February 12, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, meeting to order at A little bit after 530. And the 1st order of business is the clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:12] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Tonight, we have a study session on 1696 Villa Street. And we have a presentation by senior planner, Matt Van Houston, and planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams. So we'll turn it over to you guys.

[00:00:35] Senior Planner Matt Van Houston: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council. I'm Matt Van Austen, joined by Stephanie Williams. Tonight we're going to be talking about 1696 Villa Street and the public path potentially going through the site. Here's the project site right here. It's located on Villa between Hignan Avenue and the Avalon Apartments. Chiquita Avenue is just to the south with the Caltrain Corridor and Central Expressway. to the north. In 2015, just for some background, the multifamily residential project, received a gatekeeper authorization for the site from council, includes 226 units, 5 stories, rezoning and amendment into the Villa Mariposa precise plan. and community benefits. And then in December 2017, the project came back to council after being submitted, and there was a study session held to provide direction on project design, affordable housing requirements, and community benefits. And so just to go over the community benefits, the community benefits funds for this project are approximately 3.6 million. At the time of the study session, 2017, council and the community desired that the community benefit funds go towards transportation improvements in the area of some kind. Some of those mentioned at the meeting in 2017 included traffic combing measures on Villa Street, new or improved crosswalks, or and then also an off street, bicycle, pedestrian connection to Evelyn Avenue was considered. In addition to those staff also presented an option for council to consider that included a public multi-use path going through the site to connect Villa Street across the Caltrain central Expressway corridor to the other side, and council asked staff to have that be studied further with the applicant. And so that path, just to give you an idea right here, the project site is located right here. That path would run along the western side of the project. It was determined that it was determined best to go underground over the course of studying this project. So the project or the path would eventually slope downward until a tunnel under Central Expressway and Caltrain, and then came back up along Meridian, to either go up the street right here, to hack it, or to continue along a Central Expressway on a separated path. And these would eventually connect to Farley avenue, which connects then to Permanente Creek path to the north. So just to give you a better idea, too, of how this path connects, how it works with the site plan. Here's the project right here, the multifamily residential project, it's kind of flipped a little bit. So this is the western side here. So the path would be running along the top of the project. There's a courtyard right here, that kind of that interfaces nicely with the potential path there. And then eventually there'd be a tunnel right here on Caltrain. And again, you can see here this would be Villa Street. on your right, and you can see how the path is slowly sloping downward alongside the project. And eventually, it continues to slope downward until it flattens out at that open space and is in there's an entire level of the project that would be below grade at this point. Eventually, this area right here where my mouse is pointing. This is kind of an interim condition where there's currently seating in a botchi court planned with the project. Eventually should a path go through this area. It would continue sloping downward and tunnel. And so again, here's an idea of what that path would look like adjacent to the project and being below grade there. So the questions before council tonight, there's several options. One is that the applicant constructs a portion of the path on the project site as a community benefit. And then another option is that the applicant provides land and the city constructs the entire path at a future time when funding is available. And third, the path is now constructed at this location and is either at another location or not constructed at all. So those are some different options to consider when these questions come up here. So question one is, does council support the project going forward with the public pathway along the western border? And then question two, whether the initial portion of the path on the applicant's site is constructed now or later, if yes, does council support staff placing this project on the CIP list in order to complete the path project in the future, which could be approximately 5 to 10 years from now, given the current priorities NQ, and the cost would approximately be $22 million. And then question 2 B is, does council, does the council wish to dedicate the entire community benefit for this, from this project to the path, a portion of it, or defer to the decision on the use of community benefit funds? So here are the questions again, this complete staff's presentation.

[00:06:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Or comments make?

[00:06:39] John Moss: Yes, yes. So John Moss with Prometheus development. Not sure if we have, yeah, the ability to put slides up there. So thank you very much for providing us an opportunity to share our plans with you here once again this evening. Staffed did an awesome job. Excellent, very comprehensive. I don't have a lot to add to it. So I am going to do everybody a favor and try to be very succinct and short with my comments. So I do have a few, though, I would like to make. And then mainly, I'm here to answer any questions that you may have in order to create clarity on the subject. We also brought our engineers that did the study, as far as the underpass is concerned and the whole pathway to it, with Hobok and Lewis. So they're here to also answer any technical or otherwise questions. So, first, what I wanted to do was provide just a real brief, I'm not going to go through this in a lot of details, I'll get to scare by this, but it's the entitlement timeline, and I do this partially as a reminder, and then partially because we have 3 new council members here this evening, and then we have RT here for the 1st time as well. So I just real briefly, we started this project way back in 2015 where we 1st reviewed our plans with planning staff and Randy. That was in May of 2015 shortly thereafter. We got gatekeeper approval in December of 2015. And now this is going to be our 4th study session with the city. We had one with EPC, and then we had 2 of them with council, and this will be our third. So I think we may have set a world's record for a number of study sessions in Mountain View, but Dan may know the answer to that better than I do. But we're very proud of that. And we're really happy about coming here again, mainly to get clarity as far as this subject is concerned, because it is the December of 2017 2nd study session. We were in the project for 2 years when on that night, it was the 1st time that it was brought up to study the past, and that created, the underpass created a lot of changes to our project, and we, of course, much embraced those changes and made them. We spent the last 15 months, completely changing our plans on the project to bring to you what we have this evening. So if the underpass is out, we certainly want to know about it, if it's in, we certainly want to know about it. So the plan dates we have in here is city council hearing, which actually I think is on this project either April or May, but I want to highlight it. So it will be 4 years in total since we 1st sat down with you to talk about this project if we're lucky enough to get back to you in April or May. Secondly, cost. We 1st sat down with staff to go over costs. We certainly didn't believe that the cost that we would incur in order to prepare for this underpass would be as significant as they ended up being, and it's unfortunate that they are, but I want counsel to know that the costs that we're focused on here, this 5.300000 are really incremental costs to what we would incur if we were to build the project without the underpass connection. So we went through this with our contractors and fine tooth comb. And I've got some illustrations as to what's, you know, the rationale for why we've got this garage cost of a couple 1000000 dollars, the retaining walls and bike path are a million. The land cost is just what we paid for the land and we're dedicating this to the city. So we were just looking for dollar for dollar reimbursement. And then we have soft costs, which is mainly architecture engineering, and we do have some rent loss figures in there as well, which we can go through in detail either tonight or at a later date if everybody has interest in doing so. Staff already went through this to show how we're going to be connecting to the permanent day trail. I won't take you through that again. The site plan was brought up as well, just to show you up on the top portion of this, where we've got that path, of course, so I'll skip through that as well. And staff did borrow our slide. We have a rendering here, but what this does illustrate is, you know, we had a $1000000 or so for the path itself and the retaining wall. So that retaining wall on the left side goes up to a total height of 16 feet and is obviously significant as far as structure is concerned, there's Thai backs in that as well. And then the path itself. So this portion of it was about a 1000000 dollars. And that's a 1000000 above what we normally would spend on this area to landscape it if there was not going to have this path and the ultimate tunnel. This provides a better aerial overview. You can see the tunnel daylighting as you get down towards the train tracks and to Central Expressway. The tunnel itself is about $15 million, and I think there are a couple $1000000 in there for escalation, since this will not get built in the next year or two. And then this is on the meridian side showing the underpass coming up to grade on the other side. The nice part about this is that there aren't any private property acquisitions required by the city on the other side of the train tracks and Central Expressway. The other big positive in this project for what it's worth is there's no relocation required, the 16 studio apartment units built in the 60s are all now vacant and there are 3 single homes, single-family homes on the site. Those are all vacant as well. So we do not have a relocation issue either. This just gives you a quick illustration that the garage costs, which are a huge element of this, is $2000000 and this attempts to provide a little bit of background on that. The garage illustration on the right is a single level garage. You can see that that went under where this bike path would be up on the top half. Sorry. right in here. So this, you know, you see Villa Street in the park, and then here's the path. Originally we were going to build under that. And we were also going to build in this courtyard area, a garage. Now we've got to go down 2 levels on the current design, which is shown on the left-hand side, and that requires more excavation, more tie backs, and unfortunately, a much less efficient garage because we have ramps going down there as well. So, all told that's about a $2000000 cost of the project, this gives you maybe a little bit better of an idea and an illustration. As you can see, the original garage came out underneath the bike pedestrian path. So we got it all under one single level, and here you can see that we had to double up as far as that garage. concerned. The rest of what I've got here are renderings of the project, which I don't think are appropriate maybe for tonight, unless you want to get into this, but this is what we were planning on bringing in a couple months when we come back to you for project preview at that time. So that's our presentation and we're more than happy to answer any questions that may come up. did all that in 7 out of 10 minutes. So I could borrow 3 minutes for 3 months from now and expand on that, that'd be great. Thank you very much.

[00:14:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Since this is a study session, we will open it up to public comment, and then we'll have counsel do questions and discussion. So is there anyone from the audience who wishes to speak to us on this item? If you could make sure you fill out a card either before or after you speak, that would be great.

[00:14:21] Jack Miller: Hi, so, um, Jack Miller, 1801 Villa Street. just down the block from this project. Cyclists have been asking for a path across Central Expressway and Caltrain for years, and it looked like this might come through at Farley and the end of Cresanto, it was very exciting. When this was proposed, I believe, by the outgoing mayor, for this project. This looked very good. I would encourage you all to support including this project as part of their public good. Extending the Permanente Creek Trail will be an excellent thing for avoiding the busier streets of Ringstorf and shoreline. And, um, More importantly, I think what wasn't mentioned tonight, and was in the staff report, was that there are traffic calming measures that go along with, including this trail, and I would like to encourage you to please, support the traffic calming measures, that the community response to this project from the very beginning was that we already have a traffic problem on Villa Street. We do traffic calming already, and so would ask you to incorporate that, as the staff report suggests. And finally, um, include this project in the CIP and get it underway as quickly as possible. Thank you.

[00:15:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:16:01] Greg: Yeah, hi, Greg, you next to Mountain View. This tunnel under central expressway in the railroad tracks has been identified gap in the bike pedestrian, trans bike, excuse me, the bicycle transportation plan that was written in 2015. It was recommended at that time that we do a feasibility study. Fortunately, it's been taken care of by this, uh, by, uh, was it Hobock and, uh, Levin. Say it again? There you go. Thank you. So that's been taken care of. Unfortunately, it sounded that the tunnel is feasible. VTA tracks ABCs, across barrier connections. And this has been identified as ABC number 12. It's a category three, which means it's a linear barrier. So it's a mile, between roughly a mile between Rangsdorf and Shoreline Boulevard. This tunnel would be a little less than half a mile, from Rangsdorf and a little more than half a mile from Shoreline. So it's sort of in between the wide gap that the barrier that the railroad tracks present. Why is it important? Well, if you look at the map, you'll see that this is very close, gets you very close to Escuela, which is where the senior center and the teen center is, as well as Rings Door Park, so the neighbors to the north of the railroad tracks within now, now I have access to those areas, as well as further to the south Castro and Mistral schools. Also, it's, if you look, again, looking at the map, it's 1.7 miles from Villa Street to North Bay Shore, a straight shot. So on a bicycle, somebody like me that does about 10 miles an hour, cover that distance in about 10 minutes. Some of the younger people here, maybe can do it 15 miles an hour, averaging 15 miles an hour. It's a 7 minute commute. So that sort of puts things in perspective. It's a major access point to Permanente Creek. Get you over Middlefield Road, at a signalized crossing, and then you have the tunnel, and a bridge underneath old Middlefield, and 101. Get you directly into North Bay Shore. So, um, I think it's a, I think we need to relook at our priorities, measure B funding from the county, may be possible for to cover some of the costs of this, but that has to be, that's a maybe, and we have to make application for that. Anyway, hopefully we can make this happen sometime soon. Thank you.

[00:19:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:19:12] Ross Heidcamp: Hi, good evening. My name's Ross Heidcamp. I'm Mountain View resident and board member for the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, and we also advocate for the Permanente Creek Trail. So this we see as the next extension of the Permanente Creek Trail, following the feasibility study that was done a couple years ago. Farley looked like it was a perfectly fine on street connection for the extension of the Permanente Creek Trail, but that just gets you to central, right in this area. And that's the major barrier. It'll be a really important connection. I think everybody's focused on commuters and getting out to Google Land and everything, and this will be a great connection that way. You know, there's a lot of people on that side, Permanente Creek Trail, get you over right into the heart of the campus there. But it's also an important connection going the other direction. Um, you know, the Permanente Creek Trail goes through Crittenden middle school. I had the opportunity to speak to the principal just a couple nights ago and she said that she's really pleased with this trail opening there. And a lot of students are using it. A lot of those students will be going on to Los Altos High School after this and getting across Central Expressway is a big barrier for them to be able to ride their bikes and continue on that direction as well. I think it's a great use of the public benefit funds. The direction, you know, we, uh, A lot of times we talk about equality versus equity, and I think we, you know, the complete streets is a good aspect of that. We have underfunded bike and pedestrian things for so long, we need to kind of overfund them for a little while to help put them on parity with transportation by a car. So this is a good opportunity to get things caught up a little bit and help create a nice corridor for bicycles that's offset from Rangstorf and Shoreline, which are the major car overpasses of 101 car overpasses of Central Expressway and the tracks. So anyway, I think it's a, I hope you'll move forward with it. putting it on to the CIP. I think the applicant would be a great person to build it, so it gets done right at the same time and any issues for coordinating with their on-site facilities, park planned, and playgrounds, and things like that can be done at the same time, rather than, 0 yeah, and having to redo stuff later on. It should be more efficient that way. Thank you.

[00:21:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:21:50] Frank Wood: Good evening. My name is Frank Wood. I live at 1846 Villa Street, about a block or two from this development. And I 100% support not only the development, but the proposed path. I've lived here for about 10 years, and I work on Middlefield, also in Mountain View. The number one reason why I don't ride my bike to work more is safety on Villa Street. Um, I love to ride my bike to work, but just it's not a safe street to ride a bike. Another thing that I want you to consider is that there's a lot of kids on Villa Street. And about once a weekend, I take my kids out to Shoreline Park or to Palo Alto or to different directions on bikes. And again, the most dangerous part of our ride is the block that we live on on Villa Street. So I'm excited that with this path, I haven't mapped out all the bike routes, potentials, but it would get my little kids off of Illustrate and onto ideally better tracks. So anyway, I just wanted to come and voice my support. And I hope that you, the city, support the developer and those of us on Villa Street with little kids to make it safer. Thank you.

[00:23:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:23:08] Anita: My name is Anita, I live on the next block from this proposed development site. 1806 Villa Street, and I'm also very supportive of this bike path, because as Frank and Jack have mentioned, Villa Street is quite dangerous, even for me to pull out of my driveway, even today, I had cars almost hitting me. And I'd like to also, um, second Jack's, um, opinion on, uh, traffic call me measures on Villa Street, to give an example, uh, between September of last year, and last month, there have been three collisions at Higdon and Villa. So I really urge you, and there's at least one a year or two a year. That specific intersection is pretty much accident central. And I urge you to consider this in the planning of this bike path. Thank you.

[00:24:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this on this topic? Okay, then we'll close the public input portion and have questions from council. Do any council members have questions? Council member McAllister.

[00:24:34] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm trying to get a little background here on the gatekeeper process to sort of bring everybody up to speed. So, in the gatekeeper, there's no specific formula to determine community benefits. There's nothing in a precise plan that says this specifically what community benefits would be. Is that a fair statement?

[00:24:55] City Staff: Correct.

[00:24:56] Councilmember John McAlister: And going along the Prometheus has been in many projects with us and many gatekeepers, so they were aware that dollar amounts for community benefits could be modified along the way, because that's part of the gatekeeper, that nothing's guaranteed.

[00:25:16] City Staff: Correct, although I will say in a previous council meeting for this project, council directed staff to use the El Camino in San Antonio precise plan, community benefit, number per square foot, and that's how we've come up with our...

[00:25:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's how you got to the 3.6. But it's still a gatekeeper. And things could change. Okay. Um That being said, of the, if this, now, I had, one of my questions was, did the staff was able to confirm the $5.3 or $5.2 million, and they weren't able to or they had an opportunity to do that, that there was a lot of soft costs in there. If we're going along on the premise that the community benefits really hasn't been defined quite yet. The 3.6, as we'll just say as a starting point, did that 3.6 would for this, would that include the traffic calming, or is that more of mitigation versus community benefit?

[00:26:30] City Staff: The EAR has called for a few different areas of mitigation that would be requirements of the project, and that's a crosswalk between the park and Chiquita Avenue, as well as a portion of improvements at Shoreline and Villa, but it would just be those two improvements. No other traffic calming measures were.

[00:26:52] Councilmember John McAlister: W there any other traffic measures considered?

[00:26:55] City Staff: They were all considered, but those were the 2 areas that seemed...

[00:27:00] Councilmember John McAlister: With the mitigation? Okay. So, uh, would, based on the, the history of the project, could staff have time to reevaluate the potential costs would be to build that particular uh, side of the tunnel, the south side of the path, to confirm or to get us, give the council a, a 2nd opinion on the cost of the building the pathway?

[00:27:31] City Staff: Yeah, I believe we would need more time to look at both the soft costs as well as likely hire out a separate party to do their own analysis of the costs.

[00:27:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I had another question, but I guess it's FAR, but that's not pertinent to the conversation tonight, so I will pass on that one. Thank you.

[00:27:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Did any other council members have questions? Oh, I thought Chris was reaching for that.

[00:28:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: No.

[00:28:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I have a question. Have there ever been an NTMP neighborhood traffic management program from this neighborhood regarding Villa?

[00:28:19] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Good evening, Mike Fuller, Public Works director. I don't believe we've received one, at least recently, like in the last few years. No, we've communicated with the neighborhood about it. We've talked to a number of residents about the petition process, the NTMP process, and we just haven't received a petition yet. But if, you know, if we did, we would we could treat Villa now like any other NTMP application.

[00:28:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then on the cost for this, and maybe this is a question for the, well, actually, it could be staff or the applicant. The $2 million for the garage. That's for the incremental cost of changing the garage from the original plan.

[00:29:00] Unknown Speaker: Correct. That's my understanding.

[00:29:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The garage going from one level to two levels. Okay. But there's no additional parking spaces. It's the same number of spaces.

[00:29:11] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[00:29:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is that? Okay. Okay. Okay, any other questions from council members? you. If not, um... Did you have more?

[00:29:23] Unknown Speaker: No, I was just surprised.

[00:29:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh. Okay, so what I'd like to do is go through the questions, and I think they're short enough that we could just answer all three questions at the same time. So who would like to go first? Council member Clark.

[00:29:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, I I support, um, moving forward with the public pathway along the border. This is something that came up, I think, at the last study session, and I'm glad that we researched it. It looks like it will work, and I'm glad that we can get, at least the applicant feels like they can get some use out of it in the interim with either a botchy quarter or some other, some other amenities in the meantime until we're ready to move it forward. I think the, I think it should, that portion should be constructed as part of the project, and that we, so I support incorporating that into the project and asking that that be done. And then I think that we should, I mean, the costs of this are only going to escalate over time. So I think it makes sense to go ahead and add it to the CIP list. as recommended by staff in the question to A. And then in 2B. So I think I think we can dedicate most of the community benefit to that, but I just want to make sure that we can also discuss this a little bit more in the formal when we review the formal, when we go through the entitlements process and we're looking at all the amenities on the project, but I do think I would like to use some of the funds, if possible, for some of the traffic calming and other measures around there. So I don't know. It wasn't quite clear to me sort of where we, if we need to draw that wine tonight and decide on a specific dollar amount because we didn't have, it wasn't clear sort of what the total estimate was for those improvements. But I think we should, we should try and do some of those, um, implement some of those traffic, calmine, and bike pedestrian amenities, um, along Villa, if we can as part of, as part of this, and not, and if that means not dedicating 100% of the community benefit funds to the, to the pathway, then I'm open to that.

[00:31:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister.

[00:31:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Definitely support the project going forward for number one. The applicants seem quite excited to continue with the process, he's gone this past, so he said, yes, he'd like to build it. So, you know, I would hate to disappoint him when that's part of the program. Placing the staff, the sport, this council support place, staff placing this project, and I see up here in order to complete the path project in the future. When I see 5 to 10 years from now, that doesn't seem like the future, it seems ancient, for I mean, it's been way, not ancient, but wait. So I think that's if we can get it done sooner, and if we can find financing to get it done, that would be greater. Is the $22 million for the whole or 22 for Mountain View's share? You have on there.

[00:32:28] City Staff: That would be Mountain View's share, if the applicant were to construct their portion.

[00:32:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. He'll build another project. We'll get it somehow. And then does the council wish to dedicate the entire community to benefit from this project to the path? I would like to see that the applicant paid the entire cost of the path, and that because the numbers, there are a little soft altogether, and that's why I was thinking of staff would have an opportunity to confirm it. But I think that would be entire cost bore by the applicant. And the traffic calming measures would be mitigation, and therefore would not be considered a community benefit. So that's how I would view it. And we'll see what comes back down the road.

[00:33:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Abbe Koga.

[00:33:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Yes, so I do also support moving forward with the public pathway. Um, I think, even though the projected timeline to create, uh, to complete it is 5, 10, maybe hopefully sooner, um, and as someone mentioned and we've seen, um, construction costs, ex-escalate so, um, quickly. And, um, I remember when we were talking about a tunnel under Central Expressway over by the Mayfield Mall and, um, didn't have and it's a, you know, a lot more expensive now than it was when we 1st talked about it. So, um, even if it will take some time to do the complete the entire project. I think it's worth doing the prep work and having this pathway created while this project is going to be constructed. So yes, on one. Um too. I guess I just had, I was a little unclear. Well, oh, no, 2 is about putting it on the CIP and yes, I would support that too. I did have a question. I know someone mentioned measure beef funds. I'm wondering, SB one funds. Are those, is there anything for bike projects in there?

[00:34:33] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: There may be some competitive money for that. I don't know how much it is, though. Staff would certainly look at all options. Lately. We've been kind of focused on measure B because it's a lot of big dollars. I'll show you the check I got earlier, later earlier. But we'd certainly cast a pretty wide net and look for funding. That's a lot of money to do without any kind of grant funding. So we'd certainly look around and see what we could find.

[00:35:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And the other one I was had a question on was TFCA from, you know, the air district. It's not a whole lot of money, but 5000000 there. Like, it seems like sometimes we have trouble actually giving the bike portion of that money away. So I'm wondering if we...

[00:35:18] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, it's possible, and I think we've used TFCA for a couple of reaches of either Permanent or Stevens Creek Trail, and in those, sometimes we cobble together 3 or 4 different funding sources, and then made up the rest with city funds. And so that may be an option here. Just can't guarantee it at this point.

[00:35:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Well, so it sounds like there might be opportunity to move this along more quickly. Um, I guess I'm a, wasn't really clear in terms of question 2 B. So it's 3600000 is the community benefit amount we calculated based on the El Camino precise plan formula. But this was a gatekeeper. So, wasn't there just a, um, an expectation of a community benefit project? Like, why we didn't adopt the El Camino community benefit formula to the entire city, correct? So if this is not in that area, could we just be expecting a project as an offering to, for the gatekeeper to move forward?

[00:36:35] City Staff: Certainly that's an option if counsel so chooses. So far, we've been moving forward with that number in mind, though.

[00:36:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So I guess that my question was that that difference between 3.6 and 5. something too, is it? What is the expectation? that the city pay the difference to pay the difference? Okay, but then one. 1200000 is a soft cost. And frankly, you know, I wouldn't count lost rent as a cost to, it shouldn't be a cost to the city, frankly. And I would actually even question that. Maybe, you know, down the road, the pathway could be a benefit that might increase rent. So, you know, I would take that 1200000 of soft costs out of the calculation at least. But my expectation. I think I'm going, it's similar to what council member McAllister is saying is that this is, yeah, probably, you know, a project that, um, the entirety of the project should be expected to move this development forward. So, um, that's it.

[00:37:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, that's it. Great. Thanks. Council member Kame.

[00:37:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Yes, I support the public pathway along the western wall. One of the things I think is really important as we're seeing more development throughout our city is opportunities for connected networks. I think this is a prime example of that and trying to build upon that. For question two, yes, I would like to add it to the CIP list. Um, and looking as creatively as we can for any type of additional monies we can get, uh, support what, uh, Vice Mayor Abe Hoka mentioned. For question number two, I lean towards the applicant paying for the entire path. Um, I also question the, um, soft cost figure. Um, and I'm not sure that I would consider that as public benefit. But one thing that I do consider in talking with the applicant prior is the potential for a connected path that would go along a villa and connect to the train station. I didn't see any of those renderings today. So that might be something we'll see in the future. But I think, um, along with that, um, that to me is a benefit. And I also agree with Council member McAllister, and that any type of mitigation is should just be included and not considered a public benefit.

[00:39:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:39:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, as for the 1st question, I do support the project going forward with the public pathway. I have to say I was very happy to see the project. sort of the peaked roofs, and I think the path made the project lower a little and be more respectful to the neighborhood, which, you know, I don't think we need, I like modern in some places, but I was happy to see this particular configuration. And I thought the path made it even more respectful to the neighborhood. So for question number one, yes. For question number two, yes, I would put it on the list. And also, as other council members has said, explore as many other paths as possible for other funding, as for 2 B. I basically agree with the direction people are going in that we should firm up the numbers for the soft costs and, you know, get as much as we can, um, you know, paid for as a public benefit. Oh, and also, that we should not only do the path, but also traffic calming.

[00:40:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[00:40:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. very quickly. So, uh, yes, uh, for questions one and 2 A. And for question 2 B, uh, I also support, um, dedicating a portion of the community benefit 1st to, uh, traffic calming projects. I don't want to be prescriptive about which measures to implement. I don't have a good sense of what would be appropriate. So whatever process you would use to determine what appropriate traffic calming measures, would benefit Villa. I'd like to see, you know, the costs and the what those measures would be when the project returns. for final approval. And then the balance of the, actually, I support what council member Kame was suggesting about improving the connection between this project and the downtown transit center. I think that would be an appropriate use of the community benefit funding as well. I guess the challenge I have is, you know, we do have the discretion to change the methodology used to determine the community benefit contribution. The applicant was working from previous direction provided by the council. I think it would be helpful. The council has looked at the gatekeeper process before. If we haven't already, you know, if the previous council hadn't already prescribed a methodology for the calculation of community benefits, it would be good to make that more formal so that way we have a consistent approach. you know, based on the methodology that was used. you know, that would be my preference for the dedication of the community benefit. I wouldn't be comfortable right now asking for the full for the applicant to pay for the cost of the full project. I think that would be a pretty dramatic reversal.

[00:43:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I guess it's now my turn. So question number one. Yes, I do support this. Um, I was happy when I saw the plans. There's a very positive impact of doing this besides the path, and that is the lowering of the building by 20 feet, as well as the opening now on the project lines up with the opening between the homes on Higden. And that was something I brought up last time we looked at this, and I think this is a much better layout. So, I feel like it's a much better fit with the neighborhood. So yes, I do support the path for many reasons. I do think we should add this to the list of CIPs. And I was trying to figure out, you know, what trade-offs I would make, and I had a discussion with the city manager about it, and realized that that was really hard to do because I didn't know the funding for everything. And some funds have to be used in certain areas. So it got very complicated. So I think I'm up for talking about that when we talk about CIPs, if there's a way to prioritize this. And absolutely, we'd look for outside funding from other sources if we can. So then the last question, um, I was also thinking that because this is a gatekeeper, that the community benefits, we had talked about before was kind of the base level of community benefits, and that, um, we can ask for more. This is a gatekeeper project, as has been pointed out by several folks here. And I do think the applicant should pay the entire cost of the path on their side of Central Expressway. And I also would like to look at traffic calming. And there are several ways, I guess, we can do that either as part of the MTMP or as part of this project. And so if we could get a handle on the costs of that, I'd be interested in hearing what those would be. And also taking a look at the cost for the path, based upon how we might look at it, because I'm sure we might have a different perspective than the applicant on what the costs of the path are. So if I have kept track of this correctly, but keep me honest, I think everyone said that we support the project, that was unanimous, and that we do want to, it was unanimous to add it to the CIP, and we would have to talk about prioritization, to try to see if we could move it up. And then, I don't think it was quite unanimous, but I do have at least 4 council members who said that they thought the applicant should, or this project should pay for the entire cost of the path. Is that I have at least four. I might have 5. And certainly we want to factor in traffic calming. So I feel like we haven't totally given, I would say, entirely clear direction, but I think we can talk about the finer details when the project comes to us.

[00:46:19] City Staff: Yeah, I think we have enough for tonight. There's a little bit ambiguity on 2B, but clearly a message that, if not all, a very, very large percentage of the funding should come from the applicant and some interest in using some funding or finding some funding for the additional traffic calming measures.

[00:46:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, we don't usually do that at this point. Did Council members have any other comments? Okay. Did you have something else you wanted to say?

[00:47:02] Applicant: Just study session. So just real briefly, I just want to clarify one point on the soft cost. So I just threw up a number up there, and I mentioned that there are some rental adjustments on the rental rates, but approximately 50% of the 11 million, I think it was, on the soft cost is direct engineering and architecture, which is absolutely required in order to build it, has nothing to do with rental rates. So whether that makes a difference for the council or not, I don't know, but I just want to clarify all the soft costs are absolutely not the rental rate. And then in terms of the, to me, benefit fee, council, it sounds like it has prerogative to do whatever they like from what I'm hearing tonight, but just for what it's worth. Again, we're 4 years into this, and the direction, right, wrong, or indifferent, has been extremely clear, even though you have the prerogative to change any of that, and 3.6 million is the number we've been working on for 4 straight years, and this will be the first we've heard of anything different, which I understand you can do, just, again, I think the point made earlier about clarity on these types of subjects would be awesome going forward, because then we can decide whether these projects make sense for us or not, but it's a big change or less, but.

[00:48:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anything else? Okay, then, um, we will take a 10 minute break, since the regular meeting starts at 6:30. So we'll close the study session.

[00:48:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, the meeting is called to order, and the first item is the pledge of allegiance.

[00:48:57] Unknown Speaker: I apply to Allegiance to the Fire of the United States of America, and to the Republic, which is States, one nation, and our individual, with liberty, and justice sorrow.

[00:49:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:49:18] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:49:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. The 1st item is item 4.0, which is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. Are there any items that council members would like to pull from the consent calendar? Are there any items that members of the public would like to pull from the consent calendar? Okay, I don't see any. Whoa, this is awesome. Set, huh? So, um, Council member Clark.

[00:49:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll move the consent counter, which includes item 4.3 to increase appropriations by $103,602 for CIP 16 dash 34, the regional public safety communications system infrastructure replacement, and 4.5 to increase appropriations by $591,905 for reimbursement receipt from the California Office of Emergency Services for Mountain View Fire Department Staff Hours, extended in support of firefighting operations during the deployment to the wild land, August move up. Here's fire and Mendocino complex fire incidents in August 2018. Both of those require 5 votes.

[00:50:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, there's a motion by council member Clark, 2nded by vice mayor of a Koga. We could vote on this. And the vote is unanimous. The next item is item five, which is 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 for one 3 minute period during this section, and state law prohibits the council from acting on any non-agenda items. So if there's anyone who would like to speak with us on items not on the agenda, if you could come forward, and be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak so we get it in the record.

[00:51:31] Jackie Cashin: Jackie Cashin, 2310, Rock Street. We weren't supposed to be on the agenda tonight, and that's actually what I want to address is when we 1st were approached by dividend about the transfer of the property in the demolition, they gave us a timetable that included the approval of the project being last November and us moving out in June of this year. This is the 2nd delay that we've had putting the review of the project on the calendar. It was originally supposed to go in November, then it was delayed to today, and it's now on the calendar for April 2nd, unless there's been another delay that I don't know. about. For many of us, this has caused a lot of just the delays themselves have caused a lot of stress and confusion because we don't want to go. We've, I think by now made that very clear that we don't want to leave our homes and that the process of leaving our homes and moving somewhere else is incredibly difficult, challenging, financially, emotionally and everything else. Um, It is still our sincere wish that the project is denied when it comes up for review in April. But if it is approved, we would very much like to ask that part of that approval includes more time for us because we're really left with not knowing what to do. None of us wants to move and then discover that the project was denied and we never had to move in the 1st place. So we would hope that when you're considering the project, the part of what you consider in any final decision is giving the residents a little more time. If the decision is made on April 2nd at the moment, we would have to be out by June 20th because we have had that notice, but because we don't want to go and we didn't know what the decision would be and the project keeps getting delayed, we would like that additional. not necessarily 6 months, but we would like some additional time as part of a consideration. Just for our own benefit. June 20 is a tough time to move. We have several families with kids. School gets out June 7th to have to be out of their apartments by June 20th would just be incredibly difficult. So we would hope that in any final decision that you make, if it is in favor of the project, that you do keep in mind what we've been through in the process of waiting as well. Thank you.

[00:54:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:54:10] Ming Joan: Hello. My name is Ming Joan, and I live in Mountain View. I'm also a resident of 2310 Rock Street, and, um, you know, it's been quite a roller coaster to see, um, Our efforts at trying to share our challenges with you for being moved out with these development proposals. Of course, the recent one being 2005 Rock Street. I just wanted to give you just a very personal picture and face to what's going on. I know we have several new council members, and, um, This may be redundant to some, but, you know, I come here yet again to testify that, you know, as a, as a middle class person living in Mountain View, I've really take it personally. Like, I've come to consider this city my home, and, you know, have found the city to be a setting of profound healing for me personally, and to be in the situation where I've just been asked to sort of abruptly leave. And, oh, well, and don't let the door kick you on the way out, is a very deep betrayal as a resident. And I'm sure that's not the intention of the board. As you are reviewing the developments and reviewing the large money that is coming to you for the needs of the city and trying to fit that into your own vision of what the city should look like in 5 years and 10 years, but just realize that every vote that you put in has very deep and personal consequences for real people. And I'm the face of that real person. Um, You know, it's not easy to feel like you have to ask for help, but really what we're asking for is help. I'm really in that place of a very gray zone, where I don't qualify for relocation assistance, yet whatever everything I'm seeing around me, from a market perspective, is just outside of my means. So basically, I would have to gain a 5 hour commute to my place of employment in the industry that employs me and to say goodbye to all my friends and family, and my spiritual resources, and be displaced from the city. So I have this challenge. My fellow residents have this challenge, I hope that you'll be open to meeting with us as we move closer to that April 2nd date. And, um, you know, our response of to my emails and, and please for letting us just share these challenges and just know that they're real. And, um, you know, we appreciate all your consideration. And all your innovative and very deep empathy and creative juices around this issue. So thank you very much.

[00:57:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:57:17] Public Speaker: Good evening. Ready, so 77 Center Street in Mountain View. Well, congratulations to the newly elected council members. I appreciate the rating council member, Cami, your then candidate, your statement on the issues we face in Mountain View, such as housing, such as traffic and also measurement V. I think your balance the view. which has earned you a top boat gatherer, which nobody was surprised. Among the residents, I'm not, I don't know about among council members. So thank you for your words. And now we are going to hold you for accountable. And, uh, I also appreciate reading Mayor's statement. In Mountain View voice, generally 18th. Your perception of council members. Do not listen to its residents. And you know what? You're right. Not because of council members think what residents needs, wants. So you push forward. really have to open. ears and listening to us a little bit. And the result of this election tell you so. So thank you for your perception and I'm here to say, I really appreciate your candidate. Based on my discussions with the neighbors, which both renters and the owners. Nobody seemed to be benefited from measurement the V. But I realized, and I understood how much they pushed the forward. So that's just one example. Now, I want to say, again, 2 years ago, I was here to request the council member to consider, to allow owners on the R2 lots to have in law unit build on it if space is available. And at the time when I was talking about this subject, Every council member nodded their hat. If you don't believe me, look at the tape. When the program priority gets too voted, only member council member, Margaret, who voted for it. So that was very disappointing. I stand up here again today to request you for your reconsideration. Hopefully, we can work together and I'll be happy to work with you in any way I can. Thank you.

[01:00:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:00:26] Leland Erickson: Yes, hello. My name is Leland Erickson. I'm a resident at the 2310 Rock Street Apartments.

[01:00:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Could you speak a little bit more into the mic so we can all hear you?

[01:00:35] Leland Erickson: Leland Erickson is my name, and we went to a resident at 2310 Rock Street. Thank you. Very well. So one of the council members was quoted in the newspaper, some months back, her commentary on the whole issue of runaway rents and the housing shortage in Mountain View, the reporter summed up her comments as, regarding the residents, including us at 2310, that we will land on our feet. So I wanted this new council to understand what land on our feet will look like for my partner of nearly 20 years and I. It will look more like a face plant forced on us by being tackled from behind on concrete. If the development at 2310 Rock Street is approved, it will pull a trigger on a chain reaction for my partner and I. She will have to give up her job. I am not able to work due to disability. I'm on SSI and Medi-Cal. She will have to, we are facing a minimum rent increase of $1,000 a month if we give up a bedroom, 15 to 200 to $2,000 a month if we try to maintain 2 bedrooms. And we probably won't be in the city of Mountain View, which only compounds the problem for us. She works six days a week. We will have to go to two separate states. She will go to North Carolina, where her daughter and her family are. Although I'm welcome under that roof I cannot go there. Because North Carolina does nothing for healthcare. I have only one option because I have no other living family. They're all buried in Alta Mesa Cemetery, going back to my great grandparents, by the way. I'm a native. I was born in 62. I grew up here. Mountain View was part of my stomping ground. I have to go to Oregon. I have some friends there. They'll let me sleep on their couch. You see, here's the problem too. If my better half gives up her job. There's no income. No landlord rents to you with no income. The relocation money is inadequate for us, because we're going to have to leave the state in two different directions. You have no idea how much it's costing us if this goes through. And we're not the only residence, I think, in that complex of 59 households. Many of them with children. I stood here before in a previous council, and watched children come up here and beg the council, to not approve the development of their apartment complex, to not wreck their dreams. Well, they did anyway. So I'm that human face, too. Thank you.

[01:03:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:03:39] Larry Lieb: Hi, my name's Larry Lieb. I live at 1060 West Dana, downtown Mountain Deal. I've lived here all my life in changing the subject, from gentrification to making the traffic flow, easier, uh, with one way streets, Palo Altos had that for decades. It's probably been brought up before here, I'm sure. But I just wanted to put my two cents in and see where it goes from there. But it would smooth out the flow really good. And that's it. Thank you.

[01:04:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:04:26] Bill Murphy: Good evening, council members, uh, city manager, Rich. And city staff members. I'm Bill Murphy. I'm a resident of the Mauna Loma neighborhood, up by San Antonio Road, and as 31 year residence in Mountain View, my wife and I asked the council to please approve sustainability as a main goal in the February 28th goal setting exercise. Thank you.

[01:04:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with us about a topic that is not on the agenda? Okay, then we'll close this portion and move on to item 6.1, which is a public hearing on the multifamily housing revenue bonds for Shorebury's apartments. And we have Project Manager Vera Gil, as well as Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager, Tim Wong.

[01:05:18] Project Manager Vera Gil: Good evening, honorable mayor council members. This evening, we are holding a public hearing for the issuance of multifamily housing bonds. They are going to be issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority, otherwise known as CMFA. They are a, um, under a joint partnership agreement. They are allowed one of the allowed agencies that can issue these fonts to nonprofits. The bonds would be issued for midpen housing for a development known as Shorebreeze apartments located on Shoreline Boulevard. We are looking at 62 units of affordable housing, 50 new units, and 12 units replacing units, which will be relocated. The internal revenue code or IRC requires a hearing on before bonds are issued. The last hearing on this development for the issuance of the bond was in January 2018. since that expired. We need to have a new hearing this evening. Let's see here. Debt issued by the CMFA, and this is probably the most important part, for a short breeze expansion, is the sole responsibility of Shore Breeze. We are not liable for that for the bonds, neither is the federal or the state government. The city has no financial or legal obligations. So we are protected. The recommendation for this is to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the revenue bonds by CMFA, not to exceed $300000 and it's to finance the 62 unit affordable multifamily rental housing program, our facility at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard. If you have any questions on the tax exempt bonds, Travis Cooper with CMFA is here this evening. If you have questions on the development. Peter Villa Real with Midpen Housing is here this evening. Thank you.

[01:07:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from members of the council? Okay, seeing none. Are there any... Well, open this up for public comment on this. And if anyone would like to share your thoughts. Come on up to the podium here. Okay, saying none. We close public comment. Council member McAllister.

[01:07:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Taking directions from our team building, I'd like to make a motion. A motion to approve should include the following reading. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California municipal finance authority and an aggregate principal amount, not to succeed $30 million, to finance a 62 unit, affordable multi family rental housing facility, located at 460 North Shoreline Boulevard, and certain other matters relating thereto to the benefit notice of public airing, to be read entitled only, further reasoning wave, attachment 1, to the council report.

[01:08:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we have a motion by council member, McAllister, and a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. Are there any questions or comments? from the council? No. Okay. We can vote. Close it. And that passages unanimously. Okay, moving right along. Next is item 7.1, which is new business, and it is the water supply agreement amendments, and we have water resources manager, Elizabeth Flagel, and Greg Hosfeld here, and public works director, Michael Fuller. Oh, yeah.

[01:09:46] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flagel: Oh, okay. Okay. Good evening. Honorable Mayor, members of the council. I will be presenting tonight on proposed amendments to one of the city's water supply agreements. Mountain View purchases approximately 90% of its drinking water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, our SFPUC. Pursuant to an agreement signed in 2009 that expires in 2034. The Bay Area water supply and conservation agency, or Bosca, is a special district that represents the interests of the 26 wholesale customers in their negotiations with San Francisco. In September of 2018, Council authorized Vaska to negotiate amendments to the agreement on the city's behalf. Bosca considers the amendments discussed today in the interests of all its members. Approval is required by San Francisco and two thirds of the Bosca agencies. To date, San Francisco and five of the 26 agencies have adopted the amendments. The remaining agencies are scheduled to consider the amendments by the end of March. In front of you is a list of the seven major amendments under consideration today. I will go through each one individually in the following slides. Amendment 1 defines Bosca's oversight role in San Francisco's capital projects. Over the past 15 years, Bosca has had official oversight of CIPs through the water system improvement program. This multi-billion dollar program includes rehabilitation of the regional water system, many parts of which are over a century old. The WSIP, the water system improvement program, is nearing completion, and this amendment provides BOSCA with continued oversight for future CIPs to ensure that its agency's needs are considered. Amendment 2 modifies how water is allocated during a drought. The current water shortage allocation plan includes two levels of allocations to be implemented in shortages of up to 20%. Tier 1 distributes water between San Francisco and the collective Bosca agencies, and Tier 2 distributes water between the individual member agencies. Due to changes in water use over the past 18 years, the current tier 1 formula would result in San Francisco receiving more water during droughts than they do in normal years. This amendment imposes a minimum 5% reduction to San Francisco and reallocates the extra water during droughts to Bosca agencies and system storage. Amendment 3 revises the timeline to consider permanent status for the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. The majority of Bosca agencies, including Mountain View, have permanent water supply guarantees from San Francisco. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara do not have permanent guarantees, but are supplied on a temporary and interruptible basis. The agreement requires San Francisco to decide whether to offer permanent status to these cities by the end of 2018, and to identify the new water supplies required. Additional water for other member agencies is also to be considered on this timeline. However, current demands on the regional system are well below capacity, and San Francisco has not completed the analysis necessary to make their decisions at this time. Consequently, this amendment postpones the decisions until 2028. In the meantime, San Jose and Santa Clara are allowed to continue purchasing water, thus sharing and system costs. Amendment 4 fixes the classification of certain regional water system assets. In addition to providing water to 2.7 million people, the regional water system also generates power for the city of San Francisco. Each asset of the regional water system is classified as water, joint, or power. The Bosco member agency is responsible for two thirds the cost of all water assets based on their proportional use of water. In 2010, San Francisco unilaterally updated the classification of a small number of assets. And at the time, Bosca disputed the decision, but rather than submit to arbitration, this amendment was negotiated. The amendment fixes the classifications of system assets, modifying those for seven projects related to tunnel improvements, aqueduct repairs, and flood response. In particular, it removes a $50 million Bosca agency obligation created by San Francisco's action and prevents future unilateral reclassifications. Amendment 5 revises the wholesale Capital Fund balancing schedule. Capital funds from Bosca member agencies are held by San Francisco. in the Wholesale Capital Fund. Pursuant to the agreement this fund is reviewed on a five-year basis. And extra funds are returned to a balancing account. This amendment simplifies the account balancing by switching to annual reconciliation. Amendment 6 updates the water system improvement completion date to 2021, which is consistent with San Francisco's current updated schedule. Amendment 7 specifies responsibilities of partner agencies for the regional groundwater storage and recovery project, which increases local groundwater storage for use in dry years. Several other minor amendments related to actions that have already been approved are also included in this package. In particular, Mountain View's supply guarantee is reduced by one million gallons per day to reflect the water transfer to East Palo Alto, which was completed in 2017. One issue that is not resolved by the current amendments is Mountain View's minimum purchase requirement. Mountain View is one of four agencies with an alternative imported supply, each of which has a minimum purchase volume by San Francisco. In recent years, Mountain View has been unable to meet this minimum requirement, primarily due to long term conservation, short term drought response, and increased recycled water use. The situation was not contemplated when the agreement was signed, because water use was so much higher than it is today. Although the minimum was waived during the drought, the city has already paid nearly $3 million for unused water, and is expecting these charges to total approximately 10 million over the next few years. Presently, the city's total water use from all supplies is below San Francisco's minimum requirement. And staff has raised the issue to Bosca several times over the past few years. Amending the city's minimum requirement, excuse me, amending the city's minimum requires unanimous approval, and any costs not paid by Mountain View would be borne by others. For this reason, Bosca excluded this topic from the current package of amendments. However, Mountain View did secure a commitment from Bosca to pursue a solution immediately following negotiations on the amendments presented today. We understand that San Francisco may be interested in combining a solution on the minimum purchase problem with a mechanism to incentivize supply transfers. Bosca expects to hear San Francisco's proposal later this month. Saf recommends we continue working on a solution to the minimum purchase problem, separate from the amendments being considered today, and update council as developments arise. In conclusion, staff recommends council adopt a resolution, approving amendments to the water supply agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and its wholesale customers. The fiscal impact from these amendments is expected to be positive and modest. Thank you.

[01:17:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Council member McAllister. Oh, sorry, council member, Abbe Koga, Vice Mayor, Abbe Koga, Vicu.

[01:18:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I wanted to, I guess, talk about the minimum purchase requirement and I think if I read this correctly, is the potential for San Jose and Santa Clara becoming permanent members. And it's something that an advantage for us that, like, could we potentially transfer some of our supply to them if they were to become permanent members.

[01:18:46] City Staff: So presently the contract does not allow for a transfer of the minimum, but it does allow for a transfer of our supply, as we did in our negotiations with East Palo Alto. So that ability to transfer the minimum purchase requirements in the future is one of the items being discussed with Bosca in San Francisco. For a future amendment or future possible action.

[01:19:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, we would still be required to purchase a minimum, but potentially we could sell that to another agency. Is that?

[01:19:25] City Staff: That is one of the concepts being discussed. Yes.

[01:19:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And that's what you're expecting to hear of by the in a month or so.

[01:19:35] City Staff: Yes, we expect San Francisco to present a proposal to Bosca by the end of the month.

[01:19:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And we, so there's 4 agencies in our situation. Is that correct?

[01:19:46] City Staff: There are 4 agencies with minimum purchase requirements, but we are the only agency that is so far below our minimum.

[01:19:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[01:19:55] City Staff: We are the only agency where San Francisco water makes up 90% of our supply. So we don't have the flexibility some of the other agencies have.

[01:20:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[01:20:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:20:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I, uh, had sent in some questions a little bit later, so I'm gonna read the response just to expedite the thing, and then I had a question to follow out that. One of the questions, which's similar to the vice mayor, is what makes Santa's, would making San Jose or Santa Clara permanent customers have any effect on Mountain View? And the answer, it is unclear at this point, an additional water source would be required. Then I asked this other question. That on our, it was about staff would secure an agreement with Bosca to just, during the 2018 negotiations as to actively explore options for a minimal purchase. And the staff response was staff. We'll have discussions with Bosqua and its member agents to see if there is any agreement possible that would lower or eliminate the city's minimum. Purchase requirement penalties. We have no said answer at this point, and it would need to be mutually read to by other agencies. The following question is, what cost to other members, Abosqua, if Mountain View did not have to make minimum purchases, staff estimated the total penalties from the minimal purchase requirement would be about 10 million, which we saw. So, presumably, that, or some portion, would be spread out among the other 25 agencies, on a per unit of water costs of this relatively low. But so far, other agencies would be unwilling to take on that cost. So we have some of that. And then my last question, the last question I had, which was not answered, and you sort of touched on it. On page 89 of the water supply agreement. There is a section that's called Prohibition of Assignment. And I don't know if that's applicable to what we're doing. But it states, and again, this could be out of context. Each wholesale water customer, which we are, agrees that it will not transfer or assign any rights or privileges under this agreement, either in whole or in part, or make any transfers of any and all parts of the water system, or allow the use, therefore, in any manner, manner, whereby any prescription of this agreement would not be continued to be binding upon us. So, um, I did ask the city manager on that, he wasn't able to, he had, didn't give him adequate time. So even that spiral context, is it something apple gold, or am I just totally over in left field on this one?

[01:22:32] City Staff: Well, the transfer to East Palo Alto was allowed under a different section of the contract, Section 3.04, that allows transfers between wholesale customers, between Bosco member agencies. So I understand that portion of the agreement to refer to agencies outside of Bosca. Okay. But, yes. We're not. Okay, Mike? We can verify and get further clarification, if you like.

[01:23:03] City Staff: Yeah, this provision is we won't assign our responsibilities under this agreement to another agency. That's different than what we did with East Palo Alto, which is covered under a separate provision.

[01:23:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[01:23:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:23:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So maybe I'm covering the same ground, but following up on the questions about our minimum purchase process. Can you clarify how negotiating changes in that would work with, say, if San Jose, to San Jose, or if some other city joined as was talked about in the staff report, would this involve a permanent or long term giveaway of our right to purchase, and how would that affect Mountain View as we grow?

[01:23:55] City Staff: Jump in, Elizabeth, if I stray too far from the facts here. If we found an agency, if first, if the agreement were amended allowing us to transfer our minimum purchase responsibilities, which is something we're working on, because if you have two willing parties willing to do that, it doesn't hurt anybody else. And so we're working towards that, and we think we can get there as long as nobody's involuntarily harmed with some additional costs. So, with that as an ability, if we can find another agency that needs a water supply, either now or in the future and is willing to pay our minimum purchase penalty to secure that water supply, and that, you know, theoretically, it could be San Jose or Santa Clara, though, there's enough water for them right now, so it's unlikely they're going to want to pay anything additional because they can just buy the water right now. But if there's another agency that is growing, that has limited water supply, and they're willing to pay our minimum purchase penalty, and we're willing to transfer the water, then theoretically, it could work out. We don't have a, we don't have that scenario in front of us yet. And whether it's temporary or permanent, likely it would be permanent because, say you have a small city proposing a redevelopment of a big area, they can't approve that development without a long-term supply. So the short term scenario is, you know, 5 or 10 years from now, they will have a water supply come online. With enough surety that they can buy a temporary supply to let the development proceed. A lot of things have to fall in place for that scenario to happen. But if it did, then it could, um, it could allow a temporary transfer. But that's hypothetical, but it could. And in terms of our own growth, I think what we show is our current water supplies are adequate until, like we've analyzed till like 2040, I think. At least, yeah. Yeah, so at some point it appears we will grow into that supply based on our current modeling. Um, that said, we didn't predict where we are now with so little water use. And so, um, I don't know how that's going to pan out in 2040. The cautious thing is to hang on to the water. But, you know, we've got potential recycled water and other things coming online that could change the facts going forward decades from now.

[01:26:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions from council members? Okay, we'll open this up to public comment. If there's anyone who wants to provide input? Oh, I don't see it. Yeah. It's not showing up, but go ahead.

[01:26:45] Unknown Speaker: Sorry. Sorry, I withdrew. A quick question. Just to be perfectly clear, what new supplies or alternative sources of water are being explored right now.

[01:26:58] City Staff: As part of their water system master plan, San Francisco has identified several possible options. None of them are immediately available. All of them are very costly. They involve things like desalination. They involve some damn adjustments, increasing Calaveras Dam, participating in expansion of philosophical Caris reservoir. So there are a number of possible solutions on the table, but none of them are really will be occurring in the immediate near term.

[01:27:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Okay, now we'll open it up for public input on this topic if there's anyone who has comments on this. Please come up to the microphone. Okay, seeing none, we'll close public input, and back to the council for discussion. If there is any or emotion. All right. Council member Clark.

[01:27:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: I appreciate the worst done on this, I think it makes sense. I just wish that whenever we try and put a trail over Hetch Hetchy, they would recognize that we're sending them three extra million dollars a year for water we're not using, and I wish we could have written that in here somewhere. But a move that we adopt a resolution of proving amendments to the water supply agreement between the city and the county of San Francisco and wholesale customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County, to be read and taught only for the Ream Wave Detachment, one of the council report.

[01:28:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: There's a motion by Council member Clark, a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. Any further discussion? Okay, if not, we'll vote. And that is unanimous. Thank you.

[01:28:50] Unknown Speaker: Just a council member Clark's Point, if any of you happen to have friends on the SFPUC, now would be a good time to start talking to them about those issues.

[01:29:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, the next item is 7.2, which is fiscal year 2018, 19, mid year budget status report. And fiscal year, 201920 Preliminary General Operating Fund Forecast, and fiscal year 201819 performance workload. And our presenters are Finance and Administrative Services Director, Jesse Takahashi, and Assistant Finance, and Administrative Services Director, Susie Niederhofer. That's a long apartment name.

[01:29:39] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Well, good evening, Mayor Metachek and Count City Council members. This is my 1st official midyear update report to the council, near Mountain View. And as you'd mentioned, Susie Neederhoper, the assistant, director for the department, is sitting up here with me to help present this report. And I would just like to say, at the outset, that, really, most of this work, virtually say almost all of that work, has been done by Susie this year, and her crack staff, and putting this report together. They've done a fantastic job, and I'm very fortunate to be able to sort of help deliver, but this message, but I did want to just let you know that she did quite a bit of work inputting this together. So as we go forward, actually, you could just... So here's the outline that we're going to go with for tonight. We have the 1st mid-year status report that we'll be presenting. We will be covering some recommendations, other recommendations for approval, and then we'll also be covering a look at the 1st look at the fiscal 1920 general operating fund forecast for fiscal 2020, and we have the performance workload measures updating your package as well. And then we'll cover next steps and recommend stations. So the 1st slide is a chart just summarizing our general operating fund revenues, and as you can see, are broken down into major categories, the 1st being property tax, which is our largest revenues to the city. They are estimated at $52.9 million, which is on track with the budget, representing about a 6.2% increase over last year's actual. The residential and commercial property values have remained very strong in the valley, which reflects the desirability of this region. And so property taxes has been one of the more consistent and stable revenue sources going back many years. The next, the next revenue sales tax is estimated $22.3 million, or $2200000 higher than the budget. However, as a point of note, there were some late payments to the tomb about 100003 from the state tax department that should have pertained to fiscal 18, but they, because of the timing issues in their systems and getting those out to cities. There was delay, so we didn't get those until this current fiscal year. So really what that ended up doing, when you adjust for that, is that revenues really are less than what we would have expected to come in and actually declined about 5%. And this is a trend that we've noticed over the last couple of years where there has been little to flat growth in this revenue source. So we are keeping an eye on the sales tax trend lately and for the near future. Other taxes is another area that consists of various things such as our transient occupancy tax, business license, and utility users tax. These are estimated to be $15 million this year or about $1000000 under budget. And again, this is reflective of a recent downtrend that we've been seeing in our TOT and utility users tax as well. moving on to the use of money and property. This represents essentially interest earnings and rental lease income on properties. The investment earnings portion of this is up due to the federal open market committee's interest rate increases during the past year. that we had expected as long, in addition to higher invested, average invested portfolio balance that has also been up compared to the prior year. And then other other revenues, I'm sorry, includes license permits, fees, and These have miscellaneous revenues have tends to fluctuate from year to year due to higher levels of uncertainty of their collection. One area of done as a fire department, mutual aid, overtime reimbursements that equate to about a little over a million dollars. Moving on to the expenditure side for the general operating fund. Total general operating fund expenditures are estimated at $122.6 million, which is $2.3 million less than what was adopted. And personnel costs are the largest component of that, they were $4.6 million below the adopted budget. And primarily due to existing vacancies, an employee turnover, that seems to be something that has been an ongoing issue. We currently have about 70 vacancies with over 30 active recruitments going on. And so this has resulted in a significant amount of budgetary savings, supplies and services are on track with the adopted budget, and $2.8 million below the adjusted budget. And those are really kind of the significant items of note in the expenditure area. This chart is the summary of the revenues and expenditures, and this actually shows audited from fiscal 18, which is last fiscal year, shows our adopted 19 fiscal 19 budget, the adjusted fiscal 19 budget, along with the current estimated budget, and then variances. So we are continuing to see continue revenue growth as the year progresses. Overall, the revenues are estimated at $142.3 million, which is $3.7 million higher than our adjusted budget. $4.7 million greater than the adopted. The expenditures that we're estimating is 122 million.6, again, which is 2.300000 below our adopted budget. And then we have a number of transfers that were adopted and are estimated to occur at the end of the year, along with $3 million of additional recommended transfers, leaving a balance of $77 million at the end of fiscal 19. So that is really our revised ending balance for the year. And I would just point out the $770000000 can be used to fund fiscal, 20 limited period expenditures can be used to replenish reserves, capital improvement projects, or other city priorities, as council deems necessary. City will be coming back to provide recommendations at the narrative budget study session at the end of April. And so that really kind of wraps up the overview of where the general fund operating revised budget is at this point mid-year. And so at this point, I will go ahead and turn it over to Susie, who will cover the other major funds for the city.

[01:38:02] Susie: Thank you. So for the other major funds, I'm going to start with development services, development activity continues to remain strong. Operating revenues are estimated at $17.5 million, 21.5% higher than budget. Operating expenditures are estimated at $16.4 million, which is 23.3% lower than budget, and mostly due to vacancies, just like there are vacancies in the general operating fund. The operating balance is estimated to be $15.7 million, and it's needed to support long-term projects that have already been paid for by the required fees, that services go on beyond when they're paid. There's a timing lag to that. And to maintain operations during the next slowdown. A cost of service study is underway and estimated to be completed with the fiscal year 1920 budget. And for shoreline golf links, which now includes the restaurant, Michael's Restaurant. The course is under management of touchstone Golf. Revenues and expenditures are trending lower than budget. Revenues are trending lower for a variety of reasons, some weather issues coupled with the quality of air due to the fires up north cause some issues for a couple weeks. Um, There's also a new course opening, Baylands course in Palo Alto, and the continued popularity of Moffat golf course. But the balance is estimated to still transfer $110,000 to the general operating fund as budget, as budgeted. Touchstone took over management of Michael's restaurant and reopened on January 24th and estimated revenues and expenditures are trended as they are budgeted since we don't have much information. on that right now. Shoreline Regional Park community, operating revenues, which are primarily property taxes, are estimated at $44.2 million, or one.5% higher than budget. Expenditures are estimated at $33.1 million, a little bit lower, 5.3% lower than budget. Um, 63.800000 of new debt was issued during the current fiscal year to fund priority projects. An estimated ending balance of 14.700000 with reserves of 19.5 million. For the enterprise funds, water revenues are trending 37.2 at $30 to $7.2 million, about 2.2% higher than budget, water usage is up about 4%, but it's still below the 2013 drought baseline by about 22%. Expenditures are estimated at $32.4 million or 9% below budget. Um, mainly due to an accrual um, that carried over from the prior year. As you have heard. And no, the city has a minimum water purchase requirement, and that is estimated to be $2.6 million for the current fiscal year. For wastewater, revenues are estimated at $23.8 million, slightly less, but essentially as budgeted. Expenditures are estimated at $18.3 million, $24 million lower than budget, and includes a $419,000 credit for a prior year treatment plant costs. And that is going to be encumbered, included in the reserve balance because those are for obligations encumbered, but not yet spent. Included in the wastewater fund, in our treatment plant, capital cost, we are phasing in 2% annually over 10 years for a total 20% increase. Fiscal year, 2324 is the final year of those increases. And there was a new loan of $10100000 to fund infrastructure projects, which will be included in the five-year CIP. For the solid waste fund, city revenues are estimated at $15.5 million, um, $1500000 or 10.6% higher than budget, expenditures are estimated at $13.2 million, a little bit lower than budget. Um, due to operating savings offset by a higher smart station cost, resulting from the reconciliation, and there was a recommendation in this report to fund that additional amount of $387,000, I believe. All utility funds maintain reserves for operating capital improvements and rate stabilization. And each fund contributes to unfunded liabilities for pension and retirees health. And I'm going to turn it back over to Jesse.

[01:42:57] Jesse: Thank you. So, um, also in the report, there are a number of other midyear budget requests that are being outlined, uh, here. The 1st of which is a $1 million contribution, additional contribution to the retiree health plan that the city has been funding over the years. This is an additional $1 million, as well as an additional $2 million for the strategic property acquisition reserve contribution. And again, that is an additional funding that has been used in the past as well. Also being recommended is an additional smart station funding to the tune of just under $400,000. And this is related to the annual reconciliation that generally leads to true up for each of the members. Funding charge for electric vehicle charters, funding change for the electric vehicle chargers grant of 250,000 is being to take it out of the operating and move it to the construction, or CIP, project for new energy conservation measures. And then, lastly, $100,000 funding change for the community shuttle study that would take, again, $100,000 out of the operating budget and move it into the CIP for comprehensive modal plans. What's next? Now, looking at the forecast for the general operating fund, so this is where we look ahead to the next year, and some of the assumptions in the revenues on this page include increased property tax values, again, to the tune this time of about 7% based on the existing tax base, and continued new developments that are ongoing in the pipeline. Regarding sales tax, again, although the projection shows a 5.3% increase from the fiscal 19 adopted budget, um, compared to the FY 19 estimated, as I had mentioned, previously, there's going to be an actual decrease, um, that reflects the recent trend of flatter growth in the sales tax. And again, that was because of the timing difference from the state disbursement of the taxes in this current year. In other local, other taxes, a large increase of almost 18% is due to a couple new hotels that are expected to come online in early fiscal 2020, plus the additional, or an additional $2000000 in revenue from the restructured business license tax that is being phased in over a 3 year period, but will hit beginning in next fiscal year. Use of money and property is expected to improve, also due to higher investment earnings, resulting from higher interest rates, and a higher average portfolio consistent with the trend that we've been seeing this year. So in summary, total revenues are expected to increase a little over $90000 or 6.7% for next fiscal year. On the expenditure side, we have total personnel costs projecting to or projected to increase $5.5 million or almost 5.5% over the current year budget. This includes colas, as well as retirement increases, specifically the cow per's 2nd year of the reduced discount rate. Change implementation and phase in is also included. And as you had mentioned, the impact of minimum wage, the latest minimum wage increase that went into effect this past month. in supplies and services. Inflationary increases are being built in as well. And as far as interfund expenditures and transfers, one point of significance, that includes related transfers related to the new business license revenue that would be used primarily on transportation and housing. And some total expenditures are projected to increase $7.8 million, a little over 6%, compared to the current year adopted. And I would like to just note that the expenditures for fiscal 20 do not include department requested increases that have come forward thus far, but have, and are currently under review, but have not yet been built in pending meetings with the budget review team, primarily the city manager, and myself and our budget team. These projections will be updated for the narrative or at the narrative budget report towards the end of April. And recommendations will be also made on allocating any remaining general operating fund balances. This chart here, again, summarizes the overall revenues and expenditures and where we expect to be at the end of next fiscal year. Again, this is just a preliminary forecast. And so the forecast does indicate continued revenue growth of about $9.2 million, total revenues of $146.9 million. Again, primarily due to property taxes and other taxes that are faring well. Baseline expenditures are expended, are anticipated to increase $7.8 million to $132.8 million. And after recommended transfers toward various reserves, This will result in a positive projected operating balance of $3.1 million for a fiscal 2020. And again, this doesn't include those requests from the department. So this number is a little premature, but we do expect that will change after having reviewing after reviewing all the departmental requests later this month in next month. Okay, next slide. And as I mentioned, previously, the major performance workload measures update, you have that in your packet. Staff is here to answer any questions that you may have, in that regard, reflects the FY18 actuals as well as the 1st 6 months of fiscal 19. And as far as next steps over the next several months, as we continue into the budget process, here's a summary of the significant dates, we will be having several study sessions, the 1st one in March. We'll have a couple public hearings, one for the CDBG and the home applications in April. We will be coming back with the narrative budget report end of May or April 30th. I sorry. And we'll have a 2nd study session in early May. Well, we'll be adopting or looking to adopt the capital improvement program, June 11th, as well as holding a public hearing for the proposed budget, and then June 18th, we would have a public hearing for the utility rates. and hopefully adopt the CIP and the operating budget. And lastly, again, just to summarize here our recommendation, the staff recommendations that you have in your packet, there's actually two pages of that. So that will conclude staff's presentation, and at this time, we'll take any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[01:51:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from the council? Council member McAllister.

[01:51:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Just okay. Um, my questions, I had some that were concerning, um, a couple operations. What about the fire department, one about the water going to the golf course. And since the city manager. So, I'll ask him to maybe elaborate on them. He's giving me that. So we have a golf course and just looking at prior 6.one, we were talking about minimum purchases that we have to buy water. We pay for water we don't use. So The comment came back is that, well, my question, is the city manager, or should I direct it that way? I'll go to you. If the water didn't go to the golf course, We're still paying for the water and the water would just stay with the San Francisco public utility commission. Is that a fair assumption?

[01:52:42] City Manager Dan Rich: We pay for the water, whether or not we use it. Yes.

[01:52:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So then the comet came back to me is the taxpayers would have to subsidize the water we give to the golf course, but we're already paying. I mean, if we don't use it. So could you elaborate on that for me, please?

[01:53:01] City Manager Dan Rich: I forget the exact wording and the answer, but it's not the taxpayers. It's the rate payers, and you can't have one set of rate payers, subsidizing another use, is my understanding. I don't know, the city attorney has a different opinion, but we've looked at this before and we certainly understand the frustration that there's water we're paying for and not using. We have tried to work it out with the golf course so that they get the reduced recycled water cost, but we can't totally give away water because then other ratepayers are subsidizing that and that's not legal.

[01:53:39] Councilmember John McAlister: But isn't the golf course part of the city of Mount View?

[01:53:43] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, there are different ratepayers, and this is a utility fund, you can't have one ratepayer subsidizing another ratepayer. Does the city be happy to explain this?

[01:53:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, we'll take that offline. Okay, so let's go with that. Okay. But it still didn't make a lot of sense to me, but that we're using water. Okay, that's a comment. Can't go there. So, because I asked you, when was the NBSDIF started, and you said when it came out, the precise plan? You have a date for that one?

[01:54:18] City Manager Dan Rich: No, I don't remember, frankly, I don't think the fee was set in the precise plan itself, but as a result of the precise plan in the conversations about Nexus studies, council established the impact fee, which had 3 different components, one for transportation, and one for 2 other infrastructure needs.

[01:54:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[01:54:39] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, we can certainly research the exact data.

[01:54:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, what it is. Because I hadn't heard. I mean, I forgot about it.

[01:54:45] City Manager Dan Rich: It's, I mean, I think that acronym is confusing, and not when we use regularly, but when you've seen any project, including the recent Sobrado one in North Bay Shore, we talk about the impact fee. So frankly, it's just a terminology issue. We haven't really used this acronym before, but it's the same thing you've seen before.

[01:55:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The reason I'm concerned about it, because it says, in the staff report, it says bulk goes to transportation improvements, and I'm a big transportation improvement kind of guy. And then it says, well, specific earmarks for other infrastructure, and that was wastewater and water. So I was, where can I find more information?

[01:55:24] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, we'd be happy to sit down and go through with you, but I think my edits to the staff report made it a little less clear, but basically there are 3 different fees. And when, and the biggest portion of that fee is dedicated transportation, but there are specific council adopted fees for the different infrastructure types. So it's not like we're taking from transportation to get to the others. They're separately established.

[01:55:50] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you for the clarity. That was appreciated. Okay. And then, I was reading under the performance measures on the fire department, and it sounds like there was some kind of hardware problems that they were experiencing with the communication. When I was reading it, and has that been addressed?

[01:56:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I believe the chief sent you a response, and they did experienced some challenges, both with hardware, as well as data collection and oversight, which they are.

[01:56:27] Unknown Speaker: Well, he addressed the oversight, but he didn't say about the technology or the hardware park, and I was wondering, he didn't address that part of it.

[01:56:34] Unknown Speaker: We can get back to you on that.

[01:56:36] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Everything's okay, coming. Yes, here, sure. And... Okay, I ask you another question about public works. Percentage of facility vision works orders completed in 30 days or less. And there was a side note, performance missed targets due to aging infrastructure, work orders that were reliant on outside vendors and contractors. There was. Okay. I always go to the top. So, but if you would like to address... So, how are we addressing these issues that you bring up through what actions are implementations are you doing?

[01:57:23] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, Mike Fuller, Public Works director, primarily through the capital improvement program, the last few years, we have an annual CIP for maintenance of our facilities in the last few years. We've also adopted pretty significant capital projects for replacing some of the aging infrastructure. Some examples include the HVAC system and Fire Station 4. We did the Library HVAC system a few years ago. And so we've been trying to take advantage of the revenues associated with these good, the good economy to replace some of that aging infrastructure that should decrease the number of work orders. Our facility staff used to spend a tremendous amount of time at the library, working on the air conditioning during the summer, a tremendous amount of time at fire station 4. And so we're trying to take those aging systems and replace them, which can be very expensive, to reduce the workload, rather than just add staff to try and keep things running. And you'll see some examples of that when we come to you in March with the 1st look at the capital improvement program. We put together a pretty big project for the Civic Center Plaza. This building and the CPA are about 30 years old now and we've got quite a few things that we need to be working on, and you'll be seeing more of that in the Capital Improvement program.

[01:58:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay, and then you also said there was reliant on outside vendors and contractors that often went beyond the 30 days taking significant time from staff. So is that, again, another, you're trying to get all this stuff done when we have revenue versus...

[01:58:57] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, sometimes, you know, we've got a proprietary system or we've got to order a pump remoter and sometimes it just takes longer than that to get the part. And I think that's what they mean. You know, we're frustrated sometimes we're ready to replace it and we just can't get the part in. And sometimes it puts us beyond our time frame. Sometimes we can do something about that, sometimes we can.

[01:59:18] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. And then my last question was on the... We were also looking at parklands because that's where everybody's looking for open space, and we're not, we all understand that we are under our budget of the 3 acres per 1000 excluding North Bay Shore area. And under the term, there says city park land, dedication ordinance. And could anybody feel me? Is that sort of a, I know it when I heard the word ordinance, I always know, I thought it was a guideline, but it's an ordinance. So when we ask our various vendors, I mean, developers that they contribute in lieu or, that's all found in the ordinance and so they do allow that clarification.

[02:00:02] Unknown Speaker: Yes, it is. It's an ordinance that's based on state law known as the Quimby Act.

[02:00:05] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay. That sounds familiar. That should answer that. Thank you.

[02:00:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor I'll be coca.

[02:00:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, I have to add on to that. It is based on the ordinance and the state Quimby Act, but the ordinance gives the council discretion to take the land or an impact fee, and frequently, we take the fee, not just the land. Thank you.

[02:00:35] Unknown Speaker: I had asked some questions late, and thank you for your responses. But I was hoping to get a little bit more clarification. My questions had to do with our OPEB, our benefits, retirement benefits for employees, and cowpers. So, I'd asked what our liability is. And I just wanted to, I guess, clarify this. So our liability for open is to be 151.300000 at a 6.5% discount rate. Is that the current discount rate or is that what we are projecting it to be? And, um, if so, when what year are we looking at that to be?

[02:01:24] Unknown Speaker: The 6.5% is the discount rate we use for the current fiscal years valuation. It's actually going to be going down to 6.25% as a rise for next fiscal year because the syrup did lower their discount rate.

[02:01:38] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And then with Calpers as well, we're, wait, is it calculated at 7.25 right now? I'm trying to think, because that's what they're changing. It was at 7.5% and they're bringing it down to seven. And for the current fiscal year, I think. 7...

[02:01:56] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think it's 725 now with a goal with a plan to get down to seven.

[02:02:01] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Do you know when that is projected? The 7% is projected to be?

[02:02:05] Unknown Speaker: They're doing, they started it over, they phased it in over three year periods, starting fiscal 19 was the 1st year. And so they'll take it down to 7%. by the 3rd year, so that would be, um, 22 fiscal 22. Okay. Or 21, sorry. But they also have, not to complicate things. They have a five-year ramping up and down, so it's sort of further smooth a little bit. Yeah, so they're trying to ease into it. So it doesn't overwhelm cities, and then they'll sort of ease out of it at the back end.

[02:02:39] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So then, um, your response was, we, I asked what percentage were funded. So approximately, 7.8, 78.8%, so approximately 80%. So that is that calculated out for OPEP, we still owe 30000000 or so. Is that right? Is that did I do that calculation correctly?

[02:03:07] Unknown Speaker: That sounds about right, but I can confirm that number for you and send it an email.

[02:03:11] Unknown Speaker: Great. And then same with Cal Perz at 69.9% rounded up to 70, I calculated 68 million.

[02:03:22] Unknown Speaker: 2240000 is the unfunded liability.

[02:03:25] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that's the unfunded liability. Okay. Okay. And then we are putting in, I know, I noticed we do 4000000 a year. Is that just our standard or is that based on what we just what we've done the last couple of years?

[02:03:41] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, as you recall, we did the 10000000 one time chunk, and then we have a second, 10000000 that'll be phased in as we get one time revenue from Google for the parking. The 4000000 is on top of those, really, depending on what our fiscal situation is, we've been fortunate the last few years, we've been able to do that. Okay. But it's not standard and it's entirely up to your discretion.

[02:04:05] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you.

[02:04:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:04:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I had a small clarification on, let's see, this is page 21, There's about the smart station funding. that there's, uh, 216 is due to a higher operating share as a result of Mountain View's. Trash tons delivered to the smart being higher than projected due to higher construction and demolition tons. I'm wondering, is that for, um, private, uh, remodels, or is this, uh, developers? Where is that increase in, um, demolition tons coming from, and who's paying for it?

[02:04:55] Unknown Speaker: So I think it's a combination of both development and residential, but it's debris boxes, and we are seeing increased revenue from it as well.

[02:05:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that was basically my question, if the costs are going up, Are they also being covered by developers?

[02:05:13] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:05:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other question? Okay, we'll open it up for public comment, then? Is there anyone who wants to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, seeing none. We'll bring it back to council. Council member McAllister.

[02:05:39] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd like to make a motion. And I need to get the talking points on that one.

[02:05:47] Unknown Speaker: You just need you with the staff.

[02:05:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, do we, uh...

[02:05:51] Unknown Speaker: You can just move the staff.

[02:05:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Move the staff recommendation.

[02:05:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay? So we have a motion by Council member McAllister, a second by Council member Ramirez. I just... Is there any comment or anything before we vote?

[02:06:07] Unknown Speaker: I had one comment. Um... And I do support the recommendations about the additional funding for OPEB liability and for the strategic property acquisition. I really appreciate we do that. I think it's really important to have the funds in reserve when an opportunity comes along to buy some more property that's been one of the best things. I think the city has done. So I congratulate you all on thinking of that and continuing to think about it. I am a little bit concerned what I saw and hear that we haven't started working on the comprehensive modal plan yet. Uh, I was hoping that we would get to that sooner rather than later. And somehow, I felt like we had already approved the contract, but I'm learning we haven't yet. So that's coming back to us soon. And then, um, the performance and workload measures, uh, I have had a conversation with these about these with the city manager in the past, and just sort of a heads up, I was going to bring this up when we get to the goals and projects to support those goals. Um, you know, maybe it's time we revisit these. I think it's been quite some time since they've been looked at. And I don't know if it's a major effort we want to consider or we want to figure out an easier way to update some or Um, you know, I feel like I want to have that discussion as part of, um, goal setting and the projects to support those goals. Because there's one in particular that I would like to see added to the list and that's, um, some sort of metric around the neighborhood traffic management program. and see if we can start measuring that and hopefully improve that process.

[02:07:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Dan, did you have comments? You looked like you were going to say something. Did you have a comment? I'm sorry.

[02:08:00] City Manager Dan Rich: No, I think that's great that you can bring it up as a goal, and we can talk about a strategy and what the best way for counsel to provide him, but just to clarify, staff does look at them every year, and, you know, some of them change, depending on circumstances, and some of them don't, but you're right that there hasn't been sort of a comprehensive look at all of them all at one time. But I know CSD changed several of them, several years ago, library has adjusted. Frankly, often when a new director comes in, they'll look at them and say, This doesn't quite make sense to me. But I think workload, withstanding, it would be valuable to take a look and get counsel input on their, if there are broad categories that were missing. For example, we've been talking about this recently, that we really don't have many, if any, on sustainability. And how do we do that, and how do we embed them throughout the organization, not just in the sustainability program. So look forward to more dialogue on that.

[02:08:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, thank you. Did you have a comment?

[02:09:00] Unknown Speaker: I did. I wanted to, um, clarify what I think might be, um, confusing about the recommendation related to the comprehensive modal plan. It's not that the plan hasn't started, or we haven't awarded the contract, but there was direction at council's meeting in December around taking the study of the shuttle as a kind of a moved up front and prioritized and provided extra funding for that as part of the response to the sustainability work. And both recommendations 5 and 4 are in here in the mid-year budget, because as you might recall, there was a staff recommendation, and then there was some change from the council in terms of things you wanted to add, an additional money above and beyond what council had recommended, and we didn't capture that well enough in the motion and the vote to have the appropriation be put into the budget with that action in December. And so these 2 items, if I'm not mistaken, are here now for being put into the, as a mid-year budget amendment so that they are properly appropriated. They would have otherwise, that would have otherwise happened in the December agenda, but the way that the action was taken needed a little bit more clarification.

[02:10:24] Unknown Speaker: So just to add on to that, that's absolutely entirely correct, but I want to be absolutely clear on the broader, comprehensive modal plan, because I think there is some confusion with the status of that is, and so I'm going to put Mike on the spot to answer that part of the question.

[02:10:38] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: You know, we are still working on the RFP for that. We are behind on it, and we will be coming to you. Um, I think in Q2 with a recommendation for contract. We've got a lot of stuff going on in transportation, and we've fallen behind a little bit on that.

[02:10:54] Unknown Speaker: Do you know about how long that project is expected to take?

[02:10:58] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: If I'm not mistaken, it was 9 months or, I think it was in the 9 months frame, 9 months to a year range. It was something I could get back to you on that. I've forgotten now. but it was in that it was in that ballpark.

[02:11:09] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. Thanks.

[02:11:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by council member McAllister, a 2nd by council member Ramirez, and any other discussion?

[02:11:21] Unknown Speaker: Just as I vote, yes, I just wanted for context to point out how well managed and how good our predecessors have been over the years, as I read today, the national debt just crossed $2200000000000 and here we are being very, um, been very responsible over the years, and I'm glad that we're continuing that. I'm very happy. We have very wonderful staff and good fiscally minded council members over the years, so.

[02:11:48] Unknown Speaker: I'll 2nd that.

[02:11:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, let's vote. Counselor McAllister.

[02:12:03] Councilmember John McAlister: It's not working. There.

[02:12:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And that passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. Okay, the next item is... item eight. And as a reminder, we agreed to focus our comments here on any report outs from regional boards, the meetings that we've attended, or any activities where city resources were expended such as attending a conference. So, uh, Vice Mayor Abbe Koca?

[02:12:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I have good news. I went to the VTA a couple of weeks ago to pick up this check of $353,498. This was our share for local roads. So this is measure B funds that now have been dispensed and there's several pockets of funding, pots of funding undermeasure B. This one is for our local roads, meaning potholes and whatnot, and we have a lot of potholes to fix right now with all the bad weather. So this is our share that we see, we'll be receiving. This is not the real check, we'll get a real one later. And there should be other funds from the other pots of money coming. So very excited that measure B. Funds are finally being dispensed to all of our communities. I also wanted to mention, we will be having our city's association meeting on Thursday. And I will be, I chair the legislative action committee, and one of our agenda items for our meeting is somewhat of a beginning to respond to the Casa compact. Thanks to the city managers who've been helping with this effort. We have a draft of a, I would call it a statement or position paper on housing. Um, and it responds to some of the, um, items mentioned in Casa. Also, talks about, frankly, you know, what we, the cities of Santa Clara County have been doing towards housing. And there's actually a very positive story that we can tell. And I think that that's our, that's what our efforts are going to focus on is telling our story, the successes we've had, you know, clearly Mountain View has been very active in providing housing opportunities, but as a county, we're not, we're doing pretty well. And we want to make sure that that story is being told. And shared with our state legislators, as there are about a dozen bills that have been introduced relating to the points under Casa. And so as those bills move along, we want to be sure to respond and, you know, make sure our story is heard so that we are not too negatively affected by the state bills. So it's on the website, cities association website, the agenda packets up. So please take a look at that. And if you have any comments, please let me know before Thursday. Thank you.

[02:15:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:15:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, we had a VTA meeting last week, and because of the financial difficulties VT is having, They're rearranging their what's called the next network of routes. And they're going out to the public with various meetings. There was one last week in Mountain Dew to get community input about the effects that if we were to reduce routes, what it would do for those particular areas. And one big concern for the Mountain View area, that I'm sort of asking my council to consider, and if you have any thoughts, you can get back to me, is there's this route called the 22, It's the one that runs 247 between Palo Alto and Eastridge, and there's concerns, there was talk about discontinuing our route between the hours of 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning. The reason it's called the Hotel 22s, people that use it to rest on, sleep on, there are a few people that actually use it for work, but there's consideration that because if they're 22 in a way, homeless people would lose the opportunity to have a safe, warm place during those hours. And so if you've had any feedback on that, just let me know so when we bring it forth to VTA, since I represent you, I'd be glad to share your thoughts with them. Other than that, VTA is moving right along, and of course, we got measure B. The vice mayor pointed out that things. So hopefully we can get we're working on our grade cross money. I know the city managers involved with that. We're also looking at trying to get our money for SR 85 and trying to get that moving along to get those. So we're looking forward to spending the money.

[02:17:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Komei?

[02:17:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I wanted to use this opportunity to see if there might be council interest. in staff bringing back an item to the council to discuss whether or not we want to further work on the cannabis ordinance through a revision. I'll save it there to see if there's any interest.

[02:17:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, do we just do a show of hands if we're interested in talking about that?

[02:17:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Jenny, feel free to chime in when I play lawyer more than I should. You cannot discuss the item tonight. The issue tonight would be simply whether or not there's majority support for directing staff to come back with an item so you can then have a fuller discussion of it. Let me also add that if that is the case, what we would bring back is simply kind of a shell of a report that would give you an opportunity to talk about it. We wouldn't come back with any recommendations or things we wait and see what, if any, direction you wanted to give us, and then we would need to come up with a work plan and the implications of any such changes.

[02:18:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. We can take questions on this, or can we?

[02:18:37] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: On whether or not you want to agendize it?

[02:18:40] Unknown Speaker: Or just a quick question. So, is the, uh, if the council decides to agendize a discussion, we would determine the scope at the, at the next meeting, not, not in this.

[02:18:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Correct, we could have a public discussion in the items on the agenda, correct?

[02:18:54] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Right.

[02:18:54] Unknown Speaker: Right. Thank you.

[02:18:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other clarifying questions on that? So, Counselor McAllister?

[02:19:00] Councilmember John McAlister: If you have an ordinance, can the ordinance can't be changed for a year? Did I understand? Explain that for me a little bit.

[02:19:08] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So there's a... You are legislators, and implicit in your ability to adopt ordinances is your ability to amend and to repeal ordinances. So, um, there's Sometimes we have some incongruities or everything doesn't quite match up where you have a policy that talks about a motion for reconsideration, which is a reconsideration of a particular motion. And so, um, my reading of the, My reading of that policy versus your ability of legislators is that the policy shouldn't hamstring your ability to, um, amend ordinances or repeal ordinances once you've adopted them.

[02:19:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, what was that statement about a year?

[02:19:51] City Manager Dan Rich: So, just to add to my lawyerly expertise here, to expand on Janny's answer, she said, we have a policy on reconsideration that says it must occur at the next meeting, and a member of the majority has to support it, et cetera, et cetera. And the policy goes on to say, after that, you can't have a reconsideration, essentially, for a year. But what Janey is saying is a reconsideration is simply an up or down of the same exact motion that doesn't take away a legislative body's ability to amend a law that they've passed. It's a long way of saying what council member Kame is suggesting is legal and appropriate to suggest, if the council majority supports it.

[02:20:42] Councilmember John McAlister: To end it or repeal it or to...

[02:20:45] City Manager Dan Rich: Amend it.

[02:20:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Amend it, but you can repeal it for one year.

[02:20:49] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: No, there's no limitation.

[02:20:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:20:52] City Manager Dan Rich: Because that would be a different motion. That would be completely...

[02:20:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:20:55] City Manager Dan Rich: Different motion.

[02:20:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other clarifying questions? Vice mayor, I'll make okay.

[02:21:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I would just ask in terms of timing, because the lottery, I believe, is set for the end of March, so can we bring those back before then?

[02:21:16] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes, and as they say. So if all we're bringing back is basically a shell saying, do you want to talk about that? You know, we can turn that around very quickly. I would only caution you that, um, I would fully expect if and when this is put on a council agenda, there will be considerable amount of public interest in the topic. So that raises 2 questions, how much, if any sort of advance warning, or notice, do you want to give people that it's going to be back on the agenda, but number two, when you look at our agendas for the next six weeks, they are quite full. So, the short answer is, yes, we can bring it back quickly, and frankly, the lottery is scheduled for late in March, and while that isn't necessarily legally determinative of how you move forward, in the interest of all the people who are invested in this, and have put time and money into it, the greater clarity sooner would be better. So it's really a judgment call for you on how late you want to stay here one night, if you want to do it sooner rather than later.

[02:22:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, we cannot discuss tonight, or even put forth what we want, what the amendment should be, so that at the meet, when it is agenda is, is that when we, could we discuss it, deliberate and then vote on those specific amendments in one evening, given that we're not specifying what those amendments are?

[02:22:47] City Manager Dan Rich: My answer would be no, because what we're going to bring you is, again, just a shell. I mean, and you could say, our changes are A, B, and C, but that would need an ordinance change that has to come back for a 1st reading, 2nd reading. I believe it also has to go to the EPC because it's in chapter 36 of the code. So you can't immediately effectuate those changes right away. It has to go through that process. And you also would probably want to consider, to what extent, you want to have public input in a change in the ordinance.

[02:23:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So then, given the lottery, do we or could we potentially vote to suspend the lottery or delay it so that we have the time to have this deliberation?

[02:23:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, that's probably something that we should think about and look into and bring back an answer to you, but what I would say is the lottery is just the next step in the process, or the expectation is the winners of the lottery, under the current ordinance would be the top two in the two different categories, have to go through an extensive permitting process, which is expected to take 6 months. So, you know, we would probably want to see whether or not to put a pause somewhere in the process, but it doesn't necessarily mean don't we don't have to do the lottery, but nobody's going to get a permit, you know, the day after the lottery.

[02:24:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, yes, I would support bringing it to putting it on the agenda for potential amendment.

[02:24:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, did you have anything else you wanted to say or should I take you out of the queue? Okay. So I guess we should say by a show of hands how many folks would like to bring this back and put it on an agenda to talk about potential revisions, I guess I'd say. So that's 4 with council member Hicks and Kame and Vice Mayor Abikoga and myself, and how many, I guess, how many opposed? Council member Clark, Ramirez, and McAllister.

[02:25:04] City Manager Dan Rich: So the next question I would have is you as some clarity of direction on timing, again, if the shell report we can bring back pretty quickly, but if we do it, you know, before the next quarter is set, in other words, before April, just know that all of our meetings between now and then are quite full. So as long as we go in with our eyes open on that. Let me pose that as a question. Does the council wish this to come back as soon as operationally possible?

[02:25:43] Unknown Speaker: I think so, to be fair to everyone in this process.

[02:25:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: I would say, so, aside from, you know, my vote to discuss it or not, I actually think it will be more informative, is no one's gonna get a permit for, like, nine, 12 months after the lottery. I think it's going to be much more informative for us to have this discussion if the lottery has actually occurred. And then we, because that's not a guarantee to anyone, is just setting a priority order for those folks. And then if you do ultimately want to make changes, then you sort of know what the, you have a better sense of what those impacts are. So from my perspective, I would, I don't think there's any rush to bring it back prior to the lottery. It can come like immediately. After the lottery went over the space, but I don't really think I don't see any benefit to having that discussion prior to the lottery because we're actually working on less information. than we would have sort of after a lot.

[02:26:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayo by coca?

[02:26:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, like, for me, it's, I would say time is of the essence, um, because of the 6 months or 6 to 9 months of processing the permitting permits. I, you know, basically, I would like to get this done before any permits are issued. So, um, I mean, we could wait until then in the lottery, but I think that just shortens our time to have a full discussion. So the sooner we can bring it back. bring it on and put it on the agenda to at least get the parameters of what these amendments should be, I think, the better. And frankly, I don't see, um, the results of the lottery, at least in my mind, affecting what, um, kinds of amendments I'm thinking of. So I would like to see it come as soon as possible.

[02:27:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Council member, come in.

[02:27:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Um, For myself, I'm just looking to be able to talk about it and, um, with Brown act and with not being agendized, there's no opportunity. So I look to staff on what typing makes sense.

[02:28:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments?

[02:28:05] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I, for me, it seems like, uh, the sooner, the better for everyone's um, impact, I guess I would say.

[02:28:17] City Manager Dan Rich: Not to be a stickler for clarity, but I would like to see 4 nodding heads on sooner or after the lottery.

[02:28:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, how many for as soon as possible. One, two, three, four, five. And how many for after the lottery? That's two. Okay. Okay, well, um... I had a couple of things I wanted to mention. I attended the Mayor's Innovation Project conference in Washington, DC, but we haven't had a meeting where we had this opportunity to share. So I thought it was a really good conference. It was the 1st time I had been there. And also, as the vice mayor mentioned, the city's association. The executive board is meeting as well as the board. And so, I, it's my understanding that the executive board is going to potentially work on the, um, letter about casa, but then it would come to the board for a vote. So if anyone did have any input, I would like to see that as well. So that we both have the same information for the city's association meeting this Thursday. Okay. Any other John, are you in the queue?

[02:29:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wondered if Chris would be able to, since he went to an A-Bag meeting, if he could give us sort of a review of what transpired when you went to that meeting.

[02:29:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh, sure. So, first, item in the mayor's innovation projects, as well. I want to mention that. The other thing to, so on, so I did, Andy circulated the letter today, I'll read, I took a brief look through it. today. I'll look, I'll do more before Thursday and send you send you any comments I have. So basically, um, I don't know if it got circulated, but, um, so I sent a, I sent a high-level summary to Andy of what I thought was sort of the outcome of the meeting, the A-Bag meeting, and then, um, Liz Gibbons wrote a pretty comprehensive summary, incorporates some of what I said, but she sort of wrote, um, so I don't know if that ultimately got circulated. I thought it was. But I can circulate that because it actually was, I think, a really good snapshot of sort of what the state of things was. But really what it boiled down to was, um, We had we had a split executive board. We had where it was very clear that there weren't enough votes for a straight, yes, or a straight no. So there were some folks who just wanted like, no, don't sign it. There were folks who said, yes, sign it, no caveats, there wasn't a majority in either of those parties. Then there was another camp that was just past the MTC motion, which was sign it, but with a whole bunch of caveats. That didn't have a majority either. And so where we ultimately landed was basically adopting the MTC motion, which was basically, I think, from a lot of what, at least those at the meeting felt we were doing was saying, sort of, thank you for the work product that you've done. We're, like, accepting the work product. And we are, but at simultaneously, we're worried that, well, 1st of all, we, what we're doing is not endorsing this because there are a lot of provisions that we have concerns about. We enumerated some of those concerns, um, that Liz, when I send that around, Liz sort of identified too. And the fear was that if we didn't give some sort of affirmative action, affirmative direction to staff, since we share a staff with MTC and MTC had already passed it, we were afraid that they would not be sort of incorporating or lobbying with sort of the A bag concerns incorporated into that. So basically what we decided to do at, like, one in the morning was to adopt the MTC motion, but with a number of additional caveats and creating sort of an advisory committee, that would sort of look at legislation as it comes through, as associate with CASA, and then provide feedback to the ABAG executive board, and thereby our staff who's sort of lobbying about this in Sacramento. So, really, it was a way to sort of close the book on the Caso framework piece of everything, and sort of take, in my mind, take control of this whole process, and start to advocate for, may make it very clear sort of what the provisions are in Casa that we think are going in the right direction, which ones we think are going in the wrong direction, and try and make sure that we don't end up with sort of a cookie cutter, um, uh, cookie cutter legislation that sort of treats all cities the same way and doesn't recognize a lot of the work that we've already already done. So I, that's a very, it was, it was just as long and convoluted that night as I just made it all sound, but that's, that was the sausage making that happened to get us to where we ended up at one in the morning was we didn't have a majority for anything other than sort of that hybrid thing that I just described. So, It was a long night. I'll send that memo around. If you have most seen it, it's actually a really good... It's pretty succinct, and it enumerates all the things that sort of occurred that night.

[02:33:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That'd be great, thanks. Okay, any other announcements? Okay, so, let's see. We're gonna adjourn this portion of the meeting to a close session, and do we have an announcement of the close session?

[02:34:07] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes, I think we have a few announcements, actually. So, the closed session this evening is a conference with real property negotiator pursuant to government code section 54956.8, the properties are City Hall, 500 Castro Street, APN 158, 10 32, 580 Castro Street, APM, 158, 10 032, 590, Castro Street, APM, 158, 10 dash 033. The agency negotiator is Dennis Drennan, our real property program administrator, and then negotiating party is the Sobrado organization, and under negotiation, our price in terms of payment. And I just want to point out, too, that you could choose to have public comment here, or you could have it over in the plaza before we hold the closed session. And I believe that 2 of the council members have a comment that they would like to make or a recusal that they would like to make and I can assist if needed.

[02:35:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, why don't we do the recusals first? So, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:35:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you, due to real property that I own and proximity to the parcel to be discussed, I will be recusing myself from the closed session.

[02:35:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:35:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I'll also be recusing myself from the session due to property that I own within the vicinity.

[02:35:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I think it'd be good to take public comment while we're here. So I'm sure to fill out a card either before or after you speak. Great. And hang on one second. This feels weird. I'm still here. I don't know what usually leaves. Okay, great. So we'll take public comment on the closed session item.

[02:36:03] Mary Hodter: Okay. Hi, I'm Mary Hodter, and thank you all for being here on a rainy night. I whizzed over mid-prep of dinner to speak on this issue. So, um, my understanding is that there's a 2000 square foot piece of driveway that sits behind the Wells Fargo building between the park right over here. Um, and that you are, it's under consideration that you might sell that to Sobrado in order that they could build offices and retail on the corner where the Wells Fargo building as. And I would like to recommend that you not do that. 2000 square feet in addition to the building whatever building they're already planning to build. I don't know the square footage of that, but 2000 square feet times 5.5 office workers who in tech tend to occupy that amount of space times 5 floors is 55 office workers. And I would really like to emphasize that, um, I am not for building any more offices until we fix our jobs, housing and balance. And I certainly don't want any city property anymore. I know we did the office over across from the hotel, but honestly, I really think that needs to end until we fix the housing issue. Now, I would say that it would be very interesting if you were to offer Sobrado or some developer, that property in exchange for doing the 4 upper floors in housing. Um, In fact, I would I would fully support your giving them the property if they did a decent amount of affordable housing because it's so important that we fix this. in our city. It's, um, in fact, I've just been on a raging 4 day debate on a couple of mail lists that cover 100s of residences, residents, where we are absolutely adamant that we need to add housing and we're just arguing about how to do it. So, um, you know, a lot of folks really support housing over office. And so I just kind of want to share that. I also really want to support real retail in the bottom in the 1st floor. What Sobrado did across the street in the building that is now between the church and Wells Fargo is, in my opinion, abominable. It's essentially offices. Banks are offices and, uh, you know, sticking an ATM machine on the corner doesn't help or one little retail outlet for a couple of tellers doesn't help. We need real retail, several small retail outlets across the street, so that we don't end up with dead zones on the street, which harm the rest of the retailers. So anyway, that's my thought. Thank you very much.

[02:39:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there any other public comment on this item? Okay, so we are going to move to the Plaza conference room for the remainder, but we'll adjourn this portion of the meeting, and the next city council meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 5 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →