Nov. 18, 2025 City Council Meeting

Video

Agenda

• 1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION): Mayor Kamei announces the closed session items regarding existing and potential litigation, followed by public comment. (00:03:36)
• 2. CLOSED SESSION (PLAZA CONFERENCE ROOM): Council recesses to the Plaza Conference Room for closed session. (00:05:35)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL: The Special Session is called to order, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call. (00:07:15)
• 2. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: City Attorney Jennifer Logue reports on actions taken during closed session, including a settlement approval and initiation of litigation. (00:08:04)
• 3.1 National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week Proclamation: Mayor Kamei presents a proclamation to a representative from Hope's Corner. (00:09:05)
• 3.2 Community Foundation Week Proclamation: Mayor Kamei presents a proclamation to representatives of the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation. (00:10:29)
• 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council considers routine items. Councilmember McAlister comments on items 4.1, 4.3, and 4.5. Public comment is heard before the calendar is approved. (00:12:22)
• 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS: The Mayor opens and closes the period for public comment on non-agenda items, noting no speakers. (00:20:23)
• 6.1 Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation, Design and Right-of Way, Project 22-27 - Cost Reduction Measures: Staff presentation on cost-saving measures for the grade separation project, followed by public comment and Council approval. (00:20:26)
• 7.1 Mixed-Use Project at 749 West El Camino Real: Public hearing for a mixed-use development. Includes staff and applicant presentations, public comment, Council questions regarding the project duration and community benefits, and final approval. (00:27:30)
• 7.2 Residential Development Project at 901-987 North Rengstorff Avenue (Builder’s Remedy): Public hearing for a Builder's Remedy residential project. Staff and applicant presentations are followed by Council approval. (00:40:24)
• 8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS: Councilmembers provide reports on their recent committee meetings and community event attendance. (00:46:04)
• 9. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Kamei adjourns the meeting in memory of Rose Filicetti. (00:47:40)

Transcript

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION)

[00:03:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, good evening everyone. Thank you for joining us for our closed session. Councilmember McAlister, do you have an announcement to make?

[00:03:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You're on mute.

[00:03:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, I do. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, I am participating in this meeting remotely through both audio and visual technology under the just cause provision due to travel while on official business of a legislative body.

[00:04:08] Councilmember John McAlister: There are... there is no one over 18 of age present at this remote location with me.

[00:04:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. As a reminder, all votes will be taken by roll call this evening. City Attorney Logue will make closed session announcement, and then we will welcome public comment on the items listed for closed session.

[00:04:29] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. There are two items on this evening's closed session agenda. Item 2.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9.

[00:04:43] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: The name of the case is Alice Okuno versus the City of Mountain View et al., Santa Clara County Court Case Number 22CV405643.

[00:04:56] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: And Item 2.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding the initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4). Thank you.

[00:05:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda?

[00:05:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I am not seeing any. So I'll close public comment. And the Council will now recess to the Plaza Conference Room for closed session and return to the Council Chambers at the close to continue to the regular session.

3.1 National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week Proclamation

[00:10:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'd like to call this meeting of the Mountain View City Council to order. We are returning from a closed session earlier this evening. Madam City Attorney, do you have a report?

7.1 Mixed-Use Project at 749 West El Camino Real

[00:39:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: We are now recording.

[00:39:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Thank you. We are reconvening from closed session. And with that, I'll turn to our City Attorney, Ms. Logue, for a report out.

[00:39:58] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor Kamei. There is no reportable action taken during the closed session.

Additional Content 1

[00:50:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We are reconvening from closed session. I'll look to the City Attorney for a closed session report.

[00:50:32] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, Mayor Kamei. The City Council met in closed session earlier this evening to discuss one item of anticipated litigation. There is no reportable action taken.

[00:50:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you very much. With that, this meeting is adjourned.

[00:52:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'd like to call this special meeting of the Mountain View City Council to order. Madam City Clerk, may we please have the roll call?

[00:52:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[00:52:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Present.

[00:52:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[00:52:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Present.

[00:52:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:52:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:52:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[00:52:37] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:52:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[00:52:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:52:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[00:52:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:52:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[00:52:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:52:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[00:52:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: 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.

[00:53:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Now is the opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on the item listed on the agenda. Speakers will be given up to 2 minutes to speak. Madam City Clerk, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak?

[00:53:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor, there are no speakers.

[00:53:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, we will bring it back to the Council. And with that, we will adjourn to closed session to discuss the Public Employee Performance Evaluation for the City Attorney. Thank you very much.

Additional Content 2

[01:37:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, good evening everyone. Welcome to the special meeting of the Mountain View City Council of November 18th, 2025. Please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[01:37:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, the City Clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:37:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[01:37:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[01:37:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:37:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:37:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:37:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Virtual.

[01:37:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:37:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:37:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:37:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:37:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[01:37:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[01:37:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[01:37:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[01:37:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum.

[01:37:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. We'll move on to Item 2, our Closed Session Report. City Attorney Logue, do you have a closed session report?

[01:38:06] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers. Yes, I have two closed session reports this evening. In closed session this evening, City Council took final action on Item 2.1, which was a conference with legal counsel regarding Alice Okuno versus City of Mountain View lawsuit arising from a trip and fall in a city park. The City Council voted to approve settlement of the lawsuit in the amount of $275,000. The vote passed with seven ayes and zero noes.

[01:38:36] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: In closed session this evening, City Council took final action on Item 2.2 on the closed session agenda, which was a conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 regarding the initiation of litigation. In closed session, Council voted with seven ayes to join the case of Fresno versus Turner as a plaintiff, which is a lawsuit challenging the federal administration's newly imposed terms and conditions on federal grant funding.

[01:39:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll move on to Item 3, our Presentations. Please note these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

[01:39:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And our first presentation is Item 3.1, which is National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. But before I head down to the lectern, I wanted to take a moment to share some of the ways that the City is working to address food insecurity in our community. We recognize that food insecurity continues to be a serious need for many of our community members. The City has and continues to address food insecurity in a variety of ways, including providing support to community-based organizations and nonprofit agencies who offer free hot meals, food pantries, and grocery distributions to the community, and providing capital funding to add a kitchen at Hope's Corner and offering a senior nutrition program at the City's Senior Center.

[01:40:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks to the community-based organizations and volunteer community providers, food resources are available seven days a week in Mountain View. The City is currently collecting food donations for CSA's food drive. In addition, through the Council's recent adoption of the Homelessness Response Strategy, the City will be implementing a new initiative, a homelessness prevention direct financial assistance program, which will provide flexible financial support for low-income households to cover challenging costs, which can be used for, but is not limited to, covering basic needs such as food.

[01:40:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The City is grateful to all the community-based organizations, interagency partners, volunteers, and community members who provide access and security in Mountain View. And tonight we're happy to be joined this evening by one such organization. I'm going to ask John Riemenschneider, Board President of Hope's Corner, to accept this proclamation for Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week, and to join me at the lectern.

[01:41:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, whereas for over 25 years the National Coalition for Homelessness and National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness have sponsored National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week; whereas the purpose of the awareness initiative is to educate the public about the many reasons people are hungry and homeless, including the shortage of affordable housing for very low-income residents, and to encourage support for homeless assistance service providers, as well as community service organizations for students and school service organizations;

[01:42:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And whereas the City of Mountain View is committed to supporting the homeless and hungry with emergency sheltering, interim housing, affordable housing, and meals, both directly and through support of agencies and service providers such as Hope's Corner; and whereas the City of Mountain View recognizes that hunger and homelessness continue to be serious needs for many individuals and families in our community, and awareness of these needs is even more important in times of economic stress and uncertain resources;

[01:42:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And whereas Hope's Corner engages volunteers and provides essential food resources furthering the intent of National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week; Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of November 16th through 22nd, 2025 as National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week in the City of Mountain View. I'm going to present this to you. Congratulations. And then, would you like to say a few words?

[01:43:05] John Riemenschneider: Yes, I would. Thank you so much. On behalf of everyone at Hope's Corner, thank you. As a volunteer at Hope's Corner over the past five years, I've witnessed firsthand the increased need for food in our community, as our program has grown to serve hot meals and warm showers and laundry services three days a week. This year we're on track to serve more than 60,000 meals to our neighbors facing food insecurity. Hope's Corner is very proud to be a part of the safety net serving Mountain View, especially during this time when so many are struggling, and we deeply appreciate the strong support of the City. Thank you.

[01:43:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I just, I want to shout out Hope's Corner because I know that you... it's unfortunate, but it's incredible. This year you celebrated serving, I think over, what, a quarter million meals to our community, which is wild, but it just shows the need. And so I just want to thank you very much. Could we give that a round of applause? How many meals is it?

[01:44:01] John Riemenschneider: Over 350,000 lifetime. Yes.

[01:44:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, over 350,000. So we're very grateful. So we're just going to take a quick picture with the rest of the Council.

[01:44:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And they're always looking for volunteers. It's a really great place to volunteer. So we'll move on to Item 3.2, our Community Foundation Week proclamation. We're happy to be joined this evening by Christa Creme, CEO, and Arya Patel, Community Engagement Associate with the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation to accept this proclamation. So I'll invite you both to join me at the lectern.

[01:44:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We have your proclamation here. Whereas Community Foundation Week, created in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush, recognizes the important work of community foundations throughout the United States and their ability to unite the public, private, and nonprofit sectors for lasting impact; and whereas the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation serves as a philanthropic hub for the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, and the Town of Los Altos Hills, providing leadership, resources, and partnership to address local priorities and foster a vibrant, resilient community;

[01:45:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And whereas LAMVCF—I don't know which one's shorter, saying the whole thing or the acronym—has been instrumental in mobilizing resources for urgent needs such as supporting wildlife readiness, affordable housing solutions, mental health services, youth programs, the arts, sponsoring the annual Compassion Week, while managing charitable funds with a steadfast commitment to transparency and stewardship;

[01:45:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Now, therefore, I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim November 12th through the 18th, 2025 as Community Foundation Week in the City of Mountain View. There you go. Congratulations. Would you like to say a few words?

[01:46:05] Christa Creme: Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Here, I'm going to have you hold that really quick. So, at the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation, we stand shoulder to shoulder with local donors, civic leaders, and nonprofits to take on those challenges. One of our grantees, Hope's Corner, we couldn't be prouder of tonight as well. We do believe that real progress starts connecting generous people with bold ideas to strengthen Mountain View and Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. We are a hyper-focused community foundation. Every day we're committed to help turning community potential into action, fueling collaboration and solutions to make this region more prepared, more resilient, more united.

[01:46:50] Christa Creme: But mostly we want to make sure that we're committed, and we look to you all as a civic partner, that we harness the power of shared generosity. We've become a force for good and what we're here to do is to serve our communities to be a lifeline for everyone who calls this place home. So thank you for this recognition.

[01:47:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, so congratulations to both, and specifically the Foundation, because I think whenever anyone asks me a question about funding, I say, 'Have you talked to the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation?' So thanks again for being such a resource. Would any Councilmember like to say a few words? All right. Seeing no comments, we'll now take public comment for the presentation items. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items that are listed on our agenda?

[01:48:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, I am not seeing any. So I will close public comment and thank our organizations once more. We'll move on to Item 4, which is our Consent Calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the Council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the Consent Calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. If you'd like to speak on these items or the next item, Oral Communications on non-agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. The City Clerk will take roll call vote as we have a Councilmember participating remotely this evening. Would any member of the Council like to pull an item?

[01:49:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[01:49:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will not be pulling an item, but as you're probably going to take votes for all of them together, I'm just announcing that I'm going to be recused from Item 4.1, which is about a public street and easement at 881 Castro Street because that site is near my residence.

[01:49:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Anyone else in person before we go virtual? All right. Councilmember McAlister.

[01:49:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, I would like to comment on 4.1, 4.3, and I had a question on 4.5.

[01:49:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Why don't you go ahead and we'll start with 4.1?

[01:49:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 4.1. I wasn't here at the time, but we are taking a property and 4.1 is talking about vacating it. I would like the Council to think next time about leasing property and the greater return that we get in the constant revenue. We're doing that with Lots 4 and 8. And I don't know if this discussion came up when we were doing the 4.1, the property at Castro, but it is a very valuable tool, a financial tool that gives the City reliable money, and we keep our assets. I do not like selling Mountain View assets, but this is one thing going forward that could bring us multiples of revenue versus selling it.

[01:50:40] Councilmember John McAlister: On 4.3, I've always told you time is money. If you look at the report, from the time of '24 to today, the value has gone up over $2 million, close to $3 million, in that short a period. So this is a particular time that we really need to be on top of getting this project going forward and making sure that we're considerate of all the options going forward and that we have accurate information.

[01:51:13] Councilmember John McAlister: And then on 4.5, I had a question about what's happening with the trees that are sitting at Google right now? Are they just going to sit there for years before we figure out what we're going to do with these?

[01:51:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Just a moment. Is there a member of staff who can answer Councilmember McAlister's question? Thank you.

[01:51:36] Assistant Community Services Director Brenda Sylvia: I can answer the question, but I, Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director, but I do have...

[01:51:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm so sorry, do you mind moving the mic, speaking directly in, and then reintroducing yourself? Thank you.

[01:51:48] Assistant Community Services Director Brenda Sylvia: Hi, Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director. We have Russell Hansen, Urban Forest Manager, on the line actually, and he can answer your question.

[01:51:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, we will look for him. Hi Russell. It looks like you got unmuted.

[01:52:14] Urban Forestry Manager Russell Hansen: Can you hear me?

[01:52:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[01:52:16] Urban Forestry Manager Russell Hansen: Okay, excellent. So, I'm assuming Councilmember McAlister is referring to the boxed trees that were planted on the Google Landings project?

[01:52:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:52:28] Urban Forestry Manager Russell Hansen: Okay, yes, in terms of that, that is correct, because ultimately that project is very complicated in terms of how we are designing the public right-of-way with the future project that we did not want to actually put those trees into the ground and then come back in a few years, have to take them out or otherwise. And so what we did is we entered into an agreement with Google where they're going to be maintaining them. We're going to do periodic inspections. I know they've already had a couple of them that started to stress out and die. We're working with them to get those replaced, but ultimately, yes, the intention is to leave those at least temporarily until we find a new developer of the project.

[01:53:06] Councilmember John McAlister: And just to follow up clarity. So if one dies, they're on the hook to replace it?

[01:53:11] Urban Forestry Manager Russell Hansen: That is correct. Yes.

[01:53:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

[01:53:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, I see a motion by Councilmember Showalter. Might that... have a second? All right. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on these items? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit their blue speaker card to the City Clerk. I only see virtual, so, um, Bruce England, you have three minutes.

[01:53:51] Bruce England: Thank you, Mayor. I'm not going to need that much time. Bruce England, Whisman Station Drive. Um, had a conversation with a few people including Russell Hansen about, um, tree transplanting and what kind of care needs to be taken, and he provided a very good, um, response to that. Um, my concern is that if you don't transplant trees, uh, properly, making sure that they're, the soil is well hydrated and all that, you've heard about this before from others in the community, that they could die when they're put in the new location. I'm not sure if Google's then responsible for a tree that's been transplanted and later dies, so maybe that needs to be built into there. And then just want to take advantage of these being on the Consent Calendar to voice my ongoing support for the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan and for the Shoreline Boulevard Pathway. Thanks.

[01:54:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, seeing no other public comment, we'll take the item back for Council action. And note that a motion to approve the Consent Calendar should also include reading the titles of the resolutions attached to the Consent Calendar Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.5. Councilmember Showalter.

[01:55:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um, I move approval of the Consent Calendar and that includes Item 4.1, Adopt a resolution of intention of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to vacate a public street and easement at 881 Castro Street to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 1 to the Council report, and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for December 9th, 2025. Item 4.2, Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View directing staff to apply for a non-competitive $379,921 grant from Silicon Valley Clean Energy for an electric vehicle charger rebate program for existing multifamily properties, and if awarded, accept and appropriate revenues and expenditures up to $379,921 in grant funds to project 20-99, the Sustainability Fund to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[01:56:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Item 4.3, Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute Program Supplement Agreement number F028 to the Administering Agency-State Agreement number 045124F15 with the California Department of Transportation for Shoreline Boulevard Pathway Improvements projects 21-37 to be read in title only, further reading waived. And lastly, Item 4.5, Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending the fiscal year 2025-26 budget to appropriate $180,000 in the Tree Mitigation Sub Fund for tree planting expenses to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[01:57:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And that was seconded by Vice Mayor Ramos. So let's vote. Voice vote.

[01:58:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:58:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:58:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[01:58:03] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[01:58:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[01:58:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Aye.

[01:58:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[01:58:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, for everything except 4.1 which I am recused from.

[01:58:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[01:58:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:58:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[01:58:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:58:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[01:58:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:58:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries.

[01:58:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So we'll move on to Item 5, Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the City Council subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? All right, I am seeing one person in person. David Cuesta, you'll have three minutes.

[01:59:07] David Cuesta: Uh, hello. Uh, I've lived in Mountain View for a few years and this is my first time ever setting foot in City Hall. Um, so maybe as introduction, I think you all know who I am. Um, big fan of the City Attorney. Excellent work. And Kimbra, we've met a few times. Um, I'm here because of pickleball. And the Cuesta Park residents are very concerned about pickleball. Um, and I'd like to make a declarative statement on it. Uh, next slide.

[01:59:40] David Cuesta: Um, I think the Parks and Rec Department has actually made a brilliant suggestion in proposing pickleball in San Rafael. Now there's a lot of housing going up there. I've marked it here on this map and these are all the projects on the City's radar. Uh, and I've talked to through, with some of the residents and they've had some concerns. So I'd love to walk through these. Uh, next slide.

[02:00:04] David Cuesta: One of them is San Rafael will be underserved as density increases. Let's see how the math shakes out. Next slide. Today, there are 845 people that live there. It's that orange parcel right there. That's where everyone lives. And there's a 2.1 acre park. Next slide. But we know what's going to be built, and we can do a little bit of math. These are the assumptions made by the City, and we're going to add 1,048 residents.

[02:00:32] David Cuesta: So, next slide, if we add today's residents and the future residents, we know how many acres per resident we're going to get to. It's going to end up at about 2.3, which is not too shabby, right? Our goal is about three. And how does that compare to other, other areas across the city? These are the City's own numbers. Next slide. Another myth is that the new park will solve, will serve all existing San Rafael residents. Next slide.

[02:01:01] David Cuesta: I don't know if that's true. We can see that many more people will live closer to the existing playground and park that live there, that are there today, than the new one that's highlighted in green. And so when you think about where pickleball could be, the green area there is a great spot because folks will gravitate towards a park that's closest to them. Next slide.

[02:01:24] David Cuesta: Another complaint is pickleball doesn't belong in this neighborhood. It's a very common complaint. And the next slide. I would argue the opposite. I actually think you have a once in a lifetime opportunity. Nowhere in the history of California has anyone built pickleball courts before the residents moved in. Nobody lives there right now. All the folks that live in San Rafael live in the orange area. So you could build pickleball and everyone that decides to move there, move into these apartments, would knowingly move into a place where pickleball exists. And that may be an amenity that serves them. Thank you.

[02:02:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing any virtual speakers, so I'm going to close public comment and move on to Item 6, New Business. Item 6.1 is our Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation design and right-of-way, project 20-27, a cost reduction measures. Public Works Director Dawn Cameron and Public Works Director Jennifer Ng will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. We'll turn it over to the staff.

[02:02:40] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. I'm Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director, and co-presenting with me tonight is Public Works Director Ng. We also have Caltrain project staff in the audience available tonight as well.

[02:03:21] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Okay, thank you. Next slide. So tonight staff is recommending cost reduction measures for the Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation project for City Council approval. We will also highlight the City's needs for successful project delivery. The Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation project will improve safety and eliminate the crossing delays for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles due to the lengthy gate downtimes. These gate downtimes cause significant backups on Rengstorff, which restricts community access to schools, services, the Community Center, and Rengstorff Park just to name a few.

[02:04:18] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: The City has actually been planning for this grade separation for over 20 years, which is pretty stunning considering that in 2004 the Council adopted a preferred concept and that is still the concept we're working on today. And in fact, 10 years later in 2014, the Council re-looked at the project, reaffirmed their support for the concept, and added additional bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. So looking at this concept really quickly, it will involve depressing the intersection of Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway while maintaining the train tracks at its existing elevation. The project also includes a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Rengstorff to maintain connectivity between the east and west sides of Rengstorff Avenue and realigns the Leghorn connection to Rengstorff.

[02:05:17] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: After the Council's actions in 2014 to reaffirm the project concept, the project was put on hold due to a lack of funding for such a large scale project. This changed with the passage of the 2016 VTA Measure B sales tax, which included funding for the Rengstorff Grade Separation project. As the City engaged in discussions to begin project design, Caltrain informed the City and VTA that Caltrain must be the lead agency to design and construct the project due to the complexities involved within operating rail line and the planned electrification of the service. Thus, the City provided $4 million to Caltrain in 2019 for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance.

[02:06:07] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Completion of this first phase was planned for April 2021, but was not completed until October 2022, a delay of 18 months. In August 2023, Caltrain, VTA, and the City entered into an agreement for Caltrain to prepare the final design and for the City to lead right-of-way acquisition. Completion of this phase was to take two and a half years, but the final design work has now been extended by more than a year. Much of this delay was due to Caltrain project management staffing shortages as well as long decision-making and contract processes in addition to an extensive value engineering process. Delays such as these, along with other factors, contributed to significant project cost increases, which will be discussed further by Director Ng.

[02:07:18] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Thank you, Dawn. So we've seen cost estimates steadily increasing on this project. In October of 2022, Caltrain provided a 35% design cost estimate. At that time, it was $185 million for construction and $262 million for the total project. The funding shortfall was $45 million, and the City was working under the understanding at that time that we had funding available sufficient to deliver two grade separation projects. In January of 2024, the Caltrain design cost estimate from 2022 needed to be adjusted for the very high jump in bids that all of the cities were experiencing coming out of the pandemic.

[02:08:06] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Costs were therefore adjusted up to $242 million for construction and $325 million for the total project cost. Simultaneously at that time, realizing that there wasn't enough funding for both grade separations, Council made the difficult decision to prioritize this project, Rengstorff. The shortfall in January 2024 was estimated to be $31 million. At that time, the City intended to close the gap by pursuing outside funding opportunities. In mid-2024, Caltrain brought on a CMGC, or a Construction Manager General Contractor. The CMGC would provide constructability reviews during design of the project and provide real construction cost estimates from the contractor's perspective.

[02:08:57] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: And so therefore in October of 2024, Caltrain provided updated construction cost estimates which substantially increased the estimated construction cost to $312 million and a total project cost of $453 million. Coupled with modest increases to earlier phases, the anticipated shortfall then was $159 million. So then faced with $159 million shortfall, the team started value engineering efforts. $52 million is able to be reduced from the project by looking at our construction methods and sequencing, reducing our construction duration, and taking a critical look at indirect costs, contingencies, and fees. Another $6 million can be reduced to the project through three design modifications that I'll run through quickly after this.

[02:09:49] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: According to the terms of the VTA, Caltrain, and City co-op agreement, the City Council's approval is needed for these design modifications. So the net impact is that the shortfall can be reduced by $58 million to a new shortfall total of $99 million. Okay. Design modification number one is to remove the retaining walls along Central Expressway. These walls were originally in the design because Caltrain wanted to be able to plan for four tracks in this area in the future, and since then that need has been eliminated. Removing the retaining walls, which are shown in orange at the top from this location, results in both cost savings and provides green space that is aesthetically more appealing to users of the corridor.

[02:10:40] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: The second design modification is elimination of the pathway connecting Crisanto Avenue with Rengstorff Avenue. It's shown in purple there on the right hand side. Elimination of the pathway is both cost savings and preserves park space within the Rengstorff Park. Residents wishing to access Rengstorff Avenue from Crisanto may do so using the existing pedestrian pathway which is shown on the right hand side with the purple line. And the third design modification is to eliminate retaining walls at the gas station property north of Central Expressway. This is both cost savings and practical as a use for the property has not yet been identified. Once the property is redeveloped, grading and any necessary retaining walls can be installed with that project in the future.

[02:11:31] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: So even with all of these value engineering efforts, there's still a substantial shortfall in the funding. The greatest risk to this project is delay. Each year of delay can cost us an anticipated $9 to $14 million in cost increases for every bit of moving the start of construction beyond 2027. So we're exploring numerous ways to close that funding gap including pursuing grant opportunities, continuing conversations with Caltrain and other regional cities on cost saving strategies, and potentially raising the funds locally through a revenue measure. To keep this project moving forward, key messages that staff is giving to the Caltrain team is that we need a strong and consistent delivery team with project managers that can deliver mega projects.

[02:12:23] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: We need flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking with respect to streamlining processes and decisions including design, operational impacts, and even project delivery. The City needs to be treated as a partner and not a client and brought in early for feedback on technical plans and studies. And transparency is needed. Communication from the City can't just go into a black hole. And reliable and timely information is needed to keep this project moving forward. And back to Public Works Director Dawn.

[02:12:59] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you very much. Regionally, other cities have been experiencing similar challenges with their Caltrain grade separation projects. Last August, city managers from nine cities including our own City Manager Kimbra McCarthy, and these cities all had planned grade separations, met with Caltrain executive leadership to share the City's concerns about the significant project cost increases, project management, and the lack of Caltrain's progress in delivering these projects. Discussion points focused on strategies to deliver the projects as quickly as possible, minimize cost increases, and identifying new funding opportunities. The city managers and Caltrain executive leadership are meeting again in December to continue discussions about these challenges and potential solutions.

[02:13:51] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: There is also discussion among the cities about engaging the Joint Powers Board in developing solutions and ensuring these projects are a priority for Caltrain. So bottom line, we are not alone and Caltrain recognizes, and we've been talking to them, that we need progress, we need solutions, and by working with the other cities along the Caltrain corridor, we are hoping that these discussions will prove fruitful. So this brings us to staff recommendation that the City Council approve staff's recommended cost reduction measures for the Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation project, which will allow it then to complete 65% design and get us moving forward again into final design. And this concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[02:14:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Does any member of the Council have a question? All right. I am not... oh, Councilmember McAlister.

[02:15:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, how quickly we forget. Hey, um, Chris and I have been working on this since 2014. Around 2019, we figured this thing was going to be working out. I think the initial cost was like $150 million. And now it's just gone crazy. So my question is, two questions for you. Uh, getting the right-of-way is very important in moving this project forward. Do you need any guidance or uh, approval from Council to speed up the process of the right-of-way acquisition?

[02:15:40] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you for the question, Councilmember McAlister. At this time we do not need any particular direction from City Council. Uh, we, you know, the City has already acquired one parcel and we are in discussion with other property owners about acquiring our property needs from them. The Council actually has a policy that allows the City to pursue right-of-way acquisition for approved capital projects and making offers within appraised values and so on without City Council approval because it is an approved capital project. And therefore we are moving as quickly as possible to get the appraisal maps put together, get the appraisals put together, and engage property owners in the acquisition.

[02:16:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, thank you. Uh, and then here's another question, maybe for the, um, I'll leave it to anybody, but you know, we've been trying to get this project going. And I was, I would like to recommend that the Council sends a letter with our request to get this thing moving along. What is the best way to do that? Do we need to put it in a motion? Can we do it in a straw vote to say, that says Council of the City of Mountain View really would like to get this done? Because um, we were looking at, you said 104 trains going now. Just think that there was a question in Council questions, it's going to go to 174, and then it's going to go to 300. And it's really going to be very disruptive. So how can Council with its political will write a letter to the powers to be to get this thing and have them take us seriously?

[02:17:30] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you again for the question. Uh, City Council can choose to direct staff to draft a letter for the Mayor's signature that presents the, you know, the City's experiences, concerns, and requests for helping us get this project delivered. It could be included in the motion to direct staff to draft such a letter for the Mayor's signature.

[02:17:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, whoever makes the motion, I would like to recommend to add that as an amendment. Thank you.

[02:18:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

Additional Content 3

[02:18:01] Public Speaker: There's one particular location in this setup that um concerns me that um would it be nice if it could be resolved sooner rather than later, so if you decide to break the project up in any way, the intersection of Crisanto and Rengstorff right now is really pretty horrible. It's a bottleneck there between Central, Rengstorff, Crisanto, the train tracks, traffic coming up Rengstorff versus traffic trying to come in from Crisanto. I actually bike through there so when I have to go right onto Rengstorff on my bike, I have to sort of thread my bike in between the curb and the cars because they tend to either be right in the middle of the lane there or over to the right. They aren't thinking about a bicyclist coming past them like that. Very narrow, very bottlenecked. If there's a way to fix that part separately, that would be great. Um from my perspective. Thank you.

Additional Content 2

[02:18:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I, uh, I'm interested in what we're going to do with the dirt when we dig it out. Uh, we have a huge need for, um, material for our sea level rise protection efforts, our marsh restoration, and um, uh, I wonder if this dirt is going to be used for that, or can be.

[02:18:25] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Thank you for the question. I think the answer is potentially. We haven't yet identified, um, because it's in the future exactly where the dirt will go, but there is always a need for dirt brokering as we call it in the industry throughout the area and we do try to keep our dirt local.

[02:18:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, that's great. Maybe we can, uh, uh, talk about, I don't know if it's included in this, but but the need, do we have a City policy about the importance of keeping our dirt local?

Additional Content 3

[02:18:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right that concludes public comment so we'll bring the item back for council deliberation and action. The city clerk will take a roll call vote as we have a council member participating remotely this evening. So we have a motion by Councilmember Clark and he has some comments. Hoping we get a second.

Additional Content 2

[02:19:00] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: It's more practicality, right? The less that you have to haul dirt, the more inexpensive it is to move it from place to place.

[02:19:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay.

[02:19:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Any other member have a question? All right. We'll, um, bring it to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item in person or virtually? All right. We'll display, I only see virtual, so we'll display a timer on the screen. Each speaker will have three minutes. Hello Bruce.

Additional Content 3

[02:19:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Second.

[02:19:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay great. We will add you as the seconder. Councilmember Clark.

[02:19:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I just want to say I appreciate all the work that's gone into this over the years and um it's always hard to figure out ways to cut costs. Um so I I I agree with the cost cutting uh recommendations that have been made here. Um and so my uh motion is to both move the uh my motion is to approve the staff recommendation and to authorize the um authorize staff and the city manager to uh draft any any letters to any stakeholders that might be helpful to move this project along especially to Caltrain and any state legislators or other um key stakeholders uh for the mayor to uh review and sign um as she sees fit.

Additional Content 2

[02:19:38] Bruce England: Thanks Mayor. Bruce England again, Whisman Station Drive. I'll be very brief.

Additional Content 3

[02:20:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Vice Mayor Ramos?

[02:20:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. I plan on supporting the motion. Oh I was planning on seconding it but I wanted to give it to Councilmember McAlister cause I know he cares so much about this. Um I also support um originally uh Councilmember McAlister's suggestion and it looks like it was expanded by Councilmember Clark to uh empower staff to write a letter that will eventually be signed by Madam Mayor um to to see if we could just get a little bit more political will to support um getting this through all the other boards commissions regions to get it done. Um I've been um I was uh briefly I was following on on Reddit the the thread on this item and some people are upset with how much money is cost and unfortunately that is the cost of infrastructure these days. Um but uh it it is something that really does need to get done. So I'm happy to move this forward um and support the motion. Thank you.

[02:21:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[02:21:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I want to start off by thanking staff for all their work recently and over the years um on on this uh particular project. I'm on the Council Transportation Committee and I was very impressed with the uh cost cutting measures that were presented there. I won't go over them in in detail because I I did uh at that time on the committee but um I'm I particularly like the um the what was it the the concrete wall the retaining wall that was taken down and and green space. It seems like the cost cutting measures actually have made this project better so that I like and I will be supporting the uh the motion and and the letter. I also though want to at this time raise my concern about these mega mega projects although I think in this area we really do need grade separation. I've got to I've got to say I think that grade separation projects are a lot. I mean this one started how many years ago? More than 10 years ago when we were more focused on level of service of single occupancy vehicles and I feel like the very large amount of money, what is it? 325 million dollars. I'm not sure when you look at the costs and benefits that there's something that we want um to repeat in other places in the city. They make big holes in the ground. They make the area less friendly for uh bikers and pedestrians and humans who are around. And we um I think like this project may be a part of a revenue measure. I'm not sure we're gonna want to ask the public to pay for more of these um. I would do that with careful consideration. So I'm taking this time to make that statement. But I will be supporting this one.

[02:23:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:23:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I'm just uh very very supportive of this and I do as everyone else has said really appreciate the work that has gone in it and I know that you're not done yet. There's a lot of work let yet to be done and um we uh we really want to encourage you to continue with that because it's so important for our community. And in addition um to the helping with traffic, I mean it does it will help uh immensely with traffic, it'll help with traffic, it'll help with biking, but I also think we also we should remember that this is this is also a an environmental justice um issue because we're going to provide um a a much easier and safer environment for a a part of our community that's very dense and um they really uh it's important that we we make sure that everybody gets good service and good city services like this. So um I just wanted to bring up the EJ considerations here. And also whenever we can let's use that dirt beneficially.

[02:24:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I love that. All right. Um so before we vote, I just want to echo the thanks to staff. I know this has um come to CTC actually multiple times, our Council Transportation Committee um multiple times. I um will say I'm uh happy to sign the letter. I would um I think that it's something that's so wonderful that the city is willing and ready to um move forward with a project like this. Not I don't think every jurisdiction I think this is a number one project in um what is it Burlingame has a number two project and so I think um the more that we can do this uh the more we can be um examples for our region of how this is possible. So um thank you to to our incredible staff. So let's vote uh by voice vote.

[02:25:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[02:25:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Aye.

[02:25:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[02:25:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Absolutely.

[02:25:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:25:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:25:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[02:25:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:25:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:25:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:25:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[02:25:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[02:25:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[02:25:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:25:23] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:25:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you to staff. We'll move on to our public hearing. Item 7.1 is our mixed use project at 749 West El Camino Real. Would any council members like to make any disclosures? Councilmember Hicks.

[02:25:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I met with the applicant and I have been to the site.

[02:25:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:25:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I had a phone call with the applicant.

[02:25:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Uh Vice Mayor Ramos.

[02:25:49] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. I had a Zoom call with the ap- well actually I think it was Microsoft Teams, but yeah, I had a Teams call with the applicant.

[02:25:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Councilmember Showalter?

[02:25:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I had a um Zoom call with the applicant and I visited the site numerous times.

[02:26:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Councilmember Clark.

[02:26:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Same.

[02:26:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, Councilmember McAlister.

[02:26:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Ditto.

[02:26:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, then I can say what ditto ditto ditto. Um all right, I think that handles our disclosures and we'll move on to the staff presentation. Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski and Consulting Senior Planner Margaret Netto will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. And we'll begin with the staff presentation.

[02:26:38] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Mayor. Oh yes. Um I think we just need a couple minute recess for staff to load a presentation that had to be recently updated.

[02:26:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. We will take a five minute recess and we will reconvene at 7:45 PM.

[02:32:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right everyone, thank you for your patience. We're going to reconvene um and we'll start with the staff presentation.

[02:33:00] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: All right. Good evening Mayor Kamei and Councilmembers. My name is Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director. And I'm joined on the dais by Margaret Netto, Senior Planner who is the project planner for this mixed use development uh located at 749 West El Camino Real. The existing development on the project site includes two one-story buildings, a vacant restaurant building and an operational Chase Bank building. Surface parking spaces and associated landscape and hardscape improvements. The approximate 3.05 acre project site is located in the El Camino Real Precise Plan and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor. To the west is a four-story mixed-use residential building. To the south are one to two story multifamily residential uses. To the north are one to four story commercial buildings and Gateway Park. And to the east there are two two-story multifamily residential uses across Lane Avenue. The proposed project includes construction of a mixed use development comprised of 299 residential units in a six story building with 10,830 square feet of ground floor neighborhood commercial space and at grade podium parking above two levels of underground parking. A two story 8,483 square foot bank building, a provisional use permit for a rooftop deck, a heritage tree removal permit to remove 28 heritage trees, and an easement vacation. Additionally the project originally included a preliminary parcel map application, however the applicant requested the removal of the map after the publishing deadline for the council materials. Therefore the application no longer includes a map request and the applicant will use a lot line adjustment to combine the parcels prior to issuance of a building permit. The project has frontage on four public streets. El Camino Real, Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue. The project orients ground floor retail, common areas, lobbies and other residential amenity spaces along El Camino Real and Castro Street with the new bank building proposed near its current location which is close to the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street and adjacent to a public plaza sited along El Camino Real. The public plaza on El Camino Real will be wrapped by ground floor commercial space with landscape features, lighting, and outdoor seating. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's vision for the site as it includes a mix of commercial and residential uses at six stories, consistent with the land use designation. The project is in a key location near downtown and adjacent to a rapid bus stop and includes a public plaza. Additionally, the project is consistent with the ECRPP development standards including building height, open space, and pavement coverage. The project is eligible for a 46.25% state density bonus and qualifies for 97 density bonus units for a maximum total of 306 units. However, the project proposes 90 density units for a total of 299 units. The project qualifies for two concessions and unlimited waivers and is requesting one concession for the upper floor setback on Castro Street and nine waivers. Additionally, um the applicant's attorney has submitted a letter this afternoon requesting the use of their second concession to modify project condition of approval number one from exhibit A of attachment 2 to increase the time period that the entitlement is valid from two years to eight years. While staff has not had an opportunity to fully review the request, we are moving forward with the hearing despite the last minute nature of the request in an effort to move forward with council consideration of the project. The project proposes to provide 15.8% of the base units to lower income households. 31 units will be reserved for very low income households and two will be reserved for low income households. By offering the majority of BMR units at 50% AMI, the applicant is delivering housing at a deeper affordability level than required under the city's BMR ordinance, thereby complying with the requirement. The units are reasonably dispersed through the project which means the which meets the city's BMR ordinance. The proposed modern design of the building includes a circular form for the new bank building with the residential portion of the building stepping back from the bank area towards the other project street frontages. Most of the residential units within the mixed use building are located on the second through sixth floors with the ground floor level containing five residential units on the southwest side of the building along Victor Way. The precise plan calls for design sensitivity for height and setback transitions to surrounding buildings and lower intensity neighborhoods along the El Camino corridor. The building frontages on Lane Avenue and Victor Way have been designed with a residential scale and building heights step down towards the existing adjacent residential neighborhood. The project proposes about 60,000 square feet about 45% of open space which exceeds the minimum precise plan requirement. The open space area includes a combination of both publicly accessible and private common open spaces in multiple locations, including the plaza on El Camino Real which contains landscaping and seating, passive landscape areas around the perimeter of the project site and along residential buildings at street level, three courtyards for residents on the second level of the building, and a rooftop deck that will indoor include outdoor amenities such as lounge furniture, landscaping, a pool and spa and raised planter beds. The project site currently contains 90 trees including 18 street trees. 35 heritage trees and 55 non-heritage trees. The project proposes to remove a total of 81 trees including 28 heritage trees and 53 non-heritage trees. And preserve two non-heritage trees and seven heritage trees. The applicant will provide um 123 replacement trees. The applicant collaborated with the Planning Division, Public Works Department and Urban Forestry Division to closely evaluate the health of existing trees and identify opportunities to preserve additional trees including preservation through transplantation. Given the comprehensive redevelopment proposed on the site, there were limited locations where trees existing trees did not directly conflict with uh required public street improvements and or proposed building footprints. Uh therefore focus was placed on studying the limited remaining areas where existing trees could feasibly be retained in place, particularly the nine trees lining the southern border adjacent to the multifamily residential on Victor Way. The project will plant approximately 123 replacement trees which exceeds the replacement requirement in areas surrounding the building and within the courtyards on site. The project will also install new landscaping including shrubs and ground cover around the perimeter of the site, within the public plaza, in the second floor courtyards, and on the roof of the mixed use building. Within the plaza large trees will be planted ranging from 48 to 84 inch box. The overall tree canopy at maturity will exceed the existing tree canopy and the project proposes 76% California native plantings. The project will contain one level of underground uh sorry one level of ground floor podium parking reserved for the commercial uses on site and two levels of underground parking reserved for the residents. Although there's no minimum parking requirement for the residential portion of the project in the precise plan, the applicant is voluntarily providing parking for both the residential and commercial components of the mixed use development. The project provides 424 long-term and 30 short-term bicycle parking spaces which exceeds the bicycle parking requirement. The project also provides off-site improvements including new sidewalks, a protected bikeway and a bus stuck out. The applicant has requested the city vacate two existing public easements for transit shelter purposes. One on Castro Street and the other on West El Camino Real. The existing shelters within the easements are proposed to be relocated as part of the project with a new public easement to be dedicated on Castro Street to align with the new transit shelter location. The new transit shelter on El Camino Real will be accommodated within the public right-of-way. The new locations of the transit shelters have been coordinated with VTA and will be constructed per their standards. A historic resource evaluation was prepared to verify whether any structures on site qualified as historic resources under CEQA. Based on the analysis completed, it was determined that the primary structure on site, the bank building and associated artwork, is eligible for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources and is therefore considered a historic resource under CEQA. As the project proposed to demolish a historic structure or historic resource, the city determined that a focused supplemental EIR was required. The draft E-I the draft supplemental EIR was circulated for public review for a 40 day comment period in March and April of this year and six comment letters were received during this review period. Responses to these comments have been provided in the final SEIR which was made available to the public on August 19th 2025. As identified in the draft SEIR, the project will demolish the existing bank building and associated plaza on site to allow for the construction of the new mixed use building and public plaza. Prior to demolition, the project will salvage the individual art pieces associated with the bank building and preserve them for reinstallation in the new development. The demolition of the bank building results in the loss of historic integrity for the site as the building, artwork and plaza all contribute to the historical significance of the property. Because the primary structure on site will no longer be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources due to the proposed demolition, the impact to the historic resource will be considered significant and unavoidable. This slide contains renderings of the new of the relocation of the mosaic mural and the stained glass window as they will be reinstalled in the new development. And this slide contains renderings of the relocation of the bronze seagull sculpture and canvas mural as they will be reinstalled in the new development. The significant and unavoidable impact will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the City Council. A Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrates that the benefits of a project outweigh the impact. The benefit of the project benefits of the project have been included in the attached findings of fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and they include the provision of housing units, the salvaging of the artwork, the uh improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, a new public plaza, and financial contributions to the city. The applicant held at least 10 community outreach meetings and attended two DRC meetings. Several iterations of the project have been reviewed by staff which incorporate modifications that came from community outreach efforts by the applicant. The project was presented to the EPC on October 15th 2025 where commissioners voted 6-0 with one commissioner recused to recommend that the council adopt the staff recommendation to certify the final EIR and conditionally approve the proposed project and map. After the EPC hearing, the applicant requested several modifications to the project conditions of approval which were reflected in strike through and underline in attachment 2 and incorporated into the published staff recommendation. Additionally after the publishing deadline for the for the council report and materials, the applicant requested the removal of the vesting preliminary parcel map and proposes to instead use a lot line adjustment to merge the project site. These modifications impact attachments 2, 3 and 4 which I will describe in greater detail on the next few slides. Attachment 3 will be removed completely from the staff recommendation as it is the map resolution and associated conditions of approval. First, the project resolution. Whereas statement language has been modified. The changes include removing the mention of the parcel map and the language associated with the park in-lieu fee that is no longer a project requirement with the removal of the map. These modifications as shown in this slide are also provided in the hard copies that were placed on the dais and in the room for the public which remove the third whereas statement on page 1 and all whereas statements on page 2. Continuing on page 3 of the project resolution, the first few lines of whereas statement that begins on page 2 is deleted along with the last whereas statement on page 3 regarding the map. The next mentions of condition of approval modifications on the next few slides occur in exhibit A of attachment 2, the version that um is with you on the dais. First on page 20, condition of approval number 171 on subdivisions has been deleted and replaced with the lot line conflict language requiring the future lot line adjustment. On page 21, condition of approval number 176 map plan check fee has been removed and condition of approval number 177 has been modified removing the word parcel map. On page 22, condition of approval number 180 parkland dedication and condition of approval number 181 utility pavement agreement have been removed. On page 24, condition of approval number 185 has been modified to remove mention of the map. And lastly the street vacation resolution was also slightly amended to remove the mention of the parcel map and to modify the recital slightly. These are the only changes to the street vacation resolution which um was also on the dais. So with all of that said, staff recommends that the City Council certify the final EIR, conditionally approve the proposed project as amended on the slide to incorporate the modifications described on the previous slides, and order the vacation of public easements in accordance with the detailed amended language on this slide. Please note that the motion should not include the adoption of a map resolution shown in strike through above as the applicant requested the elimination of the parcel map. Additionally, staff does not recommend approval of the new concession requested by the applicant today as the request fails to provide evidence of identifiable and actual cost reductions and does not result in a quantifiable cost reduction. Staff has prepared the necessary factual findings for a denial that can be shared if council agrees to deny the new concession. This concludes staff's presentation and Margaret and myself are available to answer questions along with the Community Development Director Christian Murdock. Dan Dybol from the applicant team is here and also has a presentation. Additionally staff has our environmental consultants from David J Powers and Page & Turnbull in attendance to assist with technical questions. Thank you.

[02:48:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll set the um seven minute timer um and we'll have the presentation from the applicant.

[02:48:10] Dan Dybol: Great. Hello Mayor Kamei and Vice Mayor Ramos and Council members. I'm Dan Dybol with Greystar here tonight on behalf of MetLife uh the property owner. We're very happy to be here after five years of planning and community uh involvement in the design and features of the project. I'm joined tonight by members of our development team from Greystar, the design team, and Tamson Plume from Holland & Knight who submitted the communication supporting the application that was recently disc- uh disclosed or discussed here. Um and the entire team is available for any questions and in follow up. First I'd like to thank the entire City of Mountain View staff um for getting us to this point tonight. Um it's been a long journey and and uh at the very end we've you know had some changes that uh that we've that we've made but um we're grateful for the time that we've all spent uh getting to this hearing tonight. Um we set out five years ago um with planning um and community outreach that ultimately became our planning application four years ago. Um we greatly appreciate the community involvement that went into the art preservation um efforts as well as the bike and pedestrian safety measures. Um we consulted a broad group of organizations and interested parties throughout the planning process and um and many of them will be here tonight I think believe to support the project. Um there's two things I'd like to emphasize tonight and that is community input which encompasses listening and then taking action. We feel we've done that um throughout the process. Um and the second being voluntarily. Um we've voluntarily done what right done what is right um on really every step along the way. Um the art preservation um piece was part of our um initial application. Um let me start stop for just a moment and say that we support the uh the staff report and the presentation and grateful for for it. But we just have two items that we'd like council to deliberate and and um and support. The first is credit for public benefits. Um we voluntarily included in the project um the preservation of the art. Um and in addition to that um we um we included the bus turnout and the improvements around the Caltrain Caltrans VTA um vision for El Camino. We've included a great number of um of benefits for bike ped safety um on Castro Street, on Lane Avenue um and some improvements that go all the way down Lane Avenue to to Graham. Um so we we've provided a a list of of items that um and if we go to slide two please. Um well I can't quite read that but um anyway um in your packet you you have um our list of of items and we would welcome dialogue tonight about um about including those um as credit for our public benefit um requirement. Um the um and last we're um we're tasked with solving the um the delivery um of UPS, um Amazon, Federal Express um um to the site. We have three sides of the the property there are not there's no parking um at all. Um there's only one zone along Victor Way that we uh that we would like the uh City Council to um support us in making that a permanent loading zone and so we'd um like for you to consider that tonight. Um and so other than that we seek your support um here to answer any questions and uh we look forward to the dialogue. And and can I ask uh... Yeah. Um and we would like to have dialogue around the concession. Um um we have a we have a concession available to us. Um we'd like for it to be used for the the uh expiration item. We've been working with staff for a long time on this topic. Um it's not like we just dropped it in today. Um we we've had a number of um iterations on wanting to change the expiration timeline and we've uh that's been rejected on face value each time we brought it up. So we support um um everything in the staff report except the expiration topic and the um and the public benefit topic. So we're anxious to talk with you about that tonight.

[02:53:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Um we'll move on to council questions unless staff wanted to um provide any further clarity or has any other comments on anything? All right. So we'll move to council questions. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[02:54:08] Councilmember Emily Ramos: My question... sorry. Um my question is to staff about the the request for a permanent loading zone on Victor... is it Victor Way? Um is that something like that's just not allowed? Like is that something we can just approve now? Is that... I don't see anything wrong with a loading zone rather than permanent parking so I don't know if that was like a a thing that that staff if that was the reason why staff didn't want that or...

[02:54:40] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Um I'll I'll go ahead and um see if uh my colleague from Public Works Quinn um maybe want to take that or Ed. Thank you.

[02:54:55] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Good evening. Um Ed Arango, Assistant Public Works Director, thank you for the question. Um it's not um Public Works um typically does not allow for private um properties to use the public right-of-way for loading and unloading. Um if that's council's purview um council can provide that direction to staff and we can work with the applicant to identify the Victor Lane area as a loading zone.

[02:55:25] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So if it's not a loading zone then what is it? Is it just permanent just street parking?

[02:55:30] Assistant Public Works Director Ed Arango: Today it serves as on-street parking availability just for the neighborhood.

[02:55:34] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh okay. All right. Thank you.

[02:55:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:55:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'd like just a little more detail on one of my one of my main concerns regarding circulation for this project is there's a tremendous amount of pedestrian usage of Castro for uh for students walking from Graham School um usually downtown or places that they live. And I think there was some communication, I talked to Mr... am I gonna say your name right? Mr. Dy- Dybol? I did it. Okay. Um so uh I just like uh I know students have been injured by cars in the past and that that's been a big focus on that and I'd just like to hear a little more, I know when I looked over this project I kind of tossed around is are the sidewalks wide enough because they'll be like you know 20, 30, 40 kids walking all at the same time. Um so just a little more detail around that subject. Thanks.

[02:56:40] Dan Dybol: Sure. Like I think I've had the same conversation with you all um on the topic of Castro Street. So when we first started uh envisioning the plan for this community um we decided obviously we closed um the existing um um entrance on Castro from being used. So that was we closed a a driveway. Um and we um because of our involvement on um Elan over from 2013 to 17 when it was uh completed um we did a lot of committee work with um the Graham School and other stakeholders um when uh implementing traffic calming and things like that along Castro. So when we when we approached this project, we um we sought and received approval from Public Works to expand the width of the sidewalk. So in general um the sidewalk width in the plan um is seven feet and we have a minimum of along Castro we have a minimum of 10 but sometimes as large as 18 feet in width. So on average it's like um it's like twice the required width uh from Victor Way to the to El Camino. And we also sought and received um approval to use a planting strip along um the curb instead of having that just be tree wells to also add another uh protection layer kind of a friendly protection layer of landscape along that that edge so it makes the the walking experience better.

[02:58:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Any other questions from colleagues? Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:58:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I have a few. Uh first is for either the applicant or staff. When did the applicant receive the draft conditions of approval?

[02:58:40] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: So um originally they would have been received at least a week before the EPC hearing. Um I I don't know the exact date. Um and then there have been uh we have been working with the applicants on modifications to the conditions of approval for that entire kind of time period and there's been several modifications that we made before EPC and then several more that we made that were reflected in um the items before you tonight.

[02:59:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Do you remember the EPC hearing date?

[02:59:14] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: October 15th.

[02:59:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So maybe first week of October approximately. Okay. Thank you. Um is there a distinction, I I don't think there is, but is there a distinction between public versus community benefits? Arbitrary language. Okay. Thank you. Um does it what are the obligations uh that the city has related to Housing Element pipeline projects? Are there special protections for uh pipeline projects or particular obligations for the city that we should consider?

[03:00:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Um this particular project site is uh identified as a pipeline project site in the city's Housing Element. Um this is not a site that is identified in the city's sites inventory. Um there are typically more protections uh for approval of projects on the sites inventory uh for a city. In this case this site is not included on the inventory and we're not aware of any special legal protections for pipeline projects.

[03:00:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um so I want to clarify that so um it is listed on the Housing Element website or the webpage on the city website in there's a uh a map towards the bottom labeled Housing Element site inventory and it's included so um can you clarify maybe the distinction you're intending to make on not this project not appearing on the site inventory?

[03:01:00] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Sure. I I don't have that map immediately available I think in referencing the Housing Element itself, that's the distinction I'm drawing. This site is listed in the pipeline projects list meaning it's a project that's been submitted, it's reasonably expected to be approved and therefore contribute to the city's housing production towards its RHNA. Um as compared to a Housing Element inventory site which is identified as having the potential for projects to be submitted and to be developed in the period but no not necessarily having an application uh submitted for the site.

[03:01:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. So just to to paraphrase or to to recap uh um an opportunity site, a site that's in the sites inventory has some additional protections but that doesn't extend to pipeline projects which I believe are projects that were already under review.

[03:01:45] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: That's our understanding. Um Assistant City Attorney uh Senior Assistant City Attorney Chen, would you agree with that? She's acknowledged her agreement.

[03:02:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you very much. Um can we get through the Council member's questions and then I can defer... I'm going to let the Council member continue his questions and then we can revert to the applicant at that time. Thank you. Um thank you Mayor. Um for staff, um can you share if they're available uh the findings that you're recommending for the denial of of the concession? And maybe walk through them. It's this is the first time I think the city has denied anything related to the state density bonus law so I'm I think it would be helpful for us to to walk through that and understand it.

[03:02:50] Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski: Give me one second and then I think uh City Attorney Logue is or I'm sorry Senior Assistant City Attorney Chen.

Additional Content 4

[03:03:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You can just bring him up and we'll see where we go from there.

[03:03:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So, um, I think maybe having staff walk us through because I'm the first sentence is concerning since I had thought that the city actually had borne the burden under state law. So if maybe staff could help us understand these findings, that would be helpful.

[03:03:55] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Good evening Mayor, Council. Selina Chen on behalf of the City Attorney's office. Um, so staff has reviewed the concession request and come up with findings to support denial. Um, there are five different findings, each of them we believe is a separate and independent basis for denial. Um, so just going through them quickly, the first one is speaks to the definition of a concession which on its face in the statute requires an actual and identifiable cost reduction to affordable housing costs.

[03:04:35] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Um, the letter that was submitted today did not identify with specificity actual and real costs from in staff's perspective. Um, while there is a the burden is on the city, we do believe that the the request itself doesn't meet the definition of an a concession. Um, so they've failed to provide specific quantifiable evidence demonstrating how a six-year extension beyond the normal two years would reduce the actual costs of constructing affordable housing units.

[03:05:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So for for clarification, just to just to follow up on what she said. Yes, the city does have the burden in court, we would have the burden of demonstrating that it does not meet that requirement. But what we're stating here is that con the term concession is specifically and expressly defined in the statute and so we're at this place where we're not even sure that this is a concession because there is absolutely nothing showing that it results in the required reduction. So there is a bit of a distinction between, you know, us having the burden in court and us just saying, look, we don't even have a concession here because the definition in of itself requires a showing of a reduction. But again that's just one of five findings. So I'll let Selina walk you through the rest.

[03:06:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I just want to take a point to clarify because I'm frantically searching. So this this email and this letter was submitted to staff only, it was not submitted to Council? I saw I saw I didn't see it in my email. I saw a different one for a different project. So I'll continue to look, but do we have a time stamp on when that came through that I that entire Council was CC'd?

[03:06:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: I can provide that. Yeah, give me a second.

[03:06:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. I just I just want to clarify for the public, for those of us who work full-time like myself, I haven't had an opportunity to see it and no hard copy was provided. So, um, if we could just have a point of order so that all all of us, um, including Councilmember McAlister who is virtual with us, has an opportunity to follow along as staff goes through the concession letter.

[03:07:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So it appears it came in... Great, thank you. It came in to city.council, but I will admit that, um, looks like at 11:56 a.m., but I will also admit that it was on my name was individually on there and it didn't hit my individual email. I only saw it on city.council so there was definitely an issue with the emailing.

[03:07:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay. Okay, thank you.

[03:07:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Okay, thank you. All right. Thank you. Would you like me to continue?

[03:07:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I think she was walking through the... Yes.

[03:07:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm pulling it up. Yes. I have it up now. Thanks.

[03:07:50] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Okay, thanks. Um, the second finding, um, that staff is making is that the requested time extension is inherently speculative and it does not result in a quantifiable cost reduction. Um, so we're not looking at speculative or potential future benefit as is raised in the letter that was sent to City Council this afternoon. Um, there are concessions that do result in direct impacts to project expenditures.

[03:08:23] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Um, examples are reduced parking requirements, maybe modified setback standards. The law even allows authorizes the city to waive fees, it doesn't require us to waive fees, but that would be a direct expenditure. Um, a time extension from two years to eight years does not reduce any present quantifiable cost associated with construction, development, or financing.

[03:08:48] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: So, from staff's perspective, the cost to construct the affordable units is not reduced by this request, only the time frame within which the applicant must secure financing and commence construction is altered. So it's a it's speculative, it doesn't really constitute identifiable and actual cost reductions to affordable housing costs. Um, next slide please.

[03:09:17] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Um, so the third finding is that the denial is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Um, the there is going to be a prolonged delay that could objectively increase project costs through carrying costs, land banking, interest accrual and exposure. So if we were to extend the time by which this entitlement, the term of the entitlement, it could actually result in cost increases from staff's perspective and it could negatively impact project feasibility.

[03:09:55] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Um, the fourth point is that the requested concession is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Density Bonus Law. It poses a detriment to timely delivery of affordable housing units by, um, creating this lengthy extension that actually counters, um, the production of affordable housing for years. It introduces uncertainty for the community, it creates potential for land speculation and warehousing, and, um, we feel that granting the concession would undermine the city's ability to ensure the timely construction of affordable housing, um, that has been identified as a priority and a a need for this community.

[03:10:38] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: Um, the final point is that the requested concession is duplicative of existing city policy. The city code already authorizes a two-year extension. So every term every entitlement is authorized an initial two-year term and then based on certain very minimal findings that the project has proceeded as required, they can come back in to request an extension for up to two years, for a maximum of four years for every project approval. So it's it's already baked into the code. Um, there is a an option for the the initial term to be extended.

[03:11:10] Selina Chen, City Attorney's Office: So for those reasons, staff's position is that there are numerous separate and independent bases to deny the concession and staff does not feel that a concession to extend the term by the amount requested to eight years results in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

[03:11:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you very much for walking through each of those findings. I have two, um, additional questions and then I'll I'll yield to, uh, the rest of the Council. Um, related to, uh, additional time, uh, I I appreciate staff responding to the Council question about how the phasing plan impacts the entitlement period, but it may be helpful to to to walk through that if you wouldn't mind one more time. I want to make sure I I understand how we think about the the time frame for, uh, or the the the ap the period of time that the applicant has to construct the project, uh, uh, given the phasing proposed and if, you know, that in any way that may provide some, uh, relief for, uh, for the applicant as they're thinking about time frame.

[03:12:36] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you for the question. Good evening again. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Uh, so, uh, we often focus on the, uh, initial two-year period of approval, uh, that's in the city code and then also the two-year extension opportunity. Um, there is language in our existing city code provisions about phased projects. Um, and so the key threshold issue is that an applicant obtains a building permit and begins significant construction activity within either the two-year or two-plus-two year for a total of four-year initial approval term.

[03:13:12] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: What the code then says is that if your project is phased, meaning it's complex or extensive and needs, um, to develop multiple project components, in this case potentially multiple project buildings, um, provided that significant construction activity does not stop for greater than one year, the entitlements will remain valid. In the event that a complex project of that sort halts construction for a period of greater than one year, then potentially the entitlements can expire and the project can no longer proceed with further construction at that point.

[03:13:47] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um, there's additionally separate bases through, uh, the building permit process to, uh, allow a project to remain active with valid city permits. And so provided that a project is obtaining its regular required inspections for, uh, required elements of construction for the project, that's a an independent and separate basis through the city's permit process where a project can remain valid, uh, to proceed with development.

[03:14:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If I if I if you may, um, uh, indulge me in walking through a hypothetical hypothetical scenario. Let's I know it's a a challenging market cycle right now. Uh, the the biggest obsta obstacle I would imagine is getting the capital, securing a loan to actually begin construction. So, um, hypothetically with within the parameters in the code right now, um, presuming that the applicant is able to get, um, a construction loan for phase one, which is just the new bank, then they would have that full year before they have to and it's it's it's a full year following a any period of time where there's a like a lull in construction, right? Before they have to worry about phase two. And then for the the construction period for phase two, which is the interim parking, they have another full year before they would have to worry about potentially securing the construction loan for the the mixed-use building. Is that is that a a fair and reasonable or accurate, uh, hypothetical scenario based on our current code?

[03:15:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Yes, I think so. Um, so just to reiterate the key points. So the provisions in the city code related to phasing and the one year period of significant construction activity, uh, ceasing. Um, there's no defined period in these provisions about how long a given phase can take for construction. That's primarily governed by the building permit validity and obtaining those required inspections to keep the permit valid. However long that phase takes, once it's completed, that's when this, uh, code provision has importance. And so if significant construction activity ceases for greater than one year, it is that lack of construction activity that could invalidate the entitlements. Provided they re commence phase two, uh, within that one year or phase two starts before phase one's completed and continues so that there's no gap, you know, either of those circumstances would allow the entitlements to remain valid, uh, within this city code construct.

[03:16:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then my last question is is for the applicant. Just to better understand this, I have no expertise in development, but based on what, um, the Community Development Director just shared, is it possible to delay the need to actually secure the construction loan for the mixed-use building until, you know, potentially years beyond the four-year entitlement period as long as you're able to secure a construction loan for the new Chase bank building?

[03:16:45] Dan Dybol: Yeah. It's, um, like you pointed out, it's a volatile time. We can't predict exactly what the capital markets are going to do, but, um, but the scenario of a phasing, it's phase one has to be completed. Um, right? The bank moves out of the existing bank into the new bank and then the then the parking lot happens after the bank is demolished. Then it's time to to commence construction. So there's a long period of time there's activity so it would I guess it would satisfy, you know, activity taking place on the site. Um, it's just means I mean what's, you know, it's just it's when does that that clock start, um, if the financing, for example, isn't if that's the driver, if that's not in place or you know there's construction cost issues or something like that that, you know, that could arise. Um, it's just it's it's when the sto the stopwatch stops and starts again. So it sounds like there's only one year, um, of of pause that can be that can take place after the bank is built and the parking lot's, um, completed.

[03:17:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I I I'm presuming that it's the financing for the mixed-use building that is the challenge right now.

[03:17:55] Dan Dybol: Yeah, mixed use. Yes. That's the yeah. That's...

[03:17:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. So I I guess, you know, I'm I'm just sort of thinking mathematically. So it's you can you can you have four years for before you have to worry about phase one, right? So at the conclusion of four years, presuming you're able to finance the bank, then that that actually grants you some additional time, it sounds like maybe two or more years to actually have before you have to worry about securing the financing for the mixed-use building. Is that...

[03:18:24] Dan Dybol: Yeah. That's that's generally could be a a a scenario or an outcome. Um, I mean we're just looking for reasonable. I mean, um, it's you have a two-year policy. Um, it took us five years, you know, four years of as an applicant to get the project approved, um, and then you're going to hold us to two years to to to break ground. It's like it's unreasonable. Um, so all we're asking for is the city to be reasonable. Um, and yeah they they with with, you know, with approval we can get a we can get an extension but we think the first piece of the term should just be longer. I mean, um, and you know, I think my my example is is valid. I mean, took four years from the time we applied to the time we're going to get our approvals here and a lot of that's processed that the city, you know, had us drag out and, um, and and to expect us to have to live up with a two-year timeline is, like I said, it's unreasonable.

[03:19:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Understood. Thank you. Those are my questions for now.

[03:19:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Does any other member of Council have a question? Okay. So I have a question, um, for I believe Public Works, um, and this and just, um, this may be how we address this in the future. So as we're seeing the uh development is asking for the, um, provision for the, um, you know, TNC and delivery vehicles, I think as we're seeing large-scale developments, um, how might we be addressing that holistically? I think we have, um, designated spots for them to be in a private development yet we always see people double parking anyways and in the right-of-way which is very dangerous particularly, um, for this neighborhood. So is this something that Council would need to direct as like a work plan item? Is this something we may be able to evaluate as this project comes forward? I'm just kind of curious because it's a uh being taking a public street is obviously taking away a public good, however, um, there's the reality of people's true behaviors which is that they want typically want to, uh, park or double park where they're not supposed to even though they have designated areas. So I don't know if that's a for for Public Works in terms of the a right-of-way issue or what, but, um, would and looking for an answer for that question on how we may be able to address this both in this development and in the future.

[03:20:59] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Good evening. Jennifer Ng, Public Works Director. With respect to this particular project, there is loading that is provided on site. It is typically Public Works's, well I would say it's typically the City's requirement that loading is provided on site and not in the public right-of-way. In this case that is already provided. The first floor does have loading area. It is also open parking for guests and the retail, um, so that whole first floor is available for that use. In addition, the mail room in which that would receive Amazon deliveries and such like that, um, is right at the corner sort of near the near the bank on that first floor, um, surrounded by parking.

[03:21:45] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Staff did confirm that the heights of the first floor uh roof of the parking garage are sufficient enough to accommodate, um, a truck that would be providing deliveries. With respect to how we answer those kinds of questions in the past, it would be a significant effort to look forward. Um, you know, I would say that as every agency is sort of looking at urbanizing more into the future, this is definitely, um, something that needs to um that that other jurisdictions are are are looking at as well is to really, you know, how do we how do we deal with the new-ish influx of, you know, Lyft and Waymo and DoorDash, um, Amazon Prime, you know, all of these convenient delivery services that require, um, loading space with very limited area to provide it.

[03:22:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So sounds like that topic would be a further discussion but it sounds that staff, the City, was able to find that there's ample opportunity within the project site to address some of those needs. Is that...?

[03:22:59] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: There there is, um, we believe sufficient availability on site. Uh, the applicant is asking for additional.

[03:23:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing any other, uh, Council questions. So I'm going to, um, open it up for public comment. If you would like to provide public comment in person, please submit a blue speaker card. If you'd like to submit public comment virtually, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit, um, or, um, press a star 9 to unmute. We'll take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. We'll start with Eli Robles, then Alejandro Martinez, David Cuesta, and Pamela Baird. If you don't mind queuing up as you're doing, that would be great. Um, that's what I have in person and then we'll go to virtual. All right. Eli. Oh, and Alex.

[03:23:55] Eli Robles: Five here in Santa Clara County. I'm here tonight not just to raise concerns about the proposed Greystar project at 749 West El Camino Real, but to highlight the tremendous opportunity this project presents if done right. On the surface, this development promises progress, new housing, retail, and a modern gateway to downtown. But real progress isn't just measured in square footage or building height. It is measured on how we treat people who build our city. And that's where Mountain View has a chance to lead. By requiring Greystar to hire responsible contractors, those who participate in in-state certified or joint la uh joint labor management apprenticeship programs, pay area standard wages and provide healthcare, you can ensure this project becomes a model of inclusive growth.

[03:24:48] Eli Robles: These contractors don't just build structures, they build careers. They train the next generation of skilled workers, offer pathways to the middle class and up and uphold safety and quality standards that protect everyone. This isn't just about preventing uh exploitation, it's about unlocking opportunity. When workers earn livable wages and receive healthcare, families thrive. When apprenticeship standards are supported, young people gain access to meaningful careers. And when developers are held to fair labor standards, the entire community benefits from a stronger, more resilient economy. Mountain View is known for innovation and inclusion. Let's extend those values to the construction workforce. Let's make sure people who build our future can afford to be part of it. Because we cannot call this community benefit if the community's workers are left behind. I urge you to hold Greystar accountable not to punish but to elevate. Require them to work with responsible contractors who invest in people, not just profits. Let this project be a beacon of what's possible when fairness, dignity and opportunity are built into the foundation. Thank you for your time.

[03:26:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[03:26:05] Alejandro Martinez: Good evening, uh, City Council and Mayor. As mentioned my name is Alejandro Martinez. I've been a member of LiUNA Laborers Local 270 for the past 10 years. I'm here in support of the 749 West El Camino project. I want to talk a little bit about myself. Right after high school I wanted to go to college, have a career, have a family. Things didn't go as planned for me. I ended up finding myself struggling making ends meet. However, the Laborers Union gave me that opportunity to become a skilled laborer through the apprenticeship program. I am a single father and thanks to the Laborers, I was able to provide for my daughter. Not just that, now I own a home of my own and now I can see my daughter grow in the same city I grew up.

[03:26:57] Alejandro Martinez: All I can say is that this job will allow this job allows to us to live in our communities and will open a lot of opportunities. Greystar has been a proven partner for us because they work with union contractors. By allowing this project, it will be a positive impact because it will offer livable wages and benefits to all of us. Thank you for your time. I urge your support.

[03:27:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. David?

[03:27:25] David Cuesta: Uh, when Greystar presented this project to to Cuesta Park in 2023, I don't think they next slide, I don't think they fully appreciated the flotilla of children biking in front of the primary exit that I've highlighted here in in orange. Um, nobody likes cars sitting on a sidewalk. Next slide please. Uh, this is an example in Sunnyvale where to exit a garage, the car has to sit on a sidewalk to make a turn. Next slide. So we went to Greystar and said, hey, everyone's in a hurry. Residents aren't going to stop. Please put in a gate. And we met with them several times and they did that and they went above and beyond and they are now providing three gates on Castro and on the exit where my kids and our kids bike to school. And so we're very grateful for the work that they've done. They've worked with us on this.

[03:28:28] David Cuesta: Uh, now next slide. Now it's funny this whole discussion that we're having about speed kills deals because they're talking about extending and there's a bunch of slides in here complaining about how the planner has been very unresponsive to me in my requests for various pieces of information and I think it's uh endemic of how slow this has gone. I have a number of slides pointing to the delays so I'm going to pivot a little bit based on the concessions that they've asked for here to say I agree with I happen to have a few degrees in economics. There's no way they're going to save money by extending this out. And this would be terrible for the community to extend this out. So I would agree with the denial that's being proposed. I'm I'm actually frankly shocked this wasn't discussed with me ahead ahead of time. Let's flip through the slides. Um, we'll go through my complaint slides. Um, skip. Skip. Skip. I'll send this in an email. Skip. Skip. Skip. Skip. Skip.

[03:29:29] David Cuesta: Now there's one last gem in this memo and it's incredible. I'm going to read it out loud. Within a one-mile radius of the project, there is a deficiency of 14 acres of parkland for the existing residents. Therefore the existing parkland is not adequate to serve the existing and proposed area. Next slide. To me that's pretty amazing because the city has been telling Cuesta Park for years that we have more than our fair share of parkland, which is why we should accommodate pickleball courts. But when clarify when certifying this under the Quimby Act, there's not enough and that's why we've got to charge $3 million for a park in-lieu fee. So which is it? We have enough parkland? Give them back his 3 million bucks. Or we don't have enough park space? We keep his 3 million and we preserve our park space.

[03:30:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Pamela.

[03:30:35] Pamela Baird: Good evening. My name is Pamela Baird. I'm a 27-year uh resident of Mountain View. Uh, hello uh Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers. I am speaking on behalf of myself and not any of the uh organizations to which I belong. I want to commend the developer for working with community um uh outreach. Um, the developer has responded responsibly to the requests and the um suggestions the community members have made. The project is much better looking than it was when we first saw it um with some of the design elements that have uh been translated and of course saving the artwork and re uh purposing the artwork is very much commendable.

[03:31:30] Pamela Baird: So I want to enforce the idea that the fact that the developer has worked with the community does um deserve some recognition and perhaps even remuneration in not having additional expenses incurred um by the developer. We've seen many projects over the last five to six years fizzle out and we've also seen two precise plans pretty much fizzle out, including the ones that I worked on when I was on the Planning Commission, North Bayshore and Whisman. And it would really be a shame to see this one fizzle out because of it can't pencil out anymore. So I encourage you to support this program and um look forward to seeing it um be coming out of the ground. Thank you.

[03:32:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alex Brown.

[03:32:15] Alex Brown: Hi friends. Oh, feels like a while since there's been a development project to comment on. No. Uh, one of the earlier items was about how delaying the Rengstorff project, the Rengstorff grade separation is the thing that's costing so much money. Like time is not usually a way to save, like just delaying a project and taking longer time doesn't usually save money. Uh, we need the housing sooner. We need it already. And so I think you guys just got to go fast. I I will say they uh they have been really good with community outreach. I've been to so many meetings with Kathy and David and the crew just listening to people's concerns and trying to adjust to them. So that part is great but that if we can go faster and get it done and get the housing built for people. You guys can do it. I know. I know you can do it. I believe in you. All right. Thank you.

[03:33:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That concludes in-person public comments. So we'll move to virtual. We have Andrea Wald.

[03:33:10] Andrea Wald: Uh, good evening. I'll be very brief. I simply wanted to say that for all the harms associated with artificial turf, I hope none will be included in the design that is being worked on for the mix mixed-use project at 749 West El Camino Real. Whatever landscaping is going to be part of this project should include only natural plantings which are far better for our environment and our health. This is also supported by the wonderful biodiversity and urban forest plan that the city is currently working on. Thank you.

[03:33:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Bruce England.

[03:33:48] Bruce England: Thank you Mayor. Bruce England. Um, I'm going to be speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning briefly, but I just want to voice my personal support for the trades and the labor practices that they um come to a lot of the city meetings to talk about. My family came from um labor work and then we became long-standing members of the community including in Mountain View and so we we promote the future by taking care of our workers today. So I wanted to say that. Now for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, uh, we submitted a letter so I won't repeat that. Um, but there were a few points that we wanted um to touch on. One is about the front plaza design. Um, to us it still seems over-paved in the various drawings with inadequate tree canopy and remaining questions about artificial turf that Andrea just spoke about.

[03:34:43] Bruce England: Um, all corners of that intersection, Castro and El Camino, seem quite dead and this project has the opportunity to provide sorely needed activation at at least at that location which can bleed over to the other corners too perhaps at some point in the future. Um, the um detail about the community benefits. Uh, I know it's really complicated and the questions that Lucas um touched on further complicate matters but um we feel that they should be given adequate credit um for the kind of community benefits that they've already uh put forward and I just want to encourage you on Council to make sure that you include that in your discussion. I'm sure you will but I just want to encourage you to do that. Um, yes we have met with the developer team many times through Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We very much appreciate that. And lastly on the issue of the loading zone, um, there are a lot of concerns out in the community with the improvements being made on El Camino to enable bicycling along there. Some people are comfortable getting around delivery vehicles but a whole lot of people aren't. And if we want to encourage people to use that new amenity we really need to make it safe and comfortable for people. Thank you.

[03:36:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Matt's iPhone?

[03:36:06] Matt Regan: Uh, good evening Mayor Kamei, City Council members. Uh, my name is Matt Regan. I'm here representing the Bay Area Council and close to 400 of the region's largest employers and we're here to support the project in front of you. Um, we uh have also reviewed it and are um uh uh very supportive of of of the project, the homes that it will supply uh to our region and to our workforce. Um, I would like to point out that during staff presentation I was I was counting but lost count after about 10 times when uh staff said uh and I quote 'which exceeds city requirements'. Um, it's quite clear that the developer is exceeding city requirements as it relates to affordability levels and depth of affordability, tree preservation, the art preservation, bicycle provisions, etc., etc. You're dealing with a good partner in Greystar, quite clearly.

[03:37:05] Matt Regan: And obviously with the very positive comments that are coming from the community, they've done uh they've gone above and beyond to outreach to the to the neighbors and the neighborhoods uh to make sure that their concerns have been heard and have been uh uh have been incorporated into the design of this project. And I would like to just echo the comments by the previous speaker, Mr. England, about the the the community benefits that are already built into this project and and and at the at great expense to the developer. So uh I would uh I would urge you at at Council to work with the developer on their request around timing. Um, these are very uncertain times as has as has been pointed out several times. Uh and it it is challenging to get financing. It is challenging to make these projects work on on specific timelines. So you have a developer who's working very very hard with you to meet your requirements and to meet the community's requirements and I would hope that you can meet them somewhere in the middle to to help them with what they need to make this project work. Thank you so much.

[03:38:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks. Robert Cox.

[03:38:10] Robert Cox: Uh, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos and members of the City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to talk on the redevelopment of the Chase Bank site. Tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf, uh, not on behalf of other organizations. But I do want to thank Mr. Dybol, Ms. Thibodeaux and other members of the Greystar team for reaching out to the Mountain View Historical Association and Livable Mountain View to share their plans to preserve key pieces of artwork from this historic site and integrate it into their new development. I also appreciate their adopting the theme of the Richardsonian Arches in the architecture which are evident in the current uh building for the apartments that they will develop. This design element will lend a sense of historical continuity to the site.

[03:38:58] Robert Cox: At the EPC meeting on this project, several other people and I spoke with concern that the project proposal did not include a dedicated place for delivery vehicles like Amazon and UPS trucks to park when they make their deliveries. Mr. Dybol called me today and said that Greystar will make a loading zone available for vehicles along Victor Way and that signage could be added to mark this area for this purpose. I understand now that by listening to staff that they would be uh offering to take a part of the public right-of-way and I thank staff for also suggesting that there may be the possibility, which I think would be an improvement, would be to have it on site. However, uh, for me the most important thing is that we get the issue resolved because as I've driven around the city uh since the El Camino uh bike lanes have been put up and the um uh changes on California Street have been uh created, um, I've been disturbed to see people double parking, you know, in the middle of, you know, major traffic lanes, you know, because they can't figure out where to park. So for projects like this I just want a viable solution to where the parking should be and I thank Mayor Kamei in particular for raising the issue uh during her questions and I hope that you'll come up with a good answer to that. Thank you very much for listening to my views. I yield my time.

[03:40:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Francisco Nunez.

[03:40:36] Francisco Nunez: Yes, good evening. Can you guys hear me?

[03:40:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:40:40] Francisco Nunez: Uh, good evening Mayor, City Council and everyone in attendance. Uh, I apologize ahead of time, I'm losing my voice, I'm a little sick. Uh, but it was important that I make this comment. Uh, as mentioned my name is Francisco Nunez and I'm with the Laborers Union. Uh, I'm here on behalf of the 6700 hard working LiUNA Local 270 members in Santa Clara and the members who call uh Mountain View home. Um, as a member and as an advocate, I'm here to express my strong support for this project. Uh, this project represents an equitable investment in our community by creating significant opportunities for construction jobs created uh that pay livable wages with benefits and healthcare for our families uh and a pension for when we do retire. Uh, thousands of our members and their families live and work in Santa Clara County. Um, they live in in Mountain View and will directly benefit from the construction phase.

[03:41:38] Francisco Nunez: Look, uh, Dan Dybol and and Greystar have been a proven partner. Uh, they have consistently prioritized union contractors. Like I'm not saying that this is just something they agreed to do now. We we've been working with them for 10 years plus uh on previous projects in Mountain View and throughout the Bay Area and they're always ensuring that local union uh laborers and skilled tradespeople are employed on their projects. Uh, this commitment is essential as such jobs are critical in addressing the challenges our members face and enhancing the overall economic vitality in our community. You know, moreover, this project will facilitate recruitment and training for new apprentices uh from all walks of life through our apprenticeship program. Uh, we actively welcome individuals from underserved communities including single mothers, veterans returning from service and and those that are returning from incarceration. Um, you know the reality is this represents meaningful steps towards building a diverse workforce rooted in equity and opportunity. Uh, we are incredibly excited about the benefits of this project extending far beyond its construction phase. You know, the housing and and everything else that it comes with. Uh, it's been a long five years to get this project to this point and and, you know, let's get it built. Uh, we strongly urge you to approve the Greystar project uh here in in West El Camino Real and it as it promises to deliver invaluable opportunities for our members and the broader community. Um, I I I thank you and I and I urge you to support it. Uh, one shout out, um, I appreciated the today's proclamation about National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness. 350,000 meals is great. So if the person's still there, my kudos to you and uh to your uh um organization. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening.

[03:43:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks Francisco, we hope you uh feel better soon. Uh, Catalyze SV?

[03:44:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Alex is that you? All right. We we can maybe try to return to Catalyze SV. Why don't we try Sula?

[03:44:20] Sula Bloor: Uh, yes. Um, my name's Sula Bloor. I live next to the Elan development that Greystar put in several years ago and I appreciated how quickly and smoothly they um completed construction since I lived between it and Graham Middle School doing its renovations. I believe in higher density and mixed-use construction and I look forward to having more new neighbors assuming that this project moves forward in a timely fashion. Thank you.

[03:44:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Hala Al-Shahwani.

[03:44:58] Hala Al-Shahwani: Uh, yes. Good evening Mayor, uh City Council and City Staff. My name is Hala Al-Shahwani, a long-time resident of Mountain View. Um, I wanted to commend the developer on listening to the community um on preserving uh the artwork um and some of the art features um of the existing building at uh Chase Bank. Um, I've attended many uh meetings in the past few years with Greystar and I appreciate their um collaboration with the community on that. However, I wanted to uh strongly support the city staff in holding the developer to having uh two years to um to their permit plus two extra years as extension. So that makes it four years really if they choose to to begin phase one. I think four years is a plenty of time, very generous of the city to do that so that they can secure so that the developer can secure the uh funding for the project. And so I um strongly support city staff position on that.

[03:46:16] Hala Al-Shahwani: Um, the statement that city staff made, it will absolutely be detriment to affordable housing which is what um all of this should be about. Uh, to extend it more than four years to to make it six years extension, I don't think that's reasonable and I thank the city staff for um insisting that it would be that that you know typical time given which is four years. Um, I also greatly support and appreciate the city staff in saying that the uh public right-of-way on Victor uh Street should not be used for delivery vehicles. Um, and it sounds like the city staff already checked out the developer's plan and uh uh already determined that there is plenty of space for the delivery trucks to make it to uh the um it sounds like the first floor and even to the parking garage with no problem to perform their deliveries and so um there's really no need to give uh public right-of-way on a street for delivery vehicles. That's uh really not reasonable and and uh not really safe for the public residents of the street of of using this, you know, that's their street to be used as as uh you know everyone else does on their street. So thank you city staff for, you know, your suggestions and I would like to uh support them on that and I hope Council will will agree with that as well. Thank you very much.

[03:47:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Alex Shoor.

[03:47:48] Alex Shoor: Thank you Mayor Kamei. Sorry about earlier, that was me. This is Alex Shoor, Executive Director of Catalyze Silicon Valley. Calling...

Additional Content 5

[03:48:02] Alex Shoor: to supplement the letter that we sent to you and staff on behalf of our members who had a chance to weigh in on this project. Catalyst SV is deeply committed to building sustainable, equitable, and vibrant places for people in Silicon Valley. We do that through assisting governments with community engagement. We also do that through advocating for outstanding development. And I am delighted to share that of the 70-plus projects that our members have scored over the last eight years, this is the absolute first project ever to score a total five out of five across all categories of how we score projects.

[03:48:28] Alex Shoor: It is truly an outstanding project, and we want to commend Greystar and their team for designing an outstanding project and doing such great community engagement along the way to build support for development. We hope to see many, many more projects like this in Mountain View and across the Bay Area. This is our third one we've been able to evaluate in Mountain View, and we're really, really excited for it.

[03:48:55] Alex Shoor: We weighed in on this project before discussion was made of the request for an extension, so we are not weighing in not on that tonight. We do hope it can be built as quickly as possible. This housing crisis continues to tear apart our community, and we need these homes as soon as possible. And we're so grateful that Greystar is continuing to invest in Silicon Valley and include affordable housing at very low income levels. That's a a fantastic commitment. So we're so excited about their engagement with the community and their development project proposal before you tonight. We hope you will pass it, and I will yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Mountain View Councilmembers and staff for your work on this project.

[03:50:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So seeing no other comment uh in person or virtual, I'll take the item back for Council questions and deliberation. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions as amended. The City Clerk will take a roll call vote as we have a Councilmember participating remotely this evening. Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:50:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'm uh always eager to rip off the bandaid. Um so uh first I'll I'll share uh my gratitude um to the applicant uh and staff for uh the work to uh advance the project. It's it's taken a long time um and uh I think it's noteworthy that this is a code compliant project. The applicant um has uh invested a great deal of time uh working through uh complex set of regulations that are designed to um yield uh community benefits and um uh a set of of of improvements that I think uh will will enhance the site. It's a good project.

[03:51:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh and it includes a lot of the things that we um are seeking when we are evaluating uh mixed-use development, any type of development really, but uh uh a substantial amount of uh integrated uh commercial space or ground floor retail, uh 299 apartments, um including a number of uh low-income, 50% AMI units. Uh the the project uh I think um merits approval not only because we have a legal obligation uh to approve it but uh because it is a good project that I think achieves the City's goals.

[03:52:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll I'll note too, uh the use of the State Density Bonus Law uh is significant. We've talked um as a Council and heard from staff um about concerns related to the State Density Bonus Law, including the the use of uh waivers uh of development standards or concessions that eliminate the things that we we emphasize and want to include and incorporate in development. Um but notwithstanding the use of the State Density Bonus Law, the project still provides a substantial amount of um uh mixed-use or ground floor retail um and uh community benefits or public benefits. I know we'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit.

[03:53:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um but rather than uh do what I think many of us fear, using waivers and concessions to eliminate those elements of development that I think contribute most to our community, uh the the applicant has chosen to to retain and and um I think incorporate at a substantial level um those types of of benefits uh and improvements. And I think that's commendable. Um I I I would hope that other applicants emulate a project like this rather than come in with uh a purely residential project, for instance, that makes little or no effort to uh to improve the area uh that uh that they're developing. So I I I I think it's important to to uh elevate what is good and attractive about this project.

[03:54:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I have uh I guess some concerns about uh the risk in denying a concession. It's something that we have never done before. Uh I think it's not something we should do lightly and we should understand that uh the burden falls on the City to uh to make the findings and then to uh defend the denial of a concession. Um I'm I'm in no position uh personally to uh either corroborate or um or to uh uh make findings that are different from what the staff have uh have proposed. Um but it it's it's an unusual position we're in as a Council to uh to deny a concession when I think after many years we've been told the State Density Bonus Law is uh you know very difficult to uh to oppose or to to combat against.

[03:55:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I think if if uh the majority of the Council chooses to adopt the findings denying the concession, I think it's important to to be very clear about uh why, right? To put into the record um the the evidence that we have to demonstrate conclusively, right, uh that uh there are no identifiable and actual cost reductions uh that are provided through the concession. It's hard for me to say either way. Um I will observe though that we've seen a number of really good projects expire, right? Take the full four-year period, right? Two plus two and never break ground because it's a very difficult uh it's been a very difficult economic cycle for a very long time.

[03:56:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um and that uh in fact through State law there have been extensions provided uh recognizing that uh there's a lot of uncertainty and that it's been hard to secure the capital, to secure the financing to to actually build projects. So it it's I I I think you know it what there is a compelling argument to be made that the concession does in fact uh provide uh through some additional certainty, right, identifiable and actual cost reductions. We've seen the State say this is necessary, right, to allow housing to be constructed. Um in other cases, you know particularly particularly through development agreements, developers have said we will give you, the City, money in exchange for additional time. Um that's noteworthy uh and I think something for us to consider. Uh so I I do think that's that's a risk and something we should uh deliberate eyes wide open.

[03:57:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um on the uh community benefit or public benefit component, um I I think this is another thing we ought to consider. Um if we do deny uh the concession, the applicant still has a second concession. Um and that concession could be used to eliminate some of the community benefits, right? That and that would be truly uh an identifiable and actual cost reduction. Um so I think there are also some risks we should consider there, right? If um that there's a precedent set in many different regards, however we choose to advance the project. Um we also don't want to set a precedent where uh future applicants say, okay, well, I mean now that we know that we can use a concession or a waiver to get around community benefit obligations, why not? Why not do precisely that? So I think we should think um very carefully about how we approach that question.

[03:58:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I'm not going to make a motion. I want to I want to hear what other members of the Council have to say. Um but I I I think this is tricky. Um uh I I think it's it's tough particularly because so many of these questions have come to us at the the last minute. Um I think uh I I appreciate the staff's response to the question about uh when the conditions of approval were first provided to the applicant. I know that many of these things have been discussed iteratively over a great deal great great deal of time but I think as projects become increasingly complex and take advantage of various State laws, um it may become a a a good best practice to provide the conditions a little bit earlier um because these are hard questions for the Council.

[03:59:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: They're they're um I don't think there are easy obvious answers to many of the questions that were being asked in evaluating the project. And I think uh having more time for the applicant to work with staff in the future uh will will make it a little bit easier for us to um uh to to weigh in. You know, it's a good thing that the question isn't approve the project or not. I think that's that's a question other communities may ask themselves. In this case, it's you know we have to approve the project but how do we answer some tough questions about uh the applicability of the State Density Bonus Law and um you know how how do we help make projects viable? Uh how do we think about time frames to ensure that these projects aren't um aren't just going to disappear, right, after four or five years of of a lot of work both from the applicant and staff. So just some prelim preliminary thoughts and I'm eager to hear uh what the Council has to say. Thank you.

[04:00:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[04:00:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. Um I really kind of would like to question some of the things that Councilmember Ramirez or or get some clarification on a couple of the things that you've said. Um I too think that really this is a great project. Um I was really kind of um just bowled over by this letter, this very complicated letter. Uh I think is is six or eight single-spaced pages. We re received it at 5 minutes of 12 today. And I don't work full-time, but it took me you know over an hour to seriously read that letter. And um so to get things at the last minute like that, it it really um it makes it it makes it hard. Um it makes it very difficult.

[04:01:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um so uh it's a good project. We all are really pleased, I think the community in general, and I personally am really pleased with with the way the developer has worked with the community and come up with alternatives for using the art. I mean, essentially when this project started, that was what needed to be mitigated. And the developer did what is um uh really uh thought to be the best practice under CEQA, which is to say, okay, we know this is a problem, so we're going to design around it. We're not going to wait to do the EIR to say you have to do this as a mitigation. We're going to figure it out. And I really appreciate that you did that. But I also think that it's important to realize that that is the the spirit of CEQA when it really works well. And in this case, I think you know it has. So thank you for that.

[04:02:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But but then in this letter, you've come forward and said, well, um we've done that and now we um uh there's there's a a community benefit in our uh Precise Plan that we're supposed to be paying and um we don't think we should have to pay it anymore. That has been brought up in some communication some uh in some uh uh discussions in the past week, but there were never any dollars and cents associated with it before, at least I wasn't aware that there were. And um so I'm I want to ask my colleague, are you suggesting that we um kind of consider uh granting the um uh extension to eight years in exchange for them paying the community benefits? Because I think that that could be a very good outcome.

[04:03:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I I wasn't suggesting that necessarily, but I I think there um what I what I was struggling and failing to articulate is that these are really challenging um decisions we have to make. Uh that the applicant has asked for uh additional time using a concession, which is something that I've never heard of before and I don't think we've ever seen as a city. Uh so we have to think about is that uh a is that a permissible concession? And if we don't think it is, are we actually prepared to defend in court um our determination that it is not an acceptable con concession because the burden falls on us to prove that it's not.

[04:04:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um the applicant has also requested credit against the community benefit contribution for voluntarily provided um improvements. And I think one thing that we have to think about is what what is actually voluntary and what is something that they're obligated to provide. There are a number of things that are voluntarily provided where the applicant could say, if if we make a decision that is not favorable to them, well, I'm going to save some money and not provide those things anymore, the things that they've uh negotiated with the the neighborhood for instance. Because there is no objective standard, there's nothing in State law or in the Precise Plan or in our municipal code that requires them to provide those things. So if we if we don't think about them as community benefits, they could go away, right? They could go away either through just you know some application of State law that I'm not terribly familiar with or they can use a waiver or they could use a concession, right? And that I think would be um uh that would be an outcome that is not desirable for the neighborhood since there are really good things that they are proposing. I hope that was clarifying. It was also a word salad, but I hope it was clarified.

[04:04:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um does staff have any uh guidance to offer about the um uh the total or the list of things that are um are uh being put forward as community benefits and what and the costs that are associated with them? I think they're in the Holland and Knight letter. Um but you know whether staff's read on that would be appreciated.

[04:05:25] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Thank you. We do have some information um presented on the screen currently. Um we have looked at the um project and identified various elements that we think um objectively exceed um the clear standards provided in the code um and in some cases reflect a specific commitment from the applicant to respond to a community or city staff need that's not specified um in a code. And so um we've identified a number of these here. Um things related to safety measures like the speed humps, speed limit signs, signage, and so forth. Um the commitment to the school crossing guard funding for five years. Um the high visibility crosswalk. The public plaza furnishings um which are not a a specified objective standard of the public plaza as an example.

[04:06:21] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: And then uh the value of the well what we're calling here the excess uh below market rate units provided with the project um that would go above and beyond the 15% requirement in the City's BMR ordinance. Um those uh specific contributions total to to nearly $1.5 million that could be credited. Um we have looked at similar projects approved in the El Camino Real Precise Plan and San Antonio Precise Plan areas that have very similar uh community benefits structures. And there is clear precedent in the City Council's past actions to grant credit for these kinds of improvements. Um most of the projects in fact received some credit for community benefits uh to reduce the cash payment amount that the applicant would otherwise need to pay in those instances. And so uh there is a clearly paved road here um should the Council want to go down it for applying this type of credit.

[04:07:24] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um we do have a couple other options that would enhance the community benefits credit that staff's not currently recommending but since they've come up in conversation I'll just briefly touch on them. We don't have them on the slide because they're not part of staff's recommendation. Um the other component you know should the Council be interested in exploring relates to the uh VTA transit shelter. The applicant has estimated the valuation of that at $250,000. So that would get this up to approximately $1.75 million of credit. And the other component um relates um to the other uh component relates um to the credit for the public art uh preservation. And so um I think there are a couple ways that staff thinks the Council could look at that if if the Council was interested.

[04:08:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: One is to essentially split the difference with the applicant. Um I think there's some dispute between the applicant and staff as to whether that's purely um resting in the California Environmental Quality Act realm in some fashion or another um or if it's something the applicant truly intended to be a community benefit. And splitting the difference there would increase the total credit to about $3.4 million. And then um if the Council were to grant a full credit towards that um adjustment, um that would get us to about $5.1 million which exceeds the uh total community benefits payment requirement.

[04:08:51] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um I'll just note with respect to those arts credit amounts, um staff has adjusted those in looking at the detailed information of cost estimates provided by the applicant and in particular eliminated things like um contingencies that would be part of the project that aren't directly related to the provision of the community benefit and some cost escalations the applicant had assumed over a four to five year period for the storage, uh the decommissioning, and reinstallation and so forth. So these are really the direct hard costs that factor into these staff estimates.

[04:09:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so to get back to that, uh it seems like in a sense there's a staff um possible recommendation of uh a credit of 3.4 million. Is that correct?

[04:09:30] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh not quite. I would say the staff feels very comfortable with the approximately $1.5 million credit shown on the screen. Um I think feels reasonably comfortable with adding the $250,000 VTA bus shelter um that gets us to about 1.75 million. Um and staff's not recommending the credit towards the art uh preservation costs, but have uh we have provided the information if the Council's interested in pursuing that either at a reduced rate or a full rate.

[04:10:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Well at this time I'd I'd kind of like to hear what some other members of the Council feel.

[04:10:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Clark.

[04:10:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you. Um so I'll I'll start by echoing uh a thanks both to the applicant and the and the community for the uh for for working together and and producing a project where um traditionally um a number of stakeholders who I think would uh might be opposed to something like this are are actually in favor of it. And so I I think uh overall this is a a win-win for the community. So I I just wanted to start there. Um uh and I'll kind of go down the list from I think most substantial into a a few other comments.

[04:10:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: So um the one is uh on the community benefit fee, um the the you know crediting the the items that that staff just identified um with the exception of the art, I think makes a lot of sense. The the applicant did go above and beyond in a number of these uh different um different items. And I do think that the um the VTA bus shelter is uh will be a a really big benefit because that's a 522 stop. Um it's it's uncovered right now. I I walk by it all the time um and uh I I just think that would be that would be a significant benefit. Where where I have some qualms would be with with the art because you know that was identified from the beginning, you know even through CEQA as something and it would be one thing if we would been if we'd been talking about this as a community benefit for a long period of time uh and there were kind of dollar amounts attached to it and everyone kind of had a sense of where this was all headed and how we were going to get to that five plus million dollar community benefit contribution which is required under the Precise Plan and the applicant is utilizing the Precise Plan to get to the densities uh even with the the the the bonuses.

[04:12:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think the the other thing um the the step that I am not willing to take and and I I completely understand the the request for uh an additional uh number of of years for the permit. Um I I I do not find the argument compelling that um you know this qualifies as a concession. I disagree with my colleague Councilmember Ramirez respectfully. Um I know you you specifically mentioned one of the um one of the um findings for denial but there were multiple findings for denial, one of which I found particularly compelling, which is that it would be detrimental to the the delivery uh the timely delivery of affordable housing under the housing element, which is the whole point of this. And so um you know two years plus the two-year extension I I think is sufficient.

[04:12:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: And if we really care about getting affordable housing and getting it built and this particular I hope this applicant can deliver it in in um in the next uh several years, but if they can't then we should give someone else a chance. And I don't think that land banking is a good idea. Um we've seen it um we've seen it happen uh in in down market cycles uh and sometimes it even extends beyond the down market cycles. So I I think the there are there are findings that we can make that I think are compelling and I and I just don't um feel like the the arguments made that that qualifies as a concession uh are are uh they they just don't sway me.

[04:13:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: So um overall the the pack um the loading zone I do think um a a member of the public I think Mr. Cox spoke, um I uh the Elan project across the street suffers from uh you know just that very narrow street and there are constantly trucks loading unloading whether it's for people moving in and out, Rose Market, all those other things. I think there there are opportunities um for some of that to occur on the site, but I also think that there's going to have to be some uh some areas off-site. And so we can handle that one of two ways. Either you know we can let staff have the grace to kind of figure all of that out. There are formal loading zones on the property for move in move out trucks. So really what we're talking about are the the Ubers, the Doordashes, the Doordash deliveries, the Waymos, all the all the day-to-day things that now people are just double parking including outside my complex in the the bike lane uh on El Camino. So wh which we want to avoid.

[04:15:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: So if it makes sense to take a couple of those parking spots where um Victor Way actually gets wider there. And if it if it makes sense to have a loading zone there that's for some period of time during the day and then it reverts to normal parking outside of those hours, I'm very open to that because I do think that we need to think ahead as the Mayor pointed out um to some of those for some of those items. And then the last item I don't think this is for us to address tonight but I just want to raise it um having spoken with some folks who live either on Lane Avenue, mostly mostly on Lane um not Victor, but uh the folks in that area have they're they're kind of boxed in, right? And they don't have a lot of uh area to get out. And I feel like even though this and one of the great things I think about this project is that it um it's providing the amount of parking that it's providing both for the retail and for the residents. Um but there will inevitably be um folks who take the convenient way out and just park on the street.

[04:15:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I we'll probably I we'll probably hear at some point after this is constructed about um Neighborhood Parking Permit program. But I I just wanted to raise that now. Um I I don't think it's something we have to deal with tonight but I think um it's something we'll have to consider at some point. So just just to recap, I I think the project is great overall. My my the I think the only things that I'm uh you know I look to my colleagues to to help formulate is how we how we deal with the community benefit contribution. I'm I'm very comfortable with what staff recommended plus the the VTA shelter um and that gets us uh some some way there. Uh so I think in my mind that that's my preferred route, the the rest can be made up as a contribution unless others feel differently. But I but I I don't feel like um I I don't think it's a good precedent to set for using concessions for uh permit extensions. I just don't I think that's a step too far for me. And and I think the findings that staff provided were were compelling. So that those are my thoughts. Happy to hear from others.

[04:17:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[04:17:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll start by echoing what uh other Councilmembers have said about thanking staff, uh the applicant, and the community for for all the hard work to produce this project. What I'm happy about, of course the housing, um the amount of housing we'll be getting and the affordable housing in particular. Um for the work with the community uh on a number of things: Safe Routes to School, circulation of students is important to me, on the artwork. Um and then on you know previous to this uh in this parking lot the the applicant had a uh a Peet's Coffee that was very popular um as a meeting place for people both at at least this is how I used it, um both north and south living north and south of El Camino. Um so establishing another hopefully gathering place for people. So those things I'm I'm all very happy with. I'm um confident the Council will approve the project.

[04:18:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um but at the same time I'm concerned and I'm kind of on a very different page with some of this. I'm concerned about the treatment of both the historic Gateway Park and the historic building by the renowned and influential architect Millard Sheets. I think it it comes up as the one thing in the CEQA process that we would have to make a statement of overriding considerations on. And the uh this in comes up in some questions we asked um that uh Councilmembers asked uh staff. The supplemental environmental impact report uh says that full preservation of the building would not have allowed the applicant to meet project objectives, but that partial preservation, in other words preservation of the of the front half of it I is what I think it's talking about, um would allow the project objectives to be fulfilled and um and although it would take the building off the listing of the California Register of Historic Resources, it it would keep it here in the community for all um for all effects.

[04:19:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm I'm sad that that did not come up earlier. The fact that it would have been possible to keep this notable building and make it maybe the the lobby for the apartments or make it a restaurant, and also that would allow us to keep the gateway the garden gateway. And I feel you know I feel really sad that this has come up basically at the very last minute. And I think that it it's telling about our process. When I talk to members of the community who worked very hard on saving the artwork, many of them told me that the reason they wanted the artwork saved is they thought there was no way the building would be saved. So kind of coming in with defeat in the beginning. And I'm hoping we can when it's possible to save buildings, this is one of the most renowned historic architects in the state. And when it's pa and Councilmembers who voted to have this building built um said this will be something that will be uh mark the entrance to Mountain View forever. So the fact that that's lost so quickly is concerning to me.

[04:20:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So at the very least, I don't think we should allow I I think we have to take seriously uh that the um at least the preservation of the artwork is not a community benefit. It's part of what we part of what we do in order to um make that statement of overriding considerations, which I'm not sure I am sure that this will pass tonight. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make that vote because I think that we need to improve our process um on on this particular point. Um but at the but at the least, I don't think that that should be paid for as a community benefit. I think that's part of the CEQA process. Um let's see if I had anything else. No, I think that's it.

[04:21:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Uh Vice Mayor Ramos.

[04:22:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um sorry. Um so uh I'll some piecewise things then I'll go to overall um things. I actually do like the idea of having a permanent loading zone on on Victor Way. It doesn't have to be the whole Victor Way that that adjusts to it. But um as Councilmember Clark mentioned, they there there is plans obviously for like the big loading zones for people moving in and and for for essentially those in the know. Um as we build this gig econ there's a gig economy where you have all the the Doordashers and the um Amazon delivery drivers. Uh uh they're they're not all going to know where the right place is. So like having a curbside loading zone is just I think it is a public right-of-way and I feel like that is a better use of public right-of-way than parking for someone to use for 72 hours. Um so I I don't think it has to be the whole Victor Way, but having at least a couple of loading parking zones I think would would actually improve that area. Um and so that's why I I I like that idea.

[04:23:22] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um I'm comfortable as as when they were talking about the um the community benefits, um counting the the 1.5 million that staff seems to be comfortable with. Um that's that's fine. And as a Councilmember Clark said, the VTA transit shelter also fine. So I guess that leads up to like 1.75 uh based on y y'all's calculations. Um I guess the big jump is the public art and um it I know that it was something that the community asked for really from the get go with uh this this project. Um and so um as as Councilmember Hicks uh mentioned, it was it was probably the the biggest it would have been the biggest cause uh for people to come out to not support this project if the art wasn't saved. So I guess like I I would have been fine had it been allowed but I also know that if you didn't put it you wouldn't have gotten the same people coming up being here. We would have gotten public comment wouldn't have been finished by now of people opposing the project if you if you didn't have that public art res saved.

[04:24:57] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um as for I think the big item of the night, well overall, um I I I'm I'm very happy with the project. I I want more housing built and um this is a good chunk of housing so we we do want to make it happen. The the eight-year ask that the applicant's having, I do feel like it's it's it's like playing chicken with the developer with some of these things where um they're saying that it it it they'll have difficulty penciling out if they don't get this and then we have our staff saying bet. Um uh so it it does make me a little nervous because we have had as as some of our colleagues mentioned before, we had had projects that expired and I don't want this project to expire. And so that that gives me some concern.

[04:25:57] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um I don't know where the the comfort everyone else has with this. I guess everyone had a chance to talk except for dear Councilmember McAlister um and and the Mayor. Well, Mayor always goes last and so you bring it all together. Um but uh I I have discomfort in denying the eight years um because I I I I don't play chicken well if if that makes sense. So yes I yes to the project for me, um yes to the 1.75 um to credit, and then um much more hesitation uh for counting the public art and much more hesitation uh of denying the eight years. Um and that's where I land.

[04:27:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you for waiting patiently Councilmember McAlister.

[04:27:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, thank you. Uh so unusual way that I talk at the very end or towards the end but it was interesting to hear all those comments and and how it was weaved and I give credit to Councilmember Ramirez for how he laid out his uh thoughts. They were very uh interesting. Um so being on a Council for my ninth year, I've seen a lot of projects come and go. Uh Chris and I were on Council when the the economy was going great, everybody was building, there was money to be had. And now we saw the uh COVID and the slow down there and money getting tight. And so I I I I go in this with a little bit of context of when they're saying they need that eight years.

[04:28:20] Councilmember John McAlister: And um so um I'm a gambler but I'm also a high percentage gambler. So uh when someone says that they don't feel comfortable, um I look at some of the the things that were going on. You know Greystar, I worked with them over there on California and they they they moved that project right along. Um and so I notice that well and there's a lot of ironies that I I see in here. So they got MetLife, a 52 billion dollar company, usually has 900 million dollars in profit a year. And they are one of the most most one of the best financed developments I've seen in a long time next maybe to Google. So that is sort of interesting how they say, well, oh you know we're going to be worried about it.

[04:29:27] Councilmember John McAlister: And then I hear other Councilmembers again they say, we want housing. We want it now. And yet they're delayed and those projects that I thought were delayed was more because of the economy was really uh coming out of COVID and so you can't put the same uh context to what happened four three two years ago to what's happening now. Um and I've seen where people made like uh we made agreements with Google and SyWest for the uh El uh North Bayshore Gateway and nothing happened. We gave development agreements too long and nothing happened. So if we really want to get things done, we need to say developers, if you want to do it, we'll help you. But if you're putting it off, then how how dedicated were you in the first place? Why did it take you four years to get where you are now and all of a sudden you go, well, we need more time to figure it out.

[04:30:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh Greystar is a very good company and to come along and say, well, we didn't quite do our due diligence. To the fact that they came out with a letter today is troubling. Uh I don't like doing um government on as someone says on the back of a napkin or scrambling at the last minute. That is not good policy. That is not good government. And I'm a little disappointed in Greystar that they came at the last minute to ask for these items. So that puts me on the defensive right away. The the the thought that the and let's go talk about the public art. I thought that they agreed to do that as part of their project. So when they come back and say we want credit, again that's disappointing from Greystar, a company that puts out a great product to say, well, we want to give it we we want to do it, we want to make it great and then all of a sudden, well we want credit for it. Uh that does not sit well with me either.

[04:31:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh that art is making that project and I hope and a lot of you hear me talk about public art in Mountain View that we're lacking in it sorely. And we should make public art a requirement on every project that comes through. So here we are, we have this great art, we got the stained glass window, we have all that stuff. And now they're saying, well, we want credit for it. This really makes that project. A bunch of you said this made the project. It makes it unique compared to everything else. Otherwise they're pretty well cookie cutter. So um concession there, that's not a concession or credit. That was part of the project they negotiated. So when you come back and say, now we're we want some credit for it, um no. No. You've had a over four years, five years to again, we can't go that route.

[04:32:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Um and what's funny is that the the bus shelter on uh El Camino, they want credit for that? It's there already. That's going to improve their property. They're going to have a major transit stop right in front of them and they want credit for it? So all these things that were before that they want to change now, I cannot support. Um when we're talking about the um the loading dock and they said, well across the street. Greystar designed the project. So when someone said well they're suffering, they designed the project across the street so it was their design that caused the problem here. And I'm surprised that well now we're going to take public space that they didn't design the proper loading on their own property. Now I agree with Chris and it's and it's going to come true. They're not all those tenants are not going to park in the garage. They want a quick out. They're going to be parking on the street.

Additional Content 6

[04:33:01] Councilmember John McAlister: to the Planning Commission. How time they reviewed was, uh, and so, unless it's very close to the staff report on the denial, I cannot support it. And I hope the rest of you consider all that you have fought for in the past to say let's get housing. And then you go, 'Well, eight years down the road, a lot could happen.' This way, we know they're committed and they'll build it. And it's going to be a great project.

[04:33:30] Councilmember John McAlister: So, that's my... I sort of agree with each and every one of you on certain topics, but this is, this has to go. And we have to give set people, let know and developers because with all the state laws that are changing to the benefit of the developer, we need to say, 'Well, wait a minute, the state is giving you all these rights. You're living, and we're very limited as a city, especially the State Density Bonus Law and all these others.' The letter went in to say, 'You have to respect this law, you gotta respect this law.' And we are. Are they respecting it? Are they respecting the residents of the City of Mountain View to come along and develop this one and then all of a sudden they go, 'Nah, we want to modify it.'

Additional Content 5

[04:33:42] Councilmember John McAlister: We need to make sure that if they're going to design, design the project thoroughly. It is a very good project. I'm glad to see it come along. I'm glad I'm not too happy about Clark's going down the road, but maybe that could be the new restaurant in there. But they can design it on their own property and we should not be in the in the business of giving away public property for something that they should have designed. Um what else then? Um and the entitle again back to the entitlement time. We want the product to to go. They have the money. They can get it done. Now some could say that and I've seen this where some companies will go out and they'll work hard to get it and then they get the entitlements and then all of a sudden they sell the entitlements and we don't get anything. It just delays the project.

Additional Content 6

[04:34:13] Councilmember John McAlister: I mean, this project is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And something for 3 million here, 5 million there, that doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem like the Greystar I remember that was... they were known for their quality and their character. And so, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

[04:34:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you, Councilmember McAlister. So I see a couple of people in the queue. Um, I, um, appreciate everyone's discussion. Knowing that we have an additional council item that will be taking up later today, um, tonight, uh, not today, tonight. Um, I think I'm just gonna keep my comments very brief. And I'm gonna be really bold and I'm gonna, um, put a motion forward. Um, and so I just wanna, uh, thank staff, thank the applicant, um, thank our residents most of all for fighting for, um, what they feel fits best in their community and making sure their voices, um, feel elevated.

Additional Content 5

[04:34:43] Councilmember John McAlister: So I can't see us I cannot support anything where we do a concession on the timeline. I think we need to hold them because we need to give word to the development community that if you spent four or five years on a project and then all of a sudden you come back and you want more time, then how serious you were in the first place. So I cannot do that. I want the housing now. Councilmember Ramirez, Councilmember uh Emily Ramos, you want the projects. Let's get it done. If you give them eight years, they may take eight years. So I I find that sort of interesting how you guys did that. Um so that's where my take on a lot of this stuff is is I support the staff report. I am not going to do any kind of last minute negotiating uh on projects where they had the opportunity of how many public inputs, how many times they went

Additional Content 6

[04:35:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, and so what my motion is, um, appreciated for the second because I haven't shared it yet, but, uh, is, is, uh, for the, for the staff... yeah, well we'll see, yeah, we'll see how it goes. I want to see if there's any, um, openness to the staff recommendation. Um, I'm comfortable with what staff has put forward. I think that one of the interesting things about talking about timeline is we've had five years to discuss it, and so, um, that means it's been opportunity for our community, um, and in our staff to be able to discuss. Um, and I, I feel comfortable with that.

[04:35:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think that, um, I am not, um, in support of, um, public policy that happens... I think I would say like outside of public input, is what I would call it. And so receiving an email five hours before a council meeting when our council meeting starts at 5:15, I think is not, um, transparent to the public, and I think that our public, um, has been working really hard and what went forward to EPC, though it's changed, um, the public was aware of what was coming forward to tonight. So, um, I think that that, that's, um, important. Um, so, uh, yes. Okay.

[04:36:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, um, I put forward a motion. There's a seconder. I think before we go into deliberation, I'd ask for a five-minute recess. Thank you.

[04:42:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, everyone. If we could reconvene please. John, I'm gonna make an announcement or did you need to say something now?

[04:43:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, my hand is just up. I'm lowered. Sorry.

[04:43:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No worries. Okay. All right, thank you very much. All right. Thank you everyone for that, um, unexpected recess. Um, I have some unfortunate news to share. I was notified by our City Attorney that the applicant is threatening legal action unless they are given an opportunity to speak currently. Never in all my time on the Planning Commission nor on Council have I ever experienced anything like this. I will allow the applicant to speak for no more than three minutes, but we are in the middle of Council deliberation.

[04:43:56] Tamsin Plume: Um, good evening, uh, councilmembers and staff. My name is Tamsin Plume with the law firm of Holland & Knight. Uh, we practice housing law throughout the state and have for many years. Um, there have been a number of things said tonight that just unfortunately are not true. It is difficult for the applicant, um, that has worked for five, almost six years on this project and gone through all the effort that they have, to, um, to hear what we've heard tonight about why certain things were done as a lot of negative intent to certain things or this is last minute or this is a change or you haven't talked about this.

[04:44:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: This is your opportunity to not pro to provide clarity?

[04:44:43] Tamsin Plume: Yeah, I understand. I'm just trying to provide this... my three minutes if you don't mind, if I just share the background, it is difficult. Um, this is a housing protected project. It is a pipeline project. Pipeline projects are even more protected than Housing Opportunity projects and housing elements because they're actually feasible and they've been proposed by the applicant. That is absolutely not true that there's no... that's less protected. Um, two, there is a very good argument that the public benefit fee doesn't apply to this project at all. The applicant offered a number of community benefits and offered to negotiate a solution rather than take on directly that the public benefit fee does not apply.

[04:45:35] Tamsin Plume: Um, the concession or incentive would was offered as an alternative to an idea that we've been discussing for quite some time with the City Attorney's office under SB 330. The vesting period for these housing projects is much longer than the eight years we've asked for. We offered the concession or incentive as an alternative to pressing forward with the idea that we really shouldn't have this housing project expire. And the last thing I'll note is that the... I work for lenders and equity investors and I have for 25 years. There is a perverse disincentive to having short time periods.

[04:46:13] Tamsin Plume: I hear the words, 'We want this built fast so let's add a short time period and make them build it.' That is... it just doesn't work that way. Equity investors and lenders, these, each project has to pencil. Even the big developers, the, the MetLifes, the Sobratos that I work for, every project has to pencil. They, they are not done for free. You have to have capital and that has to have a rate of return. And when the markets and the interest rates are funky, you just can't finance a 350 million dollar project on the drop of a hat, and especially with an artificial deadline looming in front of you or a one year to keep constructing.

[04:46:47] Tamsin Plume: It chases capital away. So the true reality, and I'm saying this as someone who represents those very people all the time, a short expiration period chases capital away, the very capital you want to invest in the project. So there's this perverse disincentive with these two things, and I can assure you the project will be much more financeable and more likely to be delivered faster if you have a more generous expiration period so the financing partners feel comfortable and confident it's not going to get snatched out from underneath them or they're operating under some artificial timeline that doesn't relate to the market. So, just please think about it. Thank you.

[04:47:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we have a motion and we have a second and we have a, uh, queue of folks in the line. Um, Councilmember Showalter.

[04:47:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, I'm sorry, but I would really like a quick review of the motion. The motion was if, uh...

[04:47:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So the, the motion, um, was the staff recommendation. We can do the, um... the, um, credit, uh, for the contributions that staff had shared. I think they have the slide of the contributions. I think, what is it, slide 29 staff? We can include... in addition to that, maybe we can create a line item for the 250 for the VTA bus. So it'll be the staff recommendation, the credit for the contributions which would include the, um, VTA bus shelter. And I, I... I'm not sure how I feel about the, the loading. I mean, I think that... well what do you think? As the seconder. What do you wanna do?

[04:48:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I think we should, um, ask staff to work with the applicant to provide some loading area. I think that, um, it is a reality of modern life that people are going to, um, uh, load and unload where they want. And we, and, and Victor Way is much quieter than El Camino Real.

[04:49:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So the staff recommendation, the credit that we see on the screen including the, the VTA bus shelter, and then, um, I would call it maybe evaluate with, uh, the ability to evaluate with staff the, uh, loading zone on Victor.

[04:49:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And then the, we would not be, um, uh, we would not be approving the concession for eight years. That would not be part of it.

[04:49:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, not at this time.

[04:49:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Yes. I'm glad to second that.

[04:49:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Councilmember Clark.

[04:49:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, that that was going to be my question just to recap, and then I just wanted to... I'm, I'm happy to read things into the record. Um, if, if we need to make specific findings or if you want me to reference anything, I know the mayor made the motion but I'm happy to read this into the record on her behalf if it's...

[04:50:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: I defer to the City Attorney for advice on how to address the concession.

[04:50:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Um, yes. It would be great if the motion includes, um, amending the resolution to include these findings to deny the concession.

[04:50:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Well that...

[04:50:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Why don't you, why don't you go ahead and read it just for...

[04:50:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So which part would I be reading for the amending part?

[04:50:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: As, as, you need to read the...

[04:50:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. Okay. So I move that the City Council, one, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Mixed-Use Project at 749 West El Camino Real to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[04:50:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And two, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving a Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit to remove an existing commercial bank building, a vacant restaurant building, and surface parking lot, and construct a Mixed-Use Development comprised of 299 residential rental units, utilizing State Density Bonus Law, in a six-story building with 10,830 square feet of ground-floor neighborhood commercial space and at-grade podium parking above two levels of underground parking; a two-story 8,483 square-foot bank building; a Provisional Use Permit for a rooftop deck; a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 28 Heritage trees on a 3.05-acre site at 749 West El Camino Real.

[04:51:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project pursuant to sections 15152 and 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, with the modifications to the resolution and conditions of approval as described and shown by staff at this meeting.

[04:52:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And three, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View ordering the Vacation of Public Easements at 749 West El Camino Real to be read in title only, further reading waived, with the modifications to the resolutions as described and shown by the city staff at this meeting. And also to include the, uh, community benefits, um, that we discussed, and credit the develop... here we go, credit the developer with 1.75 million toward the community benefit for requi... as required by the El Camino Real Precise Plan.

[04:52:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Deny the concession request for eight years and use standard two year and two year extension. And for staff to, uh, work with the applicant to assign the loading zone on Victor Way.

[04:53:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Councilmember Clark you're still in the queue, would you...?

[04:53:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was... the, the language you just read with respect to the loading zone, it's, um, I just want to make sure we aren't, we aren't, um, requiring a specific area or loading zone, we're, we're directing staff to evaluate the...

[04:53:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Work with the applicant. Yes. Work with the applicant and evaluate a loading zone on Victor per their request.

[04:53:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: Perfect. Thank you.

[04:53:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:53:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would like if it's possible to invite the City Attorney to respond to, uh, the remarks from, um, the applicant's representative. And in particular, the, because I expect this is an argument we will hear again, um, and it's not one I, I fully understand, um, the, uh, entitlement period provided under SB 330.

[04:54:06] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes. So this is the identical argument that was made in the Tyrella, Builder's Remedy case. And I was aware of that argument and I had explained to counsel for the applicant that I was not prepared to recommend that Council, um, accept the argument because the argument essentially allows for an unlimited time period for the applicant to pull building permits.

[04:54:40] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: While I understand that the argument is that the applicant is not going to take an unlimited time period, um, the way they are interpreting the law would mean that if you approve the project tonight, there is an unlimited time period between tonight and the date in which they need to pull building permits and start construction. But at the date that they pull, um, building permits and start construction, then after that date, the two and a half year time period starts to run under the Housing Accountability Act.

[04:55:08] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I respectfully disagree with that interpretation. I do not believe that the Housing Accountability Act, which is designed to facilitate and expedite housing development, is interpreted to mean that there is an unlimited time period to pull building permits. And so while I understand that this particular applicant wouldn't be taking that amount of time, I was thinking big picture and I was not prepared to recommend to Council that you accept that argument. We had, we did not accept it in the Tyrella case. And so it was the identical argument.

[04:55:42] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: It was last week, I believe on Wednesday, that we were talking about a middle ground in which we came up with... they pres she presented the possibility of eight years in using a concession. And from that date forward, I, I along with my team were researching this concession issue and but today was the first time we saw a letter on the concession issue. So just for clarity on how that all played out, yes, I was aware of the prior argument, but it was one we had already rejected and had been analyzed in another project.

[04:56:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Were there other, um, remarks you wanted to respond to or? Okay. Um, I'm gonna support the motion. Um, I, I shared earlier some concerns that, um, I have about, um... I, I tend to be risk averse generally. Um, I support the project. I hope it gets built. Um, I know that this is, this is a tough and uncomfortable conversation, and I think there are, um, uh, valid perspectives, um, some of which I, um, I, I may not wholly agree with, but, um, I, I'm, I'm also not detec detecting majority support for, um, you know, some, um, uh, additional modifications to explore.

[04:57:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Fundamentally it's a good project. I think the, the motion, um, you know, captures the, the spirit of some of what the applicant has asked for, um, and uh, and we'll, we'll see where it goes from there. Thank you.

[04:57:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And I think the, the spirit of the motion is trying to coalesce around a middle ground or some, some sort of in the conversations that many of us had had prior versus the things that, uh, we only received today. So, uh, with the idea that we're gonna move forward with much needed housing in our, in our city and our community. So let's take a roll call vote.

[04:57:39] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[04:57:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Aye.

[04:57:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:57:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:57:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:57:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Aye.

[04:57:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:57:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No.

[04:57:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[04:57:49] Councilmember John McAlister: In the name of compromise, yes.

[04:57:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:57:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:57:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:57:54] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:57:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 6-1.

[04:57:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, we have another item so we're just going to keep rolling and colleagues please take breaks as you need. Item 7.2 is our residential development project at 901-987 North Rengstorff Avenue. It's a Builder's Remedy. Would any councilmembers like to make any disclosures? Councilmember Clark.

[04:58:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have visited the site, uh, uh, and I move that we continue past 10 p.m.

[04:58:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Do we need to take the 10 p.m. um, as a separate motion? City Attorney Logue, apologies.

[04:58:31] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes. Please.

[04:58:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So we'll, I am so sorry. We'll, uh, move that. So, um, yes. Councilmember Clark moved that we continue the meeting past 10 p.m. Vice Mayor Ramos seconded. Voice vote.

[04:58:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[04:58:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: No. Aye.

[04:58:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[04:58:45] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[04:58:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[04:58:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:58:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:58:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This is the one area where John and I agree. No.

[04:58:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[04:58:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[04:58:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Mayor Kamei.

[04:59:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:59:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Okay. So now we'll do, um, continue with our disclosures. So Councilmember Clark did a disclosure. Um, Councilmember Ramirez?

[04:59:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I had a phone call with the applicant.

[04:59:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Councilmember Showalter?

[04:59:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Zoom with the applicant.

[04:59:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[04:59:19] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I had a phone call with the applicant.

[04:59:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Hicks?

[04:59:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I went to the site and tried to arrange a phone call with the applicant.

[04:59:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, I'll disclose, thanks to the applicant for reaching out. We weren't able to connect but I was able to visit the site. All right. So zone... Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro and Senior Planner Edgar Maravilla will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. We'll begin with the staff presentation.

[04:59:48] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Thank you. Uh, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor... I'm so sorry, Councilmember, uh, McAlister, did you have a disclosure?

[04:59:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I did receive a letter. That's all.

[05:00:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. All right. Appreciate it.

[05:00:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you for mind, remembering me.

[05:00:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well, your hand is featured so prominently. May you lower it? Thank you. All right. Vice Mayor Ramos, you're in the queue, are you good? Okay, great. All right. Sorry Ms. Shapiro, go ahead.

[05:00:18] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Take two. Uh, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers. I'm uh, Rebecca Shapiro, Deputy Zoning Administrator, and I'm joined on the dais as mentioned by Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner and project manager for this application. The item before you tonight is a residential Builder's Remedy project at 901 to 987 North Rengstorff Avenue. The Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act that were in effect from January 1st through December 31st, 2024 apply to qualifying housing projects such as this one that were submitted when the city did not have a state compliant housing element.

[05:00:59] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Uh, under these provisions the City, uh, may not disapprove projects that include at least 20% of the total units to lower income households despite any inconsistencies with zoning and General Plan standards. The City is also prohibited from disapproving or conditioning qualifying housing development projects in a manner that renders the project infeasible.

[05:01:24] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The City may, however, enforce some objective development standards, conditions, and policies if the enforcement does not render the project infeasible or require a reduction in the proposed density. Uh, and the City may also impose certain fees and exactions and is required to comply with CEQA. This, uh, Builder's Remedy project site is approximately 1.26 acres, located at the northeast corner of North Rengstorff Avenue and Plymouth Street. It's currently developed with a two-story residential duplex and related improvements.

[05:01:57] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The, uh, north end of the site which is denoted, uh, by the ha... the dashed line has a General Plan designation of General Industrial and the southerly end, um, closer to Plymouth Street has a Medium-Density Residential designation. Similarly, the zoning, uh, for the site is General Industrial on the northerly end and the southerly part is zoned R3-2SD which is a multiple-family residential zoning district with a Special Design Combining District. As noted on the screen, the site is surrounded by one to three story residential and commercial buildings. Most immediately including the former Ambra olive oil factory facility to the north and three story row homes and a two story commercial building to the east.

[05:02:45] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The project includes requests for Development Review and Special Design permits to construct the proposed 15-story, 455-unit residential apartment building with 20% affordable units, which are discussed in more detail later in the presentation. A Heritage Tree Removal Permit is also included to remove 19 Heritage trees. And there's an associated Lot Line Adjustment to establish the boundaries of the project site as roughly shown here.

[05:03:13] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The proposed site plan provides vehicular access from Plymouth Street to the at-grade parking garage level and pedestrian access to the residential building lobbies from North Rengstorff Avenue. Uh, the ground floor plan is primarily comprised of parking garage and utility rooms with smaller remaining areas dedicated to building lobbies, a leasing office, a mail room, and limited bike parking and personal storage areas.

[05:03:40] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: As noted earlier, the site has two General Plan designations and is located in two zoning districts. And as discussed in more detail in the staff report, the project advances some General Plan goals but the proposed development also has inconsistencies with both of the General Plan land use designations as well as with many of the zoning standards for the site. However, pursuant to Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act, the City may not disapprove the project based on its non-compliance.

[05:04:11] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The project architecture has a contemporary design with a darker building base and angled parapet providing roofline movement. The material palette includes a terracotta wall cladding product in three colors and metal accents around the building. And the window design includes both stacked and asymmetrical patterns to try to provide some visual interest. The two project courtyards are oriented to provide a break in the building massing along each of the two longer building elevations.

[05:04:41] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The project includes approximately 27,000 square feet of open area of which a little under 16,000 square feet is dedicated to common usable open space. Open areas includes smaller landscaped setback areas, the two podium courtyards, rooftop amenity areas, and 26 private balconies, uh, which fall short of R3 district standards. As proposed, the landscape plan utilizes low water use, uh, and some native plants and appears to comply with the City's water conservation and landscaping regulations.

[05:05:20] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The project site currently contains 23 Heritage and 25 non-Heritage trees. The applicant is proposing to transplant five existing olive trees shown in green, uh, in an off-site location. Four of those trees are Heritage trees. And the balance of the on-site trees will be removed which includes 19 Heritage trees shown in orange. The Heritage trees are predominantly in poor condition but must also be removed due to direct conflicts with the project and, uh, site improvements for the project. The proposed planting plan includes 41 new on-site trees, which exceeds the City's typical practice for Heritage tree replacements. Um, and the project will also remove existing off-site trees and plant new street trees consistent with City standards and in alignment with new off-site improvements.

[05:06:15] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Uh, as noted earlier, the proposed project provides 20% of the total units or 91 units as affordable, uh, for lower income households per Builder's Remedy provisions, uh, and including one required replacement unit. The provision of these 91 affordable units exceeds the equivalent City standard. Um, and the applicant will also comply with state law requirements for the units to be maintained as affordable for a minimum of 30 years, which is less than the City's requirement as well as, um, providing tenant relocation assistance benefits to any qualifying tenant per state law.

[05:06:49] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: In addition, the proposed 91 affordable units, uh, as shown on screen will address City requirements for affordable units to be reasonably dispersed, uh, and proportionate to the overall unit mix. Parking for the project is primarily provided through a five-level parking lift system. Uh, and the 455-unit project is inconsistent with City standards for parking, providing fewer resident and guest vehicle and bike parking spaces than required by the City code.

[05:07:22] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The proposal includes off-site improvements to construct sidewalks, uh, on both public street frontages with new street trees. The project proposal also includes modifications to North Rengstorff Avenue to provide a bus island per VTA standards and a wider bike lane. Uh, and Plymouth Avenue, uh, at its intersection with Rengstorff includes pedestrian crossing improvements. However, the proposed Plymouth Street frontage design does not fully align with City requirements and as such, uh, staff has addressed, uh, key requirements including health and safety standards through conditions of approval, um, addressing especially the three areas shown on screen, uh, at the bottom.

[05:08:05] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: The State Legislature enacted AB 130 on June 30th of this year which went into immediate effect and created a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying housing development projects. The applicant invoked these new provisions in July and staff, working in conjunction with our CEQA consultants for the project, found that the proposed development was eligible for this new CEQA exemption. Uh, and staff has completed the necessary steps to bring the project to hearing under AB 130.

[05:08:36] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Typically, uh, development projects of such scale and scope in Mountain View, uh, are encouraged to conduct a neighborhood meeting and, uh, design review consultation to provide public venues for sharing project plans and gathering community input. Um, although encouraged, the applicant, uh, did not host a neighborhood meeting or, uh, and declined to participate in voluntary design review consultation on this project. Uh, that said, as of this morning, staff had received five pieces of written correspondence on the project and emails included a mix of opposition to the development due, um, especially to its mass and scale, uh, as well as support for a project that provides housing units to the community.

[05:09:19] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Additional written communication was received this afternoon, including a letter from the applicant's legal counsel that identified concerns with two conditions of approval and included a new, uh, related State Density Bonus request for a concession. Uh, we're proceeding with tonight's hearing despite the last minute nature of the new requests in an effort to move, uh, forward with the Council consideration of the project given applicable statutory deadlines.

[05:09:45] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: In conclusion, the project was found to be consistent with some of the development standards and, uh, achieves some General Plan and housing element goals if built by increasing market rate and affordable housing opportunities in the City and helping meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Where the project is inconsistent with City standards, these inconsistencies are not a basis for disapproving the project based on the Builder's Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. Therefore, staff, uh, recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution conditionally approving the development permits and finding the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to the findings and conditions of approval attached to the Council report and per the full, uh, recommendation in the Council report with, uh, one initial, uh, modification to the recommended conditions of approval, um, to remove Public Works conditions of approval numbered, uh, 170 and 172 as shown on screen, uh, which were inadvertently included in, uh, the materials for tonight.

[05:10:54] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Additionally, staff does not, uh, recommend approval of the new concession requested today by the applicant, um, as the request does fail to provide evidence of identifiable and actual cost reductions and the requested time, uh, extension, uh, as was discussed on the last item is speculative and does not result in quantifiable cost reduction. Um, similarly staff has prepared the necessary factual findings for denial, uh, that can be shared if Council chooses to deny the new concession. And this concludes staff's presentation. Uh, myself, Edgar Maravilla, other representatives from the Community Development Department and other city departments are available for questions and the applicant team also has remarks to share with Council tonight. Thank you.

[05:11:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So we'll, um, set up the applicant's presentation and then we'll hear from the applicants, Mario and Liz Ambra. You'll see seven minutes on the clock right here. Great, and we'll pull up the presentation. Is there... oh there's no... it's just verbal? Okay. Understood. All right. And then if you could just speak directly into the mic for everyone online. Thanks.

[05:12:18] Liz Ambra: Yes, I will. Hi, I'm Liz Ambra. I'm here with Mario. Um, we want to address the honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the Council. We appreciate your time this evening. Um, we want to thank you for your consideration and your continued leadership, um, and all the time and attention that you've dedicated to housing in Mountain View. It's really admirable. And I want to thank John for voting on the last project.

[05:12:50] Liz Ambra: Um, Mario's family has cared for the, uh, this land and stewardship for this land for almost a century. It's been in the family. And we remain committed, uh, to ensuring that this land serves a community for generations to come. With this proposed project, out of the 455 units, 91 will be affordable. And we believe is an investment that aligns with the City's long-term goals, housing availability, equity, and growth.

[05:13:24] Liz Ambra: We appreciate your thoughtful review of the Builder's Remedy proposal and the opportunity to demonstrate how it can help meet critical housing needs. We look forward for your vote of approval of this project, and we, um, hope to be able to continue the development plan forward into the future. It's very exciting. And I think Mario has just one comment.

[05:13:53] Mario Ambra: Yeah, I'd like to take... I'd like to take time to, uh, opportunity to thank Edgar...

[05:13:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Can you just move directly into the mic? No worries. People always tell us they can't hear so.

[05:14:00] Mario Ambra: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Edgar, our planner, for all his help and guidance over the years. Our efforts have made a meaningful difference and we appreciate your support. Thank you.

[05:14:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:14:21] Jenna Yarkin: Good evening, Madame Mayor, Madame Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers. My name is Jenna Yarkin. I'm with Holland & Knight and we are legal counsel for the applicant. As you know my colleague Tamsin Plume is also here tonight. Um, I'm going to apologize in advance if I sound out of breath, it's because my diaphragm is like between my ears. Um, so I first want to express our appreciation for staff's work on this project and the two and a half years since the applicant submitted its SB 330 preliminary application.

[05:14:49] Jenna Yarkin: We're excited to be here at, uh, City Council and especially on behalf of the 455 units full of people who will live in this project and call it home, which includes 91 lower income singles, couples, and families. The staff report does a clear and concise job of highlighting the legal protections applicable to this project, inclusive of the Housing Accountability Act or the HAA, its Builder's Remedy provision, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also called SB 330. But I want to put a spotlight on one main, or I guess two main items, um, which had yet to be resolved as of earlier today.

[05:15:26] Jenna Yarkin: The first one is, uh, condition of approval 172. Um, greatly appreciate staff's, um, updated recommendation to remove that. I ask that if Council does, um, consider not removing that that we be afforded an opportunity later to address that. Um, so the second item is going to be on condition of approval number one. This is going to sound very familiar because you heard it in your last item. Um, but the City proposes to apply the City's typical two-year entitlement, uh, expiration to this project, subject to a potential two-year extension for a total of four years.

[05:15:56] Jenna Yarkin: While as explained in our letter, applying this requirement is inconsistent with state law, including the HAA and SB 330, for the sake of cooperation and without abandoning our rights to our main argument, we have alternatively requested a State Density Bonus Law incentive or concession to extend that timeline to eight years instead of the initial two. In today's challenging financial environment, longer timelines are paramount in allowing for the successful delivery of projects. They can make the difference between a project ever getting out of the ground or not.

[05:16:27] Jenna Yarkin: We feel this extension will result in actual and identifiable cost reductions for the project and that we have adequately documented that in the letter we provided earlier today, as well as providing our specific suggested text revisions. Moreover, there is significant case law indicating that applicants are not actually required to, to establish that cost reductions will result. Um, that case I'm thinking of specifically is Schreiber v. City of LA from 2021. Accordingly, we're hopeful that when Council considers a motion later this evening on this project, it will do so while incorporating our revisions to condition one.

[05:17:00] Jenna Yarkin: In the event the City does not, it will be opening itself up to being found in violation of the HAA and SB 330, uh, in addition to the State Density Bonus Law. Um, lastly, I just briefly want to address the written public comments of members of the public who are concerned about what they presume will be negative traffic and other environmental impacts of this project, mostly based on, um, its density. So these are frequent community concerns when applicants propose relatively dense housing projects. However, a project's height or number of units are not in themselves indicative of significant, uh, significant environmental impacts and a wide variety of projects can be exempt from CEQA.

[05:17:37] Jenna Yarkin: Instead, what's important is that it's been carefully demonstrated that the project complies with the specific standards for AB 130's new CEQA exemption, which has been met here. For all the above reasons, we request you approve this project in compliance with state law, inclusive of its AB 130 CEQA exemption and our requested text edits to condition one and the removal of conditions 170 and 172 as staff has recommended. Thank you.

Additional Content 7

[05:18:01] Councilmember Emily Ramos: That you have sent a letter to the resident, um, a couple days ago. Have you heard back? Is there any update for that resident?

Additional Content 6

[05:18:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Does any member of the Council have any questions? Vice Mayor Ramos.

Additional Content 7

[05:18:17] Public Speaker: Um, they're actually our friends. They've been in our unit there since '22. They have two children, now an additional three, a little boy. And so I did meet with them on Sunday. We had a long discussion. They really are, um, they want to stay. And so they want to stay through the development as long as they can and then we'll help them look for housing. And then, of course, giving them the state, the, all the information, uh, that the city provided. Uh, I think it was Andrea's email address. Um, and so they, they are aware, they know about the project. I think by state law we have to give them six months, but since we've known them so long, as soon as we break, you know, get close to that, they will be informed. And so they're aware and would be invited back when the building's built.

Additional Content 6

[05:18:20] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, it's a follow-up to an email we received today, um, relating to the SB 330 requirements of the one renter that's in the duplex that, uh, meets those protected unit requirements.

Additional Content 7

[05:19:13] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you.

[05:19:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Any other questions? All right. Oh, yes. Councilmember McAlister.

[05:19:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, well, yeah, I do have one question. With a project this large, how do you develop a sense of community with so many units and so, uh, something this dense?

[05:19:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I mean, I'm thinking that question is for the applicant?

[05:19:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Or it could be for staff, but, yeah, let's, applicant would be great to hear from.

[05:19:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, I'm wondering if, uh, Anthony Ho from the project's design team would like to take that?

[05:20:05] Anthony Ho: Good evening, Council, Honorable Mayor. Um, Anthony Ho from LPMD Architects. Um, this project, yes, there will be a lot of people in the building. Um, we do provide, um, two courtyards as staff presented earlier. Uh, one courtyard is more with a pool and the other one is more of a passive, quieter setting so people have different activities. And in addition to that, we also have a top floor clubhouse that people can hang out and have activities, have pool table, um, yoga room, exercise room, and a courtyard at the rooftop with nice views. So we provide a lot of amenities, um, to them. And hopefully, um, the property manager there will be arranging different kind of activities throughout the, you know, the day and night to bring the people together. Yes.

[05:21:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Does that answer your question, Councilmember McAlister?

[05:21:20] Councilmember John McAlister: No, that's it. Thank you.

[05:21:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue, so we'll now open it up for public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? I see one person, Cesar Plasencia? Oh, yes, three minutes. Thanks.

[05:21:49] Cesar Plasencia: Yes, thank you, uh, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members. Uh, my name is Cesar Plasencia. I'm a field representative with the Nor Cal Carpenters Union out of Local 405 in San Jose, covers Santa Clara County. And, uh, tonight you are considering the permits proposal at, uh, North Rengstorff Avenue. This project, if approved, would bring hundreds of new homes to Mountain View, including affordable units. It also raises important questions about how we would, who, how we build and who benefits from the construction process. I want to emphasize that projects of this scale present an opportunity to strengthen our community, not only through housing but through workforce development. By incorporating state-accredited apprenticeship programs, we can ensure that local workers gain valuable training and long-term career pathways. By requiring carpenter area standard wages, we stabilize the construction workforce and ensure fair compensation. And providing comprehensive healthcare, we affirm that worker well-being is a priority alongside building needs.

[05:23:25] Cesar Plasencia: Since the developer has a pledge under SB 330 and AB 130, we know that the timeline is especially important. After speaking with a team member from the developers, we look forward to request a meeting between them and the Carpenters to discuss how we can help deliver this project with a trained workforce, fewer delays, and greater certainty in each phase of construction. These standards not only determine, do not determine whether the project should move forward, but they do shape the kind of city we want to be. If Mountain View chooses to approve the project with these protections, we set a precedent that housing growth and worker dignity go hand in hand. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[05:24:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Pat Noop?

[05:24:08] Pat Noop: Sorry, did I pronounce that all right?

[05:24:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You got it right. Oh, okay. Very, very seldom do people get it right.

[05:24:11] Pat Noop: Um, my name is Pat Noop. Um, it's been a long night. It's been interesting. Um, some of this went over my head. But the one thing I seem to see over and over is we need housing. We need lots of housing. And both projects seem good. And this one right now, that's a perfect location. It's in a, it's in a great spot for commute. It's a nice wide street. Looks like a nice project. But overall, we need housing. And these are great projects. We should move forward. Thank you.

[05:25:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. I am not seeing any, uh, other speakers, so I'll bring the item back for, uh, 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. The City Clerk will take a roll call vote as we have a Councilmember participating remotely this evening. Councilmember Clark.

[05:25:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, so, um, thank you to everyone for all the work on this. This is a, um, I think I voted with John on the gatekeeper long, long ago. Um, so, uh, this, this is, I just appreciate everyone putting all the work into this and, and, um, and getting it to this point. Um, and, uh, this seems very straightforward to me. And so, um, I'd like to, to, um, make a motion for the, I'll read it momentarily, for the staff recommendation with the, uh, uh, the, the removal of the conditions is, uh, 170 and 172. And then, um, any language you need me to insert into, um, the record for the, the findings to, to, um, deny the permit, the permit extension, um, condition as we did earlier.

[05:26:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, while you're pulling that up, I'll start reading the, uh, I'll move that we adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a Development Review Permit, Special Design Permit and Lot Line Adjustment to construct a 15-story 455-unit residential apartment building, 20% affordable, replacing a residential duplex and associated improvements, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove 19 heritage trees on a 1.26-acre project site located at 901 through 987 North Rengstorff Avenue, APN 153-02-039, APN 153-02-040, and APN 153-02-040, and finding that the project, uh, finding the project to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 to be read in title only, further reading waived, um, with the additional modification, um, removing conditions of approval numbers 170 and 172.

[05:28:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And just say and to modify the resolution.

[05:28:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: And to modify the resolutions to add the finding shown on the screen for the, for the, to, to deny, um, the concession for the additional, um, uh, longevity of the permit. So it would just be our normal two-year, um, permit plus, um, the ability to extend.

[05:28:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Seconded by Councilmember Showalter. Um, I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue so I think we are ready for a voice vote.

[05:28:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[05:28:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: Aye.

[05:28:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[05:28:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:28:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[05:28:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:28:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[05:28:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, since I didn't have a chance to give a comment, I'll make a quick one and then I'll vote. Is that all right?

[05:29:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, yes, yes. Sorry, I didn't see your hand.

[05:29:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, well, okay. You kept telling me to raise it down. Um, I am a big believer in projects that, uh, develop community, enhance community. Uh, so, making community very important to me. Um, and I don't believe this project at this size and what's going on is, uh, going to make a community. I know there's some people on Council are happy as delight that this thing is as large as it is, but, uh, community is more important than size. So I am voting, uh, a symbolic no. I know it will pass, but I got to have Council start thinking that community is very, very important. Thank you.

[05:30:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[05:30:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:30:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[05:30:12] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yes.

[05:30:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[05:30:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:30:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 6-1.

[05:30:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much to staff. Thank you to the applicant. Uh, we're going to move on to Item 8, our Council Staff Committee Reports. Does any member of the Council have a staff, um, or sorry, a Council Staff or Committee Report? Vice Mayor Ramos.

[05:30:30] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, on not this past Sunday but the Sunday before that, I was able to, uh, give certificates to two, uh, Eagle Scout, new Eagle Scouts. We were really quite excited. Um, and they were very happy to get their certificates from the City of Mountain View to know that the city cares about this achievement because really Eagle Scout is such a, such a big achievement. Um, uh, and uh, uh, we will, it, it will be mentioned by the Mayor later, uh, we're adjourning the meeting in honor...

[05:31:41] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Oh, you can comment on it later.

[05:31:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh, I can comment on it after that? Okay. Perfect.

[05:31:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[05:31:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I have a list of things, but I'm just going to share two of them. One, um, on November 7th, that was, uh, last Friday before last, uh, I attended the Stanford Policy Day on Resilience. Um, I shared the, um, presentations with you in an email, and, um, I really think there's a genuine interest with the, uh, the people who, the, the schools, there's a whole list of schools involved in, in working more with local communities to do research. Uh, but I particularly think you would all be interested in, in looking at the, um, the one on the public opinion poll that was done by, um, uh, the policy, uh, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm blanking on the name, but a very, very famous policy group and this professor from Stanford on, um, the public's view of climate change and do they believe in it or not. And the answers were resoundingly that, that they do, um, all over the country. So, um, I think people would enjoy looking at that.

[05:33:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then the other thing I wanted to share, um, on, uh, Saturday, I went to Veterans Day celebration at the New Frontier Mobile Home Park, and that's where these flag pins came from. And so everybody gets a flag pin, and if you would like more flag pins, I have quite a few more. They, they were giving them out to everyone and they wanted me to, um, pass them on to the Council. They're very grateful for the good service that they get from the City of Mountain View. They recognize that we are a, um, you know, a well-run city and, uh, they really appreciate that. And they also, um, were appreciative of the, uh, neighborhood grant.

[05:34:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. I have a couple things. Um, we got to celebrate our veterans, uh, in, um, at our Veterans Memorial and some of the Council joined that on Veterans Day. Um, yesterday, yes, we did have our Council Appointment Review Committee. And then, um, last week I was able to attend the Stanford University President's, um, uh, Mayor's reception, elected officials' reception. Um, but I guess what I need to say is Go Bears. All right, Councilmember McAlister.

[05:34:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Did it just freeze?

[05:34:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Mmhmm. No, thank... Oh...

[05:34:57] Councilmember John McAlister: It, it's an observation that happened to, uh, something happened to me on Monday. Is this the right time or can I do it, is there another section after this?

[05:35:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Let me go to Councilmember Hicks and then I will go to you.

[05:35:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[05:35:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So we had a Council Sustainability meeting where primarily we talked about the difficulty of meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goals in light of policy and funding changes by the Trump administration.

[05:35:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay, um, Councilmember McAlister. Yes, this is Item 8, so feel, please feel free.

[05:35:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So, we go Monday, uh, Gwen and I were walking our dog and we went over to Starbucks as we always do, and we were sitting there and, uh, that morning we heard a crash. We go, "Oh my God, they're, two cars ran into each other." We got up to look over and there was a seventh grade boy riding his electric bike broadsided a car. Uh, fortunately he was wearing a helmet. But he was in a lot of pain. The fire department came, the police department came, and, uh, took the boy to Stanford Hospital. And the reason I'm bringing it up right now, I think we need to start looking at the, uh, increased amount of people or young people riding the e-bikes, the potential for hazards just like this. Uh, I see these people are zigging and zagging and all that. And somewhere down the road we're going to need to address it because it is a serious issue and people are going to get hurt. So, uh, it was traumatic. The boy was scream... Fortunately he was wearing a helmet. And I don't know if that helped him or not, but, uh, he was able to get up and walk and get into the gurney. But I'm just bringing that to people's attention. Pat, you probably see them on the, the trail zipping past you a lot, very fast, so, or they're going to school. So somewhere down the line we're going to need to look into it, but just look out when you're walking around or driving and see how these young people are doing it. Um, and let's be proactive in trying to make everybody safe. That's it. Thank you.

[05:36:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, all right. So, um, I'm not seeing any other, um, hands, but maybe that's something we can talk about, um, when we talk about work plan or, um, at, at CTC as, as things come forward with like the bike and pedestrian master plan, um. All right. So Item 9 is our adjournment. Tonight we're adjourning the meeting in honor of Rose Filicetti, who was a former Mountain View Whisman School District Board Member, Field Representative for former Assemblymember Sally Lieber, and former State Senator Joe Simitian, Executive Director of the, past Executive Director of the Mountain View Educational Foundation, and past Executive Director of the Santa Clara County School Boards Association. Those of us who know Rose, she was very, very active. Um, and most of all, you know, um, grandmother to her, um, um, grandchildren and, um, mom to, to Matt, and many of us on this dais know Matt. Um, and so our thoughts are with her family and her loved ones, and I know they're going to be doing a celebration for her on December 1st. And, um, she was such a force to be reckoned with for good, and, um, she'll be greatly missed. Um, Vice Mayor Ramos, I know you wanted to say a few words.

[05:38:31] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. I actually had the opportunity to speak to Matt today. Uh, I called him for another thing, but also expressed our condolences on, from the Council and, and, uh, told him about us adjourning, uh, tonight and he was very touched. And a lot of us have worked with Matt, so it was, it was really sad. But they're, they're, they're going through.

[05:38:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Well, thank you. Um, the meeting is adjourned at 10:51 p.m. I'm supposed to read our next meeting. Um, the next City Council meeting will be held on December 9th, 2025.

• ← Previous
• Next →