February 26, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call to order the study session, um, and if our city clerk could announce the roll call.

[00:00:09] City Clerk: All council members are present, except council member McAllister, who's currently absent.

[00:00:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So tonight we have one item, it is item 3.1, 701, 747 West Evelyn Avenue, parking and design. And we have senior planner Eric Anderson and planning manager zoning administrator Stephanie Williams, giving us the presentation.

[00:00:34] Senior Planner Eric Anderson: Thank you very much, Mayor Matachek. Thank you, counsel. This is, as the mayor said, study session for 701 747 West Evelyn Avenue, Design and Parking. The applicant is Marwood Assets Management. The project site is currently occupied by a subway restaurant, a car repair garage and several small commercial spaces. It's across the street from the downtown transit center, half a block from Castro Street, and adjacent to city parking lot 4, which last November was approved for a hotel development by the Robert Green Company. The status of that project is that they are currently preparing building permit drawings and are expecting to submit those within the next few months. The proposed project is four stories, approximately 30,000 square feet of office over ground floor retail. It is zone and compliant, except for parking. Their parking proposal is 3 levels of underground garage with approximately 55 parking spaces. The minimum for the precise plan is about 88. The site does not have adequate space for access to these parking stalls. So the applicant is proposing that the garage be built as an extension of the hotel garage on Lot 4. Access would be through the city lot to serve these spaces. This would be a new encumbrance on city land to for this easement through the lot 4 to access these parking spaces. In exchange for this encumbrance, the applicant is proposing some additional 24/7 public parking spaces, that is, parking spaces that would be available to the public and not used by the applicant at any time 24/7. In addition, all the parking spaces would be available to the public on nights and weekends. I'd like to note, for the record, that there was a minor error in the staff report about the proposed sidewalk with on Evelyn Avenue. It's actually 13 feet and not 11 feet. The proposed project design utilizes some traditional materials, including limestone and sandstone. It uses some traditional ornamental elements, like parapet caps, a water table at the ground level, awnings, and pedestrian details. It has a regular rhythm of inset windows, which is a traditional technique for design, and it highlights the corner with an entrance plaza and a tower element. The project uses methods to reduce mass along Evelyn Avenue, including a break, partway through the building, and a setback, fourth floor. And it steps down and orients an entrance towards the plaza on Castro. The DRC reviewed the project in November and supported the project's massing stepbacks and rhythm, and provided comments regarding programming, details, and materials that the project is expected to comply with when it resubmits. So the 1st council question is to provide feedback on the design so far. Does the city council have any additional feedback on the project's design and architecture? The second topic for tonight is parking. The parking requirements for this site are regulated by the downtown precise plan. There is no retail parking requirement. The office parking requirement is 333 square feet per stall without a TDM program, and 350 square feet per stall with a TDM program. Because it's in area H, and within the parking district, 100% of the required parking may be provided through in Loofes at the discretion of the council. As a bit of background, parking in loop fees are funds provided by the applicant, so that the city can construct required parking as public parking at a later date. The council may also reduce the project's overall parking requirement based on operations TDM or location. This slide shows how the project would extend the approved parking at the Robert Green Company site by filling in this aisle with parking and extending these aisles with the additional parking here. So there would be approximately 55 stalls on the Marwood site, and then some additional spaces would become available on the lot foresight as well. Marwood proposes 55 stalls on the their site. 25 of these would be dedicated to the public 247. 30 of these would be private, but be able to the public on nights and weekends. This is equivalent to one stall per 1000 square feet of office, roughly 68% reduction from the standard and the precise plan. Staff notes that in contrast to the characterization in the staff report, Marwood is open to paying in Luffy's. However, there are still policy questions about whether the inloof fees should be based on the 5% reduction in the precise plan, or other reductions based on their TDM program. So Marwood is justifying their reduced parking based on a robust parking and transportation demand management program. It includes many measures that staff supports, including subsidies for alternative modes, bike parking and amenities, real-time transit information, downtown coordination with other downtown employers, a monitoring program, and TMA membership. Staff does have concern about several of the elements, including the one to 1000 square foot parking ratio. The proposed restrictions on permits. So right now, the city offers permits to properties in the parking district so that they can park all day in several of the lots. And the applicant is proposing that they restrict access to those permits at this site. And the applicant is proposing an enforcement and penalty program, which is based primarily on surveys, since it would be very difficult to monitor where exactly people are parking. They could be parking in neighborhoods or in other public lots. So it's based primarily on surveys. And so staff is concerned about the rigor of that enforcement mechanism. So staff's recommendation for this project is an absolute minimum of one space per 500 square feet that they provide on site. This will help address concern that the project will use public parking, even as they are providing 247 public parking. There is some concern that they will demand public parking and not provide the amount that they say they are offering. So, the one space per 500 square feet will provide some comfort that they're not using a significant amount of public parking, if not.ary. In addition, in the long term, if they provide in Loofy consistent with the downtown precise plan, that is the difference between the private parking that they provide and the one per 350 square feet, in the downtown precise plan. The city can construct additional parking to address their parking demand in the long term. Staff recommends no specific permit restrictions for this project, and that any future council direction, for example, in the next coming weeks, council will be reviewing possible future direction for downtown parking. and that whatever council directs for the whole parking district should apply to this parking, this site specifically, this site as well, and not carve out any specific exceptions for this site. And staff is also recommending no specific enforcement or penalties based on, as I said, the difficulty of verifying and administering the surveys. This slide summarizes Marwood's proposal and staff recommendation. And the 2nd question for council tonight is weather council supports the recommended parking and um, parking demand management program, option, the Marwood proposal or some alternative. As I said, there are some upcoming council meetings that may have a bearing on this project. Staff will be bringing forward question whether council wants to pursue a downtown precise plan update, and also in the next coming weeks, staff will be bringing forward a downtown parking study for council's review. Ongoing for this project, we will continue to review the project, including construction logistics in case the Marwood and Robert Green Company garages are built out of phase. We will continue to work with Marwood and the Robert Green Company on garage design, and we will continue to negotiate the access terms to their spaces. And then ultimately, there will be a final decision on this project probably after fall. In fall. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is would like to make a presentation of their own, and we're open to any questions you might have. Thank you.

[00:10:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did the applicant want to give their presentation?

[00:10:34] Applicant: Nope, we'll do the your presentation. Find the cursor. There it is. Voila. Okay. Good. Good evening. Madam Mayor, members of the city council. Thank you very much for having us tonight. Excited to present this project to you and hopefully engage your support for what we're trying to do here. Hmm. Okay. and isn't listening. Why is that? Zerbs, okay. Is it working? There we go. Perfect. I don't know what I did. Thank you. Hopefully that doesn't count against me on the time. Anyway, what we're looking for from you tonight is, it's pretty well dovetails with what staff just said, feedback on the design and architecture, comfort level with our parking and TDM program, particularly our mode shift approach, and our parking alternatives, ideas, and then something more, which is what do you most value in terms of what we can bring to the table as part of this project, whether that's parking spaces, fees, and what would with those fees, like downtown parking solutions, like a TMA or residential parking permit enforcement. So I won't get into too much detail here, as you know, this is a really great location for a transit oriented development. So our whole program is designed around that as the centerpiece. So we've made really great strides since we last saw you about this project. There's been ongoing discussion with staff internally with the DRC. We've had great exchange with the Robert Green Company regarding the design of the garage and the various terms for how we would set up our agreement. And then we've also engaged in a good deal of community outreach, and we've received really valuable input on that. So some themes emerged from this. People like the architectural direction overall, that it's rather traditional in character, that it adds to the feeling of downtown, that it's, we understand that retail is super important. There's support for our expanded garage. There is some support for the aggressive parking and demand transportation demand management program that we've put in place. There is some desire for housing in an ideal world, but it isn't feasible under the present circumstances. It would require great deal more density on this site, which is probably not appropriate at this point given the hotel that's going in immediately adjacent. We've also heard a lot about downtown parking, concerned about office parking, spill over on city streets, need for stronger parking enforcement, and that the current TMA is not focused to downtown users. So what happens is when I click that left after it's sitting there too long, what did you do to unlock it? Because now I'm, I guess I'm, it's locked again. I think I'll just stick with the arrow on the computer to avoid this problem in the future. Sorry, I'm a Mac person, so I guess maybe that's my problem. So, moving on, now we're going to get into the images. These are updated images from what you saw in the staff report. These incorporate the DRC feedback. So we're trying to create, as you know, a pedestrian and exciting experience across from the train station, active facades on all 3 sides. This is an evening view with a hotel. And our building in the foreground. I'm going through these quickly because I want to be sure we have time. This is what would be like if the project didn't go forward. This is what the hotel, it's not a perfect rectangle, so you can see the wall there on the left. This is what it would look like from the train station with our project. So, This is an ideal TOD location. We have a really aggressive program, as you know. It goes way beyond city requirements. It goes way beyond what anyone else has done in downtown Mountain View, and I believe it's gone way beyond what anyone has done in Mountain View to date, period. And our key success factor here is really the subsidy program. It's also got teeth. And even if the city chooses not to enforce certain aspects of the teeth that we've put in the program, that doesn't mean that we can't enforce it ourselves, because our commitment is to do the right thing here. We've been listening to what the community is saying about parking downtown. It's a smaller building, and so that gives us an opportunity to do a very personalized approach to our TDM, which isn't possible for a larger company. And, or it's more difficult anyway, for a larger company. And we want to attract a tenant that has a common vision, and we think that's very doable. This has been done, and it's been done right down the street from us in Palo Alto. Palentier and Amazon have achieved levels that were comparable to what we're talking about, and the Palo Alto transportation management agency, survey data, bears that out. So what other alternatives exist? We're talking right now about the potential for valeting some of our 30 spaces for adding some stackers to some of that, and this could really add quite a bit to our parking count on site. We still need to work this out with Robert Green and with the city, but this is, we hope that this is a promising option. But right now, what's in our control is that transportation demand management with the parking really focused on the parking. We can also look at offsite parking, and there may be some other creative ideas. In addition to what's possible for our site, which is we're really setting up our own TMA, essentially, is what could be done for downtown as a whole. Palo Alto has a downtown TMA and it's pulling over 300 cars a day off the downtown streets. That is done through subsidy. And those subsidies, I believe my understanding, and Elizabeth can correct me if I'm wrong, but that it's targeted to people with incomes of $70,000 or less. This has been very successful for the service workers and retail workers downtown. And that has helped the retail community in Palo Alto and reduced parking demand in the downtown Palo Alto area. So we think something like this could be done in Mountain View. And then there's the residential parking permit program. We know that you're going to take a look at that here pretty soon again. There may be some opportunity to bring in some enforcement and rejigger that, somehow, that makes it work better for not only the retail community, but the neighbors, and maybe that's an area where some of our resources could be applied. So we want to know what's most important to you? We've got this list of things that we're working on. We are committed to doing those 55 spaces at no cost to the city. We're going to pay our pro rata share, and the city would own the garage at the end of the ground lease that the city has with Robert Green. We're proposing access to all those 55 spaces on nights and weekends and up to 25 of them, 247 for the city. Those 2 things right there target directly, the parking peak demand issue that's highlighted in your staff report. Staff talked about the ramp fee for ingress and egress, parking in loop fees, somewhere fits into the mix, and then the potential for use of those fees to launch a TMA for downtown and funding to implement improvements to the residential parking permit program. So timing is everything. Staff mentioned the need to try to line this up so that we can get into the ground around the same time as Robert Green and really be able to commit to paying for the parking. Um, in time. And so we're on track to do that, but timing is important here. We've already incurred a good deal of expense, but at the end of the day, to write a check for the actual construction is a whole different matter. So this is a huge opportunity for downtown. As a 28 year Mountain View resident, I feel like, wow, look at this. It's a great building. There's the potential for a huge public benefit with the parking spaces, something that adds to the historical character, and office opportunity for smaller tenants, more shoppers for downtown, retailers in restaurants, engaging non-restaurant retail, that will bring people into downtown, no dead zone at our site. A world class demonstration project for parking demand management and transportation demand management. We really want to do this thing right. And a cash contribution to the city to help you with your downtown parking priorities, or whatever other priorities you feel are important. Now, that's a lot of benefits and all packaged into 12,318 square feet. So again, this is what we're looking for in terms of direction tonight. And I much appreciate your time. And I'm happy to answer questions, and I should just indicate that we have our team here tonight. Tim McHenry from Marwood, Elizabeth Hughes, from my TDM specialists. Let's see who else do we have? We have Matthew Weisik from Reuben Junius and Rose. We've got Raquel Bito from Steinberg Hart, our architects. I think we have, do we have Steve Waylock here, too, from the Palo Alto team A. Thank you for Cummings, team. So we're ready and willing to answer questions. Thank you.

[00:21:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will take public input next, and then we'll get to counsel questions of either staff or the applicant. Thank you. So if there's anyone who wishes to make comments on this, please come up. Be sure at some point to fill out a card so we can get your name right in the minutes.

[00:21:48] Bruce Humphrey: Good evening, honorable mayor and council. My name is Bruce Humphrey, and I'm the president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. This is probably going to be the shortest comment you've ever heard. But this project has been brought to our business issues and public policy committee, we, overall, are in favor of the way the project is going. and look forward to Council of Pural in the future. Thank you.

[00:22:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:22:13] Sarah Astles: Good evening, counsel. My name is Sarah Astles. I'm a 15 year business owner in downtown Mountain Dew, and also board president at the Central Business Association. We saw this presentation presented to our board at the CBA, and I just want to say we're very supportive of it. We realize I don't need to go into all the advantages that it's going to bring into our downtown, I think, Kathy did a great job of that. We realize the big red flag is a low parking ratio. And I actually want to say that that is exciting to us. We like the one per 1000 square feet as presented by Marwood. And the reason why is this, we feel, will really pave the way to TMAs that are so needed in our downtown. If they, the way they're looking at the memberships, um, with the other businesses, it's just exciting to us, because we've been waiting for something like this, and the amount of effort they're putting into studying surrounding cities, studying what's truly going to work, we would love to see one per 1000 square feet work, um, that could be applied to other businesses, offices in our downtown. And so we look forward to having them join our downtown. Thank you.

[00:23:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:23:24] Cliff Chambers: Hi, I'm Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and I'm here representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. My colleague, Andre Chang sent in a letter. I think Kathy really covered a lot of the points that I was going to make. As full disclosure, she came to one of our MVCSP meetings, and I also had a chance to meet with the applicant who wanted to pick my brain about TMAs. I started my career actually in San Francisco working as a manager of a TMA for 5 years. So I've got a lot of experience and did a series of workshops for Caltrans on TMAs across California. So the whole concept of a TMA in downtown, I think, is very exciting in terms of small businesses. You really need to have a TMA that can really provide a suite of TDM services that really match what needs to be done in terms of trip production. And if there's a location that's perfect for a model TDM parking program. This is it. And you've got a really interested developer who really, I think, really wants to potentially be an anchor of a downtown TMA. So, I see this as a real opportunity in terms of having others join in the downtown and having a downtown TMA that could really address the parking issues in a very comprehensive way. I've had a chance to review the TDM plan. And I find it to be remarkable for such a small office building if it, you know, as I said, if a project like this is going to have a chance for success, it is. And so I really MVCSP does support the Marwood parking proposal. Sure, there are risks associated with it, but I think it's worth taking a risk in parallel with launching a downtown TMA to really address in a comprehensive way. implementing a suite of commute alternative programs that's not only available for their tenants, but throughout the downtown area. And Palo Alto has been quite successful in this, and a number of other areas have been very successful, these kind of TMA programs implementing the type of TDM services. So overall, we support the program, and we would really like to see the council, take a little bit of risk in accepting the parking proposal, and the 55 parking spaces would be a real benefit to the city of Mountain View. Thank you.

[00:26:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:26:20] Mary Hodder: Good evening. Mary Hodder. Um, so we, um, I'm part of Livable Mountain View, and we met with the Marwood Group a couple of times regarding this project, and, uh, submitted a letter to you, but I just wanted to emphasize a couple of pieces of, of, uh, uh, feedback about the proposal that they're making, um, that I would, I would hope that you would delve into as you study this and and look at it over the next few months. So regarding the parking, I know that Mountain View has or they are proposing that we go with one space per 1000 square feet. I did want to point out that in the Mountain View voice that Randied Suda a few years ago in 2014 noted that Mountain View, the city of Mountain View believed that the amount of employees per 1000 square feet in office usage for tech employees in particular was approaching an average of 7.69 employees per 1000 square feet. So I just want to bring that up again. We did mention it in our letter, but I think that's a really important number because there's a huge delta between one and 7.69. The 2nd piece is, The ones a year survey, I think, is not enough. I don't see why there's any reason why you shouldn't ask for a quarterly survey. There's no reason why employees couldn't be emailed on a quarterly basis and asked a couple of questions about how they're getting to work. Um, in addition to that. I also noted in their in their submission to the city, not in the presentation this evening that they wanted to ban employees or tenants in the office building or retail from getting city permits in city lots. And I didn't see any information about how that would be enforced or how it would be proved if somebody responded in a survey and said, oh no, I don't do this. Um, We also were a bit concerned about the notion of paid parking. We don't have a problem with paid parking. It's fine. But the issue that I have is that we will be asking folks in cars to drive down below either one or 2 stories below grade. And there's a little bit of a headache there for people who are coming in for retail or to, you know, do something in an office, have a meeting, whatever. And I would hate to see paid parking, push them out into the neighborhood. So I was wondering how that would be enforced. or improved. And lastly, they proposed that they pay into the RPP program. And so I would like to encourage that as we review that program over the next couple of months that you look at not just this building, but other buildings as well, helping with enforcement for downtown both in the retail area and the neighborhoods. Thank you.

[00:29:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide comments on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the council. So if there's any questions, and then we'll get to answering the questions the staff has for us. Are there any clarifying questions from council members? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[00:29:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, so there's, let's talk about a downtown TMA. What is the expectation, you know, and with the other TMA that we've started. It's been a requirement for new redevelopments that they join, but for downtown, I mean, I guess there will be potentially redevelopment in the future, but there's a lot of existing businesses already. And is there, what's the thought in terms of getting actual members to join?

[00:30:33] City Staff: That really is the $1000000 question. And I don't have a really strong answer for you. on that. And I, one thing that Marwood has done to their credit is kind of the organizational kind of going out and talking to people, right? which is important and valuable, kind of playing up the value of the institution, if you will. Now, I do want to note that staff's position is that it's better to have developments join the citywide TMA, whether they're downtown or not, and to really put more resources into that body, rather than a separate body for downtown. We do have several development sites that are downtown that are joining the TMA, because they were approved in the last several years. And so that we are starting to get that kind of seed happening downtown. But you're right. It would be very difficult at this point to kind of enforce or require, from the city's perspective, people existing buildings to join the TMA. And it would really just have to be done with more of a carrot rather than stick.

[00:31:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any thoughts on what kind of carrots that could be offered?

[00:31:58] City Staff: Well, if a suite of measures is available to TMA measures, TMA members, uh, you know, subsidy measures or, uh, other, um, services.

[00:32:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I mean, and I guess this will get into comments, so I'll leave it for later, but, um, So the option would be to either join the current GMA or start a new one and you're saying, and I agree that maybe joining the current one would be more effective, right? The other question I had, had to do. There was a little, I guess, a little confusion. I had at there. There's, like, parking in Loofy or not paying the in Loop fee in exchange for enforcement. Is that how, is that right? Is that no? There's something in the Stafford, I'm sorry.

[00:32:53] City Staff: Yeah, so, um... I kind of flip through the documents, but. So the council is, it's within the council's authority to reduce the overall parking requirement on this project. And so that would mean reduce the total number of parking spaces, that they would to provide either through on-site parking or through in Loofes. So instead of the 88, they only pay fees and provide parking on a lower amount. Um, The council can use whatever analysis they deem appropriate to set that number. One source of analysis to set that number may be the TDM program, if there is some enforcement, saying that we have a reasonable way to keep them from using public parking. That may be a way to justify a lower overall parking ratio.

[00:33:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Just to clarify that, it does deviate from the other office projects that have been approved. They have paid, um, whatever portion, if 100%, let's say they got 100% approved in the parking district, and then you're allowed to use 5% reduction for the TDM, what the precise plan says. And in theory, you would pay 95% of those parking spaces as in Luffy. Okay, great. Um, and that was my my last question is, um, the, I guess what's the, what would, what would the justification be to lower our ratio to one to 500 feet or have we done that ratio elsewhere?

[00:34:37] City Staff: So what staff is recommending is not that the overall parking requirement be one per 500 because we would be collecting in Luffy's for the difference? The justification for the one per 500 is acknowledging that it's in a prime location for transit, acknowledging that they do have a very robust TDM program. Um, but also acknowledging that, um, uh, that at the employment densities that they're likely to have, um, and something on the order of a 50% mode share, you know, mode shift, uh, results in a one per 500 or so parking. And the

[00:35:20] City Staff: Right, and the fact that there's limited downtown parking supply, the downtown parking is at capacity, basically, right now, during times of day. So the goal here is to set a bare minimum at which we want them to construct parking. And then in the future, the city could construct additional parking based on their in Luffy's.

[00:35:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then, um, there's mention about the public, the spaces that would be for public use, and there was mention about how that would be during peak times, but I guess the way I read it was weekends and evenings, but I've seen the reports always show, and I know there's a peak time in the middle of the day during the weekdays. So this wouldn't help us in any way for that time. Okay. I think that's it. Thank you.

[00:36:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Only comment's over. Council member Hicks.

[00:36:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, you got my parking questions. So the ones that are left for me are, um, the people I've spoken to who frequent the downtown, their, um, some of their main concerns have been the interface, public interface, of the ground floor, with, uh, with passersby, with the public. So I was wondering if you could talk a little... I know it's preliminary, but in terms of ground floor uses, Do you have any, you know, ideas or prospective users, one user, multiple users, and then how would you interface with the 3 streets, you know, blossom, Evelyn, and um, I'm forgetting which the other one is? But how would you interface with those?

[00:37:07] Tim McHenry: No, it's... My name is Tim McHenry from Marwood. Um, it is early. You're right, on the retail side. But we have talked about it this... And I think, you know, we're dealing with square footage wise, if you start with the math. You know, we were from seven to roughly 7,500 to 6,800 square feet of retail on the ground floor. Um, not gonna, it's gonna be an active retail in all three corners, right? Because there's no drive aisles. And I think backing into that answer, first, we put a lot of focus, as did planning on trying to build 3 fairly aesthetically pleasing facades on each corner, the Evelyn Corner, as well as the Hope Evelyn corner in the blossom corner. I think regarding the amount, and that plays into the ground floor retail, I think we could probably see at least maybe three, if not two, retail tenants there. It's been pretty strongly worded to us and communicated by multiple stakeholders that banks, jewelers, you know, are not really, and I use those just notionly, are not the type of retail that's desired at that location, we're the same mindset. I mean, I think this is an opportunity when you look at what's going to be happening in that corner of the city. the pedestrian experience that's going to be happening over the next decade. I think it's an opportunity to put in a really strong retail mix that's going to blend well with what we see is a lot of pedestrian traffic happening in the next decade, not further, but I'm not prepared tonight to talk about any commitments we've had with any retailers because it's just much, much too early, but I can commit to saying that we've heard very strongly from planning as well as stakeholders about the type of retails they don't want. And the dark spots, the dark spaces on Castro. And I think that's not our intention at all with this location. Nor has it been with our business plan when we first picked up the site. I think we realized we could really make a pretty dynamic retail experience.

[00:39:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That it? Uh, Council member Ramirez.

[00:39:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, Vice Mayor, I'll be Koga had a good point about the difficulty in attracting members to the TMA, if we're not able to require membership. And I was curious about how successful the Palo Alto TMA has been in attracting members, because I think they probably have a very similar challenge there.

[00:39:53] Applicant: Yeah, actually, I don't have the answer to that question. I don't know their history or how they were set up. Yeah.

[00:40:09] Steve Brady: Steve Brady from all trans, we provide management services to the TMA. And TMAs are just all over the board, like Contra Costa membership was mandated by the employers as part of the development agreement. So it kind of built up with the structure coming in that way. And the downtown Palo Alto TMA arose based on applying a TMA to completely built out place and it's funded through grabbing some funds from the downtown parking district. So, uh, and then we have a few member companies, but it's not a mandated membership was what really helps if you want to sort of grow the fee structure that way.

[00:40:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, Steve, it's a quick couple of follow-up questions. I don't know if you have this information on hand, but how many, just to make sure I may not fully understand the structure of the Palo Alto TMA, but how many businesses have joined? And so not were required to join, but voluntarily joined.

[00:41:17] Steve Brady: So, um, 5 board members, 3 large employers with, you know, a 1000 employees and then a medium and a small. So it's important for us for downtown to have a restaurant to have empathy for the service workers. And then 66 companies are partaking of our transit pass program, but we're direct to those employees. It's not membership, but it is participation.

[00:41:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So all of those members join voluntarily and we're not required to join.

[00:41:48] Steve Brady: Correct.

[00:41:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[00:41:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:41:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh... I've seen a lot of new buildings that are coming up, and they're having some kind of vegetation grow on the walls, and sort of give it a different life of feel, and, uh, had this been considered for this particular building, or any buildings downtown, or is that something new to Mountain View that's incorporating vines, or so forth on buildings?

[00:42:20] Staff Member Eric: There are a number of cases going back a long time to where you have, you know, blank walls that where the builder has put vines, other greenery to kind of add interest and appeal to those blank walls. This site would have some blank walls if it was built without the hotel project next door, but because the hotel project would be built right adjacent to the hotel project, probably it probably won't have any blank walls on which we would have the kind of vines or other landscaping to to dress up those walls.

[00:43:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The parking spaces. You put in an estimated at 52,000. I've heard other estimates when developers come in in the 60,000. So how did we get to the 52 and when was the last time that 52,000 was updated?

[00:43:23] Staff Member Eric: We updated it about 2 years ago. And for a long time, it was 26,000 per space and was never adjusted based on inflation or anything. So when we brought forward the updated cost in Luffy cost, we did a study that really looked at a whole range of different possible parking garage cost scenarios. There's a lot of different possibilities for how much a parking space can cost, whether it's above grade structure, below grade structure, small site, large site, all kinds of situations. And there's a huge, huge range. And when we, going back now, but I think where we ended up was kind of the lower end of that range, just because it was a fee and we felt that we could only ask for a certain amount. There was also kind of some sensitivity to the downtown businesses and downtown property owners of such a drastic change. And so we were concerned about limiting the extent of that change.

[00:44:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but now it's been a little while, and the sensitivity is for new things, and new business is coming along. Has there been any discussion of reviewing that again or updating it again?

[00:44:46] Staff Member Eric: Uh, no, but we are, we do have a program now where we updated every year with, um, inflation. So it is going up with the cost of construction.

[00:44:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and when you updated, you said there's different forms of parking, so would it be updated to something that was applicable to downtown versus something different out in North Bay Shore or East Whisman?

[00:45:05] Staff Member Eric: We used downtown as a basis in RNL. We were never talking about 20 acre sites. It was unclear at that time, and there's still some uncertainty as to whether future garages built downtown are going to be above grade or below grade. We don't have very specific direction on that. So I'm not sure if the inputs would necessarily change right now.

[00:45:36] Councilmember John McAlister: If this project was to pay parking loop fees, Do you have a number? Or is that where you're talking about continuing to work with Marwood?

[00:45:45] Staff Member Eric: No, so that if they were to pay parking and loop fees, it would depend on how many parking spaces they actually construct in the project. So that's still up in the air and what we're looking for direction from council on.

[00:45:58] Councilmember John McAlister: So if they provide 62 parking spaces, private parking spaces in the building, and the requirement is 88, The difference there is 26. And does the 88 net of the 5%?

[00:46:10] Staff Member Eric: Yes.

[00:46:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So that's already extracted up. Okay. The lump sum payment for the egress for the parking. Why you have to be decided on lump sum versus pay as you go. And a follow-up question is that also, then why is it going to the general fund and not into a parking district?

[00:46:34] Staff Member Eric: Well, that is all yet to be negotiated. So we're actually not asking for council's input on that. Today. That's all part of the separate negotiations that we're having with them regarding the access easement.

[00:46:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's in negotiation. But the prospect of it going to the general fund, going instead of going to a parking district, is that something council could weigh into?

[00:46:59] Staff Member Eric: I imagine, yes.

[00:47:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Would that be coming back to the council?

[00:47:03] City Staff: So just to clarify, the quote, lump sum, which, as Eric says, has not been determined, whether it's that or what it is, that is a payment to the city for the use of our land, because they will have no driveway into their building, they're using our driveway and our land, and it's compensation for the use of our land. sort of like a lease payment. Most of our lease payments are generally put into the general fund. That's ultimately after the council, but that would be a decision for a later date.

[00:47:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Also, okay, following along, you put in there, there was a number of 40, 50% assumed that they would be single occupancy vehicles. Some along that, that their parking demand would reduce it to 50 or 40 to 50. But when you said assumed, that made me worried. So, uh, how did you come up with that 40, that's, is there anything that can be more concrete than assuming that they'll get a 40, 50%?

[00:48:03] Staff Member Eric: Well, so our strategy is, like I said, the two phase strategy, and the near term, they would have a certain amount of parking built on site, but they would pay in Luffy's for the long term compliance. We, based on the data from Palo Alto, based on data that we've seen from North Bayshore, Google, other programs, you know, a 50% reduction is high, but not out of the realm of reasonableness for the near term.

[00:48:40] Councilmember John McAlister: What are you considered near term?

[00:48:43] Staff Member Eric: Near term would be, however long, it could be this economic cycle, it could be, however long counseled, determines that we need to build additional parking, and so can collect inloof fees, to actually build that additional parking. It could be just based on ongoing monitoring or the parking situation and when council determines that additional action is necessary.

[00:49:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Have we used that term before to determine how we move forward?

[00:49:19] Staff Member Eric: No.

[00:49:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. If... How did we come? So I was trying to understand a little bit about the one to 500, and one of our speakers said one to 1000, I think she was trying to mean one to 500? Which it seems, you put in there, it was pretty liberal, I guess. Gives conservative, I guess. where most of a lot of businesses are doing one to 200. You know, and so how did you cut range is 500, even when our city code says 300, or less, so why 500?

[00:49:51] Staff Member Eric: So the downtown precise plan says one per 333, uh, with TDM, the downtown precise plan says one per 350. Now, that language was written, you know, many years ago, and TDM programs have gotten more effective, and the overall kind of driving environment has gotten harder, and all of these things have led to an overall shift, especially in transit oriented locations towards alternative modes. The applicant. So the 350, the one per 350 is what the downtown precise plan says. Other projects, say, in North Bajore, have had parking ratios closer to one Perth, 375 or so, one per 400. Um, The applicant is proposing one per 1000, That's where the one per 1000 comes from. That's the 30 private parking spaces for their roughly 30,000 square feet of office. is one per 1000 So the one per 500, again, it's not a, um, uh, it's not a precise outcome of, uh, a model or a, um, anything quantitative, uh, it's based on uh, the Palo Alto data that they provided. We had our we hired TJKM, a transportation consulting firm, to do a peer review, and they responded that one per 500 may be reasonable with their TDM measures. And so we've kind of bounced this around as far as kind of a, you know, to be, frank, a kind of a gut check. Does this kind of make sense from a couple of different angles. especially given that we're getting in Luffy's for that additional parking to be built at a future date.

[00:51:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Because the term that you put in is no less than one stall for 500. So you went down to the very minimum. And I was curious, based on what you just said, that's why you came up with the ratio of no less than one stall per 500?

[00:52:05] Staff Member Eric: Yeah, so we would recommend not moving forward with the one stall per 1000 standard. That's our recommendation, and if counsel is comfortable with a reduction, then we would recommend no less than one stall per 500.

[00:52:22] Councilmember John McAlister: But you also say the shortfaller of private parking. The TDM parking standard is one stall per 350. So I'm still understanding you're saying 350 here, but 500 there. So...

[00:52:35] Staff Member Eric: The difference would be made up within Luffy's.

[00:52:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. No, thanks. We have pure storage. We have 23 and me. They're moving out. We have Facebook. Do any of them do a TMA? And the 2nd question, do we have any idea how many of those companies have are able to divert they're divert their employees out of using private parking?

[00:53:01] Staff Member Eric: Yes, my understanding is that several downtown buildings are joining the TMA. I know the Sobrado Building on where the church is, is joining the TMA. I'm not sure about the one on Bryant. That was probably a little bit before the TMA. That brick building on the corner of Brian Dana. Um, So there are some, there's at least one that's joining the TMA. The other question you had was what data do we have from existing downtown businesses? We don't have any specific surveys about office. There was a survey that was done that was general, mostly oriented towards the retail and restaurant employees, and it did find roughly 80% drive alone. But no, we don't have any surveys conducted by independent, you know, rigorous analysis of other downtown businesses.

[00:54:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:54:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Kamet.

[00:54:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. I just had one question for the applicant. I was wondering if you could walk us through a little bit. Your thought process is processes about enforcement.

[00:54:29] Applicant: I'd like to invite our TDM consultant to really address what's possible there. But before I do that, I'd like to just clarify something regarding Vice Mayor, I mean, Vice Mayor, Avery Cogo's question about the number of parking spaces that we're proposing for the garage and how it would address the peak demand times. We're proposing 55 spaces to be added to the Robert Green Garage, of which some portion our proposal is currently 25 would be 24 7 for the public, which would mean it would address both demand periods. And then the spaces that we need during the day would not address the during the day demand, but they would address, all 55 would address nights and weekends. So with that, I'd like to introduce Elizabeth Hughes.

[00:55:26] TDM Specialist Elizabeth Hughes: Hi, I'm Elizabeth Hughes with TDM specialist. Glad to be here today. The survey and monitoring component of the project would include not only um, regular online commuter surveys of the employees on a regular basis, which could be more than just annually, but also intercept surveys where we are engaging with uh, an employee prior to accessing the building itself and doing a little engagement about where did you, how did you get to work today? Where did you park today? What is this your normal commuter activity? So the intercept survey creates a more of a pop up experience, um, that is not necessarily a planned occasion. So people come to work. They're not necessarily going to have an opportunity to think up a story. They're just really gonna tell you what they're doing. So in 2 ways, we are going to be able to monitor not only the actual activities of what people are doing, um, the pre-engagement with the tenants, uh, before they actually move in, uh, to get their employees comfortable with the transportation modes and options, and personalized trip planning guides before uh, uh, an occupancy occurs, is one of the ways we actually build the program before they engage in the occupancy. And then once employers and tenants are engaged and people are picking up these new programs, we onboard all new employees just as they come on board. So we're there might be attrition from time to time, but when new people get hired at each employer site. We are engaging them immediately. And we're going to be asking people to sign the little sustainability pledges and things like that. So it all ties together in a pretty, um, Robust way.

[00:57:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions? Thank you. Is that it? Okay, any other questions from the council? Okay, then we have the 2 questions. The...

[00:57:33] Unknown Speaker: Oh, my questions have all been asked at this point.

[00:57:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have 2 questions from staff. And, um, given that there's only two, I would, and this is a study session. I think we can just go through them at the same time. And I'll try to take notes because we're going to try to summarize this at the end. So, Council member Clark.

[00:57:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: So all starts off. I, given the, given the time, I'll just say, I'm actually on this project very happy with where the architecture ended up. It reminds me a little bit of Fenwick, and I like that it blends in really well with the hotel. And I think they've done a really good job so far in sort of breaking up the massing of that bunning in with the hotel and creating sort of larger ground floor retail areas with glass and sort of drawing your interest in. I think they've done a good job with the treatment of that corner, which I think is really important. So I'm generally okay with where the where the design is headed. On the more, the trickier question is, um, you know, how we how we address the the parking in TDM. So I think for me, I would be more comfortable. You know, this is about the size of the office where I work, we have about 200, 210 people in the building, and we have 29 available parking spaces, and it works, but it's in the city. It's a different environment. We are half a mile from a transit from a BART stop instead of like right next door, but, you know, all that balances out. And, you know, I think just from a comfort level. you know, I think moving more toward what staff is recommending makes the most sense. But having said that, I'm willing to be somewhat creative in how we get there. So if that means stackers for the office workers, like a valet program where, you know, the worker vehicles are handled by a valet, and if there are stackers and the valet handles those stackers and the stackers aren't necessarily forced on the public, public parking section, then I think, that might be, that might be acceptable. Having talked to the applicant, I think, a fair number of stalls could be added through stackers and it might get us closer to the staff's 62 number. But, you know, I think in general, I'm comfortable with where staff is headed at the one per 500, um, and seeing, you know, how much we can squeeze out of, um, out of that particular, in particular, I'm okay sort of squeezing the office workers on that through stackers, because I think, you know, as long as you have an attendant there or some sort of program to make sure that they all get parked in sort of a long-term space there in the garage, I think that can work. I think that that combined with, um, you know, beefing up our TDM program and sort of working with, or, you know, putting a lot of that, um, you know, working with a developer to have them sort of help get this whole thing going, I think would be helpful, um, because I know Palo Alto's. I just talked to last week or so with some folks from the Palo Alto TM who are looking to sort of share their ideas and maybe, you know, expand those out. I'm not sure we should have a separate program for downtown, but I think there could be, there could be different benefits. It could be one single TDM, but there might be different benefits for different districts within the TDM. And I think one carrot that we could offer to get people to join would be, you know, we could offer transit passes, not just to office workers, but to retail workers and others that are subsidized or like Palo Alto does, but also being able to use some of the parking and loot funds to help fund that and create incentives for people to join. I think would be helpful. And then, um, staff had also noted that, um, you know, they're recommending the Park in Luffy, um, but not enforcement in parking parts. I think what I would say there is, you know, I'm okay with the with the in loop fee for what for the remainder. What I would say is that I hope that we could help. I hope that we would preserve our options in the future. If, for example, a beefed up TDM were to invest in enforcement mechanisms or were to invest in a neighborhood parking permit program. So maybe not having this particular, you know, a single applicant handle all that. But I would I don't want to close the door on that. I would like the opportunity to utilize those funds or, you know, because this is a few years out. I'd like the opportunity to be able to, should something develop in the next year or 2 before this comes online to be able to invest those funds in enforcement mechanisms or a permit program or other things. So that's generally where I'm at.

[01:02:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[01:02:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I would 2nd the last thing you said about revisiting it as the process unfolds. Let's see. So for the 1st question on design, I um, generally like where this is heading, um, I would, I think that the, um, I think that the height is appropriate along Evelyn, um, yet some of the additions at the top, maybe too much. I don't know if you can revisit some of those, it appeared from some of the pictures that they were taller than the hotel, and maybe that was unnecessary. I think that the traditional architecture goes well with the historic downtown, but I hope you don't take that in kind of a fake historic direction, keep it simple, you know, appropriate for the materials that we're using now. And on that, I think that you've talked about this, but using quality, rich materials, the limestone, and not stucco and so forth. particle board or whatever you call that on the outside. Then, if other councils say it should be reduced in size, which is one of the things that was open, step backs to create a more human scale near the street would be the way I would do that. Also, make sure, unlike some of the, some of the recent buildings I've seen downtown, I'd really like to see no obstructions in front of the windows that keep people from engaging. Um, you know, continue to make engaging windows. And then as, let me see, if that's all my design, I think that's all the design comments I had. Then, in terms of the 2nd question, I am leaning towards supporting staff's recommended parking and PTDM program option. Um, I think, but I think, like Chris had said, and I also would like to roll anything that we do into, um, you know, when we revisit parking downtown, roll it into that so that it fits in with the overall parking program for the downtown, and that, as, um, as Chris said, as time unfolds, maybe we can revisit. A lot of the ideas were very good, and maybe we can revisit some of them.

[01:05:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[01:05:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, for question one, um, I guess I actually had a different take, and, um, it's hard to visualize all of this because I don't have the hotel piece, but there's also another project on the villa side that's going to be coming to us, um, fairly soon. In my view, this is all looking like one big block block. And I have some real concerns about that. And on my street on Tope Street. We have the office on one side and then the townhomes. And what they did was match the color to the existing apartments next to it. And so we just have this massive wall of one color. And I think, I look at this and it's starting to look the same to me. And so I really actually, you know, without the seeing the hotel here, it's hard to say, but I actually want to see more diversity. And I would support council member Hicks's comment about, and, you know, this will tie into the 2nd question, but parking, but there is, you know, mention of a smaller office building to match the parking requirement. And I actually would like to look at that, move, look at that option. I just think this is, again, like, you know, what I've always says, I don't want to see same height, you know, same height, buildings next to each other everywhere, and that's what we're starting to get is how I feel. I want to see, you know, differences, undulation. And so tying into question number two, my 1st preference would be to see a smaller building there, to have a variety of heights and so forth, and also to have more articulation. This to me is very much a straight wall in the front. And I know it's not just, well, I mean, I guess it's gone through design review once. So, but yeah, I want to see more movement in the building. And maybe we just have to go smaller to do that. I also just would say, like, I do not support the reduction of parking ratio. I would stick to the 88, frankly. And this is because, like, I live in downtown, like, council members is right near me, but I have experienced recently the challenges of having more office buildings near the residential neighborhood that I live in. And I don't know if the sobrado, you know, I didn't get to vote on it, so I don't know if the sobrado and the pure storage buildings on my corners of church in Castro have adequate parking or not. But even if they do, they're not parking in the garages, they're parking in front of my house right now. And so a part of it too, I think, is the undergrounding of it causes some challenges some folks don't want to go down there. You know, they, it's too much. It's easier to park in front of my house and walk over than go downstairs. You know, the church folks are supposed to park down there on the weekends, and they're not parking down there. So I just have a fundamental problem with that, that what our parking program is not working and it is spilling into our residential neighborhoods, number one number. So you know, even with adequate parking. Number two, we're going to cut this down to a 3rd of what we're requiring, and that causes a lot of consternation for me. And this is an area where we've already heard from our residences that Caltrain Park, you know, parking is happening in the residences. So this is not, to me, even though it's close to Caltrain, we don't have enough parking for the Caltrain commuters, leaving Mountain View to other places. So I don't see this as a place for us to reduce parking. We actually really need to be looking at more parking at this point in time. And this is something that I fought for back when, you know, when, you know, almost 10 years ago now about a parking structure on the Caltrain lot and we never got that. But that's really what we need is more parking, at least for the near term. So I, you know, I think we need to stick with our parking ratio. It just hasn't been proven yet. And to me, this is not the location to try it, because we already have a parking problem here. Thanks.

[01:10:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[01:10:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So, in terms of the question about design, one thing that I would like to commend the applicant on is that they were able to work with the Robert Green project to have us look at a shared parking proposal. I think that's a step in the right direction in terms of being innovative as development is going on right next door. In terms of comments on any type of additional feedback. I'll just try to give some that haven't been stated, which is, I do think the activation on Evelyn is really critical to make it be an inviting corner to walk or cycle by. I also would like to see Blossom Lane used as an artery into downtown and working on that backside, um, that lane to have some maybe articulation or make that pedestrian and cycle friendly as well. There will be the, I think, walkway through the Robert Green project. So it could be a really nice connection there to make it more walkable friendly, which it sounds like you're trying to do. Uh, in terms of the uh, parking. I do support the staff's recommended parking ratio. Um, and I do feel that parking in Luffy is something that I do support, um, but I think that that's something that the city, um, and the Apple can continue to work together. Um, I don't, I'm not completely wedded on the 247 public parking aspect yet. I'm interested to hear more about that. Um, I think that the, uh, question about parking permits similar to council member, Hicks, and, uh, council member Clark, I'd like to see that, uh, when we look at that in, in March, um, as a staff report, um, to see if there is some synergy we can do there. And lastly, in terms of enforcement, I think it's a really interesting idea. But, you know, I like more information on that and the keys and tools that could lead to something successful. Thank you.

[01:12:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Others? Council member McAllister?

[01:12:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Architecturally, I'm fine with it. I would like some... One quick question for staff. So on the west side that goes to blossom. Is it a blank ball, or is it still current of where it's articulation of buildings and lights and so forth, windows and so on. Oh, thanks. Well, either, the point is being that I'd still like to see some kind of vegetation, you know, something that's...

[01:12:58] City Staff: So this, the picture on the right, is the view facing Blossom Lane.

[01:13:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But I just, as I say, I would just like to have some greenery, the one on the right.

[01:13:09] City Staff: Yeah, so you sort of have a garage entrance and some, I think, in some ways, that's sort of a blank slate,

[01:13:15] Councilmember John McAlister: but I see that, if this is their conceptual idea, or is this something that's still revealed, because it looks like there's some kind of a limestone along the line or something, building that along the line?

[01:13:26] City Staff: Yeah, they're revising some of the materials and details as we speak. They had some revisions that they showed earlier. This is kind of a covered entryway into the retail space. This is a loading area for the garbage and other loading necessities. This is a stairway. This is kind of stepping back as you go up to the 4th floor.

[01:13:53] Councilmember John McAlister: But I mean, just, I mean, I'm okay with it, but I just still, I say, like, enjoy the aspect of, it gives it a little bit of an old field type of parts of town. So I'm fine with the piles of going. I can answer one of council member Hicks questions about the height. If you look at one of our staff questions, it does say it is a little bit lower. So that helps. So I'm fine going along those lines. And the rooftop, if it activates it, I know I've been to, depending on the weather, and I mean, I've been to Austin and Bendorg and Boulder, and they all have these outside patios and they're very well activated. So if somebody puts a rooftop restaurant up there, I know it doesn't, maybe it makes more, but as you guys say, pencils out, that's the thought. If that's, of course, permitted use. Concerning the parking, I have a lot of concerns. But particularly some of the assumptions that staff was using about the assumption that the near term, that we could have the 25 stalls. I mean, that didn't I needed something a little more definitive than the near term that we're going to get 25 stalls, public parking. So you didn't say, well, if this comes along, that goes along. So that's a concern of mine. The assume roughly that 40 to 50% of the estimated 120 office employees would use the building private parking. I guess that to me, I came across as a gut feel, not real data behind it. And so that's another concern of mine that we need to get a better feel for how we're coming up with those items. We've constantly...

[01:15:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me, we are still in this meeting, so if you could hold it down until we're onto the next topic, I would appreciate it. You can also close the door. That doesn't close the door. Well, it's the people inside that are talking.

[01:15:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so, um, that's a concern. The other idea is the... Lou and parking. We're all concerned about every, well, we constantly hear about there's trouble with parking, no matter what time of the day, well, I mean, during lunch and dinner, that there's not enough parking, and then I think even if anybody's like my wife, if she can't find a parking spot in 2 minutes, she's out of the town. And I don't want us to be that way, so, to minimize the parking spaces, I can't support that. I need to find as much public parking as we can. And if someone says going to paid parking that, you know, if it's underground, that will come down down the pike, but we need to maximize our parking. So that leads me to Park and Luffy's. I'd rather see if they're building parking now, if they can go and work with the Greenwood project and put in parking there and increase the parking. I mean, if we're doing it right then and there, and if we can take the 52,000, why would we not try to incorporate it into building, whether they're building the parking now instead of putting it somewhere else where, to my knowledge, we haven't built a parking garage in a long time. So I'd rather see us actually build it right there. The lump sum, I guess that will be worked out. I trust staff to figure that one out. Where it says, continue to work with, Marwood. I'm okay in that regard, citing my concerns. I'd still like to see as many parking spaces as possible, but ILL staff to work their way through it. And I'd still like to see if they if they were able to get with pure storage or 23 and be, even though they're moving out or Facebook, and try to get an understanding what their numbers are. Because that would be more realistic than relying on Palo Alto. I mean, every time we go compared to another city, It's apples and oranges. you know, where no one's identical. But if you could get some numbers like that, I think that would give me feel a little bit better. But if you can find the parking without going any way you can, I think that would bring you better and still the one to 500. You know, you took the very conservative extreme, I'd rather see something in the 300, but actually following the parking standards that we have. But I trust staff to figure it out, right, Dan? Dan? Wait, trust staff to figure it out. Thank you.

[01:18:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:18:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Very briefly. I support the proposed design, although I hear the vice mayor is concerned about sort of the monolithic kind of feel as the whole blog develops, and I don't have any, uh, potential solutions to that, but I do think some some variety or diversity in aesthetic may be valuable. And for question two, I'll express. I think the a minority view. I think the applicant's proposal is appropriate, and the long term reduced parking will help achieve some other city goals, reduction in trips, reduction in BMT, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and there's no more powerful tool for achieving those goals than reducing parking. But it sounds like there's not a lot of support for that. So I would be comfortable with stats recommendation. Thank you.

[01:19:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So before I go back to Chris, I do want to share mine. So on the design, I would like to have the elevation along Evelyn be more interesting. Some folks have commented about that, about it being, it needs to be active, and to me, it does seem like it's kind of monolithic. And I also appreciate the comment about making sure that we have variety. We don't want this to look just like the hotel next door. So there does need to be some different height and some articulation and difference, basically, between the two. I think the trellis on the roof is a bit heavy. And it looks like almost another ceiling. And so if you're going to have it, I think it needs to be more light, so it doesn't feel like it's another floor. As much as we say Blossom Lane is not supposed to be for pedestrians, I think it's important that pedestrians are safe because they are going to walk there. And I do want that to be interesting. So, um, having enough space on the sidewalk and, um, especially if they're trying to get to the hotel, I think is important. The other thing is the entrance on the corner of Blossom Lane and Evelyn. To me that feels really dark and enclosed. Um, unlike the other corner on Hope and Evelyn that is much more open and inviting. And so I think the Blossom Lane corner needs some work. And when it comes to parking. I feel like we talk about parking all the time. We've talked about parking for the 7 years, I was on the planning commission and my, now my 3rd year on the council, and once again, we're talking about parking. And while the goal is to have people get out of their cars, so we don't need as much parking. Either there's more people, or something's happening. We just, I feel like I still hear about parking all the time. And I think the comment, council member McAllister said, I know a lot of people who do come downtown, and if they can't find a space, they leave. And that's very concerning to me because we're counting on people to come downtown to frequent our businesses. And if they can't find a parking space and they leave, That really worries me. So, I am not supportive of reducing the parking requirements while I'm okay with the 5% if they have. Actually, the precise plan, I say it was okay with me. But I would like to get as much parking as we possibly can. And, um, I might be open to a little bit of inloofy, but if we're going to do the inloofy, I would like the plan for where we're going to build more parking. And we say we don't want to build another parking structure. And I get that, and I can appreciate that. But what are we going to do to increase capacity for vehicles downtown. So, um, That one's a real struggle for me.

[01:23:05] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, if we built another parking garage.

[01:23:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, right, right, right. I think your comment was a good one. Yes, if there's some way to make that parking underground bigger, although I do appreciate the vice mayor's comment that a lot of people don't like going into parking underground. So, That's a challenge. But, you know, somehow we do need to increase capacity. A couple other comments. I don't think it makes sense to do a TMA for just downtown. I would want our existing TMA if we're going to go that route to expand. And, you know, I think this building is going to require more parking. So I feel like we're losing what we said we wanted, which was additional parking spaces for the city. I think it was 24. Um, 25 And I feel like we're losing that. And I don't really want to lose that. So, This is, you know, maybe it is a smaller building is the way to go. Okay, um, council member Clark.

[01:24:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's just 2 really quick things. I wanted to pick you back off of what Council member McAllister said. So I think with that wall, and what the mayor said too, at Blossom and everyone, I think you have a really great opportunity there to create a lot of interest. So whether it's vegetation or sort of low, um, low light LEDs, um, that are really cheap and they could be embedded in a vegetation if you wanted, but you could create a lot of visual interest there from people walking bio on Castro to sort of draw them into that area. And so I think, um, it doesn't necessarily have to be static artwork, it could be something as simple as really cheap LEDs that are solar powered and could create interest, um, because you can create movement with those lights and other things. So that's just one idea. And then the other was, you know, this may not be possible just due to excess concerns and where you have the elevator core and everything. But, you know, one, you know, one reasonable benefit of if you are going to stick with something that tall and having the roof elements, you know, if there was some way to have that publicly accessible, whether it's publicly accessible, private open space or it ends up being, you know, some sort of small canteen or restaurant or something like that, that the public can access, then I think that that is a benefit. But that might be difficult just because of the way you have the access setup. But I did want to call out. I think council member McAllister had a really good idea, and I think you could build upon creating a lot of visual interest from Castro Street along that wall, as long as it's standing out there.

[01:25:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comment? Okay, so I'll see if I can summarize this, and feel free to chime in, because I know everyone else is keeping track too here. So in terms of the architecture, in general, I would say we are liking the direction it is going. There's a couple of areas we'd like some, um, additional, uh, ideas explored, and I would say activation along Evelyn. a little bit more articulation along Evelyn, working on the corner of Evelyn and Blossom. And... To me, those would be the 3 things that I would say were sort of consistent. Any other comments on that? Okay, so then when it comes to parking. this one is definitely a challenge. So I definitely heard three people saying no reduction in parking. Two people saying that the staff recommendation on one per 500 square feet, and one leaning towards that. So... Council member Hicks, did you, uh... I think you were said, you said you were leaning towards one in 500. Does that mean you support it?

[01:27:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah. Well, I support the staff recommendation.

[01:27:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The staff recommendation. Okay.

[01:27:16] Unknown Speaker: So the, if I could chime in, the summary notes I had sort of had three supporting the staff recommendation, three, more or less saying, no reduction in parking and one supporting the Marowood proposal.

[01:27:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep, that's what I have. I had leaning, though, for council member Hicks. I wasn't sure, but thank you for clarifying. So, yes, that's what I have as well. So what do we want to do about that? I think the applicant could take good notes from that, and work diligently to try to find a solution unless the one wanted to make some more comments. Uh, cancel my name, Ramirez.

[01:27:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I've seen no support for Marwood's proposal. I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation.

[01:28:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Then, um, I also heard that, uh, we certainly want to revisit some areas of our parking programs. after a period of time and specifically when it comes to the paid parking program. And were there others?

[01:28:32] Unknown Speaker: I felt like it was a bunch of things, just in general, revisit parking. The cost.

[01:28:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. But I think we're going to be doing that.

[01:28:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[01:28:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And then um... I did hear several people say they were okay with a smaller building. At least three. And I think that is what I had that's most consistent across the council member's input. Any other comments from staff? Okay. Okay, so we will close this item. Thank you all. And this would be the end of our study session. And I'd like to, since we're running a little bit late, at least get through a couple more items before we take a break. Okay, so we'll close the study session and start the regular session at 7 o'clock, and we start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

[01:29:52] Unknown Speaker: of the United States of America. One nation.

[01:30:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And then we'll have roll call.

[01:30:11] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:30:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. I do want to let folks know that item 6.2, which is 950 El Camino, Real, Affordable Housing, it will not be considered tonight. It was on the agenda, but we remove that item. We will, however, take public comment on that item. But there will also be an opportunity for public comment on that item when it's considered by counsel at a future date. So if anyone is here for 950 El Camino Real, you're welcome to provide comments tonight when we sort of get to that. Or when it actually is on the agenda at a future date, and we don't have that date yet. Sext is the consent calendar. Are there any members of the council who would like to pull an item? Saying none. there any members of the public who would like to pull an item? Okay, saying none. Motion would be in order for the consent calendar. Oh, sorry. I was looking for somebody to talk. Council member McAllister, made the motion, a 2nd pie council member, Ramirez. You can vote on that. And that passes unanimously. Next is item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved.

[01:31:50] Unknown Speaker: India. They're item 4.2. You want to read the, there's a resolution actually there.

[01:31:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's right. We might have, it's got slightly different wording than we're used to, so we might have overlooked that in the preparation for the meeting. Sorry about that. Okay. So I'd, um, 4.2. Is it just under the recommendation that we need to read?

[01:32:18] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just read the title of the recommendation, then we'll ask you to revote on the consent calendar after having read that. And I would change the word approved to adopt a resolution, which is what you're used to.

[01:32:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, adopt a resolution in adopting a project for the fiscal year 2019 20, funded by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To be read entitled only, further reading, waved attachment went to this council report. Thank you. Do we have to revote on that?

[01:32:54] Unknown Speaker: Yes, please.

[01:32:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, okay, so we have a motion by council member McAllister, a second by council member Ramirez, and all those are in favor. Could you raise our hands? Okay, that's unanimous. Now we are on to 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. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. So if there's anyone who would like to speak to us on an item that is not on the agenda tonight, if you could come up to the microphone, and also be sure to turn in a blue card so we have your name correct in the minutes.

[01:33:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Madam Mayor, as people are lining up, I'd like to announce that the Mount View High School boys basketball team won not only their division, but they also won CCS as division 2 champions and are moving on to Norcal. So I just thought everybody would be thrilled that our home team is doing great.

[01:34:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, if you can come up to the microphone.

[01:34:24] Phil Philly: Thank you, and what a propitious moment for me to arrive. I am Phil Philly, president of the Mountain View, Los Althos, High School District Board of Trustees. Thank you, John, for the plug. I am here tonight as the president. Accompanying me are two other trustees, Debbie Torok, our board clerk. Debbie, would you stand up or wave your hand? And our newly elected trustee, Catherine Vonnegut. Also accompanying me is Dr. Jeff Harding, our superintendent. Fiona Walker and Sanjay Jave, our two other trustees, could not join us tonight. Sanjay had a commitment, a business commitment he could not break. And Fiona is out of town. She wanted very much to join us, but she has to be there, helping her mother recuperate from hip replacement surgery. Nevertheless, Fiona and Sanjay joined the rest of us, and thanking you for the many years of collaboration between the council and our board. By cooperating. You and we have helped make our district, including all of Mountain View, a great place not only to live and work, but also to be a high school student. Some of you actually were high school students there. As a particular, very important instance of the abundant consideration you have shown the schools, the addition of local school policies to the North Bay Shore precise plan deserves special gratitude and praise from Mountain View, Los Altos, entire school community. Exuse me. And on behalf of that community, we all thank you again.

[01:36:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me, were you going to comment on the North Bay Shore precise plan?

[01:36:06] Phil Philly: I'm not going to do that now. I'm just thanking you for all your past performance.

[01:36:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Just checking.

[01:36:13] Phil Philly: And saving my minutes for later. Okay. Later tonight, I'll speak more about these policies and their application to item 7.1 on tonight's agenda.

[01:36:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Perfect.

[01:36:24] Phil Philly: But for now, please know we are grateful for all you have done recently and through the years. You have a long track record of which you should be justifiably very proud. Thank you.

[01:36:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:36:43] Joyce Reynolds Sinclair: Hello. I'm Joyce Reynolds Sinclair, board chair of the Magical Bridge Foundation. And I bring regards from Jill Asher and Olenka Villareal, our executive team, who are unable to be here tonight. I'm here asking for council approval of the remaining $1 million needed to secure a magical bridge playground at Ringsdorf Park. Our foundation has raised over $3.5 million as follows, $1.7 million from the Santa Clara County matching grant, $1 million from the city of Mountain View. Thank you. 818,000, directly raised by Magical Bridge, from 700,000, from local corporations and foundation sponsors, such as the Hewlett Foundation, Google, LinkedIn, El Camino Healthcare District, and Kaiser Permanente, and the Acton family giving, and the balance of 118,000, from over 3,000 individual donors, and I am delighted to say, that includes 35,000, from multiple Mountain View School coin drives. The above demonstrates that there is significant community support for in Mountain View to have their own magical bridge inclusive playground. The project also addresses the city's goals of protecting and servicing vulnerable populations. But necessary funding is still $1 million short. And I must let you know that every other city, with which Magical Bridge Foundation, has the contract, has allocated at least $1 million more than Mountain View. So the city of Mountain View has not yet allocated, or contributed, its fair share. Please note the playground at Redwood City is fully funded, and currently in construction scheduled to open in fall of 2019. Sunnyvale and Morgan Hill are fully funded, and in the community input phase, prior to the final design and construction, and the Palo Alto Playground opened since 2015, now has over 20,000 visitors a month, with many responses on Yelp, being the playground is often too crowded. We are only asking for parity from Mountain View, in support of this project, which simultaneously helps vulnerable populations at the same time and places all your citizens, at the same time and place, that all your citizens are served. The target for the project is 4.5 million, and we must secure the remaining one million by May 1st, or we will have to build a smaller playground. So we help these additional funds can be identified by the council, and we need your support. Our foundation really wants to meet the needs of the Mountain View community and help the city build a $4.5 million playground as contracted for all abilities in all ages. We must go into the design phase by early May due to the all-inclusive playground grant that stipulates the playground open by 2021. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and hope for your support.

[01:39:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:39:53] Miguel Sanchez: Hello? My name is Miguel Sanchez. I am here to make the council aware of an immigration incident that happened this morning, which affected a lot of people in our community. Around 7.30, one of our residents was detained by ice outside of his home as he was ready to getting ready to leave to work with his wife. Apparently, unmarked cars, just showed up and kind of grabbed them and took him away. They tried to get him. They tried to get his wife to come out of the house by enticing her with the keys to the car, which he had in his possession. She knew enough not to come out of the house. Apparently he was taken away very quickly. This happened around 7.30 by 7.45 Some of us in various immigrant support organizations started finding out about this. I went to the house around 820 after dropping my kids off from school. It's as if nothing had happened. Everything was nothing was visible outside of the house. Throughout the morning, many of us were trying to figure out what was going on. Around lunchtime. We realized that he could pose $5000 bail to be released. A bunch of people started collecting money. Fortunately, the family themselves found a way of posting bail around 3 p.m. or so. He was released. During this time frame, he was taken to Morgan Hill, then Stockton on his way to Yuba City. I later talked to his wife on the phone after this all happened. They weren't looking for him. Apparently they were looking for somebody else in this particular house. They happened to grab him coming out of his out of his house. I wasn't there to witness this. But it was a very traumatic experience for that family. They were able, they were lucky to be able to post bail, but they were really on their way to take them to the immigration central center that we have in California. What's concerning to me about this is the fact that one of our residents can be treated this way independently of their legal of their legal status. The urgency with which we have to execute our plans because had they not posted bail, who knows where they would be right now? In fact, the collection of bail that was happening within our community was not fast enough. They had to find bail, another way, another way to get their family member out. So, All of this just highlights one of the goals of the city is to protect vulnerable communities, vulnerable citizens. So I want to leave this here as an example of what it means to be vulnerable, what it means to have these kinds of things happen in our community and why it is important as you start your new cycle in your city council to reiterate that goal and important and do everything that is possible so that these kinds of things do not happen to our residents. Thank you.

[01:42:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Next, please.

[01:42:56] Tanya O'Connell: Good evening. My name is Tanya O'Connell. I am a graduate of the Spanish Leadership Academy. I'm also a co-founder of Listos Mountain Gail. I'm here with Miguel just to raise awareness of what's happened this morning. It has shaken our community. I am very proud to be a graduate of the academy. And because of the academy, we were able to come together as a community and help this family. Um, and I'm here to ask you to please retain the goal, protect vulnerable populations as you work, um, on preparing the goals for the next two, 2 years. What happened today? has happened before. And what it is, is ice is coming to mountain view for people that no longer live here. Our housing crisis has pushed a lot of those people out of our city. The families that are still here are hard-working families that really have no issues like this. And time and time again, what has happened is that ice comes looking for somebody else that used to live at that house 7 years ago and sees a person that fits a profile and grabs them. This man is a very well known man. His line of work because of his line of work. We see him every single day. He, as an example of entrepreneurship, and he's a family man. He's teaching his daughter how to be an entrepreneur in front of all of us. He brings a beautiful, colorful, aspect to our city, and it makes it especially personal, that somebody that is so visible, it's such a good example to our community, can be treated this way. So please keep your goal and let's protect vulnerable populations. Thank you.

[01:44:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else? I can't tell if you all are in line to,

[01:45:03] Public Speaker: Nope.

[01:45:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So anyone else wants to talk to us about items that are not on the agenda? Did I hear a yes? You could come up to the microphone, please?

[01:45:31] Jerry Weitzman: Honorable mayor, vice mayor, and city council members. My name is Jerry Weitzman. This is Ida Rose Sylvester. We're Mountain View residents, and we are also a part of the county rapid response network that shows up to witness and document these ICE raids that you've just heard about. This morning, as you just heard, there was an ICE rate in Mountain View, and a very good upstanding member of our community, a worker, a family man, was detained for deportation. And this affects not only him and his family that relies on him, but also the broader community around them. When there's an ICE raid, our undocumented neighbors are afraid to leave their homes to go to work to bring their children to school. And furthermore, this leaves even our neighbors of color, who are not undocumented, feeling targeted and unwelcome as well. It is our duty as a community to support and protect these diverse and vulnerable community members. And I would ask that the city council members consider this within their goal to protect vulnerable populations. Further, today, I got a message from one of the staff members of the rapid response network asking how we can recruit more Mountain View community members to witness these raids because there's becoming more ICE raids here in Mountain View. And when you need to go and witness a raid, time is of the essence, people who live here have to be the ones to go witness them, today we were too late. So today we didn't arrive in time to see it and document it. So we would like to ask the Mountain View City Council to work with and give support to the County Rapid Response Network, which offers aid in several ways to these people whose lives are affected by the threat of deportation. And we'll leave some of their flyers with you today. Thank you.

[01:47:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wanting to speak on an item not on the agenda?

[01:47:33] Fernando Romero: Hello, good evening. My name is Fernando Romero, and I'm here to speak also about keeping the item on the agenda of protecting vulnerable. The Adam protect the vulnerable communities. So I think it's important for our city to focus on policies that protect our community and the bringing our community together. There's a lot of families after today's incident with the person being taken out, taking out by ice, the, you know, a lot of families are here half year and, you know, if we have a fragmented community, is going to impact us all because in a fragmented community, people are not going to do the things that that are needed to keep our community together. So I encourage you guys to keep the item on the, on the, about the pull number of populations. And thank you very much.

[01:48:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else?

[01:48:48] George Rascone: Yep. Good evening. How are you guys? My name is George Rascone. I am a resident of the 2310 Rock Street on April the 2nd. You guys will be voting on whether or not to approve the project to redevelop that property. I am here just solely to request the city council to please consider between now and then the emotional and financial distress. This will be causing the residents, including myself at the 2310. Also, I would like the city council to please vote on to vote against the actual project if possible, please. Thank you.

[01:49:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? Going once. No.

[01:49:50] B. Hanson: B. Hanson from Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance in Santiago Villa mobile home. As you know, we've been fighting the space rent more since Measure V passed, and I'm not going to, you know, tell you what you already know what happened, where our petitioners are in mediation on March 20th. But that 2 years has cost us dearly in the interim the, mobile home residency law was amended to protect landlords from ordinances. I know I'm aware that this is going to be discussed in your goal setting, your goal setting for the next 2 years. And so I'm pleased about that, but I just want to, um, alert you to the, the, the importance of this issue that has gone on for such a long time. So many vulnerable people are involved with this. And I just wanted to bring it up to you one more time before Thursday's meeting, to make you aware that a lot of people are worried about this. Thank you.

[01:51:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else wanting to?

[01:51:18] Joe Lopez: My name is Joe Lopez. And I live in Mountain View. Some people, before me, have already talk about the fact that one person of our community was detain, arrested this morning by ice agents. And I am here to ask you the same thing that the people before me ask, This coming Thursday, you are going to adopt for what I understand. Policies that will. Protect, or will help, or will serve our community, for the next years to come. And one of the things that I am asking you to see how you can adopt a policy that somehow we'll protect the most vulnerable members of our community. like our brother that was arrested this morning for no reason. He is a human being. He's a member, an honest, working hardworking member of our community. So we are asking you to please find a way to protect the most vulnerable members. Again, like I have said before, each one of you, as a member of this council and the whole council, as a whole, have the moral obligation to see how you can protect how you can adopt rules that will protect the members of our community. You are brothers and sisters. for the rest of our community members. Thank you for what you can do.

[01:53:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:53:22] Cherry Borman: Hello, Cherry Borman, president of the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance. I don't want to take too much of your time. I know you're gonna have a busy night tonight. I'm back again, 1st to apologize to some of you that reached out to me. Last time I spoke because now that the plaintiffs are abroad, halfway around the world for 6 months, I have been nominated to help mediate the lawsuit that was brought up against RHC for not covering mobile homes under measure V. First of all, never in my wildest dreams that I think I would come to city council to try to fight for some of the citizens of Mountain View that need the most help. We're talking seniors, veterans, handicap people that are living in mobile homes. And now I'm the, Personally in the middle of a lawsuit with the city for doing so. It's kind of mind boggling. There is a chance on Thursday when you're agendizing, what you're going to do for the next 2 years, not to kick the can on this issue down the road again. We have come to you. You've sent us to the RHC, the RHC sent us back to you. We came back to the RHC. We went to legal battle. Now we're going to mediation. Maybe that'll happen. Maybe it's going to be appealed. Who knows what's going on, but you have a chance on Thursday. to actually rectify the decisions that have been made and to make good for the citizens that need your help. So I'm hoping on Thursday you'll listen to some of these agenda items and actually pay attention to this population and look at what's going on in mobile homes, looking at who actually lives there. Don't take our word for it. Go survey yourself. It's the city. It's your population, see what is actually happening, what's happening with rents. Take a good hard look, what people need, and maybe we have options for putting us under measure V. That's a court battle, or maybe an ordinance of some sort. I think it'd be really beneficial to the citizens and it would make you guys feel much better about your positions and how you guys have handled the situation for the last decade. On that note, it's kind of setting a precedent that the mobile homes citizens and society of Mountain View are not being represented at all by the city council. You've appointed people, we had a nominee to be on the RHD to get representation, and that was ignored, and there were excuses made. But really, they're just excuses. We could have had representation on the RHC. We could have representation on the city council. And I think it's time maybe Mountain View takes a hard look at why our city council members all live so clustered together and fight for certain issues when mobile home people have been kicked down the road and treated, you know, pretty badly during the time. Maybe it's time we draw district lines and start pulling people out there, the better represent the whole of Mountain View.

[01:56:17] Cherry Borman: Thank you.

[01:56:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any others? Okay, we will close this section.

[01:56:32] Maria Rangol: evening. My name is Maria Rangol, and I'm here on behalf of the community in Mountain View. The minorities, we're here to ask you, please do something, plan something to protect my community. We're all scared with the incident of the ice agents this morning that are arresting people with no reason, only because of the profile. So we depend on you to protect us. We love Mountain View, we hard workers, and please, I'm asking you to adopt something and protect us. Thank you.

[01:57:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You could be sure to fill out a card if you haven't already. I feel like, dare I ask if there's any more? Anybody else? Okay, we're going to close this section of the meeting. And is the council okay with doing one more topic before we take a break? Okay, let's do six one. And then we'll take a break. So I need to read this, right? Okay, so while we are... changing folks up here on the dais, um, this is a public hearing, an appeal of a conditional use permit approval for a large family daycare at 1880 Meramonte Avenue, the appellant, Anne Marie, Palela. Thank you. has filed an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to approve a conditional use permit, which conditionally permits a large family daycare for up to 14 children in the existing single-family residence at 1880 Merramonte Avenue. Tonight we will hear the appeal. First, assistant planner, Aaron, planning manager, zoning administrator. Is Stephanie here? Stephanie Williams. And senior assistant city attorney, Christian Chopra, will present the staff report as set forth in council policy, A13. The appellants will have 10 minutes to address the council. The council may ask questions, and then I will open this item for public input. With the council's consent. The appellant will have 2 minutes of rebuttal time to respond to speakers. The council will then deliberate, and it is our responsibility this evening to vote whether to uphold the decision of the zoning administrator or take alternative action as outlined in the staff report. Thank you. And now we will have the staff report on this topic.

[01:59:22] Assistant Planner Aaron: Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. The item before you tonight is an appeal of the approval of a conditional use permit to allow a large family daycare in a single family home, located at 1880 Meramonte Avenue. The home is located on the west side of Miramonte Avenue between Guest and Madison Drive, and is developed within approximately 3,000 square foot, one story home, and is surrounded by single family homes to the north, south, and west, and St. Francis High School is located across Miramonte Avenue to the east. The application is for a large family daycare, up to 14 children, with two care providers operating between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. There's a two car garage where the homeowners can park, and there are four parking spaces on the oversized driveway that will be available for one employee vehicle and three visitor vehicles. The drop off time will be between 8 and 9 a.m. There's a staggered drop off plan, that includes four cars to arrive every 15 minutes, between 8 and 9 a.m. The applicant anticipates to receive 10 visitors to the site in the morning, since their own three children are included in the total allowed child count, and there may be a school aged child arriving later in the afternoon. Large family daycares are governed by the California Child Daycare Facilities Act. The state law limits local regulation of family daycares to four areas, including spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking control, and noise control. Additional regulations are allowed, if applied equally to all single family residences. It also allows cities to require use permit, but permit, the permit must be granted if the application complies with local ordinances and standards. The city requires a non discretionary use permit that requires standards and restrictions related to the four stated areas set forth in the state law. The city's permitting process for large family daycare is consistent with the state law. In addition to city permitting, the applicant is also required to obtain a license from the California Community Care licensing department before operating. Here's a background on the application, in June of last year, the applicants submitted their application for a CUP for large family daycare, per the municipal code requirements in state law, public notices were sent on September 28 to properties within 100 feet, informing that a decision on this application would be made, unless a public hearing is requested within 10 days. A public hearing was then requested from an adjacent neighbor. In an effort to try and understand and resolve their neighbor's concerns, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 4th at their home to discuss the project. Neighbors still felt unresolved about the potential noise, traffic, safety and parking issues from the proposed daycare use. On November 7th around 8:30 a.m. Planning staff met at the site with the concerned neighbors to view the potential traffic concerns where no issues were observed. On December 12th, a noticed administrative zoning public hearing was held to consider the application, five members of the public spoke regarding their concerns of noise, traffic, safety, and parking, associated with the proposed daycare use, and potential on site soil contamination from previous occupants of the home. The zoning administrator reviewed the project, public testimony, documents submitted at the hearing, and the criteria required for a large family daycare, including spacing and concentration, traffic plan, not adjacent to hazardous sites, and offenced outdoor play area, and approved the conditional use permit. Following the zoning administrator's decision to approve the CUP and appeal of the decision was submitted on December 7, 2018, the appeal asserts various reasons for appeal, including concerns regarding noise, traffic, safety parking, and the history of the site having potential soil contamination. The noise concerns assert the use of a daycare with 14 children will result in a noise level equivalent to that of a playground, and not being appropriate for a residential area. The traffic safety parking concerns include that 14 vehicle trips on Mayor Monte Avenue will potentially cause a traffic hazard due to the overlapping drop off times with three nearby schools to the property. The history of the property concern discussed is the previous owners of the site stored old cars and car materials, such as motor oil and batteries, as well as construction materials that could have contaminated the soil. Staff's review included reviewing the project for compliance with the zoning ordinance, which is consistent with the state law in regards to spacing and concentration, traffic control, not adjacent to hazardous sites, and an outdoor play area enclosed with a 6 foot tall fence. In response to the issues raised on appeal, noise concerns were addressed by providing a daily schedule that includes the times for children to be outside. There will be no resident that is bordered by more than one property line with a child daycare, and there is a six foot tall fence surrounding the backyard. A concerned residents stated that the noise level of the children will be equivalent to the noise level of a playground, which is not appropriate for residential area. The resident points out that the noise levels indicated in the general plan range from 68 to 70 decibels for a playground, where the acceptable level of a residential area is 55 decibels. It should be noted that these noise levels are provided as an average level for the day, and noise from the daycare will not be expected all day as that of a playground. Traffic safety parking concerns. This was addressed by providing a traffic plan, with three spaces in the driveway for drop off and a staggered drop off plan that will allow up to four cars every 15 minutes, over an hour time frame between 8 and 9 a.m. Staff reviewed the proposal for potential traffic, parking, and queuing impacts, and found that based on 10 expected vehicles to arrive within an hour, the staggered drop off timing and availability of parking, there's not expected to be a traffic impact. The roadway capacity for Miramonte Avenues, about 900 to 1,000 vehicles per hour in each direction. And the addition of 10 trips per hour, an additional 1% of capacity is considered insignificant. Potential soil contamination, though this is not part of the state and local requirement for the review of a large family daycare use, and it is exempt statutorily from Sequel Review. Staff investigated this concern regarding potential soil contamination, and found that there are no records of contamination from the city, or the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. The applicant will be required to receive a license from the community care licensing department, and any concerns of the site will be investigated by that agency. In conclusion, staff recommends that the city council adopt a resolution upholding the zoning administrator's approval of the conditional use permit to allow large family daycare at 1880 Meramonte Avenue. That concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available for questions.

[02:06:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Actually, before we ask questions, we're gonna go to the appellant, um, and you'll have up to 10 minutes if you'd like to address the council.

[02:07:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, are you the appellant?

[02:07:09] Public Speaker: Well, I'm one of the people.

[02:07:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, it's just, it would just be the person who filed the... So did you have?

[02:07:18] Public Speaker: We have broken it up into the different groups, so I would appreciate it if we could all speak.

[02:07:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: How many people are there? As long as you're within the 10 minutes. Yeah, that's fine.

[02:07:36] Public Speaker: I'll be very brief. Thank you for, um, listening to our issues here tonight. The city of Mountain View resolution contains the following statement in its resolution. This use does not pose significant noise, traffic parking, and safety issues. And even without the proposed daycare center, there are significant traffic on the issues on this street during times of school drop off and pick up and work day commutes. As a residence, I experience this every day and avoid the use of Miramante altogether, times of heavy congestion and backup. Adding more traffic will only make this already impacted through a fire worse. As stated, there are some three schools in this area that are impacted, that impact the traffic. St. Francis with 1,760 students directly across the street, block middle school, and the children from Springer Elementary School. walk, ride bicycles and also are dropped off. The proposed large family daycare expects to use our driveway for drop off. Parents arriving going north at Miramani, must turn left into the driveway, but oftentimes the oncoming traffic is completely backed up in front of the house, which would make a left turn almost impossible. If the driver stops in front of the daycare house, it will block the only lane that goes through, which is also the bicycle lane. Once in the driveway, it's very difficult to exit the property, the driver must back up into the only lane on Miramonte that generally flows into the oncoming traffic and bike lane. Visibility is blocked through to high school student drop offs in other park vehicles. There are very real ingress and egress issues with this site. Many residents, including the owners of the proposed daycare, know that it's difficult to exit their driveway into Maramonte and back their cars into the driveway for a safer exit. Something the users of the daycare are unlikely to do. This stretch of Miramonte is extremely congested at times. There are crosswalks with crossing guards at each end of the block, a traffic director at St. Francis exit, and a dedicated stoplight only for pedestrian crossings that causes yet additional traffic backup. There have been accidents in this areas from cars hitting pedestrians. To additional traffic to a street that already has serious traffic issues, creates unsafe conditions for everyone. Thank you.

[02:09:55] Edward Tam: My name is Edward Tam. I'm a retired pathologist, and I live at a house to the west of the subject property. For over 25 years, last time in the planning meeting, I submitted evidence showing that for the last 20 something years, the previous owners have been using their backyard side yard and also driveway for storage of all construction debris, insulation materials, H-Wags, old engines, you know, they fix your car there. But anyway, to rebuttal what has been said in the council meeting that there was no previous record. this site. I would like to say that this is inside a private property and it's not public. The previous owners consist of an elder lady and free grown children. They did construction and engine repair business. And there were never any children in that house. Now, are they going to tell you when they get sick? Okay? I also present that children are more susceptible to toxic contamination and diseases in the last meeting. I'm not going to repeat it. Okay? Toxic effects takes years to develop, things that can cause cancer can take five, 10 years, simple example, mythotherioma takes about 20 or 30 years after somebody has been exposed. Okay? Right now, in the state of California, if there's any doubt about toxic lead pain, we have to get a profession to get rid of it. People dress up in a spacesuit and put in a respirator before they handle expenses materials. At the corner gas station have to remediate the soil before any new development. And now we are trying to approve this and send 14 innocent children into an area which we have not ruled out that may be toxic contamination. We live in the heart of the silicon Valley. Where technology and science was envy of the world. When it comes to ruin our toxic contamination, Amir, look back to find out there's no previous case, would overrule any testing results. Are we doing enough due diligence? Long-term liability. 10, 23 years from now, If there's any liability issue, the deepest pocket will be the city of Mangenu. Would you send your children to this daycare, that has a big question mark. This could be a toxic site. Thank you.

[02:13:18] William Yu: Jury council members, my name is William Yu. I'm a resident of Mount View. one of the adjacent property owners for the applicant who's submitting their application for this large family daycare. I'm going to refer you to the public comment section in the council report. So I'm going to get right to the point. I'm going to deal with the noise issue specifically. So the central issue here is what's being proposed as a large family daycare center that will allow up to a maximum of 14 children to be present. Even though the applicant says they do not intend to have more than 10 children. The fact is that nothing in the CUP prevents the applicant to ever go up to that maximum. Therefore, the council must assume the worst case situation. As such, having up to 14 children in the Atkins packyard will create a considerable amount of noise. It's natural and expected for these kids during playtime. This must be treated to be the same as a playground. The reasons that playgrounds and single residential neighborhood noise levels are broken out separately for acceptable noise levels in the Mountain View General plan is because the expected noise level is significantly different. What is being proposed here is more than doubling the volume or loudness and 10 times the increase in the sound intensity. Furthermore, the code minimizes the noise level or what they're proposing is to minimize the level by not allowing another daycare facility to border a residential property. That entirely misses the point. The point here is, is the issue is that even a single large family daycare exceeds what Mountain View's own policy states, is acceptable in some acceptable noise level. I think the thing here is really critical is let's do not mix a noise level problem with how long people play in a playground. The bottom line is it's a noise level problem. is like having a jackhammer running for 2 hours. Somehow reduces the noise level. It's 2 totally separate issues. And I don't like I don't think it should be confused. So I've like to also say there's really been no nothing told to us what in exactly the enforcement policy is if our appeal is denied. We don't know what the escalation process is, what documentation is going to be required to say that the applicant is in violation of the noise level. So I just like to make sure that the council member is aware of our concerns as it relates to this issue.

[02:16:01] Anne Marie Palella: So, hi, yes, my name is Anne Marie Palella, and I do live at 1876 Miramonte Avenue, where my husband and I have raised our three children, and we've been members of this community for about 20 years. I was really surprised to see in the council report on page 7, under the history of 1880 Maramonte Avenue, that, quote, The city has no records of contamination or hazardous material released on this property, or any property in the vicinity. Staff does not consider the storage of cars or construction materials, hazardous material storage, which would warrant investigation or oversight by the fire department. End quote. I personally have called the city on numerous times and reported the storage of car batteries and other environmental contaminants. In fact, when I pressed the clerk, the only thing that he could offer was to have me call vector control, which has to do with standing water and mosquitoes. Okay. The council report continues that additionally, daycare providers require license from the California community care licensing department, which will be conducting a site inspection and detailed analysis as part of the licensing process, end quote. So, will you be letting the state know of our concerns? Will they be taking soil samples? For years, as the residents, I have seen car batteries, stacked along the fence, rusted cars, cement mixers, old washing machines, construction materials of all types, cans of chemicals of all sorts. I'm guessing from the 1970s, including solvents, motor oil and lead based paint. I still will not plant a vegetable garden along the neighboring fence for fear of contamination of known carcinogens. Okay.

[02:17:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You could wrap it up, please? Pardon me, if you could wrap it up, please?

[02:17:52] Anne Marie Palella: Yeah, so, in conclusion, we've submitted information. Our neighbors who do not want alleged family daycare center. St. Francis' crossing guard, even signed the petition. He sees the traffic all the time. You've talked about the noise level. and how it's going to affect our families. You've heard our concern about the very busy 4 lane Miramonte Avenue in the morning and the afternoon, and the traffic, the safety issues that already occur there with the high school, directly across the street, with the bike lanes, and the children on there, and the concerns of parking, and backing out of the applicant's driveway. The environmental hazards, with the storing of car batteries, and other known car citizens, which may have leached into the soil, is a very major concern. Any one of these issues should cause the council to pause before allowing this permit, but combining all these issues show that it would be really reprehensible for the council to grant or just rubber stamp this permit. Thank you so much.

[02:18:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So next, we'll have counsel questions on this. Did any council members have questions? Council member McAllister.

[02:19:13] Councilmember John McAlister: I guess, can I ask the applicant? I mean, the, uh... Is this for staff or for the... appellant court, too? Who do I can ask?

[02:19:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think it's anybody.

[02:19:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Anybody? Could I ask you guys a question, please? Would it be hard, or would it be possible to distinguish St. Francis morning traffic versus 14 other cars, or 10 cars that going through in the morning?

[02:19:45] Public Speaker: I absolutely believe so. First of all, they say that there's 4 parking spots, one for a worker. What about they actually own 2 cars, so I'm assuming that the wife is gonna be there. So actually, there's only two parking spots. So now we have people parking in the, um, 2 parking people parking in the driveway and trying to back out on a very busy road with bicycles, kids on bicycles, especially in the morning. We have St. Francis. We have Springer, we have block, middle school, we have, what's the other one? Yeah. Yeah, there's also Loyola, but I'm thinking about the charter school. Armani. And there's a school in Miramonte, but... Yes, I believe 10 cars. Yes. will totally make an impact. I know you don't agree, but.

[02:20:41] Councilmember John McAlister: So what could you consider the rush hour traffic time frame on this particular road?

[02:20:47] Public Speaker: So okay. So if you look at St. Francis school, there, they, um, depending on the color of the day, they go anywhere between 8 and 9, 7, between 7.45, I believe, till 9. And I live over on Grant Road, and we'll get a lot of traffic between 8 and 10.

[02:21:10] Councilmember John McAlister: So do you have more traffic? I mean, can you contribute a lot of your traffic to the high school or was there, you think there's some cutthrough traffic going through?

[02:21:21] Public Speaker: A lot of it is from the high school. They have these traffic guards now that have been excellent. before they didn't have that, and that was horrendous.

[02:21:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. My other question is, St. Francis has a lot of sporting events.

[02:21:33] Public Speaker: Yes. Absolutely. And I can hear their PA system.

[02:21:38] Councilmember John McAlister: So, you think these kids in the backyard would be louder than the PA system that's across the street?

[02:21:45] Public Speaker: 100%. That they would be louder than the PSA. Oh, absolutely, no question.

[02:21:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[02:21:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[02:21:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, the question has to do with noise, um, the average residential is 55 DBA, um, playgrounds. When we talk about playgrounds, are we talking about a certain size of playground or is an average of all of the playgrounds in Mountain View? How do you come up with that?

[02:22:17] City Staff: That number is just in our general plan. The average level was based on a study that was done, so I don't know the size of the playgrounds that the study was done by, but that is in our general plan.

[02:22:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, um, I guess the question about enforcement, um, how would we monitor the noise level? Do we actually do that?

[02:22:45] City Staff: So there is a condition of approval that says that if there are complaints, and they are able to be substantiated, and the applicant is found to be out of compliance with their operational criteria that are approved, we could call the permit back to a public hearing, or work with them before that, to bring it back into compliance.

[02:23:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, the concern about traffic, um, I just wanted to make sure I read this right. So the applicant, the daycare is proposing to stagger. Is that right, Seger, from 8 to 9? 4 cars each? Is that right? So, and frankly, if there's only 11, because 3 of the kids are a part of the house, then we're only looking at 11 cars max. So we'd have 2 rotations, maybe three, I guess. Is that right? Is that how they're proposing this?

[02:23:39] City Staff: I believe the daycare operators have created that schedule, how they divvy that up amongst the parents, they will decide that, and they'll have a plan set forth for that.

[02:23:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And their cars, their own own cars will be in the garage, so the driveway, the 4 spots are available for them. Okay.

[02:24:00] City Staff: Right. They have a 2 car garage, so they are supposed to be parking in their garage. It is in the plan that the driveway is just meant for one employee space, 3 visitor space is.

[02:24:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then the concern about toxics, the state, do you know if the site inspection from the state includes some kind of toxics reporting or disclosure?

[02:24:28] City Staff: I don't know the extent of the licensing division site inspection, they have their own procedure, but if anybody did have any concerns about that, they can report it to them, and they can report it to the Department of Environmental Health.

[02:24:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. Thank you.

[02:24:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[02:24:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Some questions, I think, mostly for staff. So the way that I just want to make sure I formulate this right in my head. So, um, you know, this is largely governed by state law. There are sort of 4 areas in which there can be local regulations, and it looks like we have a section of our code, um, specifically addressing those 4 areas, um, that where we can have the local control there. So one is spacing in concentration, which it seems there's a plan for, or a believable, reasonably believable plan in place. that also sort of associate, I associate that also with traffic and parking control. So there's a traffic plan. Um, They're on the noise control. You know, we don't have a citywide noise ordinance. Is that correct? I mean, we have some guidance in like the general plan or some other areas, but we don't have an actual noise ordinance.

[02:25:44] City Staff: That's correct Right. on the general plan. And a stationary noise equipment ordinance is the only noise ordinance we really have.

[02:25:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then, really, at the hazardous sites, has any evidence been provided other than verbal testimony that there were hazardous materials stored there or anything like that?

[02:26:07] City Staff: Um, I believe the neighbors had aerial pictures. from Google.

[02:26:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can address that if you want, sir.

[02:26:18] Public Speaker: Yeah.? We can look at them.

[02:26:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: I really just wanted to know if there was any evidence provided other than sort of verbal testimony and your history.

[02:26:27] Public Speaker: Recorded on Google area map studying 2004 all the way to present.

[02:26:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Okay. And then, and then if does the state have a process where, you know, if they, you know, we can consider that tonight, but also if the state wants to consider that, can they submit that evidence to them, and then the state can decide that they want to do soil samples or things like that? I assume that's part of their outreach process?

[02:26:55] City Staff: Yes, that's part of the licensing division's responsibility, and as well, they can reach out to Department of Environmental Health.

[02:27:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: And the license would be applied for after, basically, has to go through this process 1st before they can apply for the license.

[02:27:09] City Staff: Correct.

[02:27:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, this is all video, so, yeah, it's there forever. Or, well, maybe not forever, but certain things going on in the world right now that might not make it forever. And then, so the, and then the fenced outdoor play area, which is, which is obviously there. Okay, I think those answer all my questions.

[02:27:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[02:27:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. My question is for staff related to noise. Is, do you know if the potential operator has shown a willingness to create any kind of additional buffer aside from the fence or that you can share with counsel?

[02:27:58] City Staff: They have shared that they're open to other measures, if anyone would like to propose something.

[02:28:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, John and I were talking here. He was asking a question. Okay, any other questions from council members? The only one I had is, um, when you talked about um, substantiating concerns. What would that entail if you were to substantiate noise concerns if you then wanted to have a public hearing?

[02:28:37] City Staff: We could require an acoustic analysis. during the outdoor play hours.

[02:28:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, the neighbors would just raise the issue and then you would require the daycare operator to perform the analysis, the acoustical analysis. Is that correct?

[02:29:00] City Staff: We would do some investigation into that burst. And then if we felt that it was a, you know, that that could be a real potential thing, then we could require an acoustical analysis. In essence, it becomes a code enforcement case. So, um, that's one of the the times where the city attorney's office and the community development department work together. So we would receive a complaint and do an investigation of the complaint. And based on the findings of the investigation, there'd be a decision made whether or not to hold a hearing.

[02:29:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[02:29:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Staff, is there anything preventing the, like, an employee parking on the street? Is there parking allowed in front of the house?

[02:29:49] City Staff: The parking on the street is public parking, and people can park up to 72 hours.

[02:29:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions from council members? Okay, then, we will open this up for public comment. If there is anyone who wants to speak on this item, please come up to the microphone and share your thoughts. Um, wait, you were part of the group. Right. So anyone else who hasn't already spoken.

[02:30:22] Applicant Karina Makoshenka: Hi, everyone. I'm the applicant. Can I? For the large family childcare. Can I talk?

[02:30:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:30:28] Applicant Karina Makoshenka: Okay. My name is Karina Makoshenka, and I'm the applicant for the large family daycare at 1880 Miramont Avenue. Working with young children was always my passion, and I'm sure to get an opportunity to do so in my own home. The program I'm creating will be for children from 2 to 5 years of age, California licensing department department allows up to 12 children of this age for a large family daycare. We will have 2 children of our own in this age group, so we'll have up to 10 cars, and up to 10 children come into our daycare. We did reach out to our neighbors and had a meeting with them some time ago, in our house, to make topics were discussed, noise during outdoor activities and drop off traffic. We shared our approximate day schedule with everyone. We are planning kids to spend time outside for 2 hours a day, one hour in the morning, and one hour in the afternoon. We adjusted the time outside based on the feedback from the neighbors. For example, one of our neighbors has yoga sessions scheduled that we're overlapping with sometime that we were planning kids to spend outside in the afternoon, so we adjusted our schedule accordingly. We are flexible to further adjust the schedule, to accommodate few the needs of the, that our neighbors have, including occasional one off events that they might have. We will also proactively reach out to our neighbors periodically to hear their feedback. We want to make sure that it works for everyone out for everyone. And we are ready to accommodate all reasonable requests. Children will always be supervised when outside, no matter if outside or indoors, and we will make sure to take steps to actively manage down the noise on ongoing basis. That's what traffic concern, Mermont Avenue is a 4 lane road with a bicycle lane, a lot was talked about that already today. We were offering 2 parking spots in our driveway, plus we offered a staga job off schedule to avoid 10 cars coming at the same time. Um, There was a question whether the 10 cars that will be coming for drop off might interfere with the students coming to San Francis High School, which is located on the other side of Miramont Avenue. I reached out to San Francis High School and was told that they have 2 different schedules. On some days, they start at 805. So the students should be in the high school by 805 on some days start at 9.20. Since we are planning to open the daycare at 8 and we have offered a staggered drop-off plan that should not be concerned for them. Again, we wanted to work out for everyone. We want also our neighbors to be happy and we are willing to accommodate any requests from their sites, from their site, and I just want to summarize. will be open during the normal business hours, 8 to 6. Monday to Friday, we will be closed on the weekend, we will be closed on all major holidays. Kids will be outside only 2 hours a day. The rest, they'll be staying inside of the house, so there'll be no noise. We offer the staggered drop off plan for the traffic, so. That's all the measures that we have done so far. Thank you.

[02:33:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other public input on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll close that portion. And. If we want the rebuttal. So, um, on the script here, it talks about um, council's consent. So do we How do we handle that?

[02:33:56] City Staff: So it's up to the council whether you want to provide any rebuttal time for the appellant. Are folks interested in that?

[02:34:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do we want to allow the appellant to robot?

[02:34:10] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Sure. Sure.

[02:34:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you had any rebuttal? Did... Yes Oh, sorry, there is a time limit. Two minutes, yeah.

[02:34:19] Appellant: Yes. So I just wanted to address the traffic issues one more time, because you're right. We're talking about maybe seven cars, you know, over a street that is already overloaded with cars. And if they were just driving down the road and going out of the neighborhood, it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but they're doing things that now are not being done. They're cutting across traffic, going into a driveway. And if you go there at the drop offs. There are cars pulling over, kids are getting out, they're not going through the formal St. Francis, some drop off procedure. They're getting off on side streets, they're getting off on Miramonte, and so these cars will have to pull into the driveway. And then again, as I tried to say earlier, they back out and visibility is very reduced because of all the traffic coming at that time. And the other thing that it's going to do is continue to force more people going down side streets where there are a lot of kids on bikes and walking. I know this because I live there, and I do not use Miramante during times of the day. I go down the side streets and I see these kids and people do that. They cut across because it's also a major commute area thoroughfare to get to Grant Road and over to the freeway. So I just want to say when you talk about it in an abstract tone or in an abstract term saying that it's just a couple cars, a couple of our cars going down the road, it doesn't seem very like it's very impactful, but based on what's going to be happening in the, and what happens during the day, I do believe that it is going to have an impact. Thank you.

[02:35:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure. Have you, sir? Have you, either, anybody can answer to the 4 group? I know our high school district has plenty of people come and talk to them about traffic around our public high school. Have you reached out to St. Francis with the concerns that you mentioned today and have they reacted in a favorable manner? If you could come up to the microphone?

[02:36:23] Public Speaker: 10 years ago, I I worked with St. Francis, we went through, we counted all the extra, because people, the kids were all part, just like in Mountain View, the Mountain View High is called the same problem where the whole everyone that lived in the area, kids were parking along the side of, that's what they do. And you know, you can't stop kids from doing their thing. So, I worked with St. Francis. We counted the number of parking spots that they had, how many, they weren't being used. We worked out a system, and the guards that are there now are excellent. It is made a world of difference. But there's still a problem with the traffic and the parking. So these kids are going to see, that's another thing that we needn't even talk about. So, yes, the, the, um, the applicants kids are going to get dropped off. The people are going to park, they got to park their car. They're gonna park their car on the side of the street. The high school students are going to see. Yes, everybody's parking on the side of the street all over again. So then, they're gonna park, and they are gonna park there. They're gonna see what's going on. They're gonna park their car. They're gonna be there all day long. I'm gonna get all upset, and I have to go over to St. Francis, and we're gonna have to go through the whole road, we're gonna roll again. Do you understand what I'm saying about that? And what will happen is, it seems like in April, that's when it gets really bad because all the kids get their driver's license.

[02:37:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other questions?

[02:37:52] Public Speaker: I just had one thing to add about the staggered schedule they have.

[02:37:56] Unknown Speaker: So I think your question, though, was about having you approached St. Francis?

[02:38:00] Public Speaker: No, but so yeah, I think he's going to another... It's related to the traffic issue, but they're staggered, they're staggered approach. I work in Silicon Valley.

[02:38:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Exceeded their time. I'm sorry, yeah. Oh, sorry. We're going to have to... Yeah thank you. So, I'm sorry, we have... No, sorry, I'm sorry, ma'am. We've closed. No, uh uh. No, so this was the rebuttal time for the appellant. So now we're bringing it back to council for deliberation and action. Who would like to start? Council member Hicks.

[02:38:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So to me, thank you. So to me, it seemed like the most significant problem was the noise problem. And I was wondering whether the applicant would be amenable to putting in shrubbery or a noise wall of some sort to mitigate that.

[02:39:10] Applicant Karina Makoshenka: I definitely open to that. So if needed, we can install the noise screens around our backyard.

[02:39:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[02:39:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I appreciate the comments and the information that was provided to us. Um, I, um, I, and I appreciate the applicant's willingness to try to mitigate some of the noise. From what I've heard, I appreciate the concerns, in regards to the traffic concerns, my sense is that we're talking really about existing traffic and parking issues that are caused by the high school and the other schools in the area. And I know that that area is a very busy place in the mornings and in the afternoons and even at 6 PM when people are going home to work from work and so forth. So, you know, we try to separate out the existing conditions and then look at, you know, what will this new operation add to that? And I guess that's where I feel that we're talking about 12 more kids, 7 to 10 more cars. They're staggering, the drop off time in the morning. And if you look at it, it's from 8 to 9 in St. Francis, it sounds like it's, they start school before 8. So they should all be in class unless, you know, the kids are tardy before these kids are being dropped off. So, and the other time at 9.20, the late start time, the kids will, the preschool, the daycare kids should be in the daycare before the St. Francis kids start coming into high school. So I think they're doing the best to mitigate any potential impacts. But, you know, the reality is it's 7 to 10 cars at most. And you know, that impact, frankly, is quite minimal. I live behind a daycare, a family-owned daycare for 5 years. And I, you know, I understand. It's very subjective. But the noise was minimal. We actually had the daycare, and then I had a park next to me. And there was much more noise in the park, been in the daycare, and again, it was because it was during a very short amount of time. And, you know, 10 kids and there's infants and they're not going to probably be outside, you know, laughing and whatnot. So, um, I just don't see that noise is gonna be a challenge, but I think we have built in in this process ways to monitor it, um, to bring it back if it is an issue and mitigate it. And so, you know, this is always, you know, frankly, we've talked about the need for more childcare and daycare in this community as we have more young families coming into our community. And so we have to balance all of that out. This isn't allowed operation. I think the impacts are being minimized as is. But again, if not, we can monitor it and revisit it if there are any issues. The toxics issue. It sounds like, yes, if the neighbors want to notify the state licensing board about that, please do so, and they can do the proper testing. So in light of all that, I will be supporting their recommendation to uphold the zoning administrator's approval. Thank you.

[02:42:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[02:42:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Quick question for staff. So regarding the noise mitigation issue, does the council have the discretion to require that the applicant put in place some kind of mitigation or would that be, do we just, do we only have the ability to strongly recommend? What's, what's our, what's the legality there?

[02:43:17] City Staff: Yes, you have the latitude to require that if there's a majority of council that is interested in that additional measure? You certainly do have that.

[02:43:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark.

[02:43:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, you know, after hearing everything on both sides and hearing what staff says, you know, I don't think there's sufficient reason here to overturn the zoning administrator's decision. You know, there are methods available, you know, should things not work out to, you know, through our regular process to address those measures. And I don't think we necessarily need to need to require anything at the outset. I think that can be addressed through our normal process. You know, this is a use permit, it can be revoked, and we can take, you know, steps leading up to that if we need to. So I don't think our, you know, leading up to a revocation if needed. So, as the vice mayor said, you know, really hear what we're looking for is compliance with our ordinance, which is that there are plans in place and that the specific things that we identify are addressed to the application. And, um, and I don't have, um, I don't have a significant reason to override the zoning administrator's decision in this case. So, I move that we adopt a resolution upholding the zoning minister's approval of a conditional use permit, which conditionally permits a large family daycare for up to 14 children, an existing single family residence at 1880 Miramonte, to be written tied only for the reading wave detachment, one of the council report.

[02:44:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Commay?

[02:45:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, I didn't know the motion was gonna happen. I just wanted to include some comments. I want to thank both the parties for letting us know their thoughts on the process. Um, I, um, it is shown to be compliant. I would like to make a friendly amendment as a condition of approval to include some type of noise mitigation. the, um, the ability to reach out to the zoning administrators. should there be, you know, any other concerns. So I don't know if I can include it.

[02:45:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: That exists. So if there are concerns, you know, if if there are complaints, you know, the Ms. Air can call a hearing and require that a noise barrier be put in place. But I think it's a I think it's a little much to override the Zoni Miners administrator's existing decision to require that at the outset. at this point.

[02:45:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by vice mayor, Obay Koga. Any other discussion on this?

[02:46:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'll just add that, um, you know, since this is something that, um, is subject to the state roles and there are avenues to address issues that they, if they come up, that I feel comfortable upholding the zoning administrator, um, approval at this point.

[02:46:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we, any other commissary, as we're ready for a vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. So, um, we started this meeting at 5. And so I am gonna ask that we take a break. And if we could come back at 830, uh, that would be great. Thank you.

[02:46:54] Unknown Speaker: So, you almost waste time going up, and it's a ton of...

[02:47:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we're gonna... meeting, uh, back to order. I thought about your meeting. So I just want to note that the next item on the agenda is item 6.2. And as I said at the beginning of the meeting, that item has been removed from the agenda, and a public hearing will not be held tonight on that topic. It will be re noticed and rescheduled at a future date. So, we do, however, provide the opportunity, if there's anyone here for that item, to provide public input, if you've waited this long. You also have the option to come back when we cover that item and provide us with input at that time. So if there's anyone who wants to speak on item 6.2. If you could let us know, that would be great. Okay, seeing none. We'll close that item, and...

[02:48:01] Unknown Speaker: This is on item 6.2. Okay.

[02:48:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So if there's going to be public comment, I'm going to go sit there, because I'm... Oh, you have to... Okay. So I own... Okay. What is this? I own real property within 500 feet, specifically 497.13 feet, so I'm less than 3 feet too close. So, I will recuse myself and listen from the audience.

[02:48:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Which one is this? So, we're taking public comment on item 6.2. Hello, Hazley. Okay. If you could come up to the microphone.

[02:48:50] Public Speaker: I decided that I don't want to speak, and so I'm sorry, I apologize.

[02:48:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's okay. Thank you. Thank you. So Chris, you can come back. Okay, so, um, no public comment on item 6.2, so we'll close that and we'll move on to item 7.one, which is the North Bayshore precise plan bonus floor area ratio for far requalifications. We have principal planner, Martin Alkier, and assistant community development director Wayne Chen. Then we'll have presentations by the 2 applicants. After that. Thank you.

[02:49:31] Principal Planner Martin Alkier: Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight, my presentation will focus on these four topics, review the purpose, of the requests, give a brief overview of the North Pasture precise plan. Again, present the bonus FAR prequalification requests and follow up with a staff recommendation. I would just like to remind everyone that, again, the focus tonight is on two key things. Council consideration of the requalification requests, and also whether, specifically, the 2 requests meet the gateway area master plan requirement, which I'll be discussing in detail. Just in terms of background, the North Bay Shore precise plan was adopted in 2014, some of the key themes are listed on the screen, including habitat protection, mobility. But essentially, the plan's vision is to create a more urban mixed use district. The plan has several character areas that I'll be discussing. And the precise plan also has a bonus FAR structure where increased floor area may be granted by the city council in return for projects, proposing certain special elements. Importantly, the precise plan was amended in 2017 to allow residential uses. Here's the precise plan area map, again, broken up into the different character areas. There's the gateway, core, general, and edge areas. Again, the most intense areas are in the center, and it transitions to lower intensity out towards the edges. And these character areas lay out the development standards by which new development must adhere to. So the character area is looking. at Shoreline N 101, as shown by the star on the map. And this gateway character area was developed based on the city's general plan and precise plan policies. Specifically that, this is an opportunity site, a large, underdeveloped opportunity for significant redevelopment. It's an entry into North Bay Shore, and both the general plan and precise plan call for the highest intensities and the most diverse land uses at this location. The precise plan requires a master plan for the gateway area to ensure that it's redeveloped to create the best planning outcome for this important site. A master plan will demonstrate how different land uses in circulation will work together in an integrated way at this site. In 2015, as most council is aware, the council allocated office bonus FAR to several proposals. One of the proposals was at this gateway location, with 2 large sites, approximately 30 acres in total, at that time owned by LinkedIn and Si West. The site was allocated approximately one and 15 million square feet of office bonus FAR. And at that time, LinkedIn and SiWest were prepared to move forward with a gateway master plan for this area. Later, LinkedIn and Google swapped land. So now Psywest and Google own these 2 large parcels in the gateway area. As I mentioned before, in 2017, the precise plan was amended to allow residential uses up to 9,850 units to be located in the 3 what the precise plan calls complete neighborhood areas, the Joaquin, Shorebird, and pair neighborhoods. So to help kind of implement the complete neighborhood development, the precise plan includes these land use targets, basically broken down by each of the three neighborhoods, these aren't really hard numbers, but they're used as flexible targets to guide these areas as new development comes in, as kind of a test against, you know, are we hitting these kind of metrics or in general, these mix of uses that the precise plan en visions. So the bonus FAR guidelines established a December 1st 2018 deadline by which the 2015 bonus FAR allocations would have to apply for permits or requests an extension. And the guidelines note that if any proposals are substantially different or modified from those 2015 allocation requests, then those proposals must be requalified by the city council, which is why we are here tonight. So prior to the deadline on November 30th, SiWest and Google submitted their requalification applications for council consideration. And just staff notes that these applications have been submitted because both Google and SiWest were unable to reach an agreement on a gateway master plan, despite a couple years of negotiations. So it's important to note the context behind both of these requests. First of all, when the 2015 bonus FAR allocations were made, the precise plan did not allow residential uses. And as I mentioned now, the precise plan does allow residential uses. Again the ownership has changed. Back in 2015, LinkedIn was one of the property owners at the gateway, and now it's Google. Three, the current requests are substantially different in terms of the amount and location of the square footage proposed. Also, notably, Google is requesting some of this bonus FAR to be used for their framework plan, which they will be presenting tonight, with more information. Si Wes and Google have different businesses, goals and resources. And finally, the city role, as outlined in the staff report, is to try to create a sense of fairness and equity in this process. And ideally, to create what we term a win-win-win situation that allows both Si West and Google to move forward with their development plans, while, at the same time, having the city implement the precise planned vision. Here's a very brief summary of the Si West and Google requests. Again, during their presentation, they'll provide a lot more detail, but focusing on just the office bonus FAR. SiOS is requesting approximately 185,000 square feet of a bonus office FAR for their property at the gateway. Google is requesting about 276,000 square feet of that office, remain at the gateway site, on property controlled by SiWest. Google is also requesting over a 1000000 square feet of bonus FAR, plus some additional bonus FAR from the Reese 2015 allocation to be used for their framework plan, which is their larger plan for future development in North Bay Shore. So staff notes that these requests are substantially different from the 2015 allocations, again, in terms of the location amounts of square footage and land uses. And again, notably, the proposals do not show how the two properties at the gateway site can be redeveloped with a kind of holistic, integrated master plan. The bonus FR guidelines give a lot of discretion to the city council to determine the criteria for evaluating the bonus FR requests. The staff report list out some potential criteria for this evaluation. Staff believes that the evaluation focus should be on the gateway site first because of the general plan and precise plan policies that support its redevelopment, as noted in the staff report. And as I discussed earlier, Secondly, staff believes the evaluation should consider whether the proposals meet the requirement that the gateway be master planned. As noted, Si West and Google have been negotiating on this master plan, but have not reached an agreement. The evaluation could also consider how the proposals meet the precise plan standards, including the amount type of community benefits, for example. Here's the Psi West request, which includes a mix of uses on their portion of the gateway site, mix of office, residential, theater, hotel, and Psi West will be presenting more detailed information on their proposal tonight. Staff notes that the SiWest proposal, again, does not meet the gateway master plan requirement. The proposal also does not have a clear TDM strategy for the site, and there's a lack of detail on the proposed community benefits. Although I would note that we did receive a letter late this afternoon, and I believe council received it as well, which details a little bit more about their community benefits, which they will probably be discussing tonight. Here's Google's request for root qualification. Again, they are requesting over a million square feet of bonus office FAR to be used throughout their holdings in these complete neighborhood areas, namely, the Joaquin and Shorebird areas. Again, Google will be presenting more details on their proposals. But they do have quite a substantial amount of residential and office, as well as other mix of uses proposed. Again, staff does notes that Google's request does not meet the Gateway Master Plan requirement. It does include some land uses on the SiWest property, which SiWest has not agreed to, and it's not clear how this could be realistically implemented. Staff does note, again, that their request includes a master framework plan, which, again, includes a substantial amount of residential uses, and those other smaller bullet points listed there, including a substantial amount of community benefits and open space proposed. And again, just to reiterate, Google is requesting that over a million square feet, the office bonus FAR be transferred outside of the gateway to these other holdings. So staff is recommending that the council deny both of the bonus FAR requalification requests from SIWest and Google, and is also recommending a mediated master plan process. If supported by counsel, that this process could include the following, a lead mediator, someone very experienced with land use, mediation and facilitation, with some technical assistance, from several other consultants, the city would not be part of these meetings, unless requested by the applicants, the target outcomes, again, would be to try to facilitate this or remediate to a win-win-win situation, and also to resolve the gateway with a master plan that determines and allocates the mix of uses at this important site. And the staff reports. Note that Siwas has declined this mediation option. Google is open to it with some conditions. And I think the staff report also notes giving the 2 parties an additional 30 days to just consider this option further. The following are several alternatives for council consideration. could decide to grant SiWest through qualification request, and, again, that would only be just for the bonus FAR allocation. They would still need to proceed through the city development review process. Option two, would be to grant Google's request. Again, it would only be allocating the bonus FVR. They would still need to proceed through the city process to evaluate any master plan or development permit. Option three. The city could initiate a gateway master plan process. And then the last option, Council is certainly open to providing other direction. So the two main questions we have tonight, does counsel agree that both requalification requests should be denied? And second question, does Google or does council support proceeding with a mediated master plan process? And if so, does council have any input on the principles or target outcomes that we should be used to guide this development of the master plan during the mediated process. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

[03:02:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I think we have presentations first by Google. And you have seven minutes.

[03:02:53] District Development Director Michael Timeoff: Good evening, Mayor, vice mayor, and council members. My name is Michael Timeoff. I'm Google's District Development Director for Mountain View. First of all, if I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for all of your leadership and all of the feedback that you provided to Google and our team over the past several years. And in particular over the past several months. We've listened. We've heard your concerns. We've heard the community's concerns. We've also heard a great deal of support for the plans that we're putting forward. And we want to continue to listen with you. We understand this is not the start of a process, but the continuation of a process that is going to take a long period of time to get to resolutions on a number of issues. So we appreciate the dialogue, and we appreciate the feedback and the tough questions that you've asked. Our plan addresses 3 of the most pressing issues that are facing mountain view in the region today. Housing, affordability, traffic, and sustainability. Our plan would deliver 5,700 new homes in North Bay Shore, and would double the amount of affordable housing in Mountain View today. We would commit to making advanced payments of $77 million to start funding traffic mitigation projects, both within North Bay Shore, as well as Mountain View, more broadly. And from an environmental and social standpoint, our plan would transform North Bay Shore into a series of complete neighborhoods from what is today, largely a single use suburban office park that's covered with surface parking. These neighborhoods would be open and welcome to everyone in Mountain View and throughout the region. By voting in favor of our plan tonight, you would be taking much needed action, and any delay would only make these issues that we're trying to solve together much more acute and much more difficult to solve in a comprehensive way. Since we submitted our plans in November, we've continued to engage the community, as well as city staff, because we want to listen, we want to really deeply understand the concerns that you all have and the community has with the submittals that we made in November. So a few of the things that we have heard from the community, building housing in Mountain View is one of the top priorities for residents of Mountain View. And one of the most critical issues facing our region today. Transportation solutions should be funded proactively, they should be a forethought, not an afterthought. We've heard that the elementary school should be within a half a mile of all new homes within the complete neighborhoods, and we agree with that. We've also heard very loud and clear that Shoreline Commons is an important destination as the entry to the overall district. We also agree with that. And we've heard finally that open space is of higher value when it is publicly dedicated to the city. And we also agree with that. So now, I would like to walk you through some of the changes that we have made to our proposal, since we submitted in November, and has provided you all in our supplemental information and letter last week. We made these changes in response to your feedback and to the feedback that we've received from the community. And we think it's made a better project. and will ultimately result in a better version of what North Bay Shore can become in the future. Starting off, we're proposing to demolish 4 existing office buildings that are currently occupied on Google owned land, in order to make way for a 10 acre stormwater wetland and riparian marshlands building upon the success of Charleston retention basin. We think this is a great opportunity for us to be able to give back to nature and to the community. We are also proposing to increase the total amount of publicly debted dedicated open space from 13 acres to 20 acres per original proposal. This includes 6 acres of metal ends next to the egret rookery that is existing in shorebird today shown here on the right. We would also dedicate an ongoing funding stream to fund environmental education and stewardship programs because both are essential to protecting vital habitat areas as well as building community. And we are proposing to build a wide diversity of parks for people to play, relax, and simply enjoy being together. In total, we would provide over 34 acres of publicly accessible open space. And we also want to create great urban experiences that knit together active uses, retail, and shared community space. This is where community and nonprofit spaces coexist with cafes, doctors' offices, maker space, daycare. This is where life happens. This is where public meets private. This is where we come at the end of the day to relax and unwind after a long day. The cornerstone of our proposal is a commitment to ensure that 5,700 homes are built on our land, including 20% of those affordable to a range of incomes. 30% of all of the housing that we are providing would be for sale units. We think this is an important opportunity to increase the amount of homeownership opportunities in the city. Shoreline Commons is, without a doubt, a critical site. In the gateway, into the entire district, it shares a special place, and it deserves priority, and we intend to give it the priority it deserves. We understand that staff has provided counsel with a recommendation and a number of alternatives to consider. Tonight, we are asking you to consider approving our plan and going with staff's recommendation on alternative too. We have an opportunity tonight to take a big step forward in delivering much needed housing and providing improving the quality of life for all residents in Mountain View. We understand this would require tough decisions, and we also understand that this is an ongoing conversation that will lead to more tough decisions that we need to make together. So tonight, you have an opportunity to approve a plan that delivers a clear path to both walking and shorebird neighborhoods, exceeds the city's bonus FAR, qualifying criteria, adds 5,700 new homes to North Bayshore, and provides upfront funding for transportation. While doing all this while prioritizing the quality of life for the whole community. So with that, we look forward to the conversation and discussions tonight. We look forward to the questions that you may ask and thank you very much for your time.

[03:10:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We'll ask questions all at once. So next we have a presentation from SiWest. And you also have 7 minutes.

[03:11:00] Bill Viera: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Bill Viera. Siwest Development. My colleagues are with me, as well, from Syufi Enterprises, including the principal of our company, Joe Syufi. We're here and available for to answer any questions this evening. I'm sensitive to the amount of time that we've been allotted, so I'll move fairly quickly. And then I'll turn it over to David Salvaro, who can address any specific concerns as it relates to the master plan aspect of our project. And then we'll conclude with a very, very short video. So on May 20, May 5, 2015, uh, the 24 acre gateway site was awarded the one.450000 square feet of office space. Tonight, we are seeking requalification for our project and believe that we've proposed a fair way to allocate the bonus FAR, and it's a very balanced approach. In spite of the fact that we own about 66% of this project, we're asking for only 885,000 square feet to be retained on our site, and our neighbor would receive essentially 600,000 square feet that they could choose to build or reallocate or relocate to properties owned elsewhere in North Bay Shore. I thought it would be useful to also see you side by side comparison of the 2 master plans, Shoreline Commons in 2015 as it was approved. And what we're proposing today for Shoreline Gateway in 2019. Shoreline Commons, as you can see, was a very office centric project. It was primarily created to build a corporate campus for all intensive purposes with retail and entertainment, tacked onto the periphery. Shoreline gateway is a community centric project. It's built around a core of public open space with the entertainment, retail, residential and office, all feeding into it. It's a vast improvement, we believe, over the original Shoreline Commons plan. Shoreline Gateway is true mixed use project. We wanted to share a couple of graphs with you that should clearly illustrate this. On the left is the Shoreline Commons, as approved again in 2015 on the 24 acres. In the center shoreline gateway, as we're proposing today on the 15.8 acres. And if we were to include the additional 8 acres that we do not own, that would be part of the gateway as well. It balances out to a very nice distribution of uses on the space. For us, it really is truly about fulfilling the vision of North Bay Shore precise plan, and at the same time, not precluding and not preordaining adjacent land uses, this is designed to integrate seamlessly with adjacent property. Page 56, the North Bay Shore precise plan describes the character area for the gateway. We extracted this text by itself, isolated it, and created a checklist for ourselves to walk through to make sure that we fulfill every one of the critical elements that was described in the precise plan. We also made sure that we've fulfilled the critical elements that were present to create the complete neighborhood concept and then made sure that it would support the local community. And of course, we do have a robust public benefits package that we've included and provided a supplement for you early this afternoon. So with this, I'm going to surrender the rest of my time at the diocese to my associate, David Subalvaro.

[03:14:13] David Salvaro: you. Thanks, Bill. Good evening, Mayor Matachek, Vice Mayor Abikoga, city council members, city staff. Um, It's great to be here again. We were here. I was here 4 years ago getting the entitlements for the last Shoreline Commons project. But I think today we bring you a better plan. So that's the good news. We want to really go through the master plan pretty succinctly here. But really start with the precise plan, a document from the precise plan that we really took to heart. The precise plan has been our guiding light for the projects in Shoreline Commons. We really want to fulfill the vision of that precise plan, especially for the gateway site. This plan, in particular, highlights the desire, the aspiration for more open space. I've been coming to the North Bay Shore area for 30 years now since we since it was a landfill. I can always remember when it was, you know, open space, the industrial forest with meandering walks were the big thing. Nowadays, I think it's about creating public space. And really, as we talk about a lot in our projects, place making. So not only just creating open space, I think we want to ensure that the place that we create is a place that the community really uses. You can see there's a large green circle there adjacent to our site that was proposed as a public open space. We took that to heart, and we're really trying to form our master plan around a key. What we feel is a key community benefit, which is a central proposed gateway park. This is the diagram we're using, when the question was asked, what makes this project a gateway site or a gateway project? A gateways, an entry, a passageway into a greater region. We believe the shoreline, gateway park will create that entry in that park, and that passageway. We've also made some improvements, I think, but Bill pointed out that I was happy to hear it was less of an office centric campus and more truly of a mixed use retail and entertainment facility. That's truly what we have here with a little bit of office on the side. In addition, we've added more residential, which I was happy to do, along with the hotels, and we have a strategy of even increasing the hotel into residential to maximize residential units. We really did try to pose the master plan with a really efficient organization. You'll see here some of the criteria of vehicle circulation. But let's start with parking. I know you're tired of talking about parking, but I don't think we can ignore it on this project. You know, parking, the main parking is 2 levels of parking below grade. You don't want to see what we came up with with structured parking. So the basis of this project is to put people below ground, even though they might not like it, but the upper environment, the park and the pedestrian environment will really, really benefit from that. Along with the parking, simple circulation, you'll see the access points of 3 aspects points on a pair avenue on Joaquin and the frontage road, and the adjacent, the red dots indicate parking access directly down into the parking structure. There is no surface parking. The ring road allows for proper emergency vehicle and fire truck access, proper service and loading access, and you'll see how with the retail and the entertainment going there, we've completed it. Here's the final gateway master plan editions with the office space. I see, I'm running out of time. So I will conclude. I will conclude with, we didn't just consider our 15.6 acres. We did consider the other 8.6 acres and the park idea. I think it's a simple, elegant master plan, and simple plans that can be implemented sooner than later. Thank you.

[03:18:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we're going to do council questions. And then I have some comments I want to make before we open it up for public comment. Do any council members have questions? Beyond the ones that everyone already sent in? today? Council member McAllister.

[03:19:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, um... Martin, you said something about realistically implementing. Could you go over that again, what you were, you know, was that related to the Google Project, or the North Bay Shore, or was that related to Shoreline Come?

[03:19:20] Martin: I can't recall exactly where, but I think I think, uh, yeah. You know, the idea behind the master plan is, you know, getting the property owners to work together, I think, and to have it realistically be an integrated land use and circulation plan.

[03:19:42] Councilmember John McAlister: And you're referring that what was presented tonight was not a realistic master plan.

[03:19:49] Martin: Well, we just don't have concurrence on how that would all work together.

[03:19:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so this was just basically for shoreline comments. Okay. What's the height limit? On Shoreline Comments?

[03:20:02] Martin: It could be up to 15 stories for residential and, I think, 8 stories for commercial.

[03:20:06] Councilmember John McAlister: And none of the applicants got close to going up more than, what, 8 or?

[03:20:15] Martin: They've all they're all under that. I think SiWest is up to, I think, 12 stories perhaps.

[03:20:20] Councilmember John McAlister: They got a 12 story. Okay. And... I have a question for Mike. Yeah, thanks. What would you think would be a realistic timeline from the time that we would approve a project to you fulfilling your vision?

[03:20:46] Google Representative Mike: Specifically to the overall framework plan or shorebird master plan?

[03:20:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Your plan, whatever your shoreline commons.

[03:20:56] Google Representative Mike: So what we put forward starts 1st with the framework plan or what the city calls the master master plan, right? And then because we own the 60 acres in Shorebur, and we would be able to move 1st with that project, that is what we have put forward and that is why we submitted the master plan to the city. So if you were to approve our request tonight, we would immediately want the city to start processing that request for a shore bird master plan. Best case. could see shovels in the ground in two, 3 years. But it all depends on that approval process, and we'd immediately begin designing residential, as well as replacement office, and start funding the transportation improvements to support it. Shoreline Commons. We've put forward a plan that would allow both SiWest and Google to independently develop its properties based on the principles that are in our overall framework plan. Those principles are the 4 to one jobs housing ratio. We're asking the city to adopt. The 2nd principle is that there is a fair share allocation and payment of transportation improvements. We proposed a enhanced transportation impact fee that would sit on top of the existing North Bay Shore transportation impact fee as well as the citywide, and that the rest of the community benefits, that total package, including the local school strategy, that any developer receiving that allocation, be responsible for paying its fair share as well.

[03:22:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you clarify when you say for sale units, and how it relates to the ground that you are on?

[03:22:35] Google Representative Mike: So, um, it's important to start off this conversation. Google is not a residential developer. The intent is for those 5,700 units that we would enter into a long-term ground lease with a developer, residential developer who would come in and finance, construct. We'd work with them on the entitlements and the planning and design aspect to make sure that it met all the requirements of the precise plan and our sustainability goals and TDM programs and all of that. The long term ground lease would have a term of around 99 years, and it would essentially act as a for sale condo does today, where the home buyer would own the unit itself, but not have an interest in the underlying land. As you get closer to the end of the term, then the value of that unit reflects the length of that term, right? So anything with a longer term than or less than 30 years, you would see a discount in value, but anything greater than 30 years remaining, it would be financed just like a typical mortgage.

[03:23:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Tom, I just want to make sure you said 5700 for sale units. I don't think you want to mean that, did it?

[03:23:46] Google Representative Mike: Apologies. 1,700.

[03:23:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. So the total is 5,700. Otherwise, you have a land rush out there. Okay.

[03:23:52] Google Representative Mike: Sorry about that.

[03:23:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you for correcting the record.

[03:23:56] Google Representative Mike: Here to help.

[03:23:58] Councilmember John McAlister: This is sort of a side thing, but are you anticipating transferring a lot of people to Redwood City to, as you progress into building your projects?

[03:24:13] Google Representative Mike: We are growing in the Bay Area, and outside of the Bay Area. right? And including many different cities along the peninsula in San Francisco, so our growth. I can't answer your specific question, but we are continuing to look for opportunities, both for where we can build housing and where we can build new office campuses.

[03:24:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So when I asked Martin that they could go up to 15 stories. over on the Shoreline Commons. Why hadn't anybody considered building the, because that's where we were allowing up to 15 stories of housing or whatever. So you didn't take advantage of that. I was wondering why.

[03:24:52] Google Representative Mike: And the question specifically is why we didn't go to maximize the density. It's a good question. I mean, there's a balance as with most things about the construction type, the product type, and then the kind of creation of place at the ground plane. So as you start to get into those taller tower configurations, you start to have concerns over light and shadow on the parks and wind, not that they can't be solved, but we were able to achieve the targets both in Joaquin and Shorebird that are laid out in the precise plan. So we feel like, you know, we went as far as we could to hit those targets while also balancing the open space and the pedestrian realm.

[03:25:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you, Mike. For Si West, same question. Why aren't you going to 15 stories?

[03:25:44] SiWest Representative: I do appreciate the question. I believe we are going to 15 stories on the two residential buildings. There's a portion of those that do reach up to the height limit. The office building itself as well. Goes up to the allowable limit. There's an FAA cap that we touch. The 2 buildings that are the hotels up along the frontage of Shoreline. We're 8 stories. We did not elect to go any higher than that. We've talked about the ability to increase, you know, additional floor plates. I think that's a design and massing question that we'd like to engage with staff in tomorrow if you approve us.

[03:26:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[03:26:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll pay Koga.

[03:26:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, um, for staff first. So this is, essentially, the reallocation of the gatekeeper projects, correct? The 2015 bonus FAR allocation year. So um, this is just like the 1st 1st step into the process. If we were to approve either project this evening. I'm assuming we go through the regular process and there would be studies done. Mainly, the main concern is traffic and the transportation TDM measures that would be required. So, like, let's say we allowed the projects to go through. Um, we do the studies, turns out with traffic, it wouldn't support the original 1500000 square feet of office, then, um, like, is that a possibility that we could face and then we would have to look at reductions.

[03:27:27] City Staff: That is a distinct possibility, again, depending on those further detailed studies, and, you know, the traffic patterns, all the improvements that we're planning, the additional circulation study that public works is conducting now for North Bay Shore. There are a lot of moving parts, but certainly, this would just be a first step, and there would be further studies that could potentially restrict that office FAR.

[03:27:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And then, if you don't mind, I just clarified that what you'd be approving is just the allocation, right? It's the ability for them to submit a planning application for the, basically, the office, the bonus FAR on office square footage.

[03:28:05] City Staff: Correct.

[03:28:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. For Google. There was mention of the housing number, and I guess I'm confused because we started out with 9850, and then the plans I was just reading this morning said 6000 to 6600, and now I think I heard 5700. So could you tell me where those units went?

[03:28:36] Google Representative Mike: Okay, so the case of the missing units. Let me see if I can walk through this. So, um, to your point, in 2017, total of 9,850 units were approved. 800 were approved last year, or were allowed to be built, and then 800 last year were awarded their approved for Sobrado. So that leaves us roughly 9000. And again, we started this exercise with how can we maximize all of the goals within the precise plan, including building the complete neighborhoods? Obviously, residential is a big part of it. But there are other uses as well. The retail, the parks, open space, as well as the elementary school. So the changes that I referenced earlier that we made since our original submittals were to provide a 2.5 acre site to the school district to build an elementary school within Joaquin. And in addition to that, there's a one acre adjacent parcel that we were proposing to dedicate to the city for an active shared use rec field. So 3.5 acres in total. We've also added another one. 5 acres, roughly, in Shorebird for an active recreation park. The total loss of units associated with those 2 get backs, if you will, towards those elements of the complete neighborhoods is 820 units. That gets us down from what we originally proposed was 6th range of 6000 to 6,600 units. And the reason we gave that range is because the ultimate unit mix and size of those units is going to be subject to market conditions and this project's going to take 10 to 15 years out. But we largely have designed the program mix, based on the program mix and the unit sizes that are in the precise plant, as well as staying within the development envelope. So again, as we looked at Joaquin and Shorebird, recognizing that outside of the 800 units that's abrotto has entitled in the affordable housing project on Avenida, it doesn't appear that the targets within pair are going to be achieved. So he said, how can we do the, how can we help with that situation and maximize or bias towards maximizing residential? We did not, John, back to your question earlier. We have not gone all the way up to the full height limit, and part of that, we do have 3 towers that are 15 stories. So just to clarify that, we don't go up to the full height limit. Those are around 140 feet versus the 160 feet and that's due in part to the mechanical overruns, et cetera. So it's a balancing act, right, of getting the right mix of residential, the right mix of retail to support that residential, as well as other daily goods and services. So that's how we got from the 9850 down to the 5700 units that are in our proposal.

[03:31:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[03:31:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member Clark.

[03:31:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: While you're there. I have questions for staff too, but while you're there, can you share, I guess, of the remaining questions I had? A council member McAllister touched on this, do you envision the ownership? I assume you envision sort of the ownership units being sort of stacked flat condo like just in terms of density? Is that right?

[03:31:52] Google Representative Mike: Correct. So we're looking at the market rate and the affordable apartments and condos across the unit types that are called out for and allowable under the precise plan. And the idea is that there would be a mix across those product types, both in for sale and rental, as well as the affordable housing, across that spectrum, or that band of housing type and sizes. There will be no standalone townhomes or single family detached homes being proposed as the precise plan is not allowed to maximize the use of the land.

[03:32:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then can you describe how the, how the prefunding of the, you're proposing the prefunding of transportation improvements, I think you said, 77 million. Can you can you just describe sort of how you how you envision that, um, you know, at what point would that be contributed? Would it be contributed in a lump sum, how what is your proposal for that?

[03:32:50] Google Representative Mike: So our proposals really comprised of two strategies are two different buckets of funding, if you will. The 1st is an agreement to fund upfront, $60000000 towards actual capacity projects that we would identify together with the city over the course of the next year, as the city undertakes its circulation and mobility study. That is the proposal. And if I back up a little bit, the enhanced tiff that we're proposing of roughly $68 a square foot for every office square foot. That's really a our contribution and the developer contribution towards the priority transportation improvement projects that are identified in the precise plan. It's not that we're going to fund this improvement here. This improvement over here, and then we're done. We're saying there's a suite of solutions that need to be put forward, that are both capacity, transit, we're looking at parking management and pricing, and other mechanisms to shift people's modes and behaviors. It's not just all that capacity, but 60000000 is towards road improvement projects that we would identify together, which one needs to, which ones need to come 1st in order to support this amount of development. Because I think we all acknowledge, as the comment earlier, about the trip cap, that is the key to unlocking everything that we're doing, and it's a very difficult hill to climb. That's why we're proposing to fund in advance $60000000 towards those projects. When it gets funded, we would, if we were to receive our allocation, we would be prepared to make that allocation, or that funding available to the city, and we can talk about the trunches that it comes in and the timing relative to the need of those projects. The other 16500000 is really to fund advanced studies that the city is currently looking at, including the AGT, including bike pad safety projects that are outside of North Bay Shore to actually make the connections back and forth into the city safer. And those are really preliminary, those are early stage funding for design, preliminary engineering, environmental review, to get those projects to a condition in which they would be shovel ready.

[03:34:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So I guess what I'm getting at is as part of that, the 60000000 or funding specific projects, there would be sort of a, we would come up with a framework where there would be mutual agreement on which projects take priority and what is pursued. is what I'm getting at.

[03:35:17] Google Representative Mike: That is the concept. I mean, we view this as a long-term private public partnership with the city. And obviously, we're going to need other actors at the table as well, VTA and Caltrans, right? We need to look at the interchanges along 101. So there's a, again, there's a number of projects that are laid out in the precise plan that provide additional capacity. So we need to do that preliminary feasibility analysis to see which ones are most cost effective and then understand the kind of the timing, the scope, and the funding that goes along with those projects.

[03:35:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I don't need to get into physics and get too far in the weeds. I guess what I was getting at is I just didn't want like Google to come up with a list of all the projects they're going to fund without any of our input.

[03:35:58] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, without getting into the weeds, I would, and this would certainly be subject to a lot of discussion, but I would respectfully suggest that the city will decide what projects are funded, they will provide amount of money if this goes forward, and we will determine the prioritization and timing.

[03:36:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, that's what it was getting at. Thank you, city manager. Okay. For being way more concise than I am. Being far more concise than I am. So, and then one question for staff. So if we were, if we were to, um, Requalifying one of these applications, they were able to submit an application based on the bonus FAR, whatever the bonus FAR, allocation that we approved tonight would be for that. What does that act like a gatekeeper then? Can we pull the plug at any time or does it act more like a standard development application where we have to act within a certain period of time? And as long as it's zoning compliant, It's generally okay. How would it be treated? Or do we get to decide that?

[03:37:03] City Staff: Well, I mean, it's essentially a gatekeeper process, if you will. And as it moves forward through the process, it could be modified depending on what goes through the development review process. So we could decide, you know, at some point, sort of, you know, the application would be subject to certain things within a, you know, we can do a development agreement, for example, or other, we have those mechanisms at our disposal.

[03:37:30] City Staff: Yeah, there'd be a whole suite of things. Again, if it's a master plan that we're considering that that's a whole other process that has to go to the planning commission in the council. If it's a specific development permit for just a single project, that has its own timeline and things. And as well as environmental reviews. So there's a whole suite of development review process options, but essentially, it's just giving the green light for someone to move forward with an application like they're doing with, for example, Google Landings.

[03:37:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. Yeah, okay. That's all. Thank you.

[03:38:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:38:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I had a question for both applicants. Just, um, in terms of the housing, if you have any thoughts about 2 things, the range of affordable housing, if you've started to think about that less yet, who it would target. And also, if there are any possibilities, since the amount of housing has been shrinking, if there are any possibilities to add any of that back in. Thank you.

[03:38:40] Google Representative Mike: So the range of affordability, again, we look to the precise plan and the AMI bands are the area media income bands that are targeted there. And at the same time, by virtue of the unit mix and the sizes, really, the even the non-income tested, affordable housing will be affordable to middle income, to moderate and above, just due to the size of the units. But the AMI bans would be follow the precise plans, affordable housing guidelines. And then, sorry, the 2nd part of your question is, has there been, have we looked at making the lost units up? Part of this was in my answer before, we have. It's difficult to do. We don't want, it's a relatively horizontal landscape out there. And we don't want it just to be a landscape of towers, right? We have concerns about the impact of the pedestrian experience and light and shadow, as I mentioned earlier, on the parks. We're open to exploring, increased density where it makes sense. The last thing we would want to do, however, is open up the precise plan, the sequel process to delay housing another 2 to 4 years. Best case. We want to stay within the envelope that has been prescribed to the extent that we're not, you know, butting up against the limits. We'd be open to look at it, but we need to think about constructibility as it relates to the cost of construction of type one, and then what that means in terms of the pricing of the units themselves, whether they're affordable or market rate.

[03:40:26] Si West Representative: I also appreciate the question. We have looked at a broad cross section of affordable units all the way through the product mix that we're looking at in the residential towers. Fortunately, we have a residential division, so we would be building for rent product. And this, again, would be product that we own in our portfolio for the long term. And it was anticipated that we provide a mix across all unit types.

[03:40:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:40:58] Councilmember John McAlister: This is for all my educational people. So I have a question for you. This is for Google. Tom. Mike? No, no, Mike. Indy, you get your chance later. Okay? So in one of your flyers, one of your survey, what a program guys that you put out in November, I believe, you were saying you were going to go to 5 times what the state requires for to go to the schools, as a development fee? Are you familiar with that statement?

[03:41:37] Google Representative Mike: Correct. Yes.

[03:41:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Sobrado, we recently had came up, and the Sobrado was like at 8%.

[03:41:44] Unknown Speaker: Eight times. Eight times.

[03:41:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, yeah, 8 times the value. And yet the school districts are sort of saying to be realistic, we're looking at 22 times the value. So, um, how did you come up to the five? How is there some wiggle room in there and just your thoughts on how that came about? That was a generous offer to go from one to five, but I'm just Sobrado makes you look a little. I think they're here tonight.

[03:42:20] Google Representative Mike: Good question, good question. So we have the 5 times the amount of the state fees is comprised of the value of the land that would be dedicated to the school district and then the balance made in fees. We are in conversations with both school districts right now, and we want to get to a local strategy with them. We've made some good progress. We've heard some feedback on the site that we're offering within Joaquin. Obviously, there's a lot of diligence that needs to happen about that site, the size of the school, the amenity programs, and then there's conversations with the high school as well that we need to have. So we're open to continuing those conversations with them. We do not have an agreement with either district tonight. We have put forward the site in Joaquin in response to some of the concerns we've heard. So we need to continue to have those conversations.

[03:43:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and Si West, you have your opportunity to. You said you were going to proportional. So I was just curious, what's your thoughts of proportional contribution to the schools, development fees wise?

[03:43:22] Si West Representative: As far as the fee structure? We've also had some dialogue with Dr. Rudolph about a contribution towards schools. So what is it, 8%? or 5 or 8, 5 times or 8 times? times. I'm sorry, it's consistent with soprano.

[03:43:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, thank you. Okay. Thank you. That's the end.

[03:43:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is that it? Council member Kumei.

[03:43:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I have a question for both of the applicants. As part of the report from staff today, I was to climb the mediation. Google was open with conditions. I was wondering if each of you could share publicly a little bit about your thought processes and with the open with conditions, what those might be.

[03:44:11] Google Representative: I heard the question, but can I restate it? The conditions of the mediation process. Okay. Largely, they're the same as what we put forward in our proposal, right? That, um, that we sit down with Si West and the mediator, and we agree upon the 1st we need to agree upon, and I think this is a city decision in policy direction, so that we know what we're master planning, right? We need to define the development program that we're planning. And then we need to look at value. What is the value of that land? That's one possible path, right? is through some transaction. We've been trying to work with SiWest over the past several years, and we're just a part on value. So any mediation process, I think, needs to determine the value of the land based on what can be there. That's not to say that we can't come up with a comprehensive plan together that allows us to independently develop our properties without entering into a business deal. So those are 2 of the criteria. And then the 3rd is what I said earlier, which is that any allocation that is made through that process come with it, the requirement that for every square foot of office that is allocated, 4 square feet of residential is built, a proportionate share of transportation, and the rest of the enhanced community benefits is shared by whoever gets that office allocation.

[03:45:38] Si West Representative: We did respectfully decline the invitation to sit and mediate. Our thought really is we are focused on the North Bay Shore precise plan in delivering what it has asked us to create on this gateway site. We believe we've come to the table a number of times. I've tried since 2013 to get a project off the ground here. And fundamentally, I think there's usually just 2 different approaches. It's not a master plan issue. It's a use issue. We need 885,000 square feet of office, and our neighbor doesn't want to see the office present on the site. Fundamentally, I'm not sure how we bridge the gap and we're coming at it from 2 different directions. So value, notwithstanding, you know, we have the ability to execute, and we designed the master plan to be considerate of the adjacent property so that it can be unlocked completely, and they can develop at whatever time frame, they come forward, and they submit, and you approve a project. We anticipate that something would come along, so we would look forward to seeing something, be developed adjacent to us. And we've offered to facilitate that development with all the base, all the backbone infrastructure, the access roads, and so on to essentially, as I say, unlock that site so that it can be, it can be developed. So, but I think fundamentally we're just approaching it from 2 different directions. You know, we've tried to focus our efforts and our energies and our capital allocation towards creating something on the gateway site, and they're designing everything else out there.

[03:47:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member clock, did you have more questions?

[03:47:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just 2 more and then I'll stop, I promise. So I think both of these are for my, so I apologize if I'm looking at an older framework. But under your framework, are you are you still proposing, you know, 200 or so hotel rooms under the, um, Shorebird. plan or did I read the law? Yeah. Or is there an updated version that I'm not staring at?

[03:47:46] Google Representative: We have not changed the hotel component of the Shorebird Master plan, or the framework plan. We're also proposing a hotel on Shoreline Commons at the gateway to the district. So those numbers are not changed from what we submitted in November.

[03:47:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm just looking at these columns. And then, so my other questions is, so you're requesting, um, you know, a 1175, a really big chunk of the office. And so looking back at that overall framework, you know, all of that office is utilized in in Shorebird, and as opposed to sort of in Joaquin and elsewhere. There might be some in the commons at some point that you're proposing should something happen there. But what I hear from, you know, basically, not just you, but every, you know, a lot of applicants that come before us is that, you know, we need we need the office to pay for housing, we need the office to pay for certain components or other nice to have, whether it's retail or housing or other things. And I wanted to ask sort of, you know, if we allocate the 1175 to Shorebird. Um, you know, that doesn't get us to, um, you know, that gets us, I think, under the, the framework that I'm looking at, you know, 2024 to 2600 units. And so if we've allocated all the office to Shorebird, how do we have any assurances that, you know, the rest of the housing gets built, if there's no, if you've utilized all the office for Shorebird, you know, we have, what is your incentive to build the rest of the housing for Joaquin and the other elements as part of your framework?

[03:49:29] Google Representative: So I'd say our main incentive is to see the full realization of the precise plan in these complete neighborhoods, as Bill mentioned earlier, we do have 2 different perspectives here, we've taken a district wide look at the complete neighborhoods, and what we can do with our land and our investment to help realize that vision and fulfill the promise of the precise plan. So part of our commitment with the one.1750000 square feet of allocation that we are proposing to move from the commons to Shore Bird would be to implement what we have shown in our framework plan, including the delivery of those housing units. The way that we see this rolling out, if you will, is that after the allocation is provided. We have a master plan for shorebird, and at the same time, we would enter into negotiations with the city on a development agreement to provide the city with assurances as to when the public benefits and when the housing will show up relative to the office. So that 1.1750000 square feet, while it's geographically located within shorebird, the benefits associated with it are district wide.

[03:50:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: There's good. you.

[03:50:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mirror.

[03:50:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, when we talk about Shorebird, and we were talking about the moving of the bonus FAR, but I also just wanted to clarify, if I read correctly, you have existing buildings there, and that's about a 1000000 plus square feet.

[03:51:02] Google Representative: About 900,000, including 1201 Charleston, where the where the ebrits are.

[03:51:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So you're actually looking at more like 2.100000 total in Shorebird.

[03:51:14] Google Representative: Correct.

[03:51:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Solely in shortbird.

[03:51:16] Google Representative: Shorebird. Correct. 872,000 square feet of existing office that we're proposing to be redeveloped in addition to the bonus FAR.

[03:51:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So are you expecting to are planning to build the housing, you've offered this ratio, but for the existing square footage and shorebird, the one, the 900,000 square feet of office?

[03:51:40] Google Representative: The ratio is based on the new homes and the net new or the bonus FAR. It does not look to the existing office.

[03:51:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[03:51:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:51:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Ping pong going back over here. First of all, I would just want to thank everybody for your patience and your attention span. I mean, I'm looking at faces, and they're, it's very encouraging from this side to say, hey, we're doing something. Are you saying you're one. 17 is needed to pencil out your projects.

[03:52:13] Google Representative: You think, again, we base that ratio based on what's left in the precise plan in terms of the allocation and the office allocation as well as the residential. And so we are using the office, the value associated with the office, and actually asking that the office pays some of the fees and build some of the infrastructure and fulfill some of the requirements and obligations of the precise plan on the benefit to benefit residential, right, to allow residential to be viable. As your study session last year showed economic viability of residential is challenged, given some of the unique characteristics of North Bay Shore, the obligations in the precise plan. Some of the environmental conditions, the traffic mitigations that go along with it. So, yes, we are saying that the office will allow for these 5,700 homes to be built, including the remainder of the enhanced community benefits.

[03:53:11] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm not as smart as you are, but if I condense that, are you saying yes to my question?

[03:53:15] Google Representative: Yes, to your question.

[03:53:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Sorry, apparently, I'm the one that got into the weeds earlier. Okay, no, that's all, thank you.

[03:53:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any more questions from the council? Okay, um, I believe all my questions have been asked. Sorry. So before we move to public comments. though, I do want to make a couple of comments. So I want to clarify what the council is doing tonight. And perhaps, more importantly, what we are not doing tonight. So the North Bay Shore precise plan states that if bonus far projects are substantially modified from the 2015 proposals, either by project scope or far amount, then the request shall return to the city council for review and requalification. The precise plan also requires a master plan for the gateway site, which is envisioned as a very vibrant mixed use center with the highest allowable density in North Bay Shore. So to be clear tonight, we are focused only on determining if either of these development project proposals meet the criteria for requalification of the bonus far office space, and if either is a true master plan for the gateway site. So I want to be very clear that the precise plan will remain in place. Plans for housing and complete neighborhoods remain. No final allocation of office space will be made tonight, and no project, our master plan will be approved tonight. Staff has asked the council 2 questions, which are, do we agree with staff, that the requalification request should be denied. And the 2nd question is, do we support proceeding with a mediated master plan process? And if so, do we have input on the mediation principles or target outcomes? So I understand that there have been some concerns over housing and the future of the North Bay Shore precise plan. However, the purpose of tonight's agenda item is very narrow in focus on answering those 2 questions. So I'd like to see, by a show of hands, how many people would like to provide input tonight to us. Okay, so we are going to limit the time to 2 minutes per person. So if you could be sure to fill out a blue card so that we get your information either before or after you speak. As long as you turn it in at some point, that would be great.

[03:56:00] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Hello. Hello. INA Rudolph, Superintendent of Mountain View, Whisman School District. Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, honorable city council members and city staff. Thank you for having me tonight and listening to our comments. On behalf of the trustees, students and staff members of the Mountain View Whisman School District. I want to thank you for your continued detention to mitigating the impact development of the North Bay Shore. Specifically, your continued study of the precise plan, and to predict it, 1752 new students that may come from the 3 future neighborhoods in North Bayshore development. As you know, our trustees and community all share a common goal with the city, and its developers are creating a walkable neighborhood that meets the needs of all of its future residents. And we want to continue to partner with the city and its developers to achieve the collective goals of creating housing, activities, and essential services. In the past year, we have seen significant progress on all sides towards achieving the goal, and creating complete neighborhoods. And I want to thank the city, as well as the developers for moving forward on this important part. And we are encouraged by the progress that we are seeing. More importantly, we are cautiously optimistic about the prospect of having a school in the new planned communities. Schools, as you know, are a vital part of the community's infrastructure, and while we clearly are making progress, there is more work for us to do. We, as a community, still need more time to study this item, the school districts and developers need more time to engage the community on this topic, our school board needs more time to develop a collective approach to this topic. More importantly, we need to find answers to the questions I posed to you earlier. So I want to thank you and the city staff for your continued efforts to take the needs of the community into consideration. As you encourage developers and staff to finalize these complete neighborhoods. As I've expressed during the development of the precise plan, we support the building of community of a community that allows our families and staff members to affordably live, work, and drive here in Mountain View. We have only one chance to properly plan a development of a school here in the future, for the future of the children of North Bay Shore. Thank you.

[03:58:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:58:18] Devin Connolly: Good evening, I'm Devin Connolly with the Mountain View Wismen School Board. I'd 1st like to thank the city council for your partnership with our district and your work on behalf of our community. The North Bay Shore precise plan and this development presents a unique opportunity to create a sustainable community that is a model for the future. But by definition, planning for the future must include children. And I'm glad to see that the city council has made it a priority to ensure that schools are included in this planning process. Schools are vital piece of public infrastructure. And when I think about a complete neighborhood, What I picture for the future is parents being able to walk down the street from their workplace and volunteer in the classroom. And I picture students having the most incredible science lab when they can step outside into the natural open space and wetlands that we have alongside our bay. We are looking forward to continuing this process, working with Google, Si West, and the city, the city council to ensure that we have an incredible vision for our schools on the other side of the city. Thank you.

[03:59:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:59:37] Denise: Hi, I'm Denise. Thank you so much for being here for such a long time. A 23 year Mountain View resident, homeowner, taxpayer. I'm a former Google employee, a former SGI employee, and a former Adobe employee, all on Charleston in Mountain View. And what I'd like to speak about may seem slightly off topic, but it's related to a very important program that Google has and is related to this development, whether or not things may go through, and that's called the GCAT program. It's a program that over the last 8 years, Google has initiated and have been able to trap, neuter, and return not 268 cats, only 60 of which were returned, and all others were found homes for and fostered. What's very important to me is the issue that will be raised about burrowing owls and how the cats are killing them. And if you look at 60 cats over an eight year period with no empirically based evidence that any cat has ever killed a brewing owl, it just makes my head explode. I've also been a rescuer for 21 years, worked the area before the GCAP program that takes place on the Google campus, and it's fantastic. And I just, with all the development, my head's exploding. Oh, we're going to create wetlands and we're going to do this. But, oh, wait, there's a 57% reduction in housing from 98, 50 to 50. I mean, it's just like, we're putting so much into this development and I haven't heard the word environmental in probably 45 minutes. So with my last 27 seconds, I just want to say that I really implore Google to keep this very important program and to continue to support Google employees in being able to follow their passion. And part of that passion is allowing the continued GCAP program. Thank you.

[04:01:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:01:36] Public Speaker: Hello, Council members, Mayor Vice Mayor, I come to you as someone that worked literally in that area for about 4 years and I worked other 10, 15 years around the neighborhood. Um, and actually, I work for a competitor, Google, right across the street, uh, by Google, on property. It was pretty funny. But, um, me working there in that area, I mean, everyone there always envisioned, wow, wouldn't it be cool if we just lived in the neighborhood and we could walk to our jobs? I mean, I'm here to support someone has someone that's been part of the neighborhood and part of the community. What a great vision Google is presenting today and it's going to be a role model for any of their projects in the rest of the city. So this is this is something where you're going to be able to set the standard across the country of all of Google's properties across the nation, also the amount of jobs that these projects are going to create. as you see here today. You see a lot of men here in orange shirts that represent a lot of the trade workers. And my father was one of those trade workers that helped me help pay for my college. That got me a job in the tech industry. So, I really want you guys to consider the new vision that Google was presenting. full support of it and it's just such a great, wonderful model. Thank you.

[04:02:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:02:49] Luis Argueo: Evening. My name's Luis Argueo, I am a member of Labors of the Labors Union and Representative. So the reason why I'm here is also, like my colleague was mentioning, I'm here to support Google and that. As of last Friday, I was the apprenticeship coordinator for our labor's local union, local 270. Now we had, we have over 600 apprentices enrolled with us. What I have seen is Google is a big supporter of pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship programs throughout for different traits, not just the labor trade. Right? This is important because a lot of the students. Uh, that, you know, finish high school or don't finish high school, some of them decide and they choose to go and work in the trades. It's very important for each and every single one of us in our community to be able to support those students who choose not maybe they don't choose to go to a 4 year university. So, thank you and have a good day.

[04:03:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:04:01] Joan Brodovsky: Mayor, I'm speaking for Balanced Mountain View, and one of my colleagues would like to give up his two minutes more. Is that possible?

[04:04:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We usually ask for, um, five people to raise their hands if they're giving up their time. Okay. You asked for four minutes? Is that what you wanted?

[04:04:34] Joan Brodovsky: Yes. Yep. Thank you. I need to know how to... Where's that boy? He was failing me. My name is Joan Brodovsky. I am a Mountain View resident. I'm speaking on behalf of Balanced Mountain View. A group of us, Mountain View residents who were alarmed over the housing situation, in 2014, formed Balanced Mountain View to seek solutions for the city, for the city's worsening jobs housing balance. And today, we're pleased with the plan to incorporate complete neighborhoods into North Bay Shore, which was conceived originally as an office park, so we think that's great. I'm here tonight because I understand that the property owners in the gateway area haven't agreed on a master plan. And we, um, balanced Mountain View supports staffs finding that neither requalification proposal meets the requirements of the precise plan. And we think mediation is necessary to move forward. We don't believe that mediation will overcome two of the obstacles, though. because we want to get to the win, win, win, that everybody wants. And the obstacles are these, allocating the remaining office space. We don't think that can be done with mediation, and assigning responsibility for providing housing. So, we want you to ask staff to come up with opinions with options for resolving these two issues. Then, we want you, the city council, to select the option that you consider fair to both property owners and the public interest. Once that's done, mediation should help resolve any other issues that have to be taken care of. We also think the council should make sure that the original 9,850 homes called for in the precise plan really get built. The goal was the result of extensive input from experts, and from the public, and it still leaves us with an increased jobs housing imbalance. We think you must address the gap by seeking additional new housing, perhaps in the Terra Villa area. And the property owners may tell you that housing development just doesn't pencil out. I've heard that tonight. But they need their housing to resolve their trip cap. In the workshops on the North Bay Show plan, we learned that creating successful mixed use neighborhoods depends upon a critical mass of planned housing development. If you don't have enough residence, the grocery, and the cleaners, and the pharmacy, and the other commerce that make a neighborhood liverable cannot be sustained. And yet, the current plans for housing, as we've seen, come to about 6,455 minimum, and maybe up to 7,000, we're still lacking about 2,800. units. Without your strong action now, we will fall short of that 9,850 unit target. And we'll risk failure in planning a really nice place to live and work that everybody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about. So we ask that the property owners must build more housing, and they need it not just for the city, they need it for their own own needs, because they have to fulfilled our chip cap, and they also need to have workers for their business. So in summary, we asked the council for these four actions. Keep the original plan, resolve the gateway quantitative dispute, insist on housing to meet the area wide goal of 9,850, and I didn't get to go into it, but persuade the VTA to make sure that housing gets built on its property. Thank you.

[04:10:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:10:15] Enrique Arweo: Good evening, honorable city council members. My name is Enrique Arweo. I'm a resident of Santa Clara County, and the businessman, or the labels uni local 270, we represent around 7,000 members in Santa Clara County. Hundreds of 10 are residents of the city of Monte View. Remember, in Santa Clara County, have a strong relationship with Google, Google has, and will continue to provide many jobs for residents in the county. Some of the many jobs are construction, just for historically, and the represented groups. The scale of Google, proposed Norway Shore development, also allows for small and minority owned responsible subcontractors to participate in this project. As you may know, we are in the midst of a housing crisis. The proposed project is including at least 20% housing to be affordable housing. Our community needs housing, they can afford near their workplace, and this proposal is essential to providing desperately need homes for working-class families. We strongly encourage you to support Google's proposed Norvature development plans. Google has a proven track record of high responsible contractors, and we are confident that if the city of Monte View approves their development plans, it will be honored, its commitment to Santa Clara County workers, and the community at large. We look forward working together to create wall-paying jobs for our community, and new housing for residents, who are live, and thrive in Mountain View, altogether, we can create a strong and healthy community. Thank you and have a good night. I'm gonna leave some letters for the mayor and the city council members. Thank you.

[04:12:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can just give them to the city clerk.

[04:12:21] Matt Regan: Matt Merrick, council members, Matt Regan with the Bay Area council here representing about 350 of the largest employers in the Bay Area. Full disclosure, including Google. I want to thank you 1st for developing such a thoughtful, precise plan for this land. It's quite refreshing to be in a council chamber, and here people have a substantive debate about how to actually increase housing on a parcel of land rather than decrease it. So congratulations for that. Rarely does an opportunity site like this present itself. certainly not here in the Bay Area where we're obviously very land constrained. And so you have sort of a confluence of really fortunate circumstances. First of all, you have a project sponsor in Google who's willing to go above and beyond in terms of meeting the requirements of the precise plan, being generous with funding. $77 million or thereabouts in transportation, funding, building an elementary school, restoring 20 acres plus of wetland and open space, building almost 6000 homes, over a 1000 of them at below market rate. I'm currently working with 2 other cities in the region, Santa Rosa and Concord. And I'm sure any one of those council members would swap seats with you at a heartbeat and grab this deal by the neck and run with it as fast as they can. I would urge you to perhaps do the same. This is as good as it gets. And I think the rest of your council members from across the region would be very jealous if they were presented with something of this nature. So I hope you understand how fortunate you are having such an asset in your community and such a proposal in front of you. So I would urge that you take resolution number two, option number 2 and eventually approve the Google project. Thanks so much.

[04:14:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me, Council member McAllister,

[04:14:14] Councilmember John McAlister: I had a question for you. What organization you represent?

[04:14:17] Matt Regan: Oh, the Bay Area Council. So it's a 70 plus year old.

[04:14:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So my question to you. We are very fortunate that Google is willing to build this housing. And what's even more impressive that what Google's doing is they're billing it on their own property. How many of your 349 companies are actually building workforce housing on their own sites?

[04:14:36] Matt Regan: I don't have that information. There are some, but I spend way too many of my evenings in council chambers like this across the region and this is an anomaly. You guys should be congratulated for your, you know, the stance that you've taken on pro housing. You go to, you know, most of the other 101 cities in the, in the...

[04:14:57] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I understand the city. Well, what about you advocating to your businesses to... Build, build, build, force out there?

[04:15:03] Matt Regan: Well, I'm going with my answer. I mean, if you go to most other communities, people who build housing professionally, actual developers who have experience and skills in the field, they can't build housing. So when people say, oh, you know, that company should build housing for its employees, my stock answer is, well, if you don't let the housing builders build housing, why should you expect the employers to build the housing? Google is able to, and they're depending on their own land.

[04:15:27] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm sure some of your companies have plenty of land if they wanted to build up that you could do it. So I just want you to take that back and hopefully advocate that to your companies that they have an opportunity and a vision from Google to do it. I wish your companies would do the same.

[04:15:41] Matt Regan: Well, Google, Google. Google's a good, great example, and they should be followed, but not everybody has the resources. They are one of the largest corporations. you.

[04:15:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:15:54] Ryan Globis: Good evening. My name is Ryan Globis, and I'm here on behalf of the Silicon Valley Young Democrats. And I'm here tonight to ask you to move forward with Google's plan. So Silicon Valley and Democrats, we're a diverse group of young students, educators, engineers, elected officials, and community organizers. Most of us are renters, including some who live here in Mountain View, and the housing crisis has hit young people like us, especially hard. It's a constant struggle to afford to live where we grew up. And the separation of where the jobs are and where affordable housing is, has made our commutes intolerable. Although it's not perfect, Google's plan would build 1000s of new units, including over a 1000 affordable units, which is incredible. And although mediation could potentially improve the proposals moving forward, we're worried that it would be an additional delay without much gain. And so again, we ask you to please move forward with Google's plan. Thank you for your time.

[04:16:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:17:03] Laura Blakely: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor Council members. Thank you for your vision with the North Bay Shore Precise Plan. And I, my name's Laura Blakely, and I'm on the Mountain View Wisman school board, along with my colleague Devin Connolly, who already spoke, and then Tamara Wilson, our president, had to leave early because the hour got too late and she has a young child. But I wanted to say that we are encouraged by the willingness of Google and Psi West to work with the school district, so that's great. But I did want to say that the school strategy that is in, I think it's in the precise plan, was not necessarily limited to one school. And we heard tonight that the number of housing units is probably less than the 9,850 that was originally proposed. I know Sobrado has 800 or 850. And it sounds like it's unclear what the exact proposal is right now. But previously the amount of units that was proposed was going to generate something like 1,100 elementary school students. And it seems like it would be very difficult to put 1,100 students on one school site. So I think we need to leave it open and consider the possibility that we may need 2 sites, depending again on how densely the housing is built and the amount of affordable housing as the affordable units generate more students. I'd also like to say that the 2.5 unit, I'm really glad that the most recent proposal is in one of the neighborhoods, so that's great. But Joaquin is a lot denser. It might make more sense to put it in Shorebird. It also might be possible to, you know, have that count towards open space or have a larger campus that, or could be added onto later if the, how denser housing is built. And finally, I want to say the school district should not have to pay for the cost of land or construction. The Sobrado deal was a one-off. That was very clearly a one-off because they'd been waiting so long. And we need to make sure that the residents of Mount View, don't pay for this, don't have to pay for it via a bond. And the school district just simply does not have the resources. So we'll have to look to the developers to pay for the schools. Thank you. Thank you.

[04:19:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:19:28] Sandy Perry: Hi. My name is Sandy Perry, I'm president of the Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County. I'm also a former Mountain View resident. My wife was born and raised here. My daughter was born here, and then we had to move to San Jose because we couldn't afford to buy a house here. We want an affordable housing network. We want to commend the city council. for imposing a significant housing requirement on Google in return for expanding its office space. In San Jose. We have an unfortunate, unfortunate situation where the city sold its most valuable public lands to Google with no commitment to any specific number of units. Affordable housing network supports the North Day Shore precise plan, because our understanding is that the 9850 units, at with 20% affordable, is what is needed to offset the office expansion that's part of the plan. We strongly oppose any reduction in housing, such as that one proposed tonight by Google at this time, and we oppose any reduction in affordability. Even without the Google expansion. We are already in the middle of a catastrophic displacement crisis that we certainly have in San Jose. And I hear that you have it here also. No responsible policymaker advocates displacement. It destroys communities, reduces diversity, tears families apart, erases culture, damages the environment, ruins the quality of life, undermines the economic opportunity, and increases inequality and homelessness. So please, reject any reduction in housing and the affordability in North Bay Shore. Thank you very much.

[04:21:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:21:17] Pat Showalter: Hello, honorable mayor and city council members. I'm Pat Showalter, a long-term resident and past council member and mayor. I really don't envy you your job tonight. I remember when I was on council, the May meeting of the bonus FAR allocation was one of the most confusing meetings that we had. And it seems like this one is perhaps not quite so confusing, but it's not clear cut either. One of the things that has been mentioned is that this is largely kind of a gatekeeper process. I would describe it as a gatekeeper on steroids. This process was kind of a hybrid between the 2014 plan and now the 2017 plan. And that's one of the things that made it very confusing with bringing forward this, allocation, this bonus FAR allocation. I would just pause it to you that that process has lived its life. It served us well. Well, it served us. It's time to move on. And it's time to allocate the bonus FAR based on what the community really needs, which is the housing and the transportation improvements. So when you move forward tonight, I hope that you will allow both of these projects to move forward because they both have some wonderful elements, but they certainly aren't finished yet. But I also hope that you will not allocate the bonus office, but you will provide some sort of metrics about what needs to be done to get those in terms of the production of housing. I know that none of us, because that's what's really important to the community is more housing. And we need to figure out a ready way to do it, and we don't want to slow the process down. We want to keep it going. So I'm sure you'll come up with a wonderful answer. And that's which is.

[04:23:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, Pat. Next, please.

[04:23:37] Julie Mahowald: Good evening. I'm Julie Mahowald, from Housing Trust Silicon Valley. And I just wanted to say, first, that Mountain View has been known and been now vaunted in the region for being the example in addressing the job's housing imbalance. And I think you've had strong vision as a city so far in working on this crisis and in working with corporations to date and to achieve solutions, including starting up very quickly some affordable housing recently. And I want to have a very simple request. But your job is very complicated. action and to try to make sure that you can build out nearly these 10,000 units, including the 20% affordability. I hope you'll stick with that. And then, as people have said, we are in a crisis now. So if there's a way you can move forward to enable some of the development to happen, while you're working, as you do, work very well with the corporations to figure this complex problem out, but to try to move forward with something as quickly as possible and help us get out of this housing crisis we're in. Thank you.

[04:24:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:24:44] Krithi Garg: Good evening, Mary Mattachak, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, and Council. I'm Krithi Garg, Policy and Outreach Associate with Silicon Valley at home. On behalf of Silicon Valley at home and our members, We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment as you consider issues related to North Bay Shore today. We support staff's approach that a mediated process to determine an agreed-upon master plan for the gateway area of shoreline commons, must be rooted in the precise plans vision, complete neighborhoods featuring new office and residential buildings. Transit improvements, biking and walking paths, and a major investment in the environmental well-being of the Bay's shoreline ecosystem. At the same time, we urge the council to link any future decision on allocation of office development rights to a developer's ability to produce much needed affordable housing. The unanimous passage of the North Bay Shore precise plan recognizes centrality of housing to the success of a revitalized North Bay Shore. The goal of 9850 new homes with 20% affordability would double the total amount of deed restricted affordable homes in the city and catalyze necessary transit and environmental improvements. For these reasons, we urge the Mountain View City Council to continue to uphold the housing goals of the precise plan. We also urge the council to consider moving forward with other components of the precise plan, while undertaking the mediation process, notably Google's proposal for the Shoreboard neighborhood. We support Google's overall North Bay Shore Master Plan as the most direct route to achieving the plan's housing goals and broader vision. And we urge the council to instruct staff to work with Google on bringing forward for approval, the Shorebird neighborhood master plan, which would allow construction of new housing to advance along with the promised environmental, transit, and community benefits. This will support the success of Shoreline Commons, while in parallel advancing the complete Shorebird neighborhood, and keeps us moving toward, it's our ultimate goal, in North Bay, we're built on complete neighborhoods, with housing options for people of all incomes and abilities. Thank you.

[04:26:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[04:26:58] Nathan Ho: Good evening. May I vice mayor, honorable council members? I am Nathan Ho from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. I'm a senior director of housing policy, and we count Google as one of our proud members as well. We are in to be a decision decision point tonight for the North Bay Shore with our precise plan. That is more than the envy of other cities, but also represents more than a decade of community input and council of hard work. Our appreciation goes to the council members and partners in the room and those that came before that seek to transform a suburban office park into complete neighborhoods that provide a balance of homes, jobs, services, and vibrant open space. Leadership group supports the bonus FAR request as part of the North Bay Shore proposal by Google, as it represents the best path forward to bring about the bold objectives of the precise plan, including complete neighborhoods. The process of allocating the bonus FAR should align with the development plans that successfully deliver on the precise plan, and the allocation of additional office represented by the bonus FAR must be linked to the development of housing that is so boldly part of the precise plan. As you know well, one of the large issues facing our region is the need for housing at all income levels, and we believe that Google's proposal charge the best path forward. We hope that the council can act tonight to get us closer to development occurring in the North Bay Shore. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for ensuring that we plan and build complete neighborhoods, including a desperately needed housing that our region needs. Thank you.

[04:28:28] Unknown Speaker: Hang on sec. Hi, Nathan. How many companies do you represent, Nathan?

[04:28:33] Nathan Ho: We have about 330? 330.

[04:28:36] Nathan Ho: 330. And that ranges from the large companies such as Google and the Facebook, then LinkedIn to the world to startups.

[04:28:42] Unknown Speaker: And how many of your companies other than Google are building their own workforce housing?

[04:28:46] Nathan Ho: Sure. That's right, thanks for the question. I think that's... So that's right. that from a year ago. I think, you know, the question is great because it links housing and job creation, things that we need to constantly be thinking about. And I think you're right that not many companies outside of Google and Facebook that I know of are building housing on their campuses. And I attribute that to lack of housing expertise. I think we heard tonight from Google that they are not residential developers and they have the resources to bring on that expertise to hire housing, the expertise in the room. But at the end of the day, I think companies are going to do what they do well and it's not housing. But it's conversations like this, and I think what's great, what the City Mountain View has done, is the North Bay Shore precise plan to guide and urge large employers to think differently about housing. And I think that's why we're so excited around the proposal that Google's brought forward.

[04:29:40] Unknown Speaker: So you think you'll go back to your organization, since you are the senior director of housing for Silicon Valley? Leadership Group, and maybe advocate that they follow the lead of Mountain View, or more importantly, Google and Facebook?

[04:29:51] Nathan Ho: Yeah, I would say that we already have. Our companies are thinking around growth. And most of them want to think about growth here, because of the high cost of housing that is hurting them in our economy. they're looking elsewhere. And so we're having those conversations right now around, what are the opportunities to bringing housing that they don't normally do? where it's the expertise that could be. And I think, you know, major employers are watching tonight. And through the next 10 to 15 years as we go through this to see if this is a path forward for them.

[04:30:23] Unknown Speaker: Do mixed use office and housing above? I mean, you guys are very intelligent group, and Silicon Valley leadership allows a lot of resources to these people, so I think you could be able to connect the office and the housing on what properties just as Google has. So I look forward to you seeing doing great things like that. Thank you. Thank you.

[04:30:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Is there a question there?

[04:30:50] Bruce Humphrey: Good evening again. Honorable mayor, vice mayor and council. Hi, I'm Bruce Humphrey, President, CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and I will be brief. The North Bay Shore precise plan generates a groundbreaking foundation for the future of North Bay Shore and Mountain View, with the ultimate goal of creating a bold strategy for community for the community's preferred future to include land use, sustainability, habitat preservation, and economic development. As you know, the precise plans, vision, will be implemented using a series of guiding principles to provide a framework for decision maker making. The chamber supports developments that further community goals and objectives that make Mountain View a vibrant business community. Both Google and SiWest have submitted creative community focused proposals, though the sum of the 2 office proposals exceeds what is currently possible for the FAR allocation in the North Bay Shore precise plan. We encourage the council to provide direction that will facilitate both Siwest and Google moving forward while taking into account community infrastructure needs such as transportation, appropriate allocation of housing, retail, a neighborhood school, and office that will eventually result in a complete neighborhood in North Bay Shore. Thank you.

[04:32:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:32:16] Jeffrey Buchanan: Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and Council, my name is Jeffrey Buchanan. the policy director at Working Partnerships USA, but I'm here today representing the Silicon Valley Rising Coalition. We were formed by my organization in the South Bay Labor Council. representing 1000s of workers across the county, community organizations, faith-based organizations that are working to build a tech economy that works for everyone. I'm here tonight to ask you to deny both of these proposals. And for the city to engage in a city led master planning process. We believe that any developer that's coming to the city and asking for financially valuable up zoning should be held accountable to meeting the needs of mountain views communities, but also the goals that have been laid out in the North Bay Shore plan. And that's particularly true for a $700 billion company like Google. Google is not going to do anything more than what this city asks for. We've seen as Google has grown. What it's meant, enormous wealth for some, for many rising rents, terrible traffic, and rising inequality, and particularly for service workers, many of the subcontracted service workers. There aren't union jobs, they're, in fact, poverty wage, low benefit jobs, and many of the lines of subcontracted service on their campus. And so certainly Google has more to do when it comes to equity and promoting the needs of vulnerable communities here in Mountain View. We would encourage to the council to really hold itself to finding a community benefits package that not only addresses the issues of displacement, but certainly community amenities like parks, open space. We've heard a lot about education tonight. Really, the council has an opportunity through a negotiated process, the standards ground to get the best deal for Mountain View residents and really offsetting the impacts of Google. So I would encourage you to do so. Thank you so much.

[04:34:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:34:12] Alexander: Good evening, everybody. My name is Alexander, also the Silicon Valley Young Democrats, and I'll keep my comments tonight brief and mainly reiterate what my colleagues said earlier.

[04:34:25] Public Speaker: We feel that the housing crisis is by far the most urgent issue facing the Silicon Valley, and we feel that the only way to truly resolve the issue is to expand the supply of affordable housing in Silicon Valley. As such, we feel that the Google plan is the best way to pursue that objective in a timely and efficient manner. So we hope that you will elect to pursue the Google Plan. Thank you.

[04:34:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:34:52] David Watson: Hello, city council. I'm David Watson. I'm here, also, try to keep my comments brief as well. similarly, actually, to the last speaker, although I never met him before. Um, I, uh, I think that the, the, the crisis facing the Bay Area is is the lack of housing and uh, the uh, the obvious way forward is to get projects approved that provide the community benefit that is housing. the sort of the ratio of of new office space to housing that we that's the best here is the one offered by Google and while it's not perfect, I think that it's the proposal we should move forward with. Clearly, the 2 sides have been unable to reach agreement so far. I suspect that trying to send them to mediation, we'll just delay the process further. A delayed project is a project that's not happening or housing that doesn't exist. That's really the key thing. The more we delay, the more we just don't have housing, which makes this problem worse. Thank you.

[04:35:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[04:36:04] Nikita Sinha: Good evening, counsel. My name is Nikita Sinha. I'm here representing Green Bell Alliance. Greenville Alliance has a 60 year history of working for the Bay Area, where natural and agricultural lands are protected, and where everyone can live a thrive, can live in a thriving neighborhood that they're proud to call home. The Bay Area is projected to grow from about 7 million people today to about 9 million people over the next generation. How that growth matter occurs, matters for a whole host of reasons, from our commute patterns to the future of our water supplies, and from our economic health, of our downtowns, and transit corridors to the well being of all our neighbors. When people are no longer able to afford to live in communities near jobs in transit, they often move to less expensive neighborhoods at the edges of the region and beyond. This can create new sprawl pressure in these edge communities, but threatening the green belt lands that benefit us all in creating more reliance on our cars and additional traffic, congestion and pollution. This project is an important opportunity for Mountain View because it allows employees to live near their workplaces, giving them the choice to walk or bike to work. Residents will be less dependent on cars decreasing traffic and pollution. With Google's affordability goal of 20%, homes will be accessible to residents at all income levels. As others have said tonight, I'm a recent college graduate. I moved back to this region, and finding housing that I can afford has been one of the biggest challenges. And this project is a vital step for addressing the housing affordability crisis that we're all facing in this region. We look forward to supporting you as you move forward with the process and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[04:37:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:37:38] Cliff Chambers: Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. First, I want to spend my 1st minute answering what Mayor Matachek asked us to really address narrowly. And I've read both recalification applications, every word of it. I've read the precise plan, every word of it, and I read the staff report, every word of it. Staff really did an excellent job with the staff report. It's one of the best I've ever seen. Breaking down a very complex thing. But they really nailed the conclusions. If you really look at it narrowly in the gateway area, there's not a master plan. It's not an integrated master plan, that's what we expected in advocating for the precise plan. And I don't want you to settle for less than an integrated master plan. It's extremely important. How do you get there? When one of the parties doesn't want to go to mediation, I'm not sure, but we need to get there. With that said, I participated in Google's, as a stakeholder in a lot of their meetings, and I have to say, I got goose pumps when they had presented their framework planned because it really embodies what the vision of the precise plan really presents. It's integrated, well designed. urban design features are fantastic. The ocean space go on and on and on. And hopefully we can get to the point where there's agreement to go forward and we can really move forward with housing in the shortbird area. The Shorbird master plan is an absolute masterpiece and should go forward. How much of it in terms of without the office allocation and while they're doing it. Hopefully something can happen with the housing in parallel while we're working through getting the master plan developed. Thank you.

[04:39:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[04:39:38] Helen Walter: Good evening. I'm Helen Walter with Committee for Green Foothills. CDF, for those who don't know, is a local and vocal nonprofit representing over 1000 households in San Mateo and Santa Clara County that works on improving, protecting and standing up for Parkland. Thank you for your consideration of these comments, of the parks proposals in North Bay Shore in your public service. I will start with the Psi West proposal. We appreciate SiWest's efforts to make 3 acres of open space accessible and visible from the street. That said, we are concerned that much of the open space in this proposal is actually on rooftops. San Francisco used to allow privately owned and publicly accessible rooftops, but they found they were not really available and usable for the public. We are concerned about similar issues with this proposal, while green rooftops can offer some climate benefits. This proposal overall lacks the sustainability and ecological benefits that the North Bay Shore precise plan requires. Well, green lines are lovely to look at. They are ecological desert, which leads me to the Google proposal. Committee for Greenfoot Hills is impressed with Google's commitment, to sustainability, and ecological benefits. They have shown corporate commitment to these issues, which is unusual and needs to be commended. We also appreciate that they are now offering 20 acres versus Latin of open space in their proposal. The 20 acres when with the removal of housing, they are now required required without the below market rate, housing assessed 27 acres. If you give them a 50% credit, that's 14 and they are at 20. Um, We also appreciate the act of recreation space they have added in their plans for a wild playground. This could be an iconic playground. They are often built in Europe, but not locally. So it would be really beneficial to have a wild playground built here.

[04:41:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could wrap it up.

[04:41:54] Helen Walter: That said, we are concerned by the social spine being counted as privately owned publicly accessible space. This with a 40 foot setback should not be counted as parkland, the Mountain View ordinance is clear that setbacks are not to be counted. Thank you.

[04:42:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:42:16] Phil Faillace: Madam mayor and council members, I'm still filthy ace representing the Mountain View Los Altos, Union High School District. MBLA. MVLA knows you share our resolve to educate students from North Bay Shore to the same high standards of MVLA's existing schools. To do so, MVLA needs land and facilities that neither has nor has the means to obtain. The North Bay Shore precise plans, local school policies, for which I thank you earlier, constitute MVLA's only hope of acquiring such land and facilities. We're here tonight to urge you to keep that hope alive by rejecting, rather denying both applicants' requests. Our specific concern has to do with the question that council member McAllister asked of both Google and Si West, regarding Google's claim of a contribution jointly to both school districts, worth more than 5 times, quote, current residential school fees, unquote. The answers you received from Si West, that it would be consistent with Sobratos, and from Google, that it would be 5 ninths of Sobratos, tells me they didn't hear you when you said that allowing Sobrado to get away with 47% of what was needed to educate their students at the high school level. would be accepted. A one and done deal, which they now appear, was the high bar, believed to be the high bar for this discussion. Let me provide some details for council member McAllister's question. So Brado's contribution, as I stated, represented 47% of the cost for their share of getting land and building facilities. Yet, despite being less than half what's needed, it was still 9 times the current residential school fees. In contrast, start contrast. And apples to Apple's calculation and comparison reveals that Google's proposal of 5 times their current residential school fees actually represents not 47%, but less than 17% of what their share would be.

[04:44:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you. So Jeff, raise your hand. Raise your hand. There you go. Indeed, raise your hand. There you go. He already spoke. You got it. Yeah, how much more do you have?

[04:45:08] Phil Faillace: Yep. I'm almost done. MVLA has only the contributions from North Bay Shore developers to provide facilities to educate students from their developments. MVLA has no money, land, or facilities of its own to use for those North Bay Shore students. Consequently, their remaining cost has to come from the developers or other sources other than Mountain View Los Altos. MVLA has already made significant concessions and compromises to reduce the total cost. Those concessions and compromises, notwithstanding, MVLA's willingness to participate thoughtfully, in creating a win, win, win solution for the city council, North Bay Shore developers, and MVLA itself continues unabating, so that we may all take pride in doing what it takes to keep our community the wonderful place to live, work, and educate children that it has been. Thank you.

[04:46:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:46:19] Lauren Mitchell: Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Lauren Mitchell, and I'm a member of the Environmental Action Committee with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Yesterday evening was our monthly meeting. The group is composed of concerned people, a variety of occupations, backgrounds, and ages brought together by a recognition of the importance of the conservation of habitat and environment for birds and other wildlife. Among the items we discussed last night was Google's proposed framework for the North Bay Shore area. We are impressed with the plan to remove 4 buildings to create an eco gem and an initial building to benefit the egret nesting colony. It is not often one sees the removal of roads, parking areas and buildings as a part of a development plan. They also plan to add parkland, incorporate native plants and promote positive interactions between humans and nature. We appreciate the plan to expand habitat areas and incorporate nature into the urban community. Thank you.

[04:47:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:47:25] Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening, Chenne Klein House with Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society. And I think what I'd like to do is just read a little bit of the vision of the North Bay Shore precise plan. And later, it was housing. The North Bay Shore precise plan area continues to serve its role as a major high technology employment center, and emerges as a model of innovative and sustainable development that protects and stewards biological habitat and open space within the precise plan area in North Bay Shore as a whole. North Bay sure is envisioned as a district that supports and enhances wildlife, trees, and habitat areas. In 2013, sensitive species within shoreline at Mountain the original power continue to remain and thrive. I think one of the crises that we haven't discussed or people don't discuss often is the huge loss of biodiversity due to development and due to climate change. And we're losing species, even here in Mountain View, and they're threatened, and it is something that people care about. People care about animals that live in Africa, and they've never seen them, and they definitely care about what's here, and what needs to stay and survive and thrive. The Google plan has a lot of that in it. The other plan does not. To us, that is a really important thing for you to consider that the habitat and wildlife are taken care of with whatever moves forward. Thank you.

[04:48:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:49:05] Laura Drossick: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. My name is Laura Drossick, a field representative with the Carpenters Union. I am here before you on behalf of 6500 Carpenter Union members that live and or work in this thriving community. The Carpenters Union and Google have a good working partnership creating job opportunities for our members in our community. Large scale development requires responsible traffic management. The scale in geography of North Bay Shore requires a comprehensive and viable plan for getting people out of their vehicles, reducing carbon emission and increasing public safety hinges on green transportation solutions like biking, walking, and transit. We are in support of the North Bay Shore precise plan. The Carpenters Union support a 4 to one housing to new office ratio. A 4 to one ratio of new housing to new office ratio will provide more housing, including affordable homes so that teachers, police officers, retail, and construction workers can live in the same neighborhoods they serve and work in. The process of allocating bonus FAR, office space should align with development plans that most successfully deliver on the city's NBPP vision for complete neighborhoods. In closing, the carpenters are in support of the North Bay precision plan. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

[04:50:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:50:46] Linda Ruthruff: Good evening. I'm Linda Ruthreff. I'm the volunteer conservation chair with the local chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Our neurological system is developed in the context of the natural world. There is a huge body of scientific literature that shows that we function better when we spend time in nature. Our blood pressure goes down, our stress hormones decrease, and our immune system functions better when we interact with nature. Our minds work better in many ways. We are better problem solvers, our recall of information is improved. We are more creative, and our sense of well being is better when we interact with the natural world. I'm not normally a big proponent of development. Development usually means that the natural world and natural habitat is destroyed. Development usually means that the natural world gets further and further away from where we work and live. Development usually means that nature becomes something that we have to get in our cars to go visit. Google is proposing something quite astonishing. They are proposing a development where habitat will be created. Among other things, they are proposing a freshwater wetland. Freshwater wetlands used to cover large swaths of the Bay Area. They are proposing to recreate an ecosystem that has all but disappeared in our area. And they will remove buildings to do this. They would be creating butterfly habit habitat. They've already successfully done this on other parts of their campus. But butterflies are regularly breeding in Google's native landscaping, and they will be creating more habitat for birds. They are also proposing a development where people can work and live and interact with nature on a daily basis. People will spend less time in their cars, and more time walking and interacting with friends and family. Google has a history of working with the local environmental organization, to create healthy and environmentally innovative places for people and nature to coexist. We support the continuation of this legacy, and hope that you approve their very creative proposal. Thank you.

[04:53:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:53:18] B. Hansen: Hi, B. Hansen from Santiago Villa, we are the only residential community in North Bajore. You probably know. Um, I'm here to uh, kind of echo what the Silicon Valley Rising gentleman said. I would like you to say no to both questions, and I would like you to eventually. approve Google's requalification, requalification request. I have nothing against Psi West. Uh, but I think that I agree with David Watson, who said what we really need, is affordable housing, and we need to get that off the ground. We don't need the gateway plan right away. That's one thing I disagreed with. in the material that I read from the staff report. So I'm here to support Google, and I want to tell you why. About five years ago, our population was pretty upset with Google. Google's going to take over everything. They're terrible traffic is, you know, gradually Google changed our minds. They started having meetings with us. They listened to everything we said. They looked for feedback from all of our residents. They mailed cards to everybody saying, please attend our meetings. Um, and, uh, they really worked hard at getting our buy-in gradually into their plan. Uh, and they succeeded very well. As a matter of fact, they even responded to specific things that we asked for. Many of our residents went on the Shorebird walking tour and gave them feedback and they made changes to their plans based on what we said. That was most appreciated. We got similarly nice treatment from Sobrato and Microsoft as well. They also came and visited us in our monthly San Diego Villa neighborhood association meetings. But Google was consistent over the years on listening to us and wanting to support us.

[04:55:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could wrap it up.

[04:55:42] B. Hansen: Basically, I'd like to add my, what Cliff Chambers said, the Shortbird, the Shortbird design is a masterpiece, and I totally agree with that. Thank you. We should prove their their real qualification request. Thank you.

[04:56:06] Trey Borman: Hi, Trey Borman President of the Santiago Neighborhood Association, the only community on the North Bay Shore, and the only people living there right now. I'd like to echo what B said that Google has been very good about reaching out to us with their plans as they've gone along and getting our feedback, came to our meetings, presented things, invited some of our steering committee to be on their board. I mean, on their development. I can't remember what it was called, but showing us the plans, getting feedback. We changed paths. We were like, well, that road's not going to work there because you can't see when you turn out. things got moved. We went, um, they were able to wear Sobrado's having a 35 buffer from the park on their side of the street, and Google was having a road. like, why don't you have a 35 foot buffer and move it there? oh, let's take it back. Plans are redrawn. Now we got a path all the way around the park that can connect up to the thing. We're trying to make Santiago Villa, even though you have us blocked out, and the master plan actually connect into this for the benefit of our community. So Google has been very, very good. We've had at least half a dozen meetings with them to come through. So I think that says a lot here about who's actually reaching out to the community. I mean, I have nothing against you guys, but nice to meet you. We've been there the whole time, you know? Um, so, and I, and it just comes to show that I think when developers and such come and present in front of the council, one of the 1st questions you should be asking these people is, have you talked to the neighborhood yet? What do they say? You know, and if they don't have an answer, maybe send them back right away and just make that an expectation that people should start talking to the neighborhood, community before they even come and present to you guys. That's my input. So I would say go with Google's plan today if you have to make an option there. Thank you.

[04:58:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Excellent.

[04:58:07] Alex Brown: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, city council. I'm Alex Brown, South Taco Villa, North Bay Shore. I would just like to say that I would much rather have a decision to be made tonight, not to deny both plans, but to approve Google's requalification proposal, so the development can begin, and we can welcome our new North Bay Shore neighbors. I don't think the master plan of the gateway is worth all the delays that it's going to cause. Same with mediation. I believe that both parties will find a way to work together Moving forward without enforcing it. Additionally, I'd like to call out the efforts and consideration of the Google team in working with our neighborhood. They have done amazing outreach and listen to and address their needs. We've also had great experiences with Sobrato, Microsoft, and city representatives. It's been a good process overall. Thank you for your time.

[04:58:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:58:55] Public Speaker: Good evening, city council members. Tonight, I'm just here to remind you of a very sad day that happened on December 11th. That day, we were here with a lot of onstanding, leaving people here in Mountain View, who deserve to live in Mountain View, and those are the 2005 Rock Street people. So I'm here to tell you to support the Google Plan because I believe, even though it's not perfect, at least, at least the 2005 Rock Street. People may have a chance to stay in mountain view. They are people who have worked here very hard at Mountain View to make Mountain View what it is today. So I'm here. I am here also to mirror what Alex just said, and I am also a Santiago Villa resident. Thank you. Good evening.

[04:59:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:59:47] Jose Cabrera: Good evening, Baron, city council members, staff. My name is Jose Cabrera, and I am a member of the Carpenters Union for the past 23 years. I'm here on to offer my support for the city's North Bayshore, a precise plan, which represents 10 years of city and community collaboration. This plan seeks to transform North Bay Shore from a suburban office part to complete neighborhoods. They provide a balance of homes, jobs, services and open space. By implementing the North Bay Shore precise plan. The city is creating new opportunities for residents to live closer to where they work so that they can get out of their cars and onto sidewalks, trails, bike paths, and parks. And it also means work opportunities for various members of local unions. I hope the city council will consider this proposal. Thank you.

[05:00:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[05:00:45] Eric Cookshausen: Hello, council. It's my first time here. I'm Eric Cookshausen. I've been a resident of Mountain View for 4 years so far. Full disclosure. I am currently employed at Google, and on, by the way, I would also recommend that you do ask Google to reinstate the GCRAP program. Well, everyone here has a long list of additional desires and has some way that could be better, including my own opinions. We have an ongoing crisis. Every month of additional process represents another month of lost opportunity, an opportunity to do something about the Bay Area is growing, a record setting traffic in commute times, not to do something about the displacement and a chance to keep some more current residents here for decades to come. An opportunity to make a difference from the environment, with new parks and new wildlife protection. From my perspective, as a young voter, Google's proposal represents the best chance we have of making a real difference today. I urge the council to approve Google's proposal and do everything possible to expedite these developments while still holding the developers accountable. Thank you.

[05:01:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who would like to provide input? Okay, we'll close public input and bring it back to council for deliberation and action. I do have one question though. My recollection of the Sobrato project was, we required a dollar amount, not a multiple. And what, but I think it didn't turn out to be eight. Does staff remember? Or, um, oh.

[05:02:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So, actually, our city manager.

[05:02:27] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I don't recall. I thought it was a dollar amount too, but we'll follow up and give you the exact details of that.

[05:02:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do you know? Wasn't it, like, 12 million?

[05:02:37] Jeff: Yeah. It was exactly 50% of what the request was. So we actually costed out the expense of a school, land and buildings on a smaller site, and put in a request, and it was the staff recommendation to charge, um, Serrano, half of that amount. So that's where that figure came from. It was $6500000 to the high school district. It was actually 47%. Phil Fellace mentioned that's where the 47% came from, but it was based on a staff recommendation at a 50% figure, which began with the request based on our cost estimate.

[05:03:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Okay, so... Sure.

[05:03:32] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Jeff, a quick follow-up question. Can you, just from, I know, we talked about it, just for my benefit, can you, can you describe how you came to that cost estimate?

[05:03:43] Jeff: Yeah, I can. We made some assumptions. We assume that 600 students could be housed on a high school campus, I went to my architect, and I said, could you design a campus that would accommodate 600 students? We found a piece of property, actually Google owns it, and we envisioned, what if you put that campus on that piece of property, it was considerably smaller, then the state would recommend for a student population of 600, and we just created a cost estimate, divided by 600 because there were 600 students, and we got a cost per student. And that's the way we generated that amount.

[05:04:23] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[05:04:23] Jeff: All based on a student generation rate.

[05:04:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I've had a request for a five minute break. Do folks want a five minute break? Okay, we'll take a five minute break, so I'm hoping it's really just five minutes.

[05:04:42] Unknown Speaker: Well, they need to stand up, Joe.

[05:04:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we're going to start again if you could take your seats. Okay. Okay, we've got, uh... the vice mayor in the queue. Oh, actually, I want to say one thing. Before we start, I just wanted to remind folks. For the council more than anything else. We're focused on 2 questions tonight. Do we agree with staff that the recalification requests should be denied. And do we support proceeding with a mediated master plan process? And if so, do we have input on the mediation principles or target outcomes? Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[05:05:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, So I appreciate, uh, everyone, those of you staying to this late hour. And I appreciate all of the public comments that we've received this evening. I did want to just start off by saying, and despite the mayor's, um, clear statement in the beginning about what we discussed, I, you know, I, I know it's hard to, to, to control your comments, but, um, we are trying to decide on these 2 questions. But I do feel like in light of what it was some of the comments that were made this evening, I wanted to address a few things. First of all, in terms of housing. I hope the community sees that this is not the only area that we're planning for housing. We are looking at all over the city, frankly. And we got a list recently. We have 6500 units in the pipeline. So despite, regardless of what we decide tonight, which actually I don't think will really necessarily affect, you know, the housing in North Bay Shore so much. But I hope folks understand that, that we are doing housing all over Mountain View. And, you know, the way folks spoke this evening, I felt like there was this, you know, assumption or feeling that this was it for housing and it's not. So please rest assured that we will continue to look for opportunities for housing development throughout Mountain View. As of as for this evenings, um, discussion in our decision. This is really, as the mayor mentioned, about their bonus far reallocation of office square footage that was done in 2015. Um, I was not on the council at that time. Had I been, frankly, I don't think I would have allocated the entire amount. This was what, you know, we put I've been I've lived this precise plan from the very beginning. You know, some of the principles that were discussed this evening, especially in terms of the environment. Those were concepts that frankly, I was a part of creating. You know, as much as I appreciate the comments and, you know, Google's proposal for Shorebird. That was our intention in the 1st place was to restore habitat, more habitat than we have now. And so that would be that was the expectation, regardless of who was going to be the developer. So I just want to be clear on that. And I understand a lot of people have come in, you know, somewhere along the way, but from someone who's been there from day one on this, and I know Chris and John were there and Ellen and Lisa were there as part of the planning commission. This has been a process for that the city initiated, and we came up with all of these concepts. And as someone read, I think it was Shawnee who read the vision, you know, it's an employment center, it always has been. You know, we recognized that. We did this in a time when economy was, you know, we were in a recession, so we wanted to make sure we could continue economic development, but the environment was top priorities. So, you know, this issue, the things about habitat restoration and whatnot, that's expected, frankly, of anybody in this area. So I just want to be clear about that. In regards to this area, the gateway. Again, going back to the original plan, and the vision, we always vision the gateway to be, it's the entryway to this North Bay Shore area. So it is a very important site. Frankly, you know, right now, the buildings and the businesses that were there were shut down. My concern is I don't want it to sit like that for a long time and become blight. And so it is important for me that we develop the gateway site. Um, as far as, um, you know, the, the what we had, and this was when John and Chris were here, um, we had this development uh, proposal, the, the partnership between Si West and LinkedIn, that they approved. And frankly, you know, I don't see why that project could not have been agreed upon with the new owner, Google. But so be it. That's where we are. But I believe that if I, and I don't know, I don't totally remember the timeline, but, um, I believe that we wrote in the precise plan, this master plan, or joint master plan. language, knowing that we had this possible partnership project. And so, you know, things have changed. And so we had to reconsider what we are going to do. Um, for me, and I think for most of us, when we were the original group that started the the North Bacre precise plan, um, we wanted to maintain, you know, the business is there. The movie theater has all been there for a very long time. Someone was saying that, I think as Ellen was saying, her dad went to the when it was a drive-in. And, you know, with all of this redevelopment, one of my concerns has been that we've actually driven out businesses in because of our redevelopment plans. And, you know, I had concern about 801 Castro, there's some businesses that have come back, but some that haven't. And so, you know, why do we want to push out businesses that are thriving? I've heard the movie theater is the top 2nd top gross thing movie theater in the country. That's pretty amazing for little mountain view. So, you know, my intention was to always keep the theater as long as it wanted to be there. I've supported Villa support from the very 1st project proposal they came up. You know, I'm a health and fitness person, so I think that's important for the community. And I supported that. And so, you know, the idea was that that gateway area would become like an entertainment center zone. And from, you know, we could add to that restaurants, maybe a hotel and make it a really thriving, you know, another destination site for the community. Um, So that has been my vision. I know things have changed. You know, one thing that has changed and we saw it with San Antonio Shopping Center, is that the economics make it that so that office right now is the commodity and so office is needed sometimes or most of the time now to support retail. And that's what we did and allowed in San Antonio shopping center. The other thing that changed, of course, is that, you know, we've included housing in this precise plan. I do want to remind folks and, you know, we're having a little conversation here, but the 9850 was the maximum allowed. And so I don't know. I mean, I do know, but I know that folks have been using that as our goal. frankly, you know, that was what we said was our top, our cap. And so, you know, you know, I knew that things would change over time, and maybe we would get there, maybe we wouldn't. So I just want to be clear on that. That was the cap. It was not our goal. It was not the goal. So, and here we are. We see plans. You know, we see the Google plan that has dropped in its unit count. So, We have to balance that with, as Michael said, you know, the other elements of a community parks, schools, retail, so forth. And so what we end up with is what we end up with. And so I just want, you know, the folks to understand and be clear on that. So as far as where are we going with going back to Gateway, as I mentioned, I have always supported, you know, this being an entertainment zone of the 2 projects. Um, you know, it's unfortunate that, uh, we they were not able to come together for a master plan. What I'm leaning towards is, I think it's the 3rd option. You know, I feel like we've given the 2 parties, an opportunity to work together. It hasn't happened, it hasn't happened. And so I think it's time for the city to take charge of the master planning process. But to that, and I guess this answers question one, I would like to at least move forward in some way with Sai West's concepts. So, um, you know, what the elements they have in the sidewest plan, it really fits close to what we had envisioned. Um, you know, I think there's some room and one, we have to do, the studies to see really what kind of office square footage is sustainable on that site. So, you know, the studies will happen and that will really basically determine what can really be built there. Housing. I would hope, you know, we can work with SiWest to up those numbers. And frankly, if Google wanted to, you know, we could take the Google piece of the gateway project, you know, if they want to participate, we could take what they've offered there and try to work something out. But, um, I think at this point in time to just move things forward. I don't think mediation is gonna work. You know, mediation is usually with with parties that have a common vision or a common goal in mind and, you know, it's done in good faith. I just don't think that's going to happen realistically. And so I think it's time for the city to take charge. But I do want to maintain, you know, the existing business there, this there, and build upon this concept that we had originally in our precise plan for that to be the gateway in an entertainment type of zone for the North Bay Shore area. I'm sorry, could I continue? Sorry. The other piece to this, I think I should address. I want to address. You know, I appreciate Google's plan. They asked, we asked them to do a master plan for the whole North Bay Shore area. They came forward with this plan. And I believe, I mean, I believe there are very good elements to it. But to be frank, there are many elements in it that have much to be worked on. You know, I had forgotten some things. I read the plan a long time ago, and then I forgot about things and heard stuff in the community, so I went back and read it this morning. I mean, frankly, you know, there are things in there that have not been vetted yet, to be honest. There's this, you know, like, for instance, this parking structure on the live nation, parking lot, um, that's, you know, city land, and I don't think we've even started that conversation. We're doing something temporary, but we're not doing that long term. And I heard someone say, you're going to build this parking structure, long term, you know, leave it there. And it's like, no, that was a temporary deal. So this plan. And I looked at it, you know, it was built on some of these big assumptions that have not been vetted. And so, you know, that really makes me question the viability of the entire plan. Shorebird. I will say, you know, this is my biggest challenge is Shorebird is the closest to our wildlife habitat. That is, if you look at the precise plan, the edge, the whole point of that edge area was to encourage that development to be moved into the core, not to develop there. I think, frankly, you know, the school district mentions schools, that area is really where we should have a school. I think it's the most compatible with our habitat and our environment and we could, you know, build a curriculum around that. Um, I just do not I'm not convinced that despite the restoration of habitat that's being offered, putting 2 +0000 square feet of office and 3,000 square feet of homes in that neighborhood is really gonna not affect our environment in a negative way. And that was not the intention. I mean, Shorebird did not have a bonus FAR allocation. So to me, to move what's being, you know, here on the gateway over is, frankly, completely opposite of what we had intended in the beginning. It was all really about the core, and that's where the high intensity development should be done. So, you know, I appreciate the effort. I think when we come, you know, time to look at Shorebird, I would ask Google to, you know, go back and work on a plan, a plan, and let's, you know, let's have these conversations about the parking structure, you know, and let's talk. And let's work on this together. I think, you know, my challenge was this plan was presented to the community and I went to the meeting to find out about it. And, you know, to me, that's not working together. I'd like for us to really work together and from the get go and work on something that's going to satisfy our vision and also satisfy the needs of the businesses out there.

[05:20:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[05:20:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, wow. For a little contrast, as someone who hasn't been through this through every meeting in this process, what I'm hearing, you know, what I heard both through email, through, uh, you know, a large number of letters I got, and then also tonight, um, I'm hearing mostly an eagerness to go forward, um, in particular to make sure that housing gets built soon, but also to, um, fulfill a lot of aspects of Google's plan, including, I think, the things people have named most often are the wildlife preserve, complete neighborhoods, open space, I guess those are the main things. So I'm hearing that really a lot. And I guess I agree with it personally, so maybe that's why I hear that more. And the elements that seem to stand out are, well, of course, the office housing ratios and making sure that the schools and transportation are funded. Um, But I was hoping that we could, and then given that, um, SiWest does not want to, um, does not want to mediate. Um, Oh, and the other thing that I hear people say, over and over again, is that this would really raise the bar in the region, and that other, the hopes that other, um, that other communities, um, I suppose what John was saying, maybe, that other communities and other businesses would, um, other companies would replicate, um, what we would be doing here. Um, I was hoping that there was some way that we could move forward, uh, possibly granting Google's, re- qualification request.

[05:22:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Guess Emperor Clark.

[05:22:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I guess no one else is in the queue. So, um, you know, I just want to say, um, you know, thank you to both parties for what you put together, um, you know, I think from from the perspective of Psi West, you know, the, I think if you were looking at, uh, at this project, you know, on its own, it's a very, very impressive project and it marries a lot of elements together. And I give them credit for trying to put together the best proposal that they can, given the constraints that they're under after the land swap, and, you know, trying to ensure that what they put together would work with, you know, other redevelopment in the area. I think from a requalification perspective, though, you know, the reason that FAR was originally granted was, and for me, that vote back in 2015 was difficult because, you know, Google had put a lot of really attractive things on the table. But one of the most attractive things at the time, and the reason that I ultimately supported a bonus F ARL occasion to Si West and LinkedIn is that we had a willing, we had 2 willing parties to sort of master plan the whole area and do a great development, and that had never happened before. I think we had been hoping for that for a really long time, and the prospect of actually having that come together was worth the very, very large at the time. allocation to that project to hopefully make it come to fruition. So the difficulty here is that we don't have that anymore. We have sort of a standalone project that doesn't. necessarily have, you know, an office tenant identified. And the really key thing here that made LinkedIn attractive was that if you're going to have that amount of office space on that particular on a parcel like that, you really need a strong, there's really only a handful of companies who have the capabilities to manage that TDM program and not break the trip cap and impact the rest of the district. So I think without that, without having all of those elements together, like we had before, it's really difficult for me to requalify that particular project, because in my mind, it doesn't necessarily fulfill the entire vision of the district as it stands now on its own, and has, frankly, a lot of potential to impact a lot of the rest of the district developments, whether it's Microsoft, Google, or a lot of the others. So, well, I like a lot of the elements there, and I really wish that we'd found some sort of agreement between the 2 because I think, you know, I know that, you know, some folks don't want mediation, and I know we haven't come to, they haven't, the parties haven't come to an agreement. But what's really frustrating for me is that there's a very clear win-win here. You know, Google needs office. There's there's clearly, you know, the ability to have some office on this on in the in the gateway. Everyone could work together to marry all the elements together, and we just haven't gotten to that and, you know, no one is blameless in that. And I really wish that we could get to that point. And it's disappointing that we haven't. Having said that, the, you know, we didn't have the benefit in 2015 of knowing sort of what the final precise plan was, we didn't envision that it would change, I think, in 2015, the way that it did over time. And so we're sort of living in a different, we're dealing with a different baseline now. And so the baseline for me in determining where bonus of AR should be allocated, is who best helps fulfill the vision of the current North Bay Shore precise plant. And I think, as we heard from many folks tonight, you know, one significant element of that. And the vice mayor is absolutely right. Like, we envisioned a lot of environmental, you know, a lot of restoration and a lot of really great environmental features in a lot of the district. But the reality, and yes, that would have been required of anyone, but the reality is there aren't that many players who are able to make that happen. And so while, you know, perhaps they shouldn't get certain extra credit or other things for simply meeting the word of the precise plan, I think there are a lot of other elements that they're providing. And I I think, and I give Google credit for doing a number of things that we ask them to do, the 1st was to provide an, instead of, you know, just providing visions, piecemeal visions of particular developments, as they've done in the past to give us a vision for the entire, for all of the parcels that they had in North Bay Shore. They did that. It's not perfect. It has a lot of, it makes a lot of assumptions in there. But at least we have a sense for what they're thinking in terms of the master plans that they may submit over time, and a way to sort of fulfill the vision. The other is that there, frankly, there wasn't a lot of movement in the past, and as we've heard tonight, with, you know, identifying school sites, figuring out how we make sure that we build an inclusive community out there that meets all the various needs from office to housing, to retail. And those are now, I think, all moving in the right direction. And so what I'm building to here is that I think, I think that it's important, regardless of what we do tonight, that we send a signal that we're, that at least I am very happy with the direction that things are ahead of with Google, Google's proposal, and I want to make sure that we have the ability to support that vision going forward because that really does help fulfill a very large portion of the district vision that we have for the North Bay Shore area. So whether that's through a recalification with specific expectations that we set forth, whether it's reserving that FAR this evening, and ensuring that there's a process to spell out our expectations so that that can ultimately move forward, whether there's a way for us to sort of make certain things ensure that certain things occur alongside that, whether it's working additionally with the school districts, to identify, you know, more accept sites or working with the high school district on in good faith negotiations to get closer to where they think they need to be. I think it's important that we send a signal tonight, that at least from my perspective, things are headed in the right direction, and they're headed in the right direction a little bit more, a little bit faster than they have been in the past. And I'd really like to keep that momentum going in our current economic cycle and ensure that we, you know, begin to fulfill the vision of the plan while we have everyone at the table and willing to work together. So those are my initial comments.

[05:29:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: C member Ramirez? You wanna jump in there? Since nobody's in the queue, I'm gonna start calling on people.

[05:29:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. No problem. Thank you, Mayor. And, uh, adhering rigidly to the parameters you established from the outset, the the first question in my mind was, what are the technical criteria that we use to determine whether a given application is eligible for requalification? That was one of the questions I had asked staff, and I was surprised to learn that we have a great deal of discretion in determining whether an application requalifies. And so I was thinking, what are, what's sort of the desired outcome for me? And in my mind, I think the desired outcome would be to maximize the investment in the community, in the city that we can acquire from the redevelopment of the North Bay Shore area. There's going to be a substantial impact to the community from development of this magnitude. So I think it's reasonable then to not merely mitigate the impacts of that development, but to get much more in return. And to do so with the with the greatest certainty that the outcome is what we want it to be. And the concern I have with mediation is I have very little confidence, unfortunately, that it will result in any progress. And a city imposed master plan in my mind wasn't satisfactory because we end up then with a suboptimal outcome, I think, for both parties. Neither party, each party has told me that they want 100% of what they're asking for. And I don't have any insight into what is what's sort of a reasonable compromise for each party. And I don't feel comfortable dictating the terms of that compromise because it may mean that we risk losing a lot of the upside in community benefits that we could otherwise get through negotiation. And so I'm, the conclusion I've come to is I agree with council member Hicks that we should move forward with Google's proposal and just make clear the conditions under which we would be comfortable moving forward with that. And I think of particular interest is addressing some of the remaining concerns that exist with the school districts. And if there are any other outstanding issues. I think it would be helpful to establish those here. But that would be my preference. Thank you.

[05:32:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[05:32:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So first, I'd like to thank our city staff, the 2 applicants, the stakeholders, community members, and all of you in the audience for your input. It's so important to have you all as part of this process, which has stretched the last 6 years of my time on the environmental planning commission and now on council. It's been a long road, has been mentioned. And second, I like to clearly state that I support the revised North Bay shore precise plan that includes the residential development. I also support the vision of the precise plan overall, which prioritizes, in no particular order, quality of life, sustainability, diversity, health and wellness, and economic prosperity. Third, I've enjoyed meeting with so many of you in the community. I think we all share a common goal, which is to make this the best implementation of the plan for everyone in our city. There's a potential for amenities such as a grocery store, a theater, gym, school site, ecological design, open space, and most importantly, housing. However, as was mentioned, it's unfortunate that both parties have not presented an integrated master plan. So for question number one, I don't feel that either party meets the gateway master plan requirement. But I am interested in a win-win-win for all parties, as was stated in our staff report. This includes the city, its residents, and our community. I would like to incorporate a vision forward that has both Siwas and Google involved. There are good things and elements in both projects. I see potential for housing, the school site and the open space. I don't feel that mediation would be the way to go forward and the option that I see, in my opinion and in my experience, would be the alternative number three, which is the city led effort to develop a gateway master plan. It's my hope that if we were able to do that, that we would be able to move forward with the entirety of the North Bay Shore, um, and that can be, uh, city led input. I understand, and I hear the frustrations on movement in developing the area, and I do want to find ways to work together to, um, to move forward. Um, and so, My, uh, my position is not to uh, hold things up, but for us to all work together.

[05:35:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Because remember McAllister.

[05:35:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So I guess we're doing comments because I was trying to figure out how people were going on then. Rather all over the place, though. You got to explain why you're voting the way you're voting. But we haven't voted. So that's, you know, usually say, I support this, and da, da, so...

[05:35:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Answer the two questions.

[05:35:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I'll get that. You know, these folks are waiting on me to go home, so I think it's cool. Reminds me of May of 2015, when I was mayor, and I was sitting here, and I was dividing up the five parcels, and we made a lot of friends that night, so, uh... Where is Mr.? So, uh... So, a couple of comments, observations, actually. And I guess I'll start with the good. So, you know, Google has been, again, you heard me go after the industry reps to say what Google is doing is unheard of in this area because they are actually building housing on their own site. And I've been advocating that for a while. It just hit me that there. Everybody says there's a housing crisis, but the industry, the companies, they have the power in their hands and they have the resources to mix use. And so hopefully that will continue as we go along. Another good thing about what Google's doing, and this sort of relates what the vice mayor said, is that the 9,852 was a limit. And if anybody who's been in here before and the UX council members know that one thing is said, but when you actually start doing the planning and putting in for the open space, and the numbers will come down. And I am happy to see that when Mike was talking about, well, we need this and this, we put in more open space. They hit a chord with me is that I want a good project. I'm not out there to maximize any particular like housing or this or that. This is where people are going to live. And they don't want to be crammed into an area or the housing isn't correct or the open space. They want to have a place that when we say a complete neighborhood. We are actually getting it. And that's what I appreciate that when Go came back with a revised plan, and they did give up some housing, but we got more park. We got better landscape. We got better visibility. I mean, it was a better project, and that's, to me, is more important. And that's where we should do with every project that comes through Mountain View, is that we should get a great project not only for the people that live there, but for the people that will come and visit it. So I appreciate them taking the little bit of a hit tonight, I heard. But I think they are coming out with a much greater project. Okay. So now we come up to the allocation of the one point, the one. 4. And back then when I did see that, that's the reason I was purposely looking for the shoreline comments because I wanted that sense of energy and the diversity of products that were going to go into that thing because that was the true gateway. And my thoughts haven't changed from then to day. that it is important that we get that place right. And it sort of will make everything flow from there. And a sort of ironic is, at that date, Google was asking for a little bit more, and here we are a few years later, and Google was asking for a little bit more too. And, you know, they have a right to do that. But I think we need to look at, again, what a lot of people are talking about the precise or the master plan. And I've been pushing a master plan so that we can get a big vision of it, and Google's been complying us and been doing a good job of gaming the master plan. But I'm looking at, again, a project that satisfies our vision. Now when, uh, Mike, when I told them to come up with a short answer of penciling out, um, Google owns the land, and there's other reasons to build a certain project other than punselling out. And they keep saying that they want to make complete communities. They want to have a great place for their employees. They want a great place for people to come live, and there are values there that you can't put a dollar amount on because they need to retain their employees. And if they're giving them a great place to live or the community to really like, I think that covers the value. Si West, also on the same hand. They've owned that property for years. And so when they say they need something to pencil out, I'm looking at the land value. And I know if you take the land value based today, this is what you have to do, but I know these gentlemen, they've had these properties for a long time. And so, as they say, they can sharpen that pencil a little bit to bring down something that's a little more favorable. Another thing about SiWest, and again, these are observations. Google learned this the hard way and where's Javier? He worked hard to get. Look, he wakes up back there. Giving us a letter on the day of council, 2 hours before we get into it is not the best way to convey your thoughts. Most of us don't have a chance to read it. And we've been going at it for a while, so maybe you'll, you know, you'll learn from that. Do not send something the day of our meeting. So we're at the dilemma of requalification. So again, I mean, obviously, to me, they do not meet both requalifications request. They should be denied. We got the vision there. So moving large portions of the office space over to one area, you know, that requires something. But again, I know Google wants to be a little more fair. I mean, once, given the consequences of what's happening, they'll, I think, they'll be a little more fair, and Si West, I sure hate to see you walk away from this project, I think there's a huge potential for you to do well here. But I'm, uh, I'm gonna go with the mediation. I rather see that. And when I asked Mike, I keep picking on Mike, but he was this good spokesman and he did a great job for Google, I said, when are you going to get housing? And he said, 2 to 3 years. I mean, so if I'm looking at a 30 day mediation process in here, 60 days, you know, if Siwa says, you know, I don't want it, I think they're not going to make a lot of points with counsel by doing that action, but they are more than within their rights to walk away and say this is what we're going to do with our property. But I'd still like to give them that last opportunity, go through the process where they do speak. and see if they can come out with a great project. So I, so basically to answer the questions is go with, no, do they, yeah, do they, they do not re-qualify? Do I like the idea of the mediation? Because we still have the time. And then option 3 is that if neither one comes through, then mountain he goes through the master plan.

[05:42:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oops. Okay, so, when I think about this, I mostly focus on what I think is best for the city of Mountain View. We need to think about not just short term and what's happening now, but the long term, because as we all know, lots of things change, especially in the technology industry, um, you know, we've heard the history of North Bay Shore tonight. And, you know, the number of companies that were mentioned that are no longer there is a long list. So, I'm definitely focused on what's best for Mountain View, and for me, that means we start with development of the gateway, that's the centerpiece of the North Bay Shore area. It's when we're really counting on to be the center of activity, the most intense, the most interesting and engaging. And I think a lot of what the folks from Siwest have proposed meets that criteria. So, while I think there's a lot of good things about the proposal from Google, the revised plan. Um, There are things that I feel like still need quite a bit of work. I was kind of dismayed at how this whole process worked too, because I know when I saw an email that said, you know, we're announcing the shared vision. And I was thinking, well, wait, whose shared vision is that? I think the shared vision is the precise plan? We spent years on that. We got a lot of community input. And I feel like that's the vision we're shooting for. That's the shared vision. So, um, what I would like to do is, I'd say neither one qualifies, and I would say it should be a city led process because I hear that I just don't think mediation is going to work. Um, but I don't think we're starting from scratch because I think there's a lot of great things about the sidewest proposal that I would like to see in that area. And I would, um, let's see, there was one comment about maybe we need to have more focus on the environment in the gateway area. And I think that's true, but it's never going to be the same as right along like the creeks. So, Well, I think we've raised the bar overall for the North Bay Shore area in terms of environmental protections and, you know, clean energy and recycled water and all these other things, I don't think we can have the same expectation for the gateway area as we do, say, the shorebird area. But I will say I do like the elements of the Google proposal that, um, talk about not only restoration of the environment, but expansion of the natural environment, that's really important to me. So, I would say we do the city led, and that's it for tonight. So I see a vice mayor, I'll be Koga in the queue.

[05:46:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, so just to, I'm sorry to belong this, but, um, I just wanted to make a comment about housing, again, um, in my mind, I guess I just never, there's some talk about tying it to office. And, um, you know, I've said this before. I've been through an entire economic cycle. And there was a time back in 2005 or so when residential was actually more valuable than office. And so I really don't want to make those types of, you know, ties or anything. I think we have to be flexible with the economic conditions of this time. And my concern with this is that we would set a precedence. Um, you know, the reality with all of this and I shared it with many folks is that these are all, this is new. It's an experiment, these numbers, you know, the 4 to one ratio. These are all just made up, right? There's no scientific data backing any of this. And my concern is more about what kind of precedents will be set. Are we going to then see every single project coming in saying, well, we're building housing, so we expect office? And that was really not the intention. It was that, yes, we are building office that creates a need for more housing, so we need our companies to, you know, to come up and step up and help us build the housing. Um, you know, Facebook just gave $500 million. Microsoft did the same. I guess, like, for me, my assumption, my, you know, expectation with this was that, um, you know, the companies that we have, um, they would, and, you know, I appreciate Counselor McAllister asking, as, you know, the leadership group and Bay Area Council, what are their companies doing in terms of housing, because it should be an expectation that they build the housing, because one, frankly, most of it is for their employees, too, it's because it's what, you know, the community needs and it's a part of being them being a good corporate citizen. So it shouldn't be a trade-off. And I guess that's my biggest, you know, problem with this is everything is a trade-off. If we give you this, you'll get, you know, we need, we want this. And it's not, that's not what this is supposed to be about. So in light of that, you know, I just want to put that out there too, that this is, you know, it's about being a part of our community and there is an expectation by the community that, you know, our corporations help and invest in our challenges like transportation and housing. And with that, I wanted to actually make emotions. So, I would like to, let's see, what do I have to read? Oh, thank you. So, I would like to make a motion to... adopt a resolution, denying both of the North Bay Shore precise plan, bonus, recalification requests from Siwest and Google to be read entitled, Only further reading, waived, and direct staff to, uh, initiate a city led gateway master plan process, using, um, the Siwest. And if, you know, if interested, the Google proposals for the gateway site, as a basis for that master planning process.

[05:49:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have a motion by the vice mayor, and I seconded it. Council member Ramirez, you're in the queue.

[05:49:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have some disorganized thoughts, so I'll do my best to sort of express this coherently. I think one of the, in my mind, one of the bedrock principles in the precise plan is the competitive allocation of the bonus FAR. It's sort of derided as the beauty pageant. The idea that there were multiple applications, um, a lot more demand for bonus FAR than we can, uh, than we can allocate. And so the idea is to try and get the best possible project on a competitive basis. And I guess so I struggle with this motion for a couple of reasons. In my mind, there's no, just as there's no guarantee that mediation will succeed. I don't have a lot of confidence that a city initiated master plan will enjoy the kind of success that I think we all hope it would. We have 2 property owners with fundamentally different needs and sort of I hate to use the metaphor, but splitting the baby. I don't think will necessarily yield, the best outcome for anybody, could lead, you know, a less desirable outcome, I think, for all parties. And the other component of this is the, I don't have the same assurance that we will achieve some of the other objectives in the precise plans if we if we allocate the bonus FAR in a way that neither party is really is really interested in utilizing in the way that we're sort of imposing on them. You know, the leverage that we have in negotiating is when there's an opportunity for one applicant or for, you know, one master developer to get what they want. And there's the interplay between the level of community benefit that we can reasonably expect to extract from that. And Google is, I think, realistically the only entity that could help us achieve our transportation goals, our habitat restoration and expansion goals. Um, you know, the SiWest proposal may potentially include some ownership, but right now, it doesn't include any ownership housing. I'm not seeing an outcome where we can get the level of community benefits that Google currently is proposing. So that's I'm probably not going to support the motion, but I just wanted to sort of express why. Thank you.

[05:52:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Customer Clark.

[05:52:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just a couple questions. Vice mayor, does the motion include the mediation process or no, just moving straight to the master plan process?

[05:52:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I wanted to, frankly, move straight to, um, city lead.

[05:52:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Understood. what I thought.

[05:52:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: that, um, you know, one party has declined it. Yeah. I just think it's, you know, folks have been talking about time, so I think we just need to kind of take it back and move it forward. And if I can, you know, we've actually done precise plans, which are bigger, bigger, you know, concepts than master plans, but frankly, we set the parameters, and folks, you know, developers come in, and they meet it or they don't. But we've been pretty successful. So I would say that I think we could be quite successful with this. And we do take input from, you know, the developers and the different parties when we do this. It's not just gonna be what the city staff decides. So I think that, frankly, we've been the most successful in, you know, putting precise plans together for all these areas and the general plan updates. So, I, at this point in time, I think we are the ones who can, you know, move forward into our, um, into the future the most expediently.

[05:53:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:53:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, I wasn't. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. The answer to that question. So, you know, the staff had identified. Have we gone with the mediation option or mediation program? There was a pretty clear sort of timeline associated with it, and then, you know, staff would return to us at the end of that to sort of determine how we proceed. So if we proceed with the city led master plan process, which I'm not, um, I'm not necessarily opposed to in and of itself, as long as we sort of use the baselines are both sort of what both parties had sort of put together because ultimately I'm guessing those are the 2 parties who would probably need to work together. to meet any sort of master plan that we put together. My question is for staff of, you know, if there is a desire tonight to, um, I think it would be, um, you know, I respect the comments, but I think I think it's also, it's not just important that we put together a really, really great precise plan. It's also good. It's also important that we utilize opportunities to actually implement it as opposed to just let it sit on a shelf until every perfect thing is met. And so I guess what I'm getting at tonight is, I want to make sure that, you know, with the mediation process, there was some clear sort of end goal, whether it worked or not. There were next steps. And so what I want to make sure of is that, you know, we can initiate a gate wide master plan process, but I also would like to, you know, there are a lot of elements that I'm eager to proceed with transportation improvements, starting to getting housing built where we can and sort of looking at what a Shorebird master plan might look like. And so I guess I'm curious from staff if, you know, do we do another, do we do we proceed with some sort of gatekeeper process? Do we have a bonus FAR allocation process or what do? And I know that's ultimately up to us, But what would you recommend that we do to have next steps as opposed to just spending a bunch of time planning a master plan for a gateway?

[05:55:58] City Staff: Let me take a stab at that and Wayne and Martin can chime in. I mean, I think you've raised some very different things in that statement. If the next, if the council direction at 1150 is a city initiated master plan, Frank, what I would suggest as we come back to you with a work plan and a timeline and a budget, because there are several different ways a master clan plan can be done, including the amount of detail we would go into. And so we all need to be on the same page for that going forward. You made a reference to a bonus FAR. Frankly, my assessment, that's a totally different path. That's a possible path to say, neither re qualify. or opening the floodgates. Here's one.4 Everybody who wants to give us your proposals, but that's not a master plan. That's just another bonus FAR. So just want to make sure you're clear on what path you want to go forward.

[05:56:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: I guess it helps inform my vote as to whether, you know, if we do a city led gateway master plan process, and that precludes us from, you know, looking at a formal submission that, um, from, you know, considering other formal submissions that might, you know, implement the remainder of the precise plan, that I'm less interested in it than if there is some other mechanism by which we can continue implementing the North Bay Shore precise plan rather than holding it hostage to a gateway master plan process.

[05:57:29] City Staff: Well, there's nothing that prohibits, and again, correct me if I'm wrong. There's nothing that prohibits an applicant or a property owner from submitting a specific proposal or a master plan. The precise plan calls from master plans in all three complete neighborhoods. So if somebody wants to submit a master plan for Shorebird or for pair, they can certainly do that today. I think the reality is this oil, this all boils down. This is where the late hour is going to lead to my bluntness. This all boils down to the office allocation. Right. And so nobody is going to submit anything until they know how much office is available, and you're not going to know how much office is available until you decide how much you're allocating to the gateway master plan area. So we, in my opinion, you'd have to go through our master plan process and say, at the end of the day, it's X office that's going to be dedicated to those 24, 30 acres, which by definition means there's X office remaining for the remainder of North Bayshore. I would be very surprised that anybody would submit anything prior to that.

[05:58:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Yeah, and that's ultimately my concern is that I just, I don't want to spend a year, um, year and a half doing our own master plan process to determine what available FAR is still available for the rest of it. The gateway is really important to me. It is not so important that the rest of the district can't, um, can't develop and that we can't proceed with negotiations with the school districts and look at prefunding to the tune of 70 plus $1000000 for infrastructure improvements. I'm just not willing to miss this economic cycle, frankly, and wait until the next one because there really aren't a lot of opportunities to bring the precise plan that we put in place to fruition. And I think we risk missing that opportunity by doing this, but those are my comment.

[05:59:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Get some of my McAllister.

[05:59:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So Chris, going back to what I'm trying to... I think if we gave him 30 days. All I'm asking for my other council members, because the motion said, Let's go right into it. I think if we can get 30 days of mediation, and just, if SiWest says, We're done tonight, and I don't want to put them on the spot tonight, and see if they're willing to do it, I, like, I don't appreciate that type of tactics. So give them 30 days, and if the city manager goes... I'm going with...

[05:59:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: turn your mic off for a moment. I just want to clarify what you mean by the 30 days, what...

[06:00:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, whatever. Okay, so if we go into mediation. I'm saying 30 days or 60, whatever. I mean, we've got still three years to go, to Chris's point, you know, I don't want to see this way down the thing. I'd like to see... I mean, if you could counsel after, I mean, I like to see the mediation take place, give it some time. No, I mean, not a lot of time put a constraint on it. If the city staff talks to Si West tomorrow, or give them a day to think about it, and they say, no, we're not going to do it, then we can go immediate into our master plan, but I like to give them the opportunity after what they've heard tonight, and our concerns, and what's on the table, and what they may or may not lose, or gain, they give them the opportunity to say, okay, you know, do we really just want to be doing one project and leaving stuff. So I'm asking the motion error to give us 2 weeks to see, or I think that's a little, but if staff could talk to them and just ask them, I'm not going to ask them tonight because I don't want to do that. That's the point. But staff will talk to them, and if they get an answer this week, then we move forward to the other part. If not, we go into the mediation. So the motioner, that's what I'm asking.

[06:01:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So my understanding was the one month was to give them up to a month to respond. So I don't really want to wait. I would, you know, maybe give 2 weeks for a response back?

[06:01:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[06:01:31] Unknown Speaker: What I was thinking of one month to get a package together. to get a mediation package together. I don't know if that...

[06:01:37] Unknown Speaker: No, no, they would submit a package. I'm thinking within one month, the 2 of them get together and submit a package. I don't think that's realistic. What do you think?

[06:01:46] Unknown Speaker: Well, I thought the proposal was, you give them either a month or two weeks to say, okay, we'll mediate.

[06:01:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, I mean, okay, I was gonna give him less time, but...

[06:01:57] City Staff: I could just clarify what's in the staff report, and you can change it however you want, but what we envisioned, if the parties agreed to mediation, we envisioned that being a five to six month process. This is not an easy process. given the complexity of the issues. But we said, you know, if they say no, for now, let's give them a month to reconsider, if they know that neither one of them is getting what they're asking for, essentially, tonight, maybe they'll change their mind, that you could make that 30 days, 14 days, 7 days, whatever you want. But it's not realistic to expect the mediation would be done or that there would be an agreement.

[06:02:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Miracles happen. Come on, you know?

[06:02:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I would be willing to... Got to be optimistic in this job. So okay. So I'd be willing to include, let's say, 2 weeks to make a decision.

[06:02:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's fair. And based on that, if there is no, then I can sports, then we will move forward. I think that's fair.

[06:02:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[06:03:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I've gotten a little more clarity, but actually, Margaret, I was going to ask you, I wasn't completely clear on what you were moving. Because, well, maybe you can just state it again, but the particular part I wasn't clear on was you kind of, maybe you could restate the whole thing. But you kind of tacked on the end and then maybe Google could, and I wasn't quite clear what that was.

[06:03:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, my emotion was to adopt the resolution denying both of the, um, FAR reallocation requests from Siwest and Google. Um, and then, but give both parties, I'm going to include the amendment, um, up to two weeks, to respond to whether they would be interested in mediation, a mediation process. And if they, either, or both decline, we would move into initiating a city led gateway master plan process.

[06:04:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that clarifies it.

[06:04:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Commé?

[06:04:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, um, so, I wanted to state that if that's the new revised motion, um, is something that I'm comfortable and supporting, but I, I do want to say that I'm, that I can understand if this can feel frustrating, but I hope from, at least, my perspective is the hope that the two parties can move forward. That is my ultimate goal. Um, and I, there are many elements to both projects that were put forward tonight that I think would really, um, be great to see implemented, but the cohesivity, I think, is really important. And I think, having started this meeting at 5 o'clock, a lot of what we've heard on a variety of topics is maintaining diversity, working together, finding solutions, and I feel that that is why I'm supporting this motion.

[06:05:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: My spare, okay, coga.

[06:05:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, I forgot to include in, when I restated the motion, that the basis for the master plan, the city led master plan, would be the concepts in Si West, and if Google is interested and moving forward with their part of the gateway, their concepts, they submitted those concepts as the basis for the master planning.

[06:05:49] City Manager Dan Rich: Could you tell me what those concepts are?

[06:05:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, you know, I mean, as I stated, I think the theater, and Villa Sport, read the restaurants, um, offices definitely a necessary component, and then housing. I think, you know, there is interest, hotel, open space.

[06:06:09] City Manager Dan Rich: Oh, okay. So, you know, I think it's just an issue of like the numbers, right? How much office. So the variety, but not necessarily the housing.

[06:06:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think there's an interest in increasing the number of units there. So that's where we'll have to do the master planning and then negotiating and the, you know, traffic studies and so forth. But at least the concepts are there and it's just trying to...

[06:06:35] City Manager Dan Rich: Back to the original precise plan. So if I could ask for some clarity on that. I mean, the precise plan is pretty clear on what the vision for the gateway is as a high intensity, high density, mixes of uses, office residential entertainment, all those things are in the precise plan. So I want to be a little clear what you mean by using SiWest as a starting point, because, frankly, SiWest as 880 or whatever, 1000 of office. If that's the starting point, then essentially what you're doing is requalifying Si West. If you're simply saying you want a master plan based on kind of those uses and the numbers are to be determined, that's different. So I just want to be clear on that.

[06:07:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, you know, we did this in what the San Antonio Shopping Center. We asked Merlone Geyer, they had their project. But, you know, we asked them to give us at least a conceptual master plan of the entire property that included, you know, up to Walmart and so forth. And they did come back with that. So it's not like we haven't done this before we have. And that's my concept of, you know, master planning. If it's, you know, the rest of it, then that's fine. It would be great if both parties participated, but I think at the end of the day, you know, the city can decide what, you know, what streets do we need? What connections do we need? Um, you know, where is the appropriate location for, um, open space, um, you know, office allocation is, I mean, I, you know, was one. 4 really feasible, is 850 feasible, really feasible. I mean, those are the determinations that I think we have to make.

[06:08:21] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, as I said, I mean, my recommendation would be that we come back to you with a work plan, because a master plan can look a lot of different ways. It can be very conceptual of, you know, these are the total amounts that we want there. These are the things we want there, and it can be very prescriptive of this building, of this size, and this height goes on this lot, which is a very different outcome, and I think we need to be really thoughtful and careful before we make that decision, and I don't think now is the time to do that.

[06:08:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, if you could come back with that. That would be ideal.

[06:08:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: C remember Hicks.

[06:09:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, well, I'm back to where I was before. Dan's question was exactly mine, that when you say it's on the basis of Psi West plan, whether you mean the numbers, the whole thing, everything that they've proposed, and so that it is, like Dan said, just requalifying their portion of it, that's the part I'm still unclear on. Is that what you meant?

[06:09:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, but if Google wants to participate, I, you know, would be very much, well, I would welcome that. So I don't want to make that determination. That's the 4 week, 14 days that we're including in here, I would say. And then let's see where we end up, and then let's have staff come back with proposals on how to move forward with a master plan.

[06:09:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so if it's that locked in, it's probably not something I would be supporting.

[06:09:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got some of McAllister.

[06:10:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you threw me for a loop there. Um...

[06:10:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: What do you want, John?

[06:10:07] Councilmember John McAlister: I think the precise plan. I mean, if you're saying $800,000, that's not the precise plan, and... I hate to give credit to the city manager, but... But, yeah, let's go, the precise plant gives everything that you ask for, and then we, then, will be, if they don't figure it out, then we will allocate what we want, but I don't want to be having a starting point that it's 800,000 already to somebody, because that may not be the best project that we want to do. So I just, instead of saying...

[06:10:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I don't think we actually can determine that right now, because from what I'm hearing from staff is that, you know, I mean, I, like, we don't even know if the original gatekeeper, the bonus far that you guys allocated was feasible.

[06:10:53] Councilmember John McAlister: But we're not talking about that. We're just talking about precise plan.

[06:10:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: that even the 850 or 85? I don't know at this time if that's doable on this property or not. So we need to figure all that out.

[06:11:06] City Manager Dan Rich: I think one of the goals of the master plan, frankly, and again, we need to come back to you with some time to think about it and to map it out, but a master plan should do some analysis of what is feasible. What is the capacity for office there? What is the capacity for residential there? What is the capacity for retail? You know, what's this portable economically? What's supportable TDM wise? And so there needs to be that kind of analysis before we say the office is x or y. So, you know, I think it's, let us come back with some options. Would you allow them and take off your numbers?

[06:11:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm fine. take off the numbers, because honestly, I don't know what the numbers are.

[06:11:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, no, I don't either, but that's, but you were putting some, but I'll support that now. Yeah.

[06:11:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so... Did you have one more comment or can we just vote?

[06:12:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just wanted to, once again, clarify the motion. So what is on the table is mediation, 2 weeks, if see what both parties say, if not, initiate, alternative number three, which is a city led effort, for a master plan, with budget, work plan, and budget to come back. That's it. And the opening statement of denying both of them as a recalification.

[06:12:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, okay. And that is now what would be the motion. Thank you. Okay, so let's phone on that.

[06:12:45] Unknown Speaker: And then I'm just the mediation process. If they agree to intermediation, you're okay with, I mean, things during mediation could shift all the way around, like all the office could end up or half of it could end up somewhere and all that. And then if mediation fails, they say no, or it doesn't work out, and we want to move to the master plan process, you would come back to us with a work plan and ask us whether we want to proceed with that work plan or how we want to figure out what's in the work plan at that time.

[06:13:13] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, we'll report back to you in 2 weeks, whether or not there's or whenever there's agreement or not agreement on mediation, if there is agreement on mediation, we will launch that process, we probably need a budget for that process, but we'll cross that for age in 2 weeks, I guess. But if they do not agree to mediation, we'll come back to you with a work plan for what a master plan process would look like.

[06:13:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. We're ready. Council member Ramirez, I'm just waiting for your vote. So that's, uh, six, um... Yes, and Council member Ramirez, no.

[06:14:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just want to make one comment about this. So cancel member Clark. I heard your comment about not wanting everything to sort of come to a halt. And that's certainly not is not my intention. I feel like we can continue to talk about the other areas. And actually, I would like to talk about the shoreboard area. And also the comment about maybe moving some of the density toward, more toward the middle of or the core. I think you use that term. Um, I know I didn't provide all my input tonight on the shoreboard area because I felt like that wasn't one of the questions. So, um, you know, happy to meet with Google to share that or is it something that everybody needs to do? And so we talk about it at a, like a study session or something. comments on that.

[06:15:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We could do that when they bring back the... I think we could do that if either when they bring back the work plan, if mediation fails or we could schedule a separate thing. I'm not sure we have to, like, agendize it tonight. But I agree with you. I want to like talk about that at some point. I just don't know what the right time is. Can we leave it up to the city manager to figure out the best way to do that?

[06:15:36] City Manager Dan Rich: I think we'd have to have some dialogue with Google, because it's really up to them whether or not they want to proceed with Shorebird independently, whether they want to do it in the context. I mean, they provided a framework for the entire North Bay, or if it's getting chopped into different pieces, they're going to have, you know, if they're not moving forward with it, or it's not a project. anyway, we just need to have some dialogue.

[06:15:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So maybe it's actually more than Shorebird, because if you move stuff to the core, it is including then the Joaquin neighborhood. So I guess it's everything in the framework plan except for the gateway property.

[06:16:12] City Manager Dan Rich: That's true. Terminator.

[06:16:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. So we are done with item. 7.one. We have a couple more things to go through. We have item eight, which is council, staff, and committee reports, and we have council member McAllister.

[06:16:40] Councilmember John McAlister: I don't think everybody would like to hear what I said.

[06:16:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay, yeah, way to, you can wait. Well, I think we... Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate... Blame this to work. So... I know.

[06:17:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. Um... I know we were supposed to bring up these little things, but... I'm proud. So I just got reelected to the SR 85 board chair. So that's for two more years. Yeah, I got to point it, yeah, go again, we're going ahead. It's interesting, though, pretty much the whole board is turned out in 2020, so it's gonna be... Everybody's here to get something done, but we're moving forward with that. I got appointed the vice chair of the CM congestion management programs and projects, so that was interesting. And this is for Dan. So on Saturday, no, we're not supposed to go into public, but I'll just, it was sort of cool, is that I did a Ted Social. It's a knockoff of the TED program by the same programs, and so I was, and the topic was corporate social responsibility, and they had the chairman of the board of juniper. He was there. Yeah. They had the former ambassador, a former United States ambassador. I forgot which country. They had a, so he was doing education. The other one was doing corporate. They had somebody from Norway there. And I was talking about local government sort of thing. So that was a very interesting, It was an hour and a half. And it was interesting to go through that and listen to, and there was an audience of people from different backgrounds. And so that was sort of cool. I think I represented Mountain View pretty good.

[06:18:47] Unknown Speaker: I'm sure you did.

[06:18:48] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm sure I did. So that's it.

[06:18:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you going to Norway? Anyone else? So I have a couple things. I attended the VTA policy advisory council meeting, where we discussed the changes to the bus routes, and they will come back to us with more analysis on that. And then... I also attended the state of the Valley conference with some others here since that city bought a table with that. We should mention it. And I also attended the city's association board meeting, and we and the vice mayor is on the executive board of the city's association, and I'm sure she'll talk about casa, but the board also talked about it. And we are looking to bring this back. I guess you can talk about that. And that's it for me. Bye, Samara Abbe Koga.

[06:19:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you for the segue. So, I was a part of the legislative action committee for the cities association. We have, thanks to the city managers. I feel like I've said this before, but we together have drafted a position paper on housing for the city's association. I think it's been sent out to everybody, the draft. We discussed it at our meetings, took input in. We decided to then send it back out to all council members. We will be agendizing the draft for our March 5th meeting at the time. I would entertain comments from our council. And then I'm leading the lax. So I've been charged to do one more revision. in hopes that we can adopt a vinyl version at our next meeting on March 14th. So please look for that. If you have any questions, happy to answer. So that was that for, and I just wanted to mention, we also attended Silicon Valley Leadership Group, local government day. The mayor and I participated in the round table with the members council members from Palo Alto and member companies, and we talked about our priorities, transportation, housing, and environmental sustainability. Um, I spoke with some avid students, thanks to the chamber. Um, there's...

[06:21:32] Unknown Speaker: Oh, is that? So neither one of those. Okay, you just mentioned.

[06:21:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay. I just saw the leadership group when I saw the city manager's report, so I thought I should report that out. Sorry.

[06:21:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else? Okay, do we have a closed session report?

[06:21:52] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: We do not have a close session report this evening.

[06:21:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Thursday, February 28th, 2019 at 5:15 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street. tomorrow.

• ← Previous
• Next →