I think we all come from a place of you know, wanting to achieve the same goal.

Uh, I I just I think it's been it's been intimated that we haven't been working hard enough on this, or that we've dropped the ball somehow on parks and things, and I just want to point out that just in the last 10 years, since mid-2016, we have opened um uh one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, we've opened at least eight parks.

A total of eight acres in a city in a community of twelve square miles, and that is not to say there isn't a lot more work to do, and and I and I'm not not gonna sit here and say that all eight of those parks and all eight of those acres were in the most underserved communities or in the places where we would most like them to be, but acquiring parkland is one of those things, it's a process, and it's something you have to do opportunistically, and so when a site becomes available, even if it happens to be in a part of the community that is currently overserved by parks, we have to think about the long term, and we might acquire that um when the timing is right, and hopefully we still have funds and resources for um you know when opportunities present themselves in underserved areas too.

And so I I just I want to recognize the work that staff and prior councils have done in this council to get us to the point where we've opened eight acres worth of new parks just in the last 10 years in a city of 12 square miles.

I grew up in a place where if I wanted to go to a real like actual park, I had to drive I had to drive at least 12 miles, and so I think what but that's in a rural community.

We're in a different community here, we're in a more urban or suburban area, and we expect more and we pay more, and we expect more, and we should.

But I we sometimes I f I feel like we have we forget that we have an embarrassment of riches as we are, and we should always be striving to raise the bar, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we've come a heck of a long way from where we were even just 10 years ago, and it's important to recognize that.

And the final thing that I'll say is one of the key pieces of this plan is that it identifies our needs and our strategy to get there.

It also keeps us humble, it reminds us that we are a city that is mostly built out that is 12 square miles, and if we want to meet these goals of two or three acres per thousand, it's gonna cost money, and um, you know, if if the community really really wants these parks, and I think they do, then I hope they are prepared to help us figure out how we're going to pay for them and how we're going to acquire that land.

Um, I think you will see some movement toward that in the next few months, at least a proposal for that.

Um we would certainly welcome input on that, but I think um just saying things like you know the the partnership that you do with the schools doesn't really count as much as the other parks because they're only usable certain hours, and and that's true, like they're you know, you you can't use them as much, but in a built-out city of 12 square miles, any usable space that we can use for recreation or just nature and enjoying um just escaping from urbanism for a little bit.

I think is is value added, and so I think we just have to recognize one we're actually in a really good spot.

We can do better and we will continue to do better.

Um, but that is going to take a lot of time and energy and resources, and we should recognize how far we've come and how far we still have to go and what the challenges are to get from here to there and all work together in order to to get from here from point A to point B.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Clark.

Council Member McAllister.

Yeah, thanks.

I just again want to point out from the last time you came in that I really truly appreciate a true Mountain View strategic plan.

I haven't seen one in the years I've been here, and it's it's refreshing to see the depth and comprehensive that you put into this plan.

At the same time that night I mentioned it, I said it's a great plan, but where's the funding?

Where's the implementation?

And other people mentioned that, and I've said that across multiple times on different projects.

Just alone tonight, we had a carbon plan.

So, oh, that's important to us, climate.

We've got to do everything for the climate.

But now we got parks, and everybody said we got to do everything for the parks.

Well, somebody asked staff what they could do, and I said, Council needs to look at really what their priorities are.

And we've already identified that we don't have the funds to do everything that everybody wants to do.

But it's up to council if you want to do something, is look at the priorities.

Shenandoah, do we want to park there or housing?

There's an opportunity to go where is what's important to us.

And so when we come up to the decisions, we need to say, okay, we got to do it.

Now parks, it's an opportunity we gotta take when the money when the land's there, we got to take an opportunity and jump on it.

But that means we got to relocate resources from one project to another plan to another plan.

We still got the biodiversity plan that they're and so we're taking all of our energy and it just dissipating it to that it's not a critical to really get things done.

And I appreciate the enthusiasm and aspiration of this council.

But here's again another opportunity that we have to say this is important to us.

Let's get the money.

Yeah, we we they're looking at options of bonds or whatever that we can't rely on that, just like transportation.

They can't rely on getting improving our transportation, they going out and asking for things, and we have to do those things locally.

So your first ones to identify the resources, and it's if you identify them and something comes up, then we need to be able to say we're gonna, we don't have that, but we can bring in resources and buy things and get it done.

And I was just looking at your slide of level of service by plan area and I already looked at the population of 2020.

We're already 6,000 above that so we're already looking at a plan that's sort of outdated and then it's gonna be changing critically depending on how North Bay Shore decides what's what it wants to do.

I appreciate everything on the plan I look forward I think parks and here it comes McKelvey we got we'll get jumping on McKelvey.

We get but you know it is important that as this community grows they need areas to really you know relax and relieve the tension and run and play and that's why it's sometimes it's we need the bigger parks and I don't think everybody always realizes that oh if we want all this and we want the parks we got to make sure that they work together.

Otherwise you're gonna have build all these towers and people have nowhere to release their energy and so you're not improving the quality of life you're just making it worse and parks to me is one of the biggest things that we can do to improve the quality of life and putting them in that nature center and letting them just relax and throwing in some music down the road.

Thank you for this and those are my comments and hopefully we can do everything that you just asked for and put a little money into the golfers.

Thank you Councilmember McAllister council member showalter yes I was lucky to be the first person to push the button for the motion do I have to read anything oh good okay off the hook anyway I I um I I wanted to add my um you know my thanks to the staff and all the people that have been involved in this I uh we've been hearing about this plan for three years from people who've filled out surveys and gone to public meetings and we've all had to kind of stand back and let the public get involved.

So I just wanted to say that I am very delighted that you took the suggestions that we made at the last meeting very seriously and you incorporated them.

I mean my personal one that I've been talking about for years is I wanted that you know swimming to be something that we explicitly talked about because I just see it as you know not only a safety issue but just a fun issue and um so you added it thank you but um uh so I I want to say I really appreciate that flexibility and um that makes me think that this is gonna be a living document and um I do think that the annual reporting process and then the you know the periodic every five years every 10 years more um serious look will um function as adaptive management and and um the first year I think we'll be able to get together what is uh functionally a good implementation plan.

Um so thank you for that I um I uh I also am really pleased that this plan is uh aligning our interest our community interest in biodiversity we're you know we're working on the biodiversity and urban forestry plan these plans are very closely aligned you've recognized that they're kind of working back and forth um as part of the motion I I hope that you will I want to include that um the native term be um uh cited from the biodiversity plan so there is time to work out the kinks that have been mentioned um numerous times this evening with the near native uh terminology and um then the other thing I want to talk about, uh I want to mention for um parks that I have have observed since COVID is that parks are also a place where people work.

Um and what I mean by that is there's a lot of people who work from home and they take walking meetings, and um uh I think uh you know, I mean, it that wasn't common uh 10 years ago, but now it's very very common.

And so having those parts of parks that are quiet so people can sort of sit and listen to their meeting is um is also uh kind of an added feature that's part of the the urban setting that we live in and a way to kind of escape from it and um and still you know conduct the conduct the parts of our life that we need to conduct, and um uh it's been interesting to watch that.

So um I uh I also thought that it was very it was good to align the parts of the Stevens Creek Trail to the park regions that they're in, because I we um they they are the Siemens Kirk Trail is a linear park, and the part that is in you know a specific service area does serve as a as a regular park.

People walk up and down, they bike up and down, they do exercise along that um that corridor, and it really is a park.

So that's very appropriate, and I think it makes the numbers uh more realistic, and um that's you know that's good.

So I wanted to, you know, to thank you for all those things, and um I'm very proud to uh to move this that we accept this this plan.

Thank you, Councilmember Schoalter, Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can I clarify, Councilmember Showalter, if your motion simply adopts the plan or if you've also made any adjustments related to near native?

It adopts the plan with the addition of the native terminology will be referred to the um urban uh forestry plan.

Is that what you said?

That's what you suggested, isn't it?

The suggestion was to use the native as defined in the biodiversity.

Yes, yes, that's a much better way of saying it, please.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Um I have a lot to say too.

Uh I'll start with uh appreciation for staff and the members of the community and the PRC for the work over several years to um prepare the the plan.

Um I attended several of the PRC meetings uh and um many of them were many hours long because we have a very activated community who cares deeply about the work that we're doing uh to provide sufficient parks and open space and recreational activities for for the community, especially in light of potentially significant growth over the next 10 years.

Um I think that's it's important to celebrate the work and and uh see the progress that we've made.

I think it is, uh, as Councilmember McAllister said um a remarkable plan.

It's not to say that work that we've done in the past is not good, but I think this is exceptional work.

Um, and I had shared in a previous meeting.

I think this is the kind of plan that um should uh in inspire the types of work that we do in the future on strategic planning generally.

Um, and as council member as Vice Mayor my Vice Mayor Clark shared, it's it doesn't mean that it's perfect.

There's always room for improvement, but I think it is a great start.

Um and I I think it's also important to keep in mind, you know, the the plan itself can't achieve all goals.

Um in contrast to the first item, and some members of the of the public weren't um in attendance at that time.

Uh it's a good approach to decarbonization and climate change.

That plan or that that the beginnings of a plan included very little uh uh exploration of funding opportunities.

I feel less good about that work because funding is harder.

I feel really good about this work because in contrast, we've already made a sizable down payment.

Uh can you think of other cities that have the shoreline regional park community right um how many cities have um a robust real property transfer tax that sets aside one third of the revenue for parks um that's an incredible start and on top of that we have a potential bond measure um that I think will likely include again another significant down payment on the beginning of this work it's a 10 year plan it's not a plan for the the the the entirety of the future of the city we we're there will continue to be updates right as we continue to make progress and implement the the plan and as circumstances change we will continuously update the plan as the city grows we will continuously update the plan but it is a plan for 10 years and if you put together the sources of funding that we have or are contemplating right the real property transfer tax measure g shoreline I think is an important component of this the bond measure the revenue generated from the Nexus study we've also used general fund revenue with from the strategic property acquisition reserve to acquire or work to acquire land that could serve park needs like there's there's a lot that we're doing or will likely do in the near future to help make this not just an aspirational document but something that will actually yield you know near to medium term progress on this high priority community need.

And I wish we could do it all now immediately but there there's a little bit of trust that the community has to have and and the council and in the city to demonstrate our sincerity in implementing this plan and achieving the goals that the community has shared for us and I appreciated the uh response earlier to the question about if we had some amount of money how would we spend it those that's those are uh arbitrarily selected numbers right we can keep that uh that exercise up right if we had an additional 25 million how would you spend it and it doesn't end at 75 right I think it was just to demonstrate that you've thought methodically about the needs of the community and have a plan for prioritization based on like near-term revenue uh that's noteworthy that's important um so I'm uh I'll be supporting the motion on the floor um I did want to say one last thing and that was uh in response to something that council member McAllister shared um land use is important too um you know you were talking about the impact of towers we don't really build towers in Mountain View but if we did more often than not I think we would actually have a higher probability of getting parkland from a tower um I wrote down as you were speaking addresses that will haunt me until the day I die uh 570 South Rangstorf 1555 West Middlefield now 515 Wisman these are that that's three properties that total nearly 20 acres where we got zero park space and they're not towers they're row homes my least favorite housing type um and so I think that's that's something we should be mindful of too right there's there's a lot of work that we're doing on parkland acquisition construction of parks but we there's still a big gap with land use and if we keep saying you know we want this particular type of housing where basically 100% of the properties built out without parks then we will keep getting that and we will not be able to live deliver on the the goals of our uh of our community um so something to keep in mind for anyone hypothetically wishing to run for city council um I think that's probably enough.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council member Ramirez uh council member Hicks.

Oh, wait, Councilmember Kameh.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I thought you were gonna call it this.

We're gonna do this all night.

Okay.

Thanks, Mayor.

So I was gonna be very excited to speak after Councilmember Ramirez, because you were so positive and then it and then it and then it turned.

But that's all right.

That's okay.

Um because I I want to I want to be positive.

I want to be very excited that we're here tonight.

Um thanks staff, thanks thanks uh to our community, um, our community groups um that we're finally here at this moment.

We're hopefully very soon uh we'll be able to adopt uh our parks and our strategic plan.

I think what um I just want to reflect on is I feel that the evolution of our strategic plan kind of shows uh how the city views parks and it's not just recreation spaces anymore, um, but essential community infrastructure and how we're able to support our various goals, right?

Climate resilience, biodiversity, accessibility, public health, and neighborhood equity.

And it's um very exciting to be able to move forward um in this direction, and uh what I think is uh really reflective of this evolution as well is how city staff took all of our comments, made it an attachment, put it into a chart, and then tracked and showed us all.

Um it made it made my OCD heart very happy.

Um, but I think it it also is the feedback over the years from our residents that have been asking for honestly more information, more clarity, more accountability from the city, and I feel like attachment three helps in body embody that um so I think what's really the final step in the process is trust, and knowing that this um we may want a few other tweaks and a few other things included in this parks and rec strategic plan, but that we need to have the fundamental element of trust um to be able to know that all of you, all of our of our residents, our community members are gonna keep the city accountable, will be keeping us moving in the right direction, and that this strategic plan is not something that the council adopts, but that the city's adopting, that we did this truly um all together.

So, because of that, I think most of you know I uh worked for County Supervisor Joe Simedian for almost four years, and he talks about cautious optimism.

So tonight, uh that is what's driving me and my support of this plan is the cautious optimism with which that we have a lot of foundational blocks that we've done in you know, hand in hand, the other um plans that we are moving forward, like our biodiversity plan, we're gonna have uh my my brain is like blanking out, but the uh our bird safety plan, right?

Um, the active transportation plan, all of those will help us move in in the right direction.

And if we're not, you will all let us know, and we will make the necessary changes to make that happen.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Kamei.

Councilmember Hicks.

Well, as as we get to the end of the line of council members, a lot of it has already been said, so I can keep it fairly short.

Um I do want to uh thank staff for for this plan.

I really do see it, it has evolved tremendously, and I see comments from you know, comments that I've made, comments other council members have made, and comments that community members have have made.

I really see a change.

Um, in particular, I liked that uh that the um personally I like that the uh vision statement was refined to emphasize nature as one of the primary purposes of parks.

Um I also, you know, there are a number of other things uh the that uh nature-based and restorative experiences, and I would say that biodiversity is for people too.

You know, I I hope that we're not just focusing.

I want biodiversity for all those small creatures, but I think it it's uh something that as we as we densify, we need for people as well.

I liked that uh Councilmember Show Walter mentioned quiet.

I don't know whether that's in the plan.

I'm not gonna demand that you add the word, but um, but I do think that that's a takeaway that I got from the um the sort of pickleball conversation we've had that recreation is very important, but also that peace and quiet is is important as well.

Um so in addition to all those kind changes of of that nature that I've seen uh over time.

Um I uh I did like uh Councilmember Ramirez list of ways that we might fund these plans, but I also want to acknowledge the kind of the tension that I sometimes hear coming from the community.

I think some of the difficulties we've had with parks, and we have had difficulties over the past several years, have been from some kind of outside structural changes, you know, the fencing of the schools, which I was unhappy with at first, but frankly, went around uh went around to all the schools in our region and due to first-person shooters, frankly, they're all getting fenced in.

Um, and also the uh sort of the uh what will I call them the the reduction in our ability to collect impact fees?

This is something that is not just a mountain view thing, it's it's um you know all over uh our region or the state.

And so I think we're taking big I think you've taken big steps here, and council's taking big steps to address those things, but I think it's the next council as well.

I think it's something we're gonna have to continue looking at, it's gonna be an ongoing project.

Um so uh that said, I will be um I I will be of course supporting the motion and and thank you for all your work.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Councilmember McAllister.

Uh Councilmember Ramirez, is there a rumor that you may be running a program to find funding for this?

We'll find out in June.

Okay, well, the reason I ask is because there are people out there that we're gonna reach out to to help us pass this because they're so passionate that they can't say no, that they have to come and help us campaign and convince others and endorse this program.

Don't you think that's fair?

I meet with Jim Ziorski regularly.

Oh, good.

So his 10 people that he had on his list is already a subcommittee for you, right?

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we can't do it all.

We have to rely on our constituents to help us.

That's all I was just thinking.

Thank you for your volunteering to lead such a distinguished group of residents to forget our goals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

So thank you to staff.

This has been a really long and windy road.

Um thank you to our community for providing so much feedback, and it was very important feedback because I I rarely go outdoors willingly.

Um so uh to have the community drag me outdoors to to appreciate what what our parks and and and recreation activities and availabilities in Mountain View was great.

Um only pill only played pickleball ones, but it seems like fun, probably won't do it again, but um I'm glad that the community managed to get the feedback and input that they wanted into a really important part of our city.

The these parks are our our way of staying fit, it's our way of being connected with nature.

If you want to do that, um it's our way to connect with each other and our communities.

Councilmember Showalter mentioned how like there's this growing trend of walking meetings, as I cannot eat as much food as I used to anymore, I'm doing those now.

Um so like they they're providing really important resources to our community and to have our community weigh in on how we want to shape that.

And I know that as resources are getting tighter, um, funding that we used to be able to rely on, and and land that we used to be able to rely on is getting rarer and rarer and more stress that we are being um thoughtful and and purposeful with how we want that land to to be used and how we want our parks to be.

We don't want every single as Councilmember Hicks mentioned.

We don't want every single parks to just have a little bit of this, little bit of that, a little bit of this.

Imagine like our pocket parks, like having like every little bit, it's it's so tiny of things that it's not enjoyable as a whole thing.

So we could think about all our parks on a on our whole citywide level.

Um, and man, if I could get away with getting uh parkland uh by having a giant pickleball tower, I totally would.

Um but that that probably won't fly with anyone because that's not the only thing that people want out of their parks, but it is some things that people want out of parks beat.

Um so thank you to Councilmember Schoalter for also adding in the language of improving the uh native uh plantings.

Um I it it is kind of beyond me of understanding, but I understand what the community was was upset about uh in terms of the scale of what uh was considered native.

Um I'm glad staff is looking into that.

Um, and with that, I think we are ready to do one of the biggest votes I've had in my time on council, so I'm quite excited.

And that passes unanimously.

Yay!

So before we go on to item eight new business, um we have I need a motion to continue past 10 o'clock.

So moved.

Uh we have a motion by council member Clark, seconded by uh Councilmember Hicks.

Um, let's go to a vote.

Oh, and our born and raised Mountain View Council members are uh um we have a 5-2 vote, which apparently is our only non-unanimous vote so far.

So we will now move on to item eight, 8.1, AB481, military equipment annual report and policy adoption.

Captain Matthew Atkins and Lieutenant Lorena Holtz will present the item.

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

Thank you for everyone, your patience.

This is the final item of the night.

Um and uh when you when staff is ready, we will begin the presentation.

Are you ready?

You're ready.

All right, let's go.

Thank you, Mayor Ramos.

Good evening, Council.

Thank you for having us.

We made it to item 8.1.

Congratulations, everyone.

My name is Lorena Holt, and I'm a police lieutenant with the police department.

And joining me tonight is Captain Matt Atkins.

And this evening will be we will be sharing with you information directly from our annual AB 481 report regarding military equipment funding acquisition and use.

AB4 AB 481 created government codes 7070 to 7075, which regulate how local law enforcement agencies fund, obtain, and use military equipment.

Its intended purpose is to ensure oversight and transparency regarding military equipment.

The following are requirements for funding, acquisition, and use.

First bullet point is governing authority by governing bodies, an annual report, a well-publicized community meeting, and governing body annual review, and vote to renew the ordinance.

To maintain compliance with the requirements listed on the previous slide, the Mount View Police Department have done the following.

Last year, on May 27, 2025, City Council adopted ordinance number 3.2025, which approved our current policy 709, which governs funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment.

Over the last several months, our team has worked closely with the City Attorney's Office as well as assistant city manager Seymour in compiling information regarding our current use of military equipment.

And on April 26th, we published that report on our city website.

Starting on April 27th, we publicized our community meeting, which was scheduled for May 6th on our social media channels.

And Chief Canfield directly reached out to community stakeholders and community groups.

We held that meeting right next door in our plaza conference room on May 6th, which also had a virtual option, and Spanish translation was offered but not accepted.

This evening, as well as uh two weeks from now, on June 9th, City Council will review and vote to renew the ordinance.

And now I will pass it off to Captain Atkins, who will provide us with a summary of the military items currently in our possession.

Thank you, Lieutenant Holt.

Council has received the staff report in AB 481 militarized equipment report, but I wanted to give a high-level summary of the items MVPD has in our inventory.

MVPD, like most law enforcement agencies, has numerous items that qualify as military equipment under AB 481.

This includes a drone, a mobile command vehicle, a robot, explosive breaching equipment, chemical munitions such as tear gas, noise flash diversionary devices, some non-standard issue firearms and the related ammunition, as well as our kinetic energy less lethal munitions, which are sponge rounds and launchers, those all qualify as AB 481 equipment.

As you look at the two columns on the slide, you can see that the items on the left are the items that were used in 2025, and the items on the right are proposed for 2026.

It's important to note that when I say used for the first six items on the left.

It means that they were either used in training or they were equipped under officers when they were working in the field.

But for those items, it doesn't mean that they were fired, launched, or detonated except at some of our training facilities.

For the last item on the bottom left, which is two noise flash diversionary devices, those were deployed and detonated during a criminal barricaded situation.

For those noise flash diversionary devices, they were used at the exterior of a residence to gain compliance.

And this was successful and ultimately led with for with a peaceful resolution.

All of the equipment, however, was used for training.

It requires supervised training to deploy this equipment, and it was used for this purpose.

As such, the bottom four bullet items on the right column highlight the items that we believe we either need to replace now or we anticipate needing to replace to accommodate future training.

For those bottom four bullet points on the right, they total about twelve thousand dollars.

And that's what we anticipate needing to replace for the expired or used equipment.

That top bullet point represents our current research as we evaluate what's now improved UAS technologies and other potential funding streams as we look to replace our aging platforms.

It's important to note that there were no complaints associated with any of our AB 481 equipment in 2025.

And if there were, that would be noted in our AB 481 report.

With that, I will move to staff recommendations and I'll go ahead and read this verbatim.

Introduced an ordinance of the City of Mountain View renewing approval of Mountain View Police Department Military Use Policy, adopting updated military equipment use policy, and finding that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived instead of second reading for June 9th, 2026.

And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Madam Mayor, for any questions.

Thank you.

Does any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, I have one.

Um is there a cooperation between the fire department on using drones?

Do they have a they have drones, right?

Or do they?

So right now we haven't been working with fire yet on drones, but that is something that we're working together with them now to look at being able to deploy it.

But we have deployed it for some fire-related incidents.

So the police department has the drones.

Okay.

Correct.

Yes.

Is there any plans to increase the whether because that was under your to review process to look at more?

Correct.

We're looking at different funding mechanisms, whether that's that's grants, but also different ways of improving some of the platforms that are starting to age and looking at your new platforms we may be able to update our current inventory.

Okay, thank you.

Now, Lucas.

No, not now.

So looking to see there are no other questions from council.

Now, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 90 seconds.

Do we have any speakers?

Great.

Um I didn't mean great.

We love your speakers.

Okay.

Um we will now take virtual speakers, seeing none.

Um, I will now bring the can the item back for council questions and deliberation.

Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report.

Um I see a motion by councilmember McAllister.

Go right ahead.

This one.

Yes.

Okay.

Introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View renewing approval of Mountain View Police Department's military equipment use policy.

Adopting updated military equipment use policy and finding that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read and titled only for the reading wave and set a second reading for June 9th, 2026.

Thank you.

And that was seconded by Councilmember Amiras.

Oh my god, why are the people that made the motion seconding the ones that who didn't vote for the 10A at 10 p.m.

thing?

All right, get ready to vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

We will now move on.

Uh, that closes out this item.

We will now move on to item nine, council staff and committee reports.

Do we have any reports from my colleagues on council?

Councilmember Hicks.

So from time to time I go to meetings of the organization Avenidas, which serves senior citizens, and I thought I would report back at this time.

They have been growing, I think largely due to the silver tsunami that many of you may have heard of.

They've also changed, I've been with them for the rep for the city to uh Avenidas for years.

They have also uh changed a lot what they do in response to uh many of the seniors were very responsive to um virtual technology um uh so a lot they offer a lot of Zoom classes and uh other related not having to drive your car sort of services that they did not have in the past.

Um and they've changed and expanded in other ways.

They've added recently a rainbow collective that's very popular.

Um but the unfortunate thing is along with growing, they are now facing a structural deficit.

And I wanted to let everybody know that, and they are uh doing strategic planning to try to address that, and I will give you updates as that progresses.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Councilmember Schoalter.

Yes, um, it's been a busy couple weeks on May 13th and 14th.

I attended the 10th anniversary of the California Community Choice Aggregation Association conference in Sacramento, and there was lots of um discussion about um uh how much uh generation has been added in the last 10 years with the CCA movement in California, how much clean energy generation.

It's it's really um quite remarkable, and it's expected to move up.

There was also a lot of discussion about possible load growth.

The electrical load in um most of the country has been pretty static for the last two or three decades, but that's not um expected to uh uh continue.

It's expected to go up quite a bit based on data centers and AI use, and um uh at this at this conference, the general opinion of the speakers was that data centers will be a good thing because um there will uh they'll buy more energy, and um that will spread out the cost of operating the transmission network, some and will help affordability for most of us a little bit.

We'll see if that happens, and um, but it it will require that local governments uh you know collaborate with developers and make sure that the data centers are um are built properly and uh with water saving uh features and various various things anyway.

So that was pretty interesting.

Um then uh that evening we had the uh uh the Grant Sylvan neighborhood meeting, and um I was there and oh council member McAllister's gonna talk.

I was just I'm just gonna say that uh uh Lorenzo Lopez won the competition for answering the most questions, and um then the other thing I wanted to share is that uh um on May 21st, I attended a Bosca meeting, and I shared our experience with the Cuesta Water Main incident and um thanked everyone for the extensive mutual aid that we received and um it was suggested that that uh our staff might give a report on lessons learned to the staff members that get together monthly on a monthly basis, maybe sometime in the next year or so.

Um and um, then on May 22nd, I went to a Silicon Valley Valley Clean Energy Executive Committee, and that's always sort of a preview of what's going to be on the next meeting.

And one of the things that's gonna be in the next meeting that I will share with everybody is a presentation on how to read your electric bill.

And if you've ever really opened it up and started leaping through it, um, the first, I don't know, 20 times you do it, it's like just confusing.

It's very, very confusing.

So I'm looking forward to this tutorial on how to uh to read it and and the graphs and stuff, and I'll be sharing that with you.

So thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Councilmember Schoalter.

Councilmember Kameh.

Great, thanks.

Um, well, I have a couple things to report on.

On the 14th, I went to Cities Association where I sit on behalf of the city.

Um, the 19th, we had our state of the city, yay.

Um on the 20th, we had our council uh youth services subcommittee uh meeting, and then um on the 21st, I went to an event as a follow-up.

When I was mayor last year, there was a company, they're called Light Matter, they're on the corner of Dana and no.

Frank, thank you, Franklin.

I was like in my mind, um, the the uh they are a photonic super company, and they took over that space, they have the whole building.

It is incredible.

Um, and um, super thanks to staff who was able to help through that process.

It's great to have a company headquartered in Mountain View having um uh their you know regional event there, and then on the 22nd was the law enforcement torch run um in support of the Special Olympics.

That was really great to support, and then um if colleagues are open, just wanted to bring forward a potential item nine.

So um, you know, over the last several city council meetings, but I would say, you know, in particular since the start of this year, members of our community have expressed um increased concern over our federal government, and really proud of how our city and our staff has been working to make sure we're reaffirming that we're a community for all.

Um, but recently um we got some unfortunate news um from the county, which is on some unincorporated land down in Gilroy.

The federal government is looking to build a 4,000 square foot facility.

Um this um would be for a 20-year period on a 24.5-acre site, which would most likely be detaining and processing center, um for members of our community um who may be mixed status or undocumented, and I think with that as well as um continued harm that our federal government is placing on our on our immigrant community, there's been a lot of conversation from our city, county, and state and some of some federal leaders on what we can do as a region to help um protect the well-being of our community, but I would say also the stability of our economy.

The Bay Area Council recently released a report that said the impact to the nine county Bay Area region would be something of like six over six hundred million dollars because of our our local economy and um the workforce um that immigrants bring to the area.

So all of that couched in seeing if council members are interested in the conversation with which um some members of our community have brought forward on a policy related to our city-owned uh property and prohibiting any federal use on it.

So members of our community have continually asked the only way we can really talk about it is this venue, which is the the item nine, so just wanted to to see if there was any interest.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh next in the docket is Councilmember McAllister.

Did you want to speak on this item or did you want to hold off on your thing?

Because I think this will probably get some of the things.

Well, I just, if we're going point of order, shouldn't we go in order of finishing up the one uh item?

Uh council updates before we go into the other item.

How do you want to handle it mayor?

Uh let's handle this item and then we'll continue out with the reports.

If that's okay with you, you're the mayor, you decide.

Oh, okay.

But I just I was a little confused because we were on one item and then we jumped to is it isn't item nine for everything?

I thought it was okay.

Just wasn't sure.

All right.

So I don't know if you want to speak on this part of the item or if you want to do your report out.

Um, wait, but I'll hear the fellow council members, but um, yeah, I have concerns.

Okay, so next we have council member Hicks.

So I would support the suggestion that council member Kamei brought up.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

Vice Mayor Clark.

Um, I I'm sorry, but I don't think that this is the right approach, um, to this particular item, and I feel like without getting into the merits of the particular item, just speaking to the merits of whether or not it's worth um this particular topic is worth agendizing.

I think that given I understand what other communities have done.

I think Mountain View is somewhat unique in that we have a number of federal properties within the city that we do not have control over.

I think that a lot of our city properties that we might discuss as part of this are surrounded by public streets and um with federal properties nearby.

And I think that the way that we are currently, and I think the community would say this too.

I think the way that our chief and our staff and our community as a whole has handled this to date kind of proves that we are doing the best that we can to protect them, and I am hesitant to pursue any path that I've or agenda is a path that I think would actually cause more harm than good or provide a false sense of security.

And um, and I'll just leave it at that.

I I just don't think this is the right path forward uh at this time for our community.

All right.

Um seeing no other speakers in the docket, I will I I support what Councilmember Kamei is putting forth.

I I totally, I totally understand the the concern, Vice Mayor Clark is is saying this.

How are immigrant communities have been under attack since the administration this current administration come came back?

Um is a whole set of feelings that um are hard to really express at times.

Um when the first and when this administration first came around, there was uh a panic of of doing something now, and then um figuring out, and then still not feeling prepared.

I remember when we found out the results of the 2024.

Oh my god, it's just 2024.

It felt so long ago, but when we got the results of the election, I remember we had meetings with the county and being like, we're prepared, we we're gonna set, we know how to protect our community, and then when the administration came, we just found ourselves so out of debt depth, because like we we didn't even we couldn't even anticipate a lot of that.

Um, the the sheer weight of that.

Um we're at a point, I think, where we are starting to take our breath, starting to the a community is not cowering is not the best word for it, but it we've been kind of shell-shocked for a while, and now we're at a point where we're just trying to find our best ways to fight back.

Even if it doesn't feel like it solves all the problem, I think we've already accepted that it won't solve all the problems, there's still so much fear out there, but we're at a point where like every every little bit counts at this point.

Um and some people aren't aren't aren't at that point yet, and I understand that, but I I do feel like it's worth fighting for.

Yeah, so I have a few questions first to our city attorney.

Okay, so people say I think what you're asking is that no ice can be done on Mountain View City property.

Is that your request?

My request was the commun members of the community have asked council to bring this forward, and I'm asking if there's interest.

That is what I'm asking for this item.

I am not proposing a certain policy, uh, this is an opportunity for us to discuss, or do we want to discuss it?

This is not a reflection on how I feel about our public safety, not a reflection about how I feel about the Mountain V police department.

This is simply that there is no other avenue or vehicle for the council to be able to discuss this request from members of our community, and given the context that I provided, I think there's credence in being able to have that discussion.

It's not to presuppose how people feel, or even say that I have a certain feeling, it's that should we look into such a policy as some neighboring jurisdictions have done.

That is simply the question that I'm asking.

Okay.

So I'll follow up with the question to the city attorney.

Some of these cities are saying uh ISU cannot participate on our uh land uh property.

Is that enforceable?

That's not a question I can answer this evening.

That would require a lot of research to determine what to what extent um policies and local laws of that sort would be enforceable.

I mean, obviously there's federal preemption, but how that plays out in relation to local public property is something that would require a significant amount of research.

Well, hypothetically, if somebody was in a street, a public street, and this organization came down and and stopped them.

But that's is the streets public property in Mountain View.

Well, not all of them.

You know, community real is not okay.

But I'm just saying, okay.

I mean, I I can't answer hypotheticals like that.

I would really need to do a lot of research, and I just don't want to surmise that's that's it's very dangerous for me to kind of surmise, and I think it's just something that um I along with the members of my office would like to look into in detail and be able to provide a report on that.

Now I have a question for the city manager.

Is there a downside to hypothetically doing this where we say your IC cannot do your lawful duties on city owned property that could jeopardize any of the relationships we have other with other law enforcement agencies?

I see this conversation as uh policy matter for the council to decide.

Uh I am not going to conjecture about that.

Well, okay.

Um I too have concerns that from what I read already or saw that some of the stuff is not enforceable that uh what Chris says about trust, you know, we haven't seen anything from our public safety department to say that our trust hasn't been there.

I feel concerned that if we go down uh a path that we says I she can't do it, I think that's putting a target on our back, and that we don't need it.

Um Chris also mentioned our vice mayor mentioned that we already have federal property.

We have Shenandoah, they could set up on Shenandoah, they could go to Moffat, they could set up there.

They could set up at the IRS uh IRS station or social security.

So um I'm always been opposed to putting something out there that's that we really can't enforce.

It's maybe it's a good it's good maybe good politically, but I don't think it's good government because we could could be putting people more in jeopardy by putting things out there that says we're gonna do this versus just say trust our staff that are our public safety, trust what we've done so far, trust that the city uh the community trusts us when we say we're a community for all and we're doing all these things that we put out there from our last meeting that says this is what we do, we have the resources, we have the cooperation for other departments, and so that's something to consider.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll be supporting um the motion on the floor.

Uh or council member committee's request.

Um we're not alone.

We're not the first jurisdiction contemplating uh this issue.

Um there is I think a regional effort to explore any opportunity uh available to protect members of our community who are actively being targeted and feel vulnerable.

Um I think the uh there isn't just part of this recommendation any particular prescription.

It's let's authorize some staff time to explore the options and and return to council.

Um, and I think our staff would do so um benefiting from work other jurisdictions have done and give us a chance to collaborate regionally.

So I I don't have a particular concern about uh proceeding with the with the recommendation, and I think it'll it'll um you know, as the mayor said it's not gonna solve every problem.

Um, but uh I think it it can be beneficial for our community to see that we're participating in that regional discussion and we may end up with some good ideas uh made available to us.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Vice Mayor Clark.

So it's just um I'm not trying to change anyone's minds at this point, but I I do think that what would be helpful would be, I mean, we have two meetings left before the summer, so it would be helpful for the rest of us who are deciding how to vote on this to know what if this is gonna if this is a session that'll occur before the summer break, which meeting and what's gonna move um to support that, or if we're gonna try and have a longer meeting, but maybe that's fine.

Or if it's it just seems very nebulous.

So what I what I don't want to vote for is a discussion where every like we just everything we spend two hours talking about everything under the sun, um, or if there's a specific proposal and when does it go to a committee first?

Is it just gonna be a council thing?

When is it gonna happen?

Cause I think one of the things of voting for against this is what's what are the trade-offs in terms of what's gonna have to move from the schedule and when it's gonna happen.

So I don't know if there's any guidance on that now, but that would be helpful.

Okay, so I see that the uh the speaker docket is clear.

Um, shall we do uh straw poll?

Well, I think I think that council members Clark question should be answered.

So I think the examples that exists are the county of Santa Clara, the city of San Jose, the city of Santa Clara, the city of Sunnyville, the city of Campbell, and VTA.

There are policies that already exist.

So we could look into those.

I'm really looking for if if others are interested in ex looking at those policies and seeing if there might be anything for the city of Mountain View.

So I will just say I am interested in exploring those possibilities.

So I guess we can do a straw poll.

Straw poll straw poll.

Oh, yes, Councilmember Schoelter.

Yeah, I I'd like to ask staff about the time frame for coming back to us with this.

Do we have an answer for that, staff?

Can you give me a few minutes, please?

We can do that.

Do you want to give your report?

Yes.

Thank you.

Let's go on to a positive note here or uplifting, not necessarily possible.

So I did attend uh we did run a CNC meeting, and that was really well attended.

I think we had the cream of the crop.

Well, the whole city staff is a cream of the crop, but we had a real good uh reciprocal representation from the staff, and they answered all the questions really well.

And I had the mayor and the former mayor with me and so also it's been the first time I revisited Mount Viewer AWOLT since I was uh the new buildings were put in, and I was very impressed with uh how they're doing all this improvements to that school.

So that was nice.

Um VTA uh at our last policy advisory board, I was voted vice chair of that unanimously.

So that was, yeah.

So I am the new vice chair of the VTA policy advisory board, and we were talking about uh transit lanes, which uh express lanes, which there was some diverse conversation about equity of express lanes, meaning that if you don't have the money, you don't go in the express lanes, and so they're saying it was interesting how they said, Well, if you get in the express lane, you'll save 20 minutes, but they never said what about the people in the general purpose lanes, how much longer they're gonna take to get there.

So that was an interesting, so that was it.

Um, and then we also didn't we have uh our CNC meeting where we had a meeting and then we had a reception afterwards.

Was that done in the before our last dinner remember?

I think we had that before the last council.

Well, maybe I just knew because what CNC's been doing its thing and uh people do appreciate it going to other other than that.

That's uh all I have to say, but I am glad to be representing us on transportation.

Oh yeah, congratulations on that.

Um, all right, so I'll do my reporting out.

Um on May 14th, I welcome the uh our our city interns for the Stanford Local Government Shadow Day.

Um that was great.

Um uh May 14th also was also the C and C Grant Road Sylvan Park meeting that uh council member McAllister mentioned on May 15th.

I went to the celebration of leaders and Athena Award celebration.

I think the city paid for that, so that's why I'm reporting it out.

Um so uh because I was I was at the city table and I I didn't pay for that, so um I'm assuming the city did.

Um on May 19th, I had the state of the city.

Thank you for everyone who helped out with that and came, and that was really fun.

My dad was there too.

It was nice.

Um May 20th, uh we had our CFC meeting.

So you're gonna see a number of policies that will come to y'all, including probably the most the biggest item that day was the nexus study fee for parks, which is fun.

Um, and then we had our council use services committee as well on the on May 20th.

And with that, I guess we have an update from staff with our questions.

So I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification.

Um was the straw poll for us to bring back a policy for your consideration, or you just wanting to talk about all of the policies that you listed.

I mean, we can just look at those and do some compilation or choose one of them and bring up bring back a policy for council's consideration.

And if that's the case, I think we can do that by June 23rd.

A resolution adopting it would be a resolution and then a council policy that would adopt that.

But I wanted to make sure that that I wasn't mishearing.

Is that the easiest path forward?

Well, that's a path forward to actually adopting a policy.

Um, it's really the only path forward, a resolution adopting a policy.

But if you wanted more discussion about the various policies that have been adopted by different entities, and then to provide direction what you want to see in your policy, that would there, that would be a step in between us bringing a resolution with a policy.

So I was just getting clarification.

Okay.

How do we feel about it?

I feel good about that.

Yeah, all right.

So we will go with that.

Um we'll do the straw poll on that first option where we're asking staff to bring back a policy for us to adopt a resolution in.

Um so shall we uh is that clear?

Shall we take the vote on that now?

Yeah, on June 3 June 23rd.

So we'd bring back a resolution to adopt a policy that was some version of the ones that exist on June 23rd.

All right.

I'll Clarity.

So does a resolution uh does it become effective immediately or is there a second reading to that?

It become effective immediately.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So now that we are clear on the, it's not really a motion, it's a straw poll.

Um to bring, is it a motion?

Just need a straw poll for majority of support to bring it back.

All right.

Do we have majority support to bring back a policy or a resolution that is similar to what other cities have adopted in regards to a response to ICE?

All in favor, say aye.

Or raise your hand.

Uh one, two, three, all opposed.

Any abstentions?

No abstentions, it passes five, two.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Do we have any other council reports?

No other council reports.

The next city council meeting will be held on June 9th, uh, 2026.

This meeting is adjourned at 11.02.

Oh, sorry.