April 2, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Technical difficulty here. My microphone won't turn on. So, I'm gonna borrow the vice mayor's. Okay, well, call this meeting to order, and we will start with the deputy city clerk announcing attendance.

[00:00:29] Deputy City Clerk: All council members are present, except for Council member Clark. And he sent me a message saying he would be here momentarily.

[00:00:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, our first item on the agenda is the Terabella visioning and guiding principles plan, land use alternatives, and we have as our centers tonight, senior planner, Diana Pancholi, and principal planner, Martin Al Kaier.

[00:00:56] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. The Adam in front of you tonight is another study session on the ongoing discussion about Terabella visioning plan area and the guiding principles plan. And tonight's meeting is gonna focus on key questions regarding land use alternatives and the future of the vision plan area after the vision plan is adopted. So starting, again, my name is Diana Pancholi, senior planner with our planning division, and, um, a little bit of background about the project so far, for those who have just, um, joined us. The, um, city's 2030 journal plan was adopted back in 2012, and Terabella area, as shown on the slide here, was not recognized as a change area. over the period of time. You know, past several years, we have received a lot of gatekeeper requests, interest, based on the market demand that has been going on for a few years now. And hence council directed staff to look into Terabella visioning area, prepare a vision plan to see what the community really wants to see in the area, what can we do? How is this change gonna look like if we decide to go for that? So a little bit about the area itself. It is 112 acre project site, which is bounded by 101 to the north and Middlefield Road to the south, and it has Terabella Avenue going in the middle. So, since vision plan process is not the usual process we see, we have seen a lot of precise plan processes, a little bit about that. We started the visioning process. You know, it will go through our decision makers. We have been to planning commission in city council. And at the end of the vision plan process, we can adopt the vision plan, which is going to be a guiding document. Again it's not codified. It is just a guiding document, which guides us to some of the possibilities in the area. Or city council can decide to do a precise plan because a vision plan is the step one for, you know, preparing a precise plan. And that might require additional time and staffing resources. We began this process back in April 2018, and so far, we have done 3 community workshops. And we have been to our decision makers with some of the draft land use alternatives. We went to city council back in November 2018 and we received some direction based on that where following up with some further revisions to the land use alternatives. And the plan is we will be able to see some tentative vision plan adoption in summer 2019. So the process so far, we have presented the draft guiding principles to the city council during our last council meeting, which was supported by council, we also talked about some of the policy issues such as, you know, requiring TDM measures, neighborhood transition strategies, community benefit strategy, parking, et cetera. And that was also supported by council. Yeah, we, based on the council direction at the November 2018 meeting, we did some additional community outreach meeting, especially for the Northwest section of the Turabala Vision plan area, and we also revise land use alternatives based on the council direction. So at the January community meeting, number three, we had 10 people attended the meeting. It was a very focused group meeting for Northwestern neighborhood, basically focusing on some of the transition strategies and what the land use alternatives are, we receive concerns or high intensity development in the area for Torah building heights in the area as well. There were concerns regarding traffic and parking as well, which has been elaborated in the staff report. In the past, we went to planning commission, which revised the land use alternative, and at the last council meeting, council supported that land use alternative with some minor revisions to it. And that is represented here, which is the land use alternative number five. Some specific changes that the council directed staff to do, to see the land use alternatives here, surrounded around the light industrial uses near San Rafael Avenue in the highway, increasing mixed use along Shoreline Boulevard to the west of Shoreline Boulevard, below Terabella Avenue, creating transition strategies towards the northwestern residential next to the single-family residential area to the west of Shoreline Boulevard and looking at some of the office users over here as well. The another thing that was discussed at last council direction was to shift the, uh, conceptually propose pedestrian bike path more closer to the, um, southern, uh, the certain boundary of the vision plan area. At the last council meeting, council also directed staff to look into another vision, land use alternative with reduced intensity of residential, and that can be seen over here as we look at the northwestern side to the north of Terabella Avenue and residential along middlefield road as well. That shows the lower intensity of residential. These charts are included in the staff report as well. This gives us a brief idea of what the residential housing units might look like, what is the land use distribution, in terms of residential, office, light industrial, et cetera. We received some of the questions regarding the church uses and staff just wanted to clarify that church use is a conditionally approved or use under residential uses and the existing church to the northern northeastern side of the vision plan area will remain there. It doesn't become non-conforming because they have received a conditional use permit already. Again, these are some land use option comparisons in terms of number of residents, some industry standard assumptions about number of employees per square foot, and how it actually changes between console option 5 and option six. We also did an EPC meeting in February 2019. It was a study session to review these revised land uses. At this meeting, we did not get any clear consensus on any preferred land use alternative. It's been it has been described in the staff report. Some of the clear topics on which we received consensus were residential emphasis for mixed use areas in the plan and transition areas with sensitive transition to single-family residential neighborhoods. And the topics where we receive some mixed consensus is, of course, highlighted in the staff report. It is basically surrounding the lower intensity development in the northwestern side of the Tabala vision plan area, exploring two-story office use along the northwestern side of Tabala as well. creating resident, low intensity residential uses south of Terabella Avenue and west of shore and west of shoreline Boulevard, and creating additional um, lower intensity residential towards the uh, southern uh, boundary line of the plan area. Since we received a lot of comments and concerns regarding the transition strategies. We found that, you know, we would like to remind APC and council and community members that staff talked about some of the transition strategies in our previous study sessions and meetings. Some of them are listed here, such as setbacks, stepbacks using the 45 degree daylight plane orientation of the windows and limiting the openings and stuff. These are some of the pictures of our current developments, Madeira in downtown, and 801 Castro near Castro and El Camino, showing how we have used some of these strategies in our existing projects. Tonight, we have 3 questions for council, and the 1st 2 are, which land use vision alternatives does the city council prefer for Terabella, and are there any other particular policy areas or direction that council would like to plan to emphasize or address? The last section of our presentation tonight is regarding the future of this vision plan and maybe a little bit about the precise plan. So the vision plan is basically intended to see what is our community's vision for this area, since we have not identified it as a change area. What kind of change we would like to see? It is going to be a guiding document. It is not a precise plan like we have seen for El Camino Real or East Wisman or North Bay Shore. It is not as defined in terms of the development standards, policy directions to the minute details. We have not done any sequel review as part of the vision plan process. And if we just, if the council decides to go for preparing a Terabella vision, uh, precise plan after the vision plan adoption, these are the steps that we will be taking. We will be developing detailed development standards. We'll be doing detailed technical analysis, including traffic, utility analysis, EIR reviews. This will certainly require additional time, and staff has prepared an estimate of what amount of time might be required for that. And the other option is just to have a vision plan adoption and then we will be reviewing projects on a case-by-case basis. The staff report has describes some pros and cons of each of the options. And the pros for having turbo vision plan adoption and reviewing gatekeepers with it will be basically, you know, fast review of the projects, but at the same time, it will require immense amount of case by case negotiations on every aspect of the project, whether it's development standards, whether it is some policy direction on TDM, community benefit, um, location of park or anything of that sort. This does create inefficient process because it doesn't give the developers a very clear indication of what the city's position will be in terms of all these different aspects of the project review. Staff has provided an alternative in the staff report where an alternative can be to do a precise plan. If council wants to do that and review the gatekeeper projects, once the draft precise plan, the public draft of the precise plan is out, which kind of saves some time while the precise plan is being prepared and we can review the projects as well. So the 3rd question for city council tonight is if you wish to add creating a new turbello vision plan, sorry, precise plan as a priority project for fiscal year 1920 as the next step after we do the vision plan adoption. And that concludes staff presentation, staff present here tonight with our consultant, uh, Eric from Ramian associates. If you have any questions for us. Thank you.

[00:13:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session. We will open it up for public input next, and then we'll come back to the council for questions and input to staff. Can I see a show of hands? How many folks want to provide us with input tonight? Ooh, that's quite a few. He doesn't. So, if we'll give you each 2 minutes to provide us with input. And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card and hand it to our deputy city clerk, either before or after you speak, that would be great. And why don't you have me line up, and then the first person, come on up to the microphone.

[00:14:16] Greg Eudangst: This is weird. It doesn't come out any further. Hi, this is Greg Eudangst. I'm speaking tonight as a representative of Balanced Mountain View. This Terabella Area represents a significant opportunity to add to Mountain View's housing stock relatively quickly, without adding office space or removing naturally affordable apartments. In a way that reduces vehicle miles, travel, and thus greenhouse gas emissions. Property owners, activists, and hopefully the city agree on this. Balanced Mountain View supports the general directions summarized in the study session memo, but we ask the following. The city should maximize the number of housing units to build by planning for 740 residential buildings west of Shoreline, particularly along Middlefield Road. Housing should be built east of Shoreline, but not in such a way to overwhelm the existing Sterling Estates neighborhood. Light industrial uses, such as Fabmo and public storage, should be preserved or enhanced. Since the areas within walking, just walking and biking distance, of tens of thousands of mountain view jobs, the bicycle pedestrian connection to North Bajore should be completed soon, and the city should contact Caltran, to adopt a potential tunnel to the Stevens Creek Trail from San Leandro Street. The entire area should be planned as a transit oriented development, with land near shoreline and middlefield, reserved as a transit station. Glan for retail should be required on major thoroughfares. The Mountain View Wisbon School District should be given the opportunity to add adjacent acreage to the Critton Middle School campus. And if the city decides to create a precise plan for the area, property owner should be given the opportunity to pursue simultaneous eight people projects. Thank you for your consideration.

[00:16:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:16:22] Katik Hamangar: Good evening, Mayor Matachek, and council members, Katik Hamangar, with Summer Hill Housing Group. Happy to be here. We've been following the process along, and I have a couple slides to also show you, but basically, Summerhill supports the vision you have for the Terra Belle area. We think it's a great area for housing, but we request the ability to build residential mixed use on a portion of the site that we control near the recology center, which I've highlighted here with the green oval. So in October, the EPC recommended that this area be designated for residential, as you see here. However, at the council hearing, um, in November, there was discussion about making that little leg in that green circle into light industrial instead. And tonight, we'd like to ask you to consider allowing mixed use in that zone, therefore allowing ground floor commercial with residential above it. If you can go to the next slide, please. Thank you. So Summerhill currently controls 4 acres, and I've highlighted those areas in green, the parcels that we control. And I just wanted to show you the light blue line at the bottom is the boundary for the visioning document. So to the south, obviously, we have a very traditional single family residential neighborhood on San Pablo. Uh, just to the north of those homes. We don't control those parcels, but your plan is recommending 2 story residential. We think that's appropriate to provide that transition for those neighbors. Further north, you see a zone of 3 story residential, which we also support. And then further to the north, those parcels I've outlined in yellow. Alternative 5 calls for 2 story light industrial in that area. And we'd like to ask your consideration to be able to build, as I mentioned, ground floor, commercial or office, with 4 stories of residential above it. Thank you.

[00:18:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Next place.

[00:18:33] Charles Hartzog: I'm Charles Hartzog, and we're at 973, Linda Vista Avenue. Thank you, staff, for your time with presenting and preparing the reports here. We're generally in favor of alternate number five, with the exception that we're generally against the paths going through the middle of blocks, any type of paths or trails like that. So, thank you, and we like alternate number five.

[00:19:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:19:07] David Meyer: Thank you, Madam Mayor Vice Mayor, David Meyer, Silicon Valley at home. Also, Mountain Dew resident. Wanted to bank staff, and the council on the EPC for conducting this process, and for helping shape the options there before you tonight. We believe Terabella is an excellent opportunity to plan for housing for people with all incomes and abilities. Similar areas that could build mixed use, mixed income, complete neighborhoods, with significant residential development, without displacing existing residents, are rare in Mountain View, in Santa Clara County in general. For this reason that we support EPC Alternative 4, The alternative 5 is also very similar. We think that they represent a balance between preserving local, small businesses, adding significant housing and affordable housing options while respecting existing community concerns. I think that these alternatives, special alternative 4, offers a way forward on addressing jobs, housing balance issues in Mountain View as well. We also support, what I believe was the EPC recommendation, that affordable housing goals be integrated into any greater community benefits strategy, if the council decides to move forward with a specific plan process, saying a target of 20% affordability overall as part of any specific plan process would bring the area in line with the requirements of North Bay Shore precise plan, as well as the East Westman precise plan. So, thank you again. We hope the council will support housing rich vision. that embraces the opportunity for mixed use mixed income development.

[00:20:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:20:44] Jill Benitez: Good afternoon. My name is Jill Benitez. I'm with the Barkadero Realty Services, and I represent the owner of, uh, 909 San Rafael. It's a limited liability company, ECI for San Rafael LLC. We are a commercial property. We've invested a lot of time and care and money in turning over what was, you know, an older, underutilized commercial property, single story building, to something that's new and vibrant, and has attracted some interest of commercial tenants. It is on the edge of the study zone. And aside from my dismay at learning for the first time tonight. First of all, learning the first time this week of this meeting tonight. And that this property is being earmarked in your plan for residential use, which is contrary to our efforts and our perception of that property. And also now you're looking at putting in a bike lane, but bike pedestrian lane, which our property cannot, we cannot sustain the loss of a single square foot in order to meet our parking requirements, to meet the requirements of the city of Mountain View. We also consider a bike pedestrian lane in adjacent to our property to be a security risk and a safety risk and a liability risk. And so I would not support, in my company, our investors would not support either the bike lane, in particular, nor the transition to residential use for this particular parcel. Thank you.

[00:22:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:22:15] School Board Trustee Laura Blakely: Good afternoon. Mayor Matachek, Vice Mayor Abbe Koka, and Council members and staff. My name is Laura Blakely. I'm one of the trustees of the Mount View Wisman School District. Um, and I am here to say that please, um, when you consider what steps to take next. I would encourage you to adopt a precise plan that includes a school strategy. I know I'm kind of a one night note song, encouraging you to keep the schools in mind, but a variety of those alternatives include a lot of new residential development. And in particular, the ones that have more affordable housing will generate more kids. And we need to do this thoughtfully and not just kind of ad hoc one off. So I would strongly encourage you to go with the precise plan and include a school strategy. Thank you.

[00:23:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. If you could speak into the microphone.

[00:23:10] Barbara Hartford: Sorry. Thank you for this opportunity to speak tonight. Um, I'm Barbara Hartford Me, and I'm a homeowner on Morgan Street. Um, I've been a homeowner since 1988. We raised our daughter here in that home, and now my daughter and my grandson are both occupants with me. I participated in the Terabella vision plan workshops and community meetings, and was distressed with the vision plan as it was developed, and discussed. I'm here tonight to share my thoughts in those of many neighbors I've talked with about the plan. We do welcome thoughtful and realistic plans to develop Terabella while maintaining the quality and character of the existing neighborhoods in the immediate area. Dense, high buildings will have negative impacts on traffic, increased noise and environmental pollution, and hinder public safety. We'd like to see less, um, we'd like to see more single family owner occupied homes as the continued development of offices puts mountain view and surrounding cities further behind in meeting the needed housing goals. The existing light industrial businesses have been good neighbors, and there's a need for these businesses in Mountain View, so we're not adverse to having those businesses remain as possible. However, with any new development, there needs to be height restrictions and proper setbacks and transitions to reduce the impacts to existing neighbors. There's an opportunity here to build more densely along middle field, shoreline, and 101 without creating, and I know nobody wants to hear this, another urban canyon. Thank you.

[00:24:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:24:51] Joseph Metzger: Good evening, Council members and mayor. My name is Joseph Metzger, and I live in Sterling Heights, in Mountain View, and I'm donating my time to Eric's De Bell.

[00:25:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So... We need to have, the rule is, if you have five people who agree not to speak, then one person can have more time. So, if there are five people, not just one, who agree not to speak, and you can give us a card, so we know who you are, then we can do that. Have him go off to the side. Maybe you could coordinate that, and we could let someone else go ahead.

[00:25:45] Public Speaker: Greetings, everyone. Thank you for the confusion. I gave you handouts tonight. I didn't have time to give this on a stick, and we talked among the neighbors, and I'm gonna talk to you tonight about traffic and parking. We've had the time to get a look at who may realistically be in the visioning area at the present time. And we believe that staff overestimated the current population of the area is significantly, because the estimate was based on resident or employees per square foot. And based on work that both Albert and I did, door to door, serving, and looking at Google Maps, we believe that there's nominally 1,350 people in the area now. And as you compare that to the various options, there will be substantial population growth in the area. And that brings to us grave concerns about traffic and parking. If you look at the traffic and access points foil, you will see that two thirds of the entry points into the eastern part of Terabella go through Sterling Estates. And at the present time, we experience traffic cut throughs to the neighborhood as a shortcut to getting both to 101 and also into Terabella. With an increase of 3,000 people on our side of Terabella. That's going to have a fairly enormous traffic impact on our neighborhoods. And looking at the pictures that Albert's taken, you can see the traffic conditions now are pretty dismal. We also have overflow parking from non residential people in the area, and that's highlighted in the foil called current overflow parking.

[00:27:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, just clarification. So Wanda, did the time get set?

[00:27:54] Wanda: Yes, I did.

[00:27:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, okay. So?

[00:27:59] Public Speaker: So... I thought, all of a sudden, it disappeared, and I couldn't see time.

[00:28:05] Wanda: No, 25 seconds left.

[00:28:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Get set.

[00:28:10] Public Speaker: So, in conclusion. The least option is going to increase the population of the area by our estimate of 400%. And the current gatekeeper projects that we have looked at underestimate parking versus what we actually believe are going to be there. It's possible to do traffic modeling and traffic studies, and it's unfortunate that that was not undertaken as part of the visioning process. We appeal to the council to engage in traffic studies, to determine a baseline on which you can make rational decisions on development, and also create a rational parking permit plan that will enable the current residents to have a place to park, and avoid overflow parking. Thank you very much.

[00:29:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Before you leave, Council member Callister, has a question for you.

[00:29:11] Public Speaker: Yep.

[00:29:12] Councilmember John McAlister: On your page, where it says traffic and parking impact.

[00:29:14] Public Speaker: Yep.

[00:29:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Did you, are these things to see or things that are existing when you say overflow parking and sterling?

[00:29:22] Public Speaker: This is current. This is current. Yeah, we have parking that is coming across middle field, from the apartments and condominiums that are parking along Linda Vista, and we have overflow parking from the apartment complex at San Verone that intrudes into the neighborhood, as well as overflow parking that comes up San Rafael. And then that doesn't even account for the RV parking, but I think that's going to be addressed.

[00:29:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:29:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay. Next, please. And you have the cards. Okay, so, you got five minutes.

[00:30:08] Eric Stabelle: And... I want to make sure I can see the clock. So I actually just needed one minute, and my wife's gonna be following up. I was... She'd like to get an extra minute. I don't know if that'll work out with the five card thing, but... We need a total of two minutes extra. Anyway, I shall begin. Um, hello, my name is Eric Stabelle. I live on Morgan Court, and I like to talk about concerns that homeowners are having in the neighborhood transitions in Renterabella. And, uh, this slide shows the 2 affected areas bordering Terabella, the Morgan Rock area and Stirling Estates, a total of 37, one story homes directly border the Terabella area, with dozens more in very close proximity. The vision plan shows a 45 degree angle from the property line as a guideline for maximum building height. The example shown shows how that would look with a four story building directly behind a one story residence. Using that same 45 degree angle, here's what a proposed seven story building might look like right behind my house. Many people above the first floor will have full view into my windows and around my yard, while my family and I lose all of our privacy, that we've been accustomed to for many years. And here is an example of how much view and sunlight could be taken away from our homes and solar panels in our neighborhood. In contrast, this shows a good transition next to one story homes by continuing our one zoning directly behind them for the first two rows before stepping up to three story buildings. The 45 degree angle guideline also seems quite excessive, and we'd like to see it reduced to 25 degrees or less. Even better, transition would start with a one story home, or a green belt or other buffer zone in the first lot before continue on to two stories, and then onto three story buildings. This would minimize loss of privacy, view, and sunlight to our home gardens and solar panels. We feel this would be a win win for both the existing residents and also for our future neighbors in higher density housing nearby. Lastly, almost all homeowners feel that using the gatekeeper process for future development would be in our best interest. We don't think going to precise plan is the way to go. Thank you.

[00:32:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Before you leave.

[00:32:47] Unknown Speaker: I'll fight. Sorry. I'm sorry. Can I ask a question? Um... Your last comment about gatekeeper versus precise plan, could you further explain why?

[00:32:59] Eric Stabelle: Um, it's a, it's been a, it's a tough question. A lot of us in the neighborhood have been talking about it, going back and forth. Um, I think some of the others here and we will be able to explain it better than I, but I think we felt we had some bitter control on the future of our neighborhood this way. Um, rather than going with the precise plan, where stuff really just gets locked down, and there's, and there's little chance of changing it at that point. So, we just want to make sure our voices are heard. And we will, you know, are very receptive to getting feedback on that also.

[00:33:37] Unknown Speaker: Great. All right. Thank you.

[00:33:38] Sue Stabelle: Right? Talk dance. Sorry. On the other half, my name is Seustabelle, and, um... I just, I'd like to talk about the transitions. Here are some examples of poor transitions found in Mountain View, where multi story buildings were located right next to existing one story homes. For their large size, they're very close proximity to one story homes seems very inappropriate.

[00:34:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Could you speak a little bit more into the mic?

[00:34:14] Sue Stabelle: Sure. Here's a model of a one.

[00:34:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can pull it down, so, yeah.

[00:34:19] Sue Stabelle: Okay. Thanks. Here's a model of a three story row house located behind a one story residence. Notice the total loss of privacy and view. A good transition example is the Madeira apartments, across the street, from one and two story single family homes. Zoning changes work nicely across streets like this, and buildings facing R1 neighborhoods, should be limited to 24 feet tall. This is alternative plan. Alternative vision plan, mentioned five, visioned in the recent EPC meeting, where they suggested many improvements to the plan. The following slides will illustrate some of the building height limits mentioned, as well as additional adjustments suggested by homeless.ers. This is the original Plan 5 with the number of stories overlaid for clarity. Stories of the surrounding neighborhoods have also been added for reference. Sterling Estate homes show plans for three and five story buildings practically in their backyards. And even worse, the Morgan area shows four, five, six, and seven story buildings directly behind their properties. All of these scenarios are quite shocking and outrageous. Our recommended number of stories shown here in blue represent more thoughtful transitions that border existing homes. Buildings can then gradually step up taller with higher densities, at a more reasonable distance, away from our homes. Many of the homeowners would also like to see higher density areas limited to four stories in order to avoid the traffic and parking problems that excessive density can cause. Adding more housing has become a necessity. But it should complement and improve the area without destroying the character of our neighborhood. And, like to thank you for your time for adding the time. Thank you.

[00:36:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:36:26] Public Speaker: Good evening, city council. I think you know why I'm here, but first, let me just say thank you for allowing me to speak. Also want to thank city staff for the opportunity. to talk. We've been discussing Terabella, East Westmen, as well as North Bay Shore, and they have been very good at making sure that we've been included in the planning process, so that we're ahead of the game, as opposed to coming at the very end of a process, and sort of inserting ourselves. I think the most important thing to understand is that Critton Middle School, right next door, is at capacity. When you calculate East Westman, North Bay Shore, and eventually Terabella, there's going to be a need to expand the site, which means that we're going to have to build the school up. But on top of that, I know we've batted around the idea of possibly expanding the site, there's about one. 7 acres, I believe that's right. That's adjacent to it. The possibility of expanding it over there so that we can house all the middle school students. I do not believe, and I think our board shares this opinion that it is feasible for us to even consider opening the 3rd middle school, considering the land constraints that currently exists, as well as the size of the size of a middle school plot, which is currently around 30 something acres, which means that our only solution is to essentially build Graham and Crittan up so that they can house more students and sort of and possibly adjust the grade levels at our sites. The other thing I would say is I want to echo what Trusty Blakely said, is that a precise plan with a clear strategy for supporting the growth of the schools is really essential for the school district. And so, I want to thank you again for listening, and then I welcome any questions if you need.

[00:38:04] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Thank you. Thank you for both of you, for being here. So, um, this might be presumptuous, but, um, you mentioned the one. 7 acres is that the piece that's next to Crittenden.

[00:38:17] Public Speaker: Yes.

[00:38:18] Unknown Speaker: So we talk about a school, we've talked about a school strategy, but it's kind of ought to be, seems obvious that that would be what you would most desire. So, is that what you would like?

[00:38:34] Public Speaker: I think the school strategy is twofold. Currently, the North Bay Shore strategy is really focused on elementary schools and sort of some type of fee. Sure. And the conversation about middle schools hasn't really come to light. And we've been sort of kicking that one down to can. I do think that in order to accommodate the extra kids that are coming from North Bay Shore, East Westmin is currently is currently zoned for and also sort of accommodate all of those students. There's only about 200 seats that's available today at Crittin. And so when you take in the number of kids that are actually going to be there, the only solution for Crittan in middle school is to expand its space, and that will be an adequate solution for there. And I think in terms of elementary schools, It's probably going to be a different conversation. Terabella could fit into their call with a little adjustment, probably, again, going vertical. And that's an easy fix, but the middle school is a completely different issue altogether.

[00:39:31] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you. Yeah. When you say go up, how high were you thinking of going?

[00:39:38] Public Speaker: Um, so, possibly 2 to 3 stories, I would assume, uh, for creative middle school, we could double the capacity of the site, uh, just by going to 2 stories from one story to 2 story buildings. And I think that would be adequate to house the number of students that are coming in. It does not mean that we won't adjust the boundaries just a little bit to sort of move kids around. Um, but 2 stories that both Graham and Crittan would seem like the, the, like, the best solution. And then from there, the possibility of moving elementary cicada 6, uh, with 7, 8 being at the middle school, which is an old amount of that was used.

[00:40:15] Unknown Speaker: Oh, so reverse it from junior deal. Okay. Yeah. And the one. Is that the softball field that you're referring to?

[00:40:23] Public Speaker: I believe it's over by K.

[00:40:25] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay, so that's in addition. And who controls the softball field city or the school?

[00:40:31] Public Speaker: School district does.

[00:40:32] Unknown Speaker: Cool. Okay. Is there any provisions that you would reclaim the softball field?

[00:40:39] Public Speaker: Reclaim it as...

[00:40:40] Unknown Speaker: Well, it's Repurpose it.

[00:40:43] Public Speaker: No, we just, I mean, we just spend a lot of money. just fixing the softball field as well as a track. Okay. And that was a joint deal with the city. So ideally, we would like to keep the track with the lights as well as the softball and baseball coats there. What I envision is that that could possibly, we would expand parking over there and then move the buildings into where the parking lot is and sort of repurpose that area.

[00:41:09] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

[00:41:11] Public Speaker: Thank you. Yep, thank.

[00:41:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place. Thanks. Nice networking.

[00:41:22] Edith Hugo: Hi, Edith Hugo, I own the property at 922 San Leandro Avenue, which happens to back up to the 909 San Rafael and is parallel to the proposed bike path. That property is a public utility right of way. And I understand why on paper, you might think, oh, that's the perfect location to put a bike path. However, it's only 2 feet wide. And unfortunately, it's home to homeless and vagrants. As I found out today, when the police came and evicted a homeless camp in that area, they cut the lock and just moved in, and unbeknownst to me, although I couldn't understand why my building has been constantly vandalized. Now I know who did it, because I have them on camera. So I would recommend that you use my building as a buffer zone for what you've predicted to be residential. Frankly, I was shocked tonight when I heard that that was scheduled for two story residential. I did get a chance to meet with staff yesterday. She was very helpful. But it's still a shocking to me that that bike path is being considered. I did email you. It's a little disjointed because I didn't have all the information, but what I would like to suggest is putting in bike paths on our very well streets, widening the sidewalks, making them more user friendly than they are right now, and installing night lights. So that we can have walking paths all over the community and bike paths rather than one bike path that will only engender a homeless community moving in. Do you have any questions for me?

[00:42:55] Unknown Speaker: Actually, I'm trying to figure out which parcel is yours. Could you?

[00:42:59] Edith Hugo: Yeah, it says residential. You have trouble. I kept looking at the map thinking, where is my parcel?

[00:43:04] Unknown Speaker: To put up the map and have her, and the other, the other guy, it's San Leandro.

[00:43:10] Edith Hugo: Okay, go to the corner of the orange line to the right corner and you'll see that building that has like a little jog right there. That's my parcel. And also, I have tenants that actually, bike or walk to the building to conduct business. It's an office and R&D building. We have 12 units, 10 tenants. Some of my tennis walk to the building because they love living in the area and walking to work.

[00:43:39] Unknown Speaker: So are you saying you just like to keep it as it is?

[00:43:42] Edith Hugo: That's we would like to keep it as is. It's in the trust and inheritance for the grandchildren. It's a great building. We keep it up. We're all to code. We have more than enough parking. So we never use off street park, or street parking. And we'd like to keep it that way, along with the people, I believe, at 909.

[00:44:01] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Great. Thank you for the clarification. And can you clarify where the other person is as well? Who spoke earlier? Is it adjacent?

[00:44:09] Edith Hugo: You see directly to the left, so that we back up to each other.

[00:44:14] Unknown Speaker: So right next to yours.

[00:44:15] Edith Hugo: Well, back to back.

[00:44:17] Unknown Speaker: Back to back. Okay. Thank you.

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

[00:44:30] Kelly Viet: Hello? Can you hear me? Okay. Um, hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Kelly Viet, and I live on San Pablo. So, uh, the transitions that we're discussing today for Terabella affect my home directly. Additionally, you know, I am pro housing in the Bay Area. I do think that we need to be building more housing in the Bay Area, so maybe I can kind of bridge these 2 worlds today. Um, I basically wanted to point out that building more housing in the Bay Area and having considerate transitions to the existing residents in Mountain View are 2 kind of separate problems. I've been attending a lot of these community meetings in town halls and they seem to be presented as the same problem. We see a lot of these plans presented as just more housing in the area or less housing in the area, and the transitions are unacceptable in all of the options that were presented. I think, you know, I share a lot in common with the previous presenter or the previous people who say, you know, one way to kind of handle this problem would be to shuffle zoning around. So leaving the existing light industrial where it is. Another way to have 2 maps with the same housing, but maybe different transitions would be to shuffle density. So, you know, I've noticed on middle field and on shoreline, you could be maybe putting more density there to have less density up against the houses themselves. And I'd like to say that I support, um, restrictions in feet because today's modern row houses have very tall stories. So I'd like to see, you know, a 24 foot height restriction, 30 feet for the setback, 25 degrees for the property angle. And I also support density type changes across the street. I don't think you're going to see people complain about 3 story apartment, going to 5 story apartment. It's really when you're doing those density type changes without crossing the street. Thank you very much.

[00:46:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:46:55] Unknown Speaker: Wanda, can we start the time when he actually starts? I was counting on three minutes, a minute and a half pushing it.

[00:47:05] Albert Jean: Good afternoon. My name's Albert Jean. You know, you all me knowing. I've been a resident. Within a block of the Terra Bell Area for the last 35 years. Today, I'd like to present some quantitative analysis. I've done it, actually, figures out how many buildings and residents you could put in this area, without just, you know, regarding looking at colored maps and arbitrary numbers. How many people, how, physically, how many buildings can you put in here? So the way I did this, I digitized a zoning map, put it into a CAT program that I'm familiar with. These are the residential areas, and now you compute the actual areas. These are 1000s of square feet. And the interesting thing is that for the open space, kind of normal requirement, 3 acres for 1,000 residents. If you have 3,000 people, you need 9 acres, 9 acres, turns out to be 390,000 square feet, which is bigger than any of these parcels, except for the one on middle field. So take that into consideration that one of these is going to have to be open space. And then there's also an existing, along with all the other speakers, you know, there's an existing development on this parcel, Shaw and Gateway, by Cerus Regis. So I've taken this land out of consideration, and it's what you're left, put these areas here. I picked a standard apartment, 500 Fruits and Drive in Wisman. And this is what it looks like under construction right now. I modeled it I put in transitions on some of the buildings, so I can put those next to residential areas. These are the assumptions I have for, wow, for the number of people. Do it on a spreadsheet, and I get 28,630, 2,860 people, which is actually in line with option six, but options 4 and 5 are completely out of the question. And because the space is restricted, the only way you're going to combinate those people is to go higher. And this is what it might look like. This is a possible way out of the buildings that I had there, this is what it looks like next to the neighborhoods, still very massively, but you want the transitions. So, conclusions is option 6 is the only one that's physically feasible. If you want to go 4 and 5, you have to go almost twice, actually twice, more than twice as tall. My spreadsheet will figure it out. You need to go 15 stories on middle field, if you want to do 4 and 5. Thank you.

[00:49:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, um... Fortunately, you have... I think you have handouts, too.

[00:49:20] Albert Jean: Yes.

[00:49:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, thank you. Next, please.

[00:49:29] Tim Scrotenbore: Hi. My name is Tim Scrotenbore. I live in the Steer on Estates neighborhood as well. In addition to the concerns about neighborhood transitions and height limits, I'm concerned about the traffic in the Terrebell area. The area is a significant gateway into the city, and it's already experiencing quite a bit of congestion, especially during rush hour and concert traffic. So I think, as previously said, we need to really understand and do a traffic study to see what this area can actually hold at capacity before we make judgments about whether it can handle a 7 story or a 5 story building. One of the solutions that's typically proposed is biking. I have a five-year-old daughter who recently learned to bike at the nearby park and now she bikes all the time to that park on the sidewalk. But if I wanted to bike with her, to the nearby grocery store or the nearby Stevens Creek Trail or downtown. And these are all less than a mile away. I would want to go on the street because it's not appropriate for me to bike on a sidewalk, but I definitely don't want her biking on the street. So it's not conducive right now for families or bike riders of all ages to be biking. So with a traffic study, I like consideration to be done that if biking is to be considered, make it so it's not just, you know, Lance Armstrong, who is able to navigate the streets. Thank you very much.

[00:51:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:51:07] Richard Spillane: My name's Richard Spillane. I am a resident of 780 San Pablo Drive, and actually I'm neighbors with Kelly and David, who previously spoke. And I'd like to basically indicate that there are many in our neighborhood who can't come to these meetings for scheduling reasons and such as my wife and our daycare provider and friends we have down the street. And they all, we're all of like mind on this, which is really reiterating what you've already heard from Albert and Eric and others about the need for proper transitions. And what that really means, I think everyone has outlined it well. So I just fully support that and I ask the council to really consider transitions in a rational way, not in sort of an arbitrary way where, you know, rule of thumb and then just stick it in, actually look at the area and make sure that the, it's going to still look like mountain view when you're done. So beyond that, I'd also like to talk about 3 other things. So, um, I am in favor of the gatekeeper process as well. The reason being, we feel that it provides us more opportunities to hold our representatives, as well as other stakeholders accountable at each step of the way, and make sure that we have the maximum amount of representation in the process. We have seen the precise plan used, for example, in San Antonio. And the results there, we don't feel would be appropriate in Terabella. Two other points are the area between 780 San Pablo Drive and the Tarabella area has power lines and cable lines that prevent the ability for the residents to plant their own kinds of privacy screens. So that's something else I would ask you to consider when thinking about transitions. Thank you very much for your time. And thank you for listening to me.

[00:53:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:53:13] Mark Johnson: Good evening, council members. My name is Mark Johnson. I'm a resident of Mountain View. Now for 35 years, probably longer some of you than some of you have been alive even. So, I'll just point out, I live actually on Morgan Court, which ends up protruding into the Terabella area. So, therefore, I end up getting surrounded by whatever does come about. So, I can say, is that, one, I do have solar panels, and I cherish my son to keep that out. And looking at the aspect angles and what is being proposed for that area. It doesn't take in consideration that I can see really any buffer zone or anything else to single-family residents, even 3 story or anything else. And I don't see where this was even coming about given it was not part of the general plan, even the start with. So, I mean, this is all taking, I think, residence and everything else by surprise, a great deal. Um, so personally, I can say that I'm in favor of the gatekeeper program, uh, or process, I should say, as well as I think that the council needs to look at, you know, uh, the existing homeowners and everything else, where I don't think the planning commission, when we 1st uh, when it was 1st presented or anything, it's like it was just slapped on there, uh, so quickly, uh, and it took everyone by surprise. So, you know, I urge you to actually look at the impact that, you know, we're going to have both from a theft, from a potential impact for traffic, school systems. There's a lot with that high density housing coming in to the Terabao area. Thank you.

[00:54:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:54:58] Adam McMichael: Hi. Good evening. My name's Adam McMichael. I'm here with Prometheus Real Estate, Prometheus Real Estate Group. We own approximately two acres in Terabella, amongst 918 San Rafel, and 940 San Rafel. Our hope is to be able to add housing units to this area to offset the amount of jobs that already exist, or that will be added nearby. This is a tremendous opportunity for Mountain View to bring housing closer to job centers and to this part of town, which will help us reduce traffic and improve the vibrance of this neighborhood. We encourage the council to consider the options that kind of match the job's housing balance to our alternatives for or five. Secondly, Prometheus in Mountain View specifically has proven to be very sensitive to transition areas. We hear the concerns of many of the folks in this room tonight, and I appreciate the fact that staff has brought a picture of Madera tonight as a great example of a transition, and also that some of the homeowners here have kind of pointed us out as well. So we understand that concern and, um, will be sensitive to that concern. as we do are adjacent to single-family houses in our with our property. The 3rd thing is something that Jill and Edie have pointed out already, the idea of a bike path that kind of goes through a parcel of our parcel, as well as their parcel, our experience with kind of, well, 1st of all, the plan alternatives or the staff has presented options for bike paths along Terabella and bike pass along San Leandro and San Rafel. And we feel that just adding another bike path is sort of duplicative and a little bit unnecessary when it can be planned well in the public right away. Thank you.

[00:57:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, please.

[00:57:09] Debbie Beauchain: Hi, Madam Mayor, and council members, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Debbie Beauchain. I am a homeowner for over 25 years in the Morgan Court. We are a quiet neighborhood with little crime and traffic, unless school is getting out. We have lived with light industrial behind us, and they have been overall very good neighbors. That we are not against redevelopment. I am saddened to see another industry and businesses being pushed out. The Morgan, Spring, and Rock Street homes are located in a small, 2 block, and 2 court, and we feel, whether it's alternative 5 or 6, that we would be surrounded and enclosed by the very high buildings. The alternatives for Morgan Court and Rock Street homes are currently reflecting 5 and 7 story residential buildings, which would be behind my house. The Morgan Street, in the Morgan Court, part of Morgan Court would be scene 3 to 5 story office buildings. None of these heights are acceptable behind single story homes. We would like, we would be looking at tall buildings from both directions. Wonder what our new normal will be. What would our neighborhood environmental be packed be? More pollution, no more breeze, blockage of sun. Will there be additional noise pollution, people looking into our houses and backyards? Will this small neighborhood of ours become claustrophobic? We are asking that a balanced mountain view should be considered for existing mountain view residents, especially those of us which live within the Terabella area. We would like considerations of transitions of heights to existing homes, to avoid the enclosure effect of our small neighborhood. especially with the vision of these tall buildings. We would like consideration of traffic concerns, including in our neighborhoods and especially near Crittendon Middle School. The current level of density reflected, and these visions will be overwhelming. Thank you for hearing.

[00:59:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:59:15] Public Speaker: Hi, good evening, Mayor, council members. Thank you for listening to us. Thank you to staff for the report. We've been part of the visioning plan from the beginning and I represent public storage. We own the property about 4 acres along the freeway. We support the visioning, as currently presented. I think public storage in the use is really benign. It doesn't add much traffic, and not just that. I think it supports the growth of the city, both from businesses and residents. Currently, most of our users come from mountain view. And we believe what we've been proposed will continue to support whichever efficient the council decides to proceed. The only thing that I would like to request is clarification on the 4 stories, a 4 story, self storage facilities, different than office, a 5 story, storage facilities equal to a 4 story office, which is what's currently being proposed. So if some clarification can be made, just so that we can understand the height for us, it will be appreciated, and I appreciate the time. Thank you.

[01:00:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:00:25] Public Speaker: Hello. Hi, dear council members. I'm a father and a resident in the Tarabella area. So I want to code statistics from the 2018 American communities away by the U.S. Sensor Bureau. So in Mountainville, the percentage of women between 20 and 50 is about a 51.6% and about 48% of the total residents in Mountainville are women, and the birth rate of women between the age of 15 and 50 in Mountain View is 6% per year. So that comes together with the plan, the console proposed, was it's about up to 410 pre-K kids and about 500 K to 5 students. So, well, just for a reference, the total number of students are in Monte Loman elementary school is 500. So pretty much that means a new Montenoma elementary school needs to be built, and a lot of 3 K childcare facility need to be built. So imagine that one of the, Without these facilities. So, Probably one of the parents of those are 410 kids will have to go out of work to take care of the kids. And this will do the destruction of their career and it's bad for gender equality. So, I would like to, like, ask the city council when we are doing the plans, make sure that you have, like, conquered plans, make sure that these kids can be taken care properly. Thank you.

[01:02:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:02:23] Mary Mounts: I'm Mary Mount. Probably the most senior member, uh, resident of, uh, Terabella Acres.

[01:02:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could speak into the microphone?

[01:02:30] Mary Mounts: Sure. I'm Mary Mounts. I'm the most senior resident of Terabella Acres, I'm pretty sure. My parents moved there in 1950. And it was a nice place. It was a dead and straight until they built the track at the end of the road, which is now Sterling Estates. My parents moved over there for 10 years, keeping their home property at 917 San Rafael, which is in contract to be developed. Um, My comments is that the traffic has gotten worse. Um, I would encourage you respect transitions for the current residents. I would encourage higher density near the freeway. And I would reconsider the industrial use there, maybe some commercial, something with small trucks, because right now in San Rafael, in the one yellowed out. parcel, there's a door, window company, and there's a big semi that parks on San Rafael. And I have to go around the double yellow line, really close to Terabella. I'm always worried I'm going to get, you know, someone's going to come around the corner fast. you know, running to me. And so, that's a safety hazard. Also, the high, the vans, the Zoom pizza truck, and the, you all know. We haven't ordered it yet. We're going to do one of these days. We said if it gets here cold, we're in trouble. Anyway, it's really hard to see when you go out onto Terabella, to turn left. And the recology trucks come down there really fast, and we're so afraid we're gonna get slammed one of these days. Um, Anyway, what else is I want to say? Oh, I'm no longer at my residence at 918. It closed on Friday. I'm now moved over to my mom's house at 917, a couple days a week. I have moved back to the country in San Martin. Thank you. And I hope you all... resolve this and make everyone still happy in the neighborhood and still provide lots of housing, but I would really encourage... Higher density close to the freeway. It's not going to bother anybody. Thank you. Just move it away from the residences and give them those transitions.

[01:04:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could be sure to turn in your card to our deputy city clerk. Next please.

[01:05:00] Katty: Okay, I'll be quick. My name is Katty, and I leave at Sterling Estates. We are excited, overall, about their development, because we want the area to look nice. We live there. We want the area to look nice, clean, and safe for us. At the same time, Terabella is not a blank slate. There is an existing neighborhood nearby that will be affected by whatever's gonna go on there. So, take that into account, please. And, um, you know, the way I see it is fixing housing crisis, uh, office crisis or any other crisis should not come on the expense of the existing neighborhood, uh, an existing neighbors, um, considering transition and traffic should be a priority. And we want the city of Mountain View to protect our privacy and our best interests, because we live there. We already live there. And one more thing, I want to remind everyone that the neighbors in downtown Mountain View fought together to defend the trees, the redwood trees on Sierra Avenue, they fought to keep the trees on somebody's property. Okay? from removing them to build a house. So this is what we do. We fighting for our privacy, and for our neighborhood, and we want the same respect. Yeah, thank you.

[01:06:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who wanted to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public input portion of this, and we'll move to council questions, and then we'll get into the three questions that staff posed of us. Council member Clark.

[01:06:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, we're just starting with questions. I just have a couple. The, um, we talked about, or I think we'll probably talk about gatekeeper versus precise plan. The existing approved gatekeepers, which are pretty far away from the residential neighborhood. Those would proceed under, or at least the review of those would proceed, regardless of how or, um, How are those? The currently approved gatekeepers are proceeding through a review process, right? Or they, they might be informed by this process, but are they moving forward or are they sort of waiting for what happens?

[01:07:36] City Staff: So right now we have one active gatekeeper project in the area, which is at 1001 North Shoreline, residential, and some amount of retail space, and we are in an environmental review process right now with that project. But depending upon what council decides in terms of preparing a precise plan, if we prepare, if we decide to go onto a precise plan process, then council can decide whether we continue with the review of that or that has to stop and wait for the precise plan to come out.

[01:08:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: That makes sense. Okay. And then... So look comparing the options 4 and 5 in the matrix that you put together, the light industrial office area. Do you know, um, If we were to allow some zoning flexibility for the site that Summerhill had identified, would that change the, if you're looking at the light industrial office area line, would that change the percentages significantly or, um, I guess, especially looking at, for example, city council option 5 with the light industrial, would that site alone have a significant impact on that, or is, is the difference between 4 and 5 sort of elsewhere in the plan?

[01:09:00] City Staff: So, um, We've not done detailed analysis of that, but just looking at the size of the area. If we look at the overall change in the land use mix, it might not be big because it's a smaller portion, but if you look at the amount of light industrial being preserved there, it might be considerable. Okay. But council can definitely have an option to have a mixed use where some kind of light industrial is preserved through some policies.

[01:09:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: see. And then the last question I had, what, um, I think I asked this, um, in the prior set of council questions before we move this, um, study session out. Under city council option 5, so Ford is showing some hotel area. Option 5 isn't, but I assume a hotel is an allowable use under mixed use, right? So just because it's says 0%, it doesn't mean a hotel couldn't be there, it's...

[01:09:57] City Staff: That correct.

[01:09:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. It's just what's dedicated, like what's specifically zoned.

[01:10:00] City Staff: Okay. That's correct.

[01:10:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you.

[01:10:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:10:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I had been leaning towards a precise plan because of so that we could consider some of the things that residents have brought up like sensitive transitions, school strategy, parks, and a number of those, where bike paths should definitely go, et cetera. If we went, but I'd like to respect the neighbors, and if the residents really want gatekeepers, I would change my mind. But how would you then suggest if we're doing it more piecemeal. How would you suggest addressing some of those situations like bike paths, school strategy, and those types of issues that have been brought up?

[01:10:58] City Staff: Just so that I understand the question correctly, you're asking about if we decide to go with option 2 where we just have a vision plan and then reviewing individual gatekeepers. In that case, we will be reviewing it on a project by project basis, there will be no area wide study that will be done for where the bike path connection should be. It will be type of a negotiation with each developer on a side by side basis based on, you know, what kind of a community benefit that they will be, um, ready to negotiate as part of the development. And other issues like schools and, um, let's say, schools, transitions, okay, those are 2 more from now.

[01:11:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Mick. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[01:11:49] City Staff: I just wanted to add that, certainly, in the vision document, council can specify certain strategies, or certain things you'd like to see in the vision plan that we can use to help guide as we review the gatekeepers, so it's really up to council as to how specific you want to be in the strategy document.

[01:12:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:12:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, let's just follow up on that one question. Would a potential light master plan B? Light, well, light and master plan. I mean, we developed sort of a master plan with an idea based on council direction versus a precise plan, which we say is, well, we sort of want this and this, but a more, instead of a gatekeeper, sort of in between gatekeeper and precise plan. And I'm getting plenty of looks okay. So... Oh, we got the boss.

[01:12:40] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Artisia Vastava, assistant city manager, community development director. Sorry, I felt I had to jump in.

[01:12:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, that's okay.

[01:12:47] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think, uh, we tried to give give you the 2 options, option one versus option two. I think you have some sense of what a gatekeeper process looks like site by site. It's hard to have a consistent strategy overall. And, you know, North Bayshore is an example of precise plan. You have a school strategy. You have setbacks. And even then the side-by-site negotiation becomes difficult. So imagine a process where you don't have that and you're looking at every project differently. So, um, a vision plan doesn't really have um, a place in our ordinance. It is just a set aside policy document. And what you're really reviewing is the project and the standards for each project get developed independent, sort of independently for each project. So each site is a planned unit development with its own set of standards. That's essentially what you get. when you do a vision plan versus a precise plan. So it's more fragmented. It's hard to do an overall strategy. You would do it side by side when those sites come in. A master plan can be done if you have I would say one property owner or in some cases you try to have a couple of property owners on a large site, but it's hard to do when you have multiple property owners and they are similar to a vision plan. Again, no standards, and somebody can come in with something entirely different and then you're reacting to that. So it has less, I would say, standing, an ordinance or a precise plan is very clear. Here it is, you know, it's in our study, you know, our set of city documents. So I'm hoping that you get some idea of water process could be, if you had a precise plan versus sort of negotiating standards, site by site. That isn't to say one is, I think if we had to say which one we prefer. We would say it'd be nice to have a set of standards and some consistency. So both the staff and the applicant as well as the neighbors have some idea of what a process looks like versus, you know, doing this site by site. But it's up to the council to decide how they want to proceed.

[01:15:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so we could give guidance if we were going to a guidekeeper, gatekeeper, a little more guidance than normal.

[01:15:16] City Staff: A little more guidance, but again, you'd be doing the site by site.

[01:15:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, could you... You'd be providing guidance, but then with the distinction, from my perspective, with the precise plan, we have to make a finding that the project is consistent with the precise plan. So we wouldn't, without a precise plan, we wouldn't have that. So more authority for staff to,

[01:15:37] City Staff: The precise plan has more weight than the guidance of the gatekeeper. If I may interrupt, things like traffic studies and environmental review, you could do it area wide versus looking at just one project at a time. It's a little bit harder to get an overall idea of what an area would look like.

[01:15:56] Councilmember John McAlister: But that doesn't stop there. preclude us from asking for a traffic study, does it?

[01:16:00] City Staff: You would do a traffic study for a particular site, but you wouldn't do it area wide.

[01:16:04] Councilmember John McAlister: I know. Yeah. Okay, so could you put up a map for me, please? So, if I was thinking about this, and Allison, pay attention to this part of it. West? No, no, that's a question. It's coming there, but I just wanted her to pay attention to this particular thing. West of... Always pays attention. I know she does. She's very conscientious. So, the west of Shoreline, north of Middlefield. Let's say we said, let's get a blank slate. Let's say we eliminate the Terabella Avenue. Let's say there's property owners that could come in and develop this in a European style with urban planning and a central piazza. And that's a master plan, because it would be for owners or more or somewhere around that range in there. Is that something that could be pursued? and encouraged, and something showing some bold leadership from the city of Mountain View instead of what we're doing this, da, da, da, da.

[01:17:23] City Staff: Oh, okay. I'll jump the panel. I know. Well, you could put the council could put their vision into a vision plan, and what you're saying, if I may paraphrase, is you would only consider these kinds of changes if, say, the west side of Shoreline were looked at in a whole and completely replanned in some kind of a master plan. So, for example, that could be the vision. You could say that. And then somebody would have to come and represent owners and put together our master plan, that the council could look at and say, yes, we agree, bring a project. So there is a process. Um, you would have to maybe talk to the owners to get some idea of how how feasible that is and um, anything can be done, but some things are harder to implement than others. Something bold is usually harder to do, isn't it?

[01:18:27] Councilmember John McAlister: This is true. But it would be one heck of an area. Okay, so that answered that one question. Thank you. Those in the audience, you get the clue. So my other question then is, I asked the question about light industrial zone and for the particular areas in here. And you gave me numbers for the what we have for light industrial in the area, but you didn't answer the question is the ratio good, or is that a good ratio for the city based on the whole city. And, uh, Martin, you probably have, I've been asking that question since the planning commission. So, Could somebody expand on that particular question and sort of give me a better feel for the percentage of the city and acres and how that fits into the whole city?

[01:19:18] City Staff: So I will retrate something we, I guess, we mentioned in the past and what we, staff was trying to get to in this response as well. We have existing zoning in the city, so we can calculate the amount of parcels or properties which have been zoned, light industrial, whether what exists on that is industrial or office use. So we try to give that acreage that, you know, citywide, we have 83.4 acres as light industrial. And within Terabella itself, it's 57.9 acres of light industrial. With the, um, land use alternatives, as part of the vision, we are proposing um, for a 2.8%, uh, sorry, 42.8 acres will be lost. Sorry. 42.8 will be remaining as the light industrial area, citywide. If we adopt any of the alternative 5 or alternative 6. We have not done in-depth technical analysis. This is a vision plan. It's not under the scope of that. And hence, we have not done in-depth economic analysis either to understand what is a good ratio for where the city is right now, where we are moving and what's the demand.

[01:20:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Would it be a good idea to do an economic study? As we continue to lose light industrial.

[01:20:48] City Staff: Certainly, council can certainly decide that as a priority action item during the goal setting in later in April and decide it as a priority action item.

[01:20:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you know how much light industrial we have lost so far?

[01:21:05] City Staff: I don't have any specific numbers, but I can say in general, there has been a lot of loss of manufacturing type of uses that have moved out from the city, which has taken place with more R and D type of uses because that has been the demand and that has been the trend in the area.

[01:21:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I also asked the question about, if we were to look at the general plan of 2030 and the 5 change areas that we had identified, the terrible and not being one of them, You gave me some numbers along the line. And I came up with, and this was just a ballpark figure, I could say, from you guys, right? So, you ballpark that we could end up with 14,000 new residents and about 4.7 million new office space. So that's sort of a ballpark. That, um, And that's not even including Terabella. Has anybody looked at the impact of once the 5 change areas where 80 or 90% built out, how that would affect the city?

[01:22:20] City Staff: Well, we did consider that in the general plan EAR in terms of all those change areas, and we did, you know, a very high level analysis of the impacts to the roadways and the overall growth in the city infrastructure. So that was included in the general planning AR.

[01:22:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So that, so the general plan incorporated all those numbers, but it didn't anticipate Terabella impact on the general plan.

[01:22:47] City Staff: That's correct.

[01:22:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The... What other question I have? The, and the question somebody asked about gatekeeper, and the context was that, and wait, the gatekeeper allowed us to have more, uh, detail or negotiating ability than a precise plan. So that if we wanted to potentially hypothetically change the number of subsidized units, that could be a negotiating item, a negotiated item versus a precise plan.

[01:23:27] City Staff: So just to be clear, there were 2 questions. The 1st one was about, you know, it's just basically discussing 2 options. If we do a precise plan, we do have more detailed standards, and when we look at a vision plan adoption and reviewing gatekeepers on a case by case basis, we will be negotiating them on a project by project basis, which can include some discussion and negotiations around community benefit, which can include intern, some affordable housing units.

[01:23:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so there's ability to negotiate more under the gatekeeper. Okay. Thank you.

[01:24:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Bye, Samara, Abbe Kuga.

[01:24:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, 1st question, when we did the general plan, visioning, there was, like, an overall vision statement. Was there one for this? Did I miss it completely?

[01:24:24] City Staff: We have visioning statement and 10 guiding principles as well, which we would like to attain through this visioning process. I don't have on my slide right now, but that was part of our 1st community workshop.

[01:24:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, So, uh, Some of the questions were already asked. I guess I'm still trying to, um, understand, decide between precise plan and keeping the visioning, um, vision plan. I've asked this before, but how do we, so how would we, um, address the issues of parks, the school and community benefit if we were only to do the the visioning plan?

[01:25:18] Community Development Director: Here comes Artie. I think those are examples of things that would be hard to do if you had a gatekeeper process. Um, and I might add, um, also the overall study of where paths have to go with some other things.

[01:25:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Going to the school, you know, it's pretty obvious. if the school needs more land where it would be. So can we just go ahead and zone it or I don't know if there is a zoning for public or community use or something, but can we just go ahead and zone it that way?

[01:25:57] Community Development Director: You know, schools are permitted in any zone now. They're permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit, and also the schools can exempt themselves from our zoning.

[01:26:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, would that mean they would have to go in and do a, um, uh, eminent domain or, um, like, no way, you know, it's pretty clear that's what, where would be the right place to put the schools? How do we make that? Like, just say, okay, this is where... What is that zone now or who controls that zone? Is residential? I don't know. I think it's, like, the buildings, isn't it? The KMVT and that...

[01:26:40] Community Development Director: light industrial. I mean, typically, we don't rezon for school use, so we don't down zone property to affect the value of the property, and schools are permitted in any zone.

[01:26:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So how do we facilitate all of that, then? With the schools, you know...

[01:27:04] Community Development Director: Well, I mean, I think that's one of the issues that we would address either as part of the projects, if you go with the gatekeeper approach or as a part of the development of the precise plan about what would be an appropriate school strategy for this area.

[01:27:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Well, I mean, typically, the local, the, well, I mean, it's not, it's not really within the city's purview for the city to effectuate to change the zoning of the property to...

[01:27:36] City Staff: I'm not sure if that's the question you're asking me. Should we rezone the property to make it more attractive for the school to acquire that property? And that really brings up a number of land use concerns that I have.

[01:27:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I just wanted to, it wasn't about making it easier, but just, I mean, you know, it's clear, and we're laying this out. So should we just put it there? Lay it, lay it. Well, and... That's our vision. It's gonna be right there.

[01:28:06] City Staff: I think we confronted this in the San Antonio Center precise plan. You know, we had that, um, that vision for the San Antonio Center, and there's potentially a school going there, which wasn't necessarily contemplated in that plan to go there. But what we did is we had the ability within the San Antonio precise plan to facilitate the location of a school. We said, this is important to have in the San Antonio center precise plan area. We had statements and a framework within the precise plan that allowed that to happen. So then, that's what you're asking me.

[01:28:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So in a and so then it sounds like to do that, we would have to actually do a precise plan. How would we do that with a gatekeeper process?

[01:28:55] City Staff: And I think that's exactly what the community development director was trying to state, that that's going to be more difficult to do in a piecemeal gatekeeper as opposed to having the precise plan that allows us to build a framework for that particular area.

[01:29:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. All right, thank you. And then community benefit was the other piece that with gatekeeper, we can ask for it, and with a precise plan, would we just, how would we, how would you approach community benefit?

[01:29:25] City Staff: So I'll take a couple of examples. Say, in the case of North Bay Shore, the council had some things that were important, for example, mode shift, trying to reduce traffic, you could decide what your vision is for this area and say community benefit strategies include, whether it's providing parks or providing a school strategy, you could talk about the framework for where you like the school site, that means some transfer development rights maybe along shoreline, some other areas. Okay. So you can create a framework for what it is the council would like to see for community benefits. And that way you were able to coordinate development accordingly. So that's an example.

[01:30:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. And then my, I think that's my last question. So we heard from 2 property owners who ask us to keep what they have status quo. And I've heard, I've heard from others and, like, frankly, Wisman, East Wisman, similar concerns. How do we adjust that? What is the projected time horizon for this? You know, the general plan was 2030? Like, what are we looking at for this since this isn't part of the general plan?

[01:30:47] City Staff: So since this is just a visioning document, it doesn't change any zoning, and even if we have a precise plan where we are asked where we are going to make zoning change, we do not anticipate changing the land use unless the property owner comes forward and request review of a development project. So if someone is interested in not changing what's on site right now, it will remain like that unless the property owner is interested.

[01:31:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can we just to make it clear? Add that flexible zone so that we have it as what it is now, but it could be, I guess it would be like industrial office, but it could be residential down the future, in the future, 20, whatever.

[01:31:39] City Staff: Well, so this is a vision document and I guess I'm thinking more. I'm starting to think ahead to precise plan. So, yeah.

[01:31:49] Unknown Speaker: Here we go. We have done precise plans where we have allowed existing uses to stay. And, you know, sort of fix their property, even though the intention is in the future to be residential. So, yes, we can do that.

[01:32:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. All right, thank you.

[01:32:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member Hicks, did you have more questions? We're still in questions. Yeah, go ahead.

[01:32:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So back to the, um, back to the, uh, gateway versus precise plan question. The one remaining question I have on that is, it seems like a lot of residents of the neighborhood are interested in traffic studies. And I'm wondering how we would do that if we did gatekeepers. I can see how we do it with a precise plan, but with gatekeepers, I'm not, would there be a way to do that?

[01:32:41] Unknown Speaker: So I will go through both of them. When we prepare a precise plan for the whole area, we do a programmatic EIR, which looks at an area wide study of traffic, utilities, air quality, et cetera. And based on that, we decide, you know, we are anticipating these many residential units this much amount of square footage of office. And the projects, individual projects on sites come under the precise plan for review at that point of time. They just use the programmatic EIR unless they are doing something very different than what the precise plan is suggesting or recommending. If we go the gatekeeper process route, then it will be done on a side by side basis, and, you know, the projects will require some kind of an environmental review and EIR or an egg deck, and at that point of time, a traffic study will be done. But that is not going to be for the overall area. It's just gonna study the impact of one little site in one little project in the in the plan area.

[01:33:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my 2nd question is, John, maybe you were reading my mind, but only partly, my vision is not Europe, but anyway, um,

[01:33:56] Unknown Speaker: Although, Mr. Zappatini, didn't you say you'd make it into Europe?

[01:34:01] Unknown Speaker: I think so. Yeah

[01:34:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So the, if you look at the map in the northernmost area, where the circle is for the park, between residential and office, one of my fears is that, um, you know, I do want a school strategy, and I want the middle school to be able to expand, but my fear is that the park and school would take up such a large portion of what we've now visioned for residential, that there would be little, too little residential left. And I'm wondering whether they're knowing the area whether there are any obstacles to enlarge enlarging that residential area, you know, moving the line more or, you know, maybe even completely over into the next, that next office segment.

[01:34:54] Unknown Speaker: So 2 parts to this, the 1st one addressing the park, the dot that we see on the map is just a floating dot. It is not fixated at any particular parcel or any particular location.

[01:35:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I know that, but I mean, if we put the school, I imagine, it's, we put the school there, we probably need a park, and it may be located near the school. The dot is anyway, near the residential. It just seems that those 2 uses would take up a very large portion of what's currently visioned as residential. And we might have a very small amount of residential left or maybe not very small, but too small for me.

[01:35:32] Unknown Speaker: So, as I mentioned earlier, in a couple of other responses, we have not done an in-depth environmental review for this visioning process. And we do understand that we have a plume there in the existing Telazine site. Um, will have impacts on um, might have more impact on residential development versus an office. Again, we can say that for sure, will depend upon an EIR for the project site. And I think that was the notion when we initially went to the community and the kind of response we received was the underlying concern with the environmental issues on site that we that the community envision this for more of an office use.

[01:36:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that's what I thought was the reason, but that's not the whole that entire area. only a small portion of it. Okay, thank you.

[01:36:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member and commit.

[01:36:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. I have 2 questions. Um, so I know that there's been a lot of discussion about gatehever. My understanding is that the gatekeeper process may be coming forward for council to be reviewing later this year. Should we go forward with a gatekeeper process now, June, I think June 4th, I think is what I had on. I think there's, I might have the date wrong. But the question is, um, you know, should we go forward with a gatekeeper process versus a precise plan? How could any type of revisions or anything that comes out of that future meeting regarding gatekeepers affect a gatekeeper process with Tarabella?

[01:37:15] Unknown Speaker: Um, so I just wanted to clarify one thing. I think I think there's a misunderstanding. What's scheduled tend to be scheduled in June is actually a review of Gatekeeper projects. We went through some gatekeeper process revisions back in 2017, which continued in 2018. So I think we looked at the gatekeeper process extensively at that time. We are not anticipating or we don't have anything scheduled regarding revision to gatekeeper process.

[01:37:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[01:37:44] Unknown Speaker: But we will be reviewing the gatekeeper projects.

[01:37:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, possibly in June. I do recall, I thought, during council goal setting that that might have come up, looking at council member, because I feel like that's something he's talked to me about. Um, so I don't I don't recall if that went forward as a looking at it. Okay. Okay. Um, my other question is related to the light industrial. The staff has have a number of in terms of how many businesses there are. I know that we have a member from our chamber here. I don't know. They have any.

[01:38:27] Unknown Speaker: We do have existing 63 businesses in Cherabella area and this is based on the business license data that we have with the city. They mainly comprise of R&D uses, contractor building services, and professional services such as marketing consultants for tech companies or attorneys.

[01:38:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And of these 63 businesses, with the discussion about the land uses. Is there an idea of how many might be, uh, potentially, displaced?

[01:39:08] Unknown Speaker: We don't have that data with us right now.

[01:39:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you.

[01:39:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:39:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Kame asked one of my questions, so I'll go with the other. Do you happen to know what the typical commercial rents and the Terabella area are and how much more or less than they may be than commercial rents elsewhere in the city?

[01:39:33] Unknown Speaker: Sure. So we have a citywide median rent of $36 per square foot. Terabella has a median rent of $28 per square foot. And, um, If you look at the other major industrial area remaining, after East Wisman is around Leghorn Street, towards the, um, Northwest in the city, and that is around $25.24 per square foot. In median rent.

[01:40:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[01:40:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I had a couple of questions. The first one is, when it comes to the mixed use with retail that's along shoreline. I was wondering if you considered having that more to the West, like along what's shown as a new street, or what the thinking was behind having it on shoreline.

[01:40:39] Unknown Speaker: So maybe a brief background about the process itself, and how we have reached here, we have went through Kabarov community workshops where, you know, it's basically what we heard from the community, and then later on refined by the decision makers as to what kind of land uses we would like to see on the map. So so far, it's not about planning staff's analysis, based on technical analysis, of what we would like to say. So we have not considered any further changes so far.

[01:41:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. The other question is related to the 3rd question from in the staff report, and that is precise plan versus gatekeeper, and while I think we will each weigh in on our current thinking, if a majority supports a precise plan, don't we still have to consider that in light of all the other projects that support the council goals at the end of April. And so even if we said we want to do a precise plan here, that might not be the case given capacity constraints when we get to the April discussion.

[01:41:56] Unknown Speaker: You're absolutely correct, I think council will have to consider this at the April goal setting session. And that's why staff has deliberately drafted the question as if you would like to add this as a as a priority project for the council goal setting discussion.

[01:42:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I guess I'd say as a project, not necessarily a priority project. Priority project. Okay, council member McAllister.

[01:42:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So are we gonna go into answering the questions now.

[01:42:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If there's no more questions, we can go into the 3 questions in the staff report.

[01:42:28] Councilmember John McAlister: You want me to do all three?

[01:42:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, please.

[01:42:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I'll start the ball ruling here, and we'll see where my fellow council members go from there. So the first question, what land use vision do is the, do I prefer for Terabella? And my preference is quality projects. I'm not looking for quantity. I'm looking for something that will improve the quality of life or enhance it. I'm looking for something that is sustainable. Meaning that transportation will be widely used, and that the impact mitigation into the rest of the area will be minimal. I am looking for something that could incorporate more residential versus housing, because we seem to be allowing more office throughout the area. There was an article in the post on Friday, I believe, where they were talking about 7 areas, and Mountain View being one of them, that they were going to build 10 million square feet of new office, and that would accompany 40,000 new jobs. So if we're going to get serious about what we wanted to do, Sometimes we have to say no to certain projects. and bring things into balance. So as I looked at this particular area, and seeing what I've seen in the past over the last 11 years of Council and Planning Commission, I'm very concerned about transition. from neighborhoods to new buildings behind it, and I don't think we've been as sensitive as we could be or consider it as we move forward. So I am leaning. towards number six. And I wanted to comment along the lines of the planning commission, had some discussion on it, and they... they were sort of split on it, too. They had 10 questions, and they could only agree on two. And I would like to go along some of their lines, and I will mention those. One of my considerations, is I've been pushing for a long time, is that I would like corporations to build their workforce housing, and so that would mean office with housing on top, or office on the, or housing on the bottom office on top. It's done in Europe. So there's no reason why we can't start doing something different. I am, again, as you mentioned, I mentioned that I would like to see a new design altogether of the west side of Terabella, and that it could be done with the will of the developers. So along, back to alternative six, and how it relates to the questions. I would like to see, and if you want to bring up a map along the lines that would be helpful. Residential. Yes, you can leave that. I would like to see the one story along the line that forrunts all of residentials. You had some numbers in there. Maybe that would be easier for me to help identify.

[01:45:52] Unknown Speaker: Nope. Oh, it's not on ice cream. You have it. No.

[01:45:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, you had one with head numbers on it? Various stories? Like, slight, alternative, five, something, but then, okay.

[01:46:06] Unknown Speaker: That was public comment. That was from a public comment.

[01:46:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but don't we have alternate, we don't have number five? Okay, so, so the residential, where it's on the north of, uh... Actually, can you bring up? This is alternative five. No, this alternative 6 there? Oops, you had some numbers there just a minute ago. Exciting.

[01:46:29] Unknown Speaker: So the numbers that I was showing on that screen basically relates to some of the EPC comments where they couldn't reach any consensus. So these numbers match it.

[01:46:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, how about for the staff, I mean, for the council, and unfortunately, the public won't be able to see this, there's a terror bell of visioning alternative five, but the public comment, and they had a bunch of numbers for those that's real good vision. You those in the back won't see it. So I believe in the transition of being one stories along any kind of residential, especially and then transitioning as we go deep, go more north, one, two, and three, especially also on Morgan, where was initially proposed to go 5 stories right next to somebody's backyard, I didn't think that was appropriate. So, As we go through that for my fellow council members, You'll see ones on here. I concur with that. I don't recall that there was these numbers seem realistic to me. If we can go, I am willing to go, there we go. Don't thank me. But yeah, so we see the transitions in there. Where there's fours. I can go higher. I would like to see my mixed use of where we can go higher. I'm willing to go higher with mixed use office. Again, I like to see corporations build their own housing or be part of the solution, along with other residential in there. We haven't talked about if much of this is going to be ownership, but I think a couple of projects over on the east side of Shoreline were going to be ownership, and that was good. I'm looking at Stereategy one and strategy 2 and figure 7 and 8. And I was sort of looking at a modify hybrid where there is that buffer between the neighbors, and I don't know if that was, we were talking about a street address one time, and it looks like there's a sidewalk on Strategy 2 on page 15 that, but I was sort of looking at the step back of housing on the right side, not set back, but step back, so it's a tier to approach. I know some of the comments were 25%. degree, but I don't, we could see how that pans out. The... The EPC also mentioned limiting... Well, let me ask you a question. Is there anything in our code that says transitions from what single story, how single story to something new, has to be no more than, or is that just custom that we've come across on? So, on the Terabella north of Terabella Street, I mean, that area. San Rafael, that all the housing has to be at least one story or a maximum two, because they could build one story higher. Is that part of our code?

[01:49:36] Unknown Speaker: So we don't have such a provision in our existing zoning code.

[01:49:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[01:49:41] Unknown Speaker: We govern that by the maximum height limitation. So, like, the existing single family zone properties, whether it's in the certain estates neighborhood or Morgan, around Morgan Street neighborhood, they are zone single family residential, so they can go up to 2 stories at any point of time.

[01:49:57] Councilmember John McAlister: They can, but I'm talking about the new projects. So, could a single, the, what this particular screen, it says, a townhouse is usually 45 feet tall or 3 stories. Okay, where a single story is 15 or so. So that's why I don't want to say that large transition. So that's one of my concerns. Single story next to single story and transition up. Again, office, no more than 2 stories. would be similar. It would be one nice to have one story transition up. Again, over in the Morgan Street. I'd still like to have the same type of transition as there is on the residential. There was west of north of Terabella, lower intensity of three story housing. I could see that unless it's ownership and condos. I know no one wants to bike, build condos, but there is Sarah Regis is putting condos in there, I think. I would like to see some condominiums coming in, because I think that would be the lower entry, the price would be lower than the townhouses for entry level housing. I think that's important that we start looking at having that involved in the included in here, and I haven't heard anybody was willing to do that. Okay, like number six. Okay, change. The proposed hardly, uh, from 6 to... Again, north of north of Terabella on the west of Shoreline. If we're going, but then again, this says change it from six to three stories. You know, I'm open to seeing a little bit more there if it is. residential, with office or office. Is there a particular height limit at all that we would set along north of... west of Shoreline north of Terabilla? Is there a height limit at all?

[01:51:59] Unknown Speaker: I think the office is up to five stories.

[01:52:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, that's being proposed, but could we say eight, ten?

[01:52:05] Unknown Speaker: You can?

[01:52:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Propose that? Propose that. Okay. So I'm willing to do that. Um... There was one on... They were also talking about seven, changed the proposed office land to lower intensity residential. Again, if somebody came up with a master plan to put in a European style, just take out Terabella and start from scratch, I would... Oh, well, to support something like that. East of Shoreline, south of Terabella. That pretty much is the same with single stories over his going layer. East of Shorelines, south of Terabella. Well, that was the same point, isn't it? 8 and 9 seem to be the same thing.

[01:52:52] Unknown Speaker: Madame Mayor? Um, I know that we're focused on the three, the study session questions, asking for council input, and I just want to clarify counselor McAllister. your wanting to comment on the items that went before the EPC.

[01:53:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, okay, what I'm trying to do is my vision, based on something that's already written. So, and so that at least everybody could click with something and sort of get a sense of the direction I'm going.

[01:53:21] Unknown Speaker: So what I thought you were saying is, you start with option 6, and then you are supporting a lot of the changes.

[01:53:27] Councilmember John McAlister: A lot of the changes we discussed. If you want to cut to the chase. Yes.

[01:53:32] Unknown Speaker: If I may suggest, I think it was very helpful during the EPC discussion to divide the area into four quadrants. That kind of gives staff a very clear idea of which areas we're talking about and which strategies we're proposing in which area. I don't know if that is something that council would like to consider, you know, discussing it in 4 quadrants.

[01:53:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I'll finish up, then they can come along. But I also concur with the council member, Clark, that my concern is that the existing gatekeeper continue on its path, the Saras Regis, and that area. So north of Terabella, it used to have... So I would like that to continue, and not stop, because that was 400 and some apartments and 100 ownership. So I like that to continue. And I think, okay, so that pretty much answers number two. Did it answer too, or did I confuse you guys as we went along? I think that answer, number one. Number one. Okay. I'm eager. Number two, the question was... Did you have any of these particular... Okay. Are there any particular policy areas or direction the council would like to plan to emphasize our address? I think I pretty much addressed all that what I was looking at. But I would like to... I would like to keep light industrial, more of it. I want to give it up, because once we lose it, I think that's starting ground for various trades that we need in the city, and if we can keep those, then also, it gives an entry for smaller businesses to come in. I know, booster board is one of those businesses over there. And they started small, and so I would like to have something like industrial, I would not want to decrease it. So you're trying to knock off almost 20%. So I would like to maintain as much light industrial as possible. And... and also the park's open space. I just, I'm concerned that we always take a lot of inloofy money, so I would like to make sure that we can get our parks situated sooner than later, and then sort of build around those around the transit. So I think the city can do that. And to number three. Okay, Terabella precise plan. At this point, two reasons why I want to go with the visioning process, it gives us more ability, flexibility for negotiation. So we can get, we can sort of dictate to what we want. We can increase the community benefits. We can still get our schools in there. And I think that's important. Also, I mentioned that when we had those, the question about the various precise plans or the change areas that we have, we had the five change areas, and we have still 14,000 units to build and four point some 1000000 square feet of office space. So we do have areas to grow under what we've dealt with. And I still think that if it was a trade off before the downtown precise plan in Terabella, the downtown precise plan is more important because that's an existing area that is changing and that we need to be proactive and changing that particular protecting that area versus something that hasn't been done. And if we go with the visioning process that does not preclude anybody from presenting a gatekeeper. So, I'm interested to hear what my fellow council members have to say. Council member Clark.

[01:57:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, so, uh, for the alternatives, um, so I was looking, between 4 or 5 and 6, um, I think my my general preference is council option 5, because it minimizes the amount of office. Um, and preserves the most amount of light industrial um, area. It doesn't preclude a hotel, and it also maximizes the mixed use retail. So those are the, um, the other options either sort of reduce um, reduce mixed use retail or reduce um, light industrial office more than that particular option. And I think, well, I don't think it's perfect. I think that particular option is the one that sort of, I think, maximizes for the things that we're trying to optimize for. So, if I had to choose between those three, I think option 5 is the one that sort of melds everything together the best. I would say that, But going with that, what I would, What I would say is I think we should consider as part of option five, I think we should consider residential as an allowable use on the parcel that Summary Hill had identified. I think this sort of thing is probably going to pop up as we go through this planning process over the years, but I think since we have we have someone who has land tied up and has a, I think, has a general vision in place and, you know, there are a track record developer that works, I think, well with the community in Mountain View, I don't see a reason to preclude them from preclude residential from those particular parcels at this time. As Councilman McAllister said, I would, if the gatekeeper that were out there today were in any other portion of the area where I think it would bother the neighbors, I think I'd have reservations about wedding it perceived, but I think allowing it to go through the environmental review and then bring everything back to us is acceptable because it's right by the freeway, and if anything, I think having the parking structure that they're going to put in place will help alleviate a lot of the some of the parking issues the neighbors have described, getting those off the streets. I, um, for the policy areas, um, I think it's really important that we, um, that we pursue a school strategy in this area. We look at things like transfer development rights, and I think transitions transitions will be really important in this particular area as we look at the policy areas associated with the planning process. And then for the last question, I know it's not sort of what we heard from the folks who are here tonight, but I heard very, I heard very different things. I heard that we want to, we really want to study traffic and parking and, you know, we're presenting all these numbers to you. You really need to study all these things. And then I heard you say, you want a gatekeeper process, which would not study any of those things, except on a project where a project basis. So, just so you understand, if we go project by project, when they do the traffic in parking studies, they're going to look at that individual projects impact on the area as it is today, whereas if you go with a precise plan, when you do the traffic parking, all the environmental studies, utilities, everything, it looks not just at what that one project is going to do, but how it impacts everyone in the area, and how it would impact the area, if the area were fully built out under the precise plan. And that, I think, is much, because that, I think, those studies would actually lead to less intense development, because they're going to give you a better sense of what traffic won't just be with that one project, as soon as it opens, it'll be what traffic impacts that project will have, not just today, but in the future, if things develop under the precise plan over time. And just because there's something called a precise plan doesn't mean it has to look like San Antonio or El Camino or East Wisman. Each precise plant is, you know, the North Bay Shore area has lots and lots of habitat and open space and green space associated with it. So each one is tailored and unique to the community. And those are, those are the mechanisms by which we actually look at transitions and park strategies and all those things as opposed to just a development by development basis. And the other risk that you have development by development is, as you see, in councils change. And, you know, you could have a council today that is much more respectful of the transitions that you might like than you might have in 4 years. And then when a project comes before us in 4 years, it might look very, very different from what you individually had envisioned as a neighborhood. So, I think the least that we can do if we're looking at an area that wasn't originally a change area, is to, is to do all the proper studies and put all the, all the, put everything in place so that you have some, you have, you're a part of the process of that precise plan development, which will take, you know, several months, if not an entire year. You'll get all the additional information that you've been asking for, like why haven't you studied traffic? Why haven't you studied all these other things? Because that's part of a precise when? And if we go with a gatekeeper process, you're basically accepting the visioning that you've all said that you aren't happy with, and then proceeding project by project. So I think, I think the precise plan here is the way to go. It takes longer. It's more involved, but I think it's the right long-term planning perspective. And I think it maximizes, it allows us to optimize for all the, for all the things that we've talked about tonight. And we've heard from the neighbors and everyone. And so I would, I would personally use option 5 as the basis for the precise plan, but I'm open to what others feel too. I was just trying to preserve as much wide industrial as possible in mixed use and then minimize the office. And I thought that option 5, just based on the numbers, did that, but I'm open to what others have to say.

[02:03:20] Unknown Speaker: I have a clarifying question on the analysis that would be done. If you have the 1st project that does an EIR and they look at traffic, the 2nd project that does an EIR, they have to take into consideration the first project, right? Because you do the cumulative impact.

[02:03:39] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so those are considered into the background, and then we look at the cumulative impact as well.

[02:03:45] Unknown Speaker: Right, so you're not just looking at one project, and then sort of forgetting about it, and moving on to the next project. But you're forgetting about what else might be built in the area.

[02:03:53] Unknown Speaker: That's... You're not looking forward, but you are considering everything that's already been approved. It is a community. Or in the pipeline. Yeah, anything in the pipeline, yeah.

[02:04:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[02:04:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I'll try to answer the questions as straightforward as possible. Although, actually, probably not going to be, number one, which alternative, and I'm already making some changes. So, I would prefer alternative six. I actually think it's a good balance of all of the different elements. I agree with council member McAllister. It's about quality, not quantity at this end. especially because this wasn't a change area. I think we really want to put special focus. And I had said that. And when we started looking at Tarabella, my biggest concern was that it, about, along single family residential neighborhoods, and we need to be very, very sensitive to how that, those transitions work, to make sure it fits with existing neighborhoods. But with six, I had a few suggestion, suggestion changes. Um, I'll start with the, I think are the easy ones. The mixed use. Summerhill, mixed use, rep suggestion, request. I would be fine with that. I think it's actually an interesting concept. And so I'd like to try it out. I would like to keep the the orange, what is that? I'm not my directions off. I think it's the north. Yes, that piece. Is that light, if it's light industrial now, is that what it is? Can we just keep it that then? We don't have to up zone everything. And then I would agree in terms of transitions. And I don't know how far or how detailed we need to go, but, um, there, well, so, I do have to say maybe I disagree somewhat with Councilman McAllister, um, we've always done transitions as what can, what can be built in the future. So if you have one story single family homes right now, but they're allowed to go 2 or 2 stories, then we allow up to 2 stories. And if you look at the Rex Manor neighborhood, actually, you'll see a lot of the one story homes transitioning to 2 stories. So I would be okay with that. I think what's really important is though, the buffer. So one of the elements here, the EPC question talks about the street, having a street, and then a buffer versus having the street in the buffer, I would prefer a street and then the buffer. So, I know we, you know, talk about Madeira a lot, um, as a good, and it is. I think it's a good example of good transitions, but you do have Villa Street. So that is a wide enough buffer, I think, that makes it a good transition. Um, The other thing, though, I will be open to, I would be open to, if we don't rezone that corner, is along middle field, maybe going to going a little higher. Um, Middle of the field being a, um, yes, on the, what is that? North west of Middlefield. I don't know what north of no, west of Shoreline? Is that how you talk about, yes. West of Shoreline, north of Middlefield. Yes. So I would be open to going a little higher on that. Um, So policy and directions, um, and this goes, I guess, into the question number three, but my concern is, um, that, or my, my priorities would be, one, traffic mitigation and transportation, alternative transportation options, making this area. It's, you know, congested as it is right now. We don't need to add more congestion. Let's make it better. And so in light of, and then I would say a school strategy. And in light of Crittenden being there, I think this is a great opportunity to do something. Um, and then, uh, neighborhood transitions we talked about, and then also, um, I like the idea of mixed use, you know, providing more neighborhood amenities, you know, if it's possible to make Shoreline Boulevard, more, um, yeah, more rich with uh, services and retail. I like the idea of doing mixed use there. So making sure we provide good neighborhood amenities are my priorities for the area. Um, And then we go to precise plan versus vision. So in light of all of these interests and concerns, um, and having, you know, done this for quite a while now, um, and seeing how gatekeepers worked and how precise plans have worked, I really believe that precise a precise plan is the way to go to get a comprehensive vision, you know, to put the vision into place in a comprehensive way. Usually gatekeepers happen when you have like a parcel, you know, kind of off one off parcel and they want to rezone and and and we look at that. But when we start to see them, you know, one by next to each other, and it starts to become a contiguous area. I think it really does lend itself to looking at it comprehensively. And, um, and in a precise plan matter. I know the issue of traffic has come up. And yes, although we do, like with gatekeepers, look at a cumulative impact, if I remember how ERs are, it's very esoteric. It's very, you know, high level and you don't really get to get into the details with that. So with a comprehensive traffic study, you know, EIR, we can look at all of that more closely. For those of you who are concerned about doing the precise plan, because perhaps you're not excited about the San Antonio precise plan, for instance, um, you know, every precise plan, every area has its own vision, and that's why I ask what our vision for this area is. San Antonio, for instance. We, you know, it's a shopping center was the main focus. We looked at 6 to 8 stories, allowing that there to bring in office, but we're not looking. I know we've already allowed a gatekeeper to go for seven, but the rest of what we're doing tonight is what would be the vision. And so we wouldn't see San Antonio here is how I perceive it. So in light of all that, I think we should proceed with the precise plan. I will hold back. I'm not sure yet if it should be a priority project. I think that's something that we will have to talk more about on April 23rd. But, yes, yes, on the precise plan, waiting on what priority we give it. Thanks. Sorry.

[02:11:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[02:11:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm going to be completely unhelpful and suggest a 4th approach to this. I've struggled with this whole process from the very beginning. I think to answer question one, which land use vision alternative do I prefer? I need to know what the vision for the Teravella area is. And I don't think I have a good sense of that. When the San Antonio precise plan was approved at the time, I think the council was interested in a regional retail center. And it's changed a little bit. Now we're going to have a school there, but that was the vision for that area. And similarly, we were able, or previous councils, were able to articulate very clear visions for areas like downtown in North Bay Shore, El Camino. I don't feel like we actually have a vision for Terabella. I think what we have is policy direction from a previous council to dramatically increased housing supply in this area. And a lot of concern and interested from the adjacent neighborhoods and addressing the impacts of increased height and density and, you know, exploring sensitive transitions. and sort of a council that's trying to put those 2 together. And I would be hard pressed to call that ambition. It's a compromise. Um, I guess the question I would ask is when Terabella is built out, what is it? Is it a destination? Is it a place people go for entertainment? Is it a residential area? I have no idea. And I'm concerned about something that council member McAllister brought up pretty early on. When we rezone light industrial areas, they won't, they're not going to come back. And so we, I think in my mind, if we're going to do that, there has to be a compelling reason to do so. Um, and I don't know what that compelling reason is. You know, I don't know what the vision is. There's a lot of value in having an area that has lower commercial rents. If we were to increase, the intensity of office space here, the existing businesses will go away and a different kind of business will come in. much larger employers, I think. So, I'm really struggling to answer any of these questions. I agree with a lot of the policy areas that other members of the council have identified so a school strategy and certainly being sensitive with transitions, but I don't really feel comfortable picking any of the land use alternatives because I don't really know what we're striving to achieve here. And I would hate to have the council members who have spoken and sort of come back and explain their views. If there's a majority for a land use alternative, then I guess we'll go with that, but I'm really struggling. I don't know what to say to the community. This is what Ter is going to be. I do strongly support a precise plan, though. I think gatekeepers in concepts sound nice because, you know, what I think the neighborhood is interested in is having a strong counsel negotiate very hard with a developer to get the best possible project that we can get. But as I think council member Clark had said, what you will get will depend on the council. And I think you have a council here, that's very sensitive with many of the concerns that were identified by the neighbors, by the neighborhoods, but I don't know if that will be true to four, 6 years from now. And so I think that's why it's imperative that we have a precise plan that very clearly articulates the vision for the Terabella area. And then that provides the mechanisms that, you know, we can use to get maximum investment in the area for transportation improvements for schools and for parks, which we're not guaranteed to get with gatekeepers. So, I support a precise plan. I'm also not sure if I would make it a priority project quite yet. I think we've got a lot of stuff that we're taking on. And so we, I think, you know, I would need to hear clear support from the community that this is a priority, which I'm not sure I'm hearing yet. So I hope that was helpful.

[02:16:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[02:16:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, So when thinking about, um, Terabella, I think something that's been discussed is how this area wasn't identified as a change area with the general plan, and that's part of the struggle in discussing a vision, um, and what it should be, um, I think there's been robust conversation on the deus up here, I think for myself, one of the things that I'm trying to think about, um, is, uh, what to create, that best includes the existing community, the existing neighbors, the existing businesses. So when I was looking at the different alternatives, I feel like the community input that, uh, I received, um, you know, fell into alternative 6 if we were looking at alternatives. But in my line of questioning, when I was asking about the light industrial, the number of businesses, um, and talking about displacement, I think we've talked about residential displacement. Now we're talking about business displacement. And so, no matter what alternative, we look at, I would like to see some planning for the existing businesses that are already there. So I think we receive some feedback during public comment that some of the areas that have been marked as residential, currently have existing light industrial, and that there is an existing community that already exists there. So how do we kind of incorporate, change around and not over is what I'm thinking about. In terms of policy areas, some of interest, our community benefit, school strategy, looking at preservation of businesses. I think this area has small and mid-size businesses that would have difficulty relocating to other parts of the city. looking at transition, setbacks and buffers, and looking at traffic mitigation, and also multimodal opportunities. When discussing going forward versus with a vision versus a precise plan for me, it sounds like all of us, all of the colleagues as well as the public, want something that's a clear path. Um, to, uh, the vision that we're trying to come up with. And for me, that's with a precise plan. And I know that, uh, not every precise plan is, is, um, maybe as ideal. Um, but I think that there is an, uh, uh, appetite on counsel to try to create something, um, really well thought out of that kind of dress, the different, uh, policy, uh, concerns, um, that have come up. And I think that also would be a great way to take into account that this isn't an identified change area with a precise plan. We will be able to, I think, incorporate more of a vision for the area going forward. So those are my initial thoughts. Thanks.

[02:19:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Hicks.

[02:19:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm going to answer the questions in reverse order, I think. First, in terms of precise plan versus gatekeeper, I agree with the direction that most of council is going in. I think that we need, what I hear from the community is that there's a lot of impact coming very quickly, and a lot of concerns. I would like quality and vision over speed. Um, and that, um, I also think, but I also want to be responsive to the community, and I heard, you know, virtually everyone get up and say they want gatekeepers, not the precise plan. But, um, this would I want to be clear that this would be putting it in our queue for possible projects coming up. And it might not be something, if all of you come, at least to me and say, we still really don't want a precise plan, we really prefer gatekeepers. In my mind, the precise plan gives us the opportunity to do quality, to have a vision, to study the traffic, to have a real school strategy, what other things, real community benefits, know a little more about the park, um, to find the transitions better than we have, um, maybe get a 20% affordable housing target, that's a community benefit. I'm repeating myself. Okay. Say, where the bike path and connections go, say, maybe there should be some office, residential, mixed use, or other kinds of mixed use, all of those things more carefully than we have. So I would go in that direction. But if I'm not hearing you right, and you all really want gatekeepers, tell me, and we can probably tell me if I'm wrong also. We can probably just keep deferring it and do gate keepers instead. I think the existing gatekeeper should go forward. And then, uh, Which land use? Maybe it doesn't matter so much since we're all talking about a precise plan. I was kind of leaning towards option 5 with so many changes that it didn't resemble option 5 anymore with, um, you know, much more, much more sensitive transitions. I think you all are allowed to go up to 2 stories, 2 stories, but with setbacks, to, you know, some of the, I'm really concerned about jobs housing balance. So there's an area that's labeled, this is west of Shoreline. It says office or residential, you know, making that maybe residential, and moving the residential, you know, I assume that some of the residential near Morgan Street would become school and park, so then making that office area adjacent to, they're also smaller, so we could have more residential. But if we're going forward with a precise plan, maybe all that's moot.

[02:22:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I'm gonna take a turn before we have additional comments. In terms of the land use alternative, I am leaning toward alternative 6, but I also have a lot of changes I would propose to alternative 6, and similar to council member McAllister, all of the items at the EPC address, um, that is 3 for their number 3456, 789, and 10. I agree with all of those. And I think that's what you were saying, right?

[02:23:12] Councilmember John McAlister: You made it more concise

[02:23:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: and I did. That's because I heard you. I had the benefit of your insight there. And then, in terms of the policy direction, One thing I feel like we need to keep in mind in all of this is, you know, this was not identified as a change area. And so, while there might be interest in redevelopment, and I do have an interest in adding housing there. I think we need to keep in mind that this shouldn't be as dramatic change as in an area, that was identified as a change area. So in terms of the policies to support a different, um, a different, uh, I guess I don't even know what to call it, a different makeup of that part of the city. I do think we need to talk about a school strategy and parks and open space, traffic mitigation, the transitions. And I do want to make sure we keep quite a bit of light industrial. And so, there's a couple spots that in option six. Well, there's at least one that, I would say, spot zoning for residential, and I don't support that. It should be light industrial in that area. And so, I don't support the Summer Hill project that would change light industrial to residential. In terms of question three, I am leaning toward doing the gatekeepers. Although I think it'll be interesting when we talk about our goals and the projects to support those goals. We have a lot of other things we talked about that will be competing for staff time. And, um, while I think the precise plan does offer some benefits, I think the gatekeeper route offers some benefits. So right now, I'm leaning toward just gatekeepers.

[02:25:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, council member McAllister, did you have additional comments?

[02:25:33] Councilmember John McAlister: I just want to follow up on Lucas, a council member of Ramirez. And Pam, you're in the audience. I thought of it, I didn't even think when I saw your letter later. But the vision for Terabella. And that's why I was thinking about that Northwest quadrant or half the thing, that we could bring in, to get rid of Terabella Street and make that something special, something fantastic, though, that it is a total mixed use that it incorporates everything. So it could be a destination. Because I agree with you. It's sort of a non, you know, all it is a continuation, what we're doing. And I got our urban planner down there. Allison, you could probably give insight and say, yeah, that's something that'd be done. So, If we move forward in, we had a developer or owners come together and say, we want to present a master plan. Does that anything that we've done tonight preclude them from doing that?

[02:26:35] Planning Staff: Not that I think.

[02:26:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So if anybody else on the council would sort of, you know, encourage, I think, there we could do something great. And so I just, I hope that there's some smiles out there. But I'd like to see, let's do something bold. Let's do something exciting and that way we can do it and make it a vision that we could be proud of. So that's why I would encourage the owners of that area to get together and see what they can come up with. And hopefully our council will encourage them and staff to say, yeah, bring us something new and exciting and go forward.

[02:27:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[02:27:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it's just 2 quick things. I don't think there was a, it didn't, I, maybe I didn't count right. I don't think there was a majority either way for 5 or six. I think there were probably more people tilting towards six. And I think... Yeah, there was. Yeah, yeah. And so what I was going to say there is, I'm not opposed to six, as I said at the beginning, and the vice mayor brought up a comment, like maybe one happy medium to maybe read, retain some, um, reduce densities, but also not affect the residential health that much would be maybe some higher, a slightly higher intensities along middle field where it won't bother anyone and then lowering intensities elsewhere. I think there's probably a happy medium there. And the other thing that I wanted to say was on the, um, Um, I guess along, um, on the south southeast side there, like I have no interest in zoning, people out of existence. So, um, you know, if we want to make residential and allowable use, um, and, um, you know, not make those existing light industrial, um, tenants non-conforming, uh, I would be, as, as I think RT mentioned, you know, I, I think we can, I think we can easily just say, like, yeah, in the long run, you know, a vision of maybe having residential in that area makes sense, but we're not going to kick anyone out and we're actually going to, you know, we're going to make residential and allowable use, which I think allows them some additional zoning flexibility in long run. I don't see why they would be opposed to that. But I wasn't suggesting that we just change it to residential kick out the existing folks and make them a nonconforming use. I think just allowing making residential and allowable use on those parcels is probably the best way to go.

[02:29:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[02:29:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I like your your, uh, idea, your creativity, Counselor McAllister. Uh, and, uh, I guess my, you know, challenge, the challenge is that we have existing businesses that want to stay. And so maybe down the road, when things really change, maybe past our lifetimes, but that could be something that, you know, in a perfect world. I don't think this layout is right, if it were me, I would put the light industrial office closer to Shoreline Boulevard and put the residential away from the big, busy boulevard. But, um, that's not how things have been laid out. So, yeah, I'm not sure how much we could do in that sense. Yeah, if there's a, folks want to try it, that I'm, you know, happy to consider whatever comes up. In terms of the spot zone that the mayor mentioned, you know, the reason why I would say housing could be allowed is because we've zoned the other piece on the other diagonal side as housing in the middle of light industrial. So, and that's our affordable housing project, I believe. So, I thought it was a good enough compromise. My question to the rest of you is, um, what do you think of this orange piece, the residential piece on that corner? Is there, or maybe I should have, staff, is there a request to rezone that? The one right here in residential next to...

[02:30:37] Planning Staff: Yes.

[02:30:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is there a existing request or?

[02:30:43] Planning Staff: Like, I don't, yes, there's no existing request for development on that site, staff had a stakeholder meetings with a particular developer who will like to develop residential over there.

[02:30:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, I would then, well, I'd like to, I was going to ask the rest of you if you have how you feel about keeping it, as is.

[02:31:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Castle member Ramirez.

[02:31:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'll be brief. So responding to the vice mayor's question. I don't have a problem with the, I guess, alternative to alternative 6 that you're suggesting where you sort of retain that area as is and then allow for increased height, I guess, along middle field. I'm comfortable with that. But more broadly speaking, I think, you know, the value of the visioning document is inherently limited because there isn't any environmental review. There's really no accompanying policy document. It's just more high level guidance. These are the colors of the map that we're comfortable with as a council. So, you know, I would be hard pressed to say that this color here is any better than a different color there. But I think very broadly, I would be comfortable with entertaining gatekeeper proposals in this area, and that, you know, I'm fairly confident with this council, that, you know, we would only allow those gatekeepers that have truly spectacular proposals move forward. And if there's a substandard proposal, we would reject it. We wouldn't even entertain that notion. So that's kind of where I'm thinking we're going regardless of the visioning document that really, I'm not sure it matters much if, you know, if we're allowing gatekeepers to move forward, we just need to have a strong sense of, you know, what is it that we're trying to achieve, you know, with school strategy with traffic improvements, um, with open space, with other community benefits, and then if it's a really good project, we'll move forward with it. If it's not, then we'll reject it. We won't even allow it to move forward.

[02:33:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments?

[02:33:06] Unknown Speaker: I'll just say in terms, I don't know whether I'm answering your question the way, the kind of answer you want, but, um, I would just do whatever with that, that area that would, it seems like eventually we want the school to move into that area. So I do whatever would most facilitate that, whatever, it seems like, if there's not a clear vision anywhere else, that's the one patch of land that there is. So I would just do whatever would most enable that. I don't want to up zone it and then make it really hard to put a school there.

[02:33:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Clark.

[02:33:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think that could be direction to staff to, as we proceed. You know, pay particular attention on the school strategy to that particular site, and, you know, as part of the school strategy, say, you know, while your vision might be residential is acceptable here, maybe we don't want to change the zoning quite yet, but we might also, one of the school strategies might be transfer of development rights. How could we facilitate that, you know, on some of the parcels around there? Because, you know, maybe the school district doesn't need that entire orange blob, maybe they only need part of it, and then maybe there are transfer development strategies that you could use there. Maybe they do want the whole orange. I don't know, but that could just be a particular focus that we have them say like, look, we don't want to make, if this school ends up needing that space, we don't want to make it any more difficult for them than necessary to sort of move into that area. But we also, um, But we also want to, if we're going to move forward a precise point or whatever planning process, we do. We just want to make sure that there are mechanisms by which to facilitate that, whether that's transfer development rights or other things.

[02:34:44] Planning Staff: So if I may, the, I think in the past council meetings, this was a question for staff, how do you envision implementing this vision plan if we don't have a precise plan? And in that case, we will have these policy directions, which is like school strategies, job housing balance, TDM parking. These are, these will be some policies which will be listed as important for the area. Whenever we look at any development review process. And council will have the authority to discuss all these priorities on a side-by-side basis when we do a gatekeeper project review.

[02:35:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. I'm going back to my trying to sell my master plan. So a master plan could incorporate a school as part of the mess, so that would address the lot of the concerns that we're coming through here. And I also understand that potentially a lot of leases are going to expire at the same time, so something could move forward in this particular area sooner than later. So, I'm just throwing some ideas out there. That's all.

[02:35:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Before I attempt to do some summary. Like, did I? Yeah, I thought, what a mess. I've taken so many notes here. And I guess what that says to me is, I don't feel like a clear consensus emerged from all of our discussion here. So I'm gonna start with question three, and it seems like the majority of council is interested in having this discussion at the end of April when we talk about our goals and the projects to support those goals, if there is room in that, to do a precise plan. Are we going to prioritize that? Then, in terms of the policy or direction, question number two. I would say that there is a majority support for making sure we address the school strategy, the transitions to the existing neighborhoods, traffic mitigation, and getting around without being in a car. Um, I heard quite a few people say we need to make sure we take into consideration parks. And then also, we need to preserve light industrial, and concern for the existing businesses. In terms of the land use alternative, this is where I feel like there is definitely not complete consensus or even a majority. Um, but I feel like starting with option six. And making some changes to that is what might be a starting point. And I'm sorry to say, a starting point because I don't feel like we're to the point where we're going to be able to say take 6 and make a couple of little tweaks, and that's it. So this might be another case of we need to talk about it again once we have a new version of option six. And with option six, I heard changes might be certainly the transitions to the existing neighborhoods, the keeping a lot of light industrial. There were a couple comments about perhaps more height along middle field, sort of in exchange for lower height, close to the existing neighborhoods. I would agree with Council member McAllister's idea that, and I feel like there was probably enough support for this, that if somebody has a master plan they want to do for the, I guess it would be the Northwest area, that way you'd be open to looking at that. And certainly preserving the ability for the school to expand on the parcel right next to the school is something we want to do. Any other comments? Any other questions, or...

[02:39:29] City Manager Dan Rich: If I might. The things that you summarized, I wonder if it would be a relatively short exercise for the council as a whole to, I think, agreeing with the need for sensitivity at transitions. Um, I, I, too, heard a lot of people talking about preserving light industrial, um, and, uh, about the potential for, um, greater um, height and density along um, middle field with the council as a whole indicate whether that's something that you are.

[02:40:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I think we said in exchange for lower density, closer to the lower density, lower height, near the existing residential neighborhoods.

[02:40:17] City Manager Dan Rich: And with those, at least those few things being, um, uh, areas where the council by and large is on the same page about suggesting changes to, um, Vision Alternative 6, I'd like to ask our, um, planning staff, if you feel like you have, um, sufficient direction to work with to revise that Vision 6.

[02:40:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez, were you in the queue?

[02:40:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, just a quick question, but that last question may have answered it. But from staff's perspective, is there any urgency in approving a land use alternative? I mean, if you have if that summary provides sufficient direction, then it's a moot point. But if it sounds like another study session may be necessary for us to come up with a coherent land use, you know, map to approve, then what's sort of your sense of how important it is to do that really quickly?

[02:41:28] Planning Staff: Every point that one. I don't think it's a huge time imperative. I mean, I think we can take the direction that we have tonight. We can come back and work through a final plan and bring it back to you. And, of course, if we have a concurrence to move forward with a precise plan pending the discussion in late April, then the information that we have, for example, for option six will fold into a precise plan. and further iterations.

[02:42:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, any other comments on this one? Okay, if not, we'll close this portion of the meeting. And we are going to come back, and I apologize for all of you who are waiting for the regular session. We're going to start the regular session in 10 minutes at 5 to 8.

[02:42:26] Unknown Speaker: In the United States of America, and to the Republic, which just stands, one mission, underground, indivisible, with liberty, and just as well.

[02:42:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Our deputy city clerk will announce the attendance.

[02:42:43] Deputy City Clerk: All council members are present.

[02:42:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. We're going to start this evening with a presentation regarding the 2020 census by Santa Clara County census manager, Monica Tong. Thank you, if you can come up to the microphone right here.

[02:43:08] Census Manager Monica Tong: Let's see. I've never had to raise a mic before.

[02:43:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Me either.

[02:43:15] Census Manager Monica Tong: Will it be broadcasted, or do I need to, how do I...? Great. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor Matatrek, and counsel. Thank you so much for having me this evening. My name is Monica Tongue, and I'm here on behalf of the Santa Clara County Office of the Census. I'm honored to be here this evening to update you on what the county has been doing about census work. Oh, over the last about six months, to a year. And what were all the work that we have to do moving forward for the next year and a half? So I'll briefly go over why we need a census and what the whole plan is going to be. Article one, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that we have to have a census every 10 years, and it's coming up next year. And we are just over the one year mark, the one year mark was yesterday, April 1st. And Census day will be April one, 2020. Why is it important to have a census? That's always a great question. I get that almost every day. And the real reasons are pretty clear. About $675 billion, B, as in billion, are distributed annually by the federal government for federal programming. Of that 76000000000 does come here to California. But all of the all of the money that's being allocated for California, or everywhere, actually, is based off of accurate census data. So that is really why we need a complete count here in Santa Clara County and make sure that everybody gets counted. The other reason is really political power, apportionment for Congress relies on census data. And in fact, in 2020, if we don't get everybody counted here, in California, we stand to lose a congressional seat. And if we lose a congressional seat, the density of population is actually in southern California. So the map would ship shift south, and Northern California would be disproportionately affected by that. So we here are here in Santa Clara County to fight that and make sure that everyone gets counted. This is just a description of which programs are some of the programs that use census data, and I'll just keep going. In 2010, only 73% of people. responded via mail. That means 27% of people did not respond to this sensus request. The other people were counted by enumerator visits. So somebody knocking on your door asking you to fill out the form with them. So this year, we're hoping that that either stays the same or goes up, but we all know that there's a lot of challenges with this year's census. And this is a map showing the density of where people did not respond via mail. You know, it's a little bit hard to see because all of the colors are very similar. I am working on that and I'd be happy to share that when we're ready. So some of the most the biggest challenges for Census 2020 is that it is the 1st digital census. That means this is the 1st technological upgrade since 1950 when the census went to mail rather than always visiting people's houses by knocking. So the Census Bureau is really looking to have everybody, as many people as possible, fill it out online. But that comes with its own set of challenges that we're trying to overcome here in the county. lack of access, as well as people being told, don't share your information online. But wait, this is okay. So that is actually something that we're working on. Another challenge is that people don't really care. And that is our task to help educate folks about why census is important, especially for this region, and we look forward to partnering with the city in order to do that. One of the other big question marks out there is the citizenship question. Two courts so far have blocked the citizenship question, but it is going to the Supreme Court this month. So we won't know exactly what happens until this summer, likely. With that said, the county of Santa Clara submitted an amicus brief yesterday on April 1st, opposing the inclusion of the question. So we're doing everything in our power to try to not include that question on the form, which has not traditionally been on census questionnaires in the past. So I mention this briefly, but the way it, the 4 ways that you can participate in census are on the internet, via the phone, and in person. There are challenges to this as well, and we're looking forward to, as I said, working with everybody, to overcome them. The internet form is in 12 non-English languages, so that's exciting. However, the paper form is only going to be released in English and Spanish. So in a county like ours, that is not sufficient enough to get everybody counted. So that's where the county is going to step in and with our partners, help try to close that gap between those. This is kind of what we're doing here in the county. It does get a little bit complicated and confusing because there are different layers of what's happening in census around here. So the US Census Bureau is nationwide and they're working on it. The state of California is working statewide, but here, your local governments are also partnering, so we have the Santa Clara County complete count committee, which we had a pretty large meeting today of about 120 people coming together to talk about these issues that census has brought us and how we're going to overcome them. We also have a steering committee. I know this is a little bit difficult to read because there's so many subcommittees. But the steering committee is the main body between the county executive's office and our subcommittees. And I'd like to thank council member committee for stepping up and participating in the steering committee as a strong voice for North County on our team. And the other folks here, one of the other subcommittees I'm going to highlight is the cities and neighborhoods. Subcommittee, which city staff has been participating in, and we do really appreciate their input and look forward to that continued partnership. Ways in which folks can help. We're really looking for recruiting for these positions. They are flexible. They are part-time, and they pay $30 an hour. So we were really looking for folks to apply for these federal positions. I unfortunately have no control over who gets hired or whatever, but they are fairly, uh, they do provide some benefits in terms of being flexible and paying a pretty decent amount of money for the job. It is, I do want to preface that, though. It is a canvassing position, so it is not, um, necessarily desk work, but It is an opportunity to maybe get some steps in and get paid for it. So we're also looking for social media partners. Our social media sites were just launched yesterday after being approved. And we are looking to continue working with the city on incorporating census in all of the events around the city as well as how we can spread word about census and its importance and help answer any questions that anybody might have about it. We are looking for trusted messenger partners, so we're working with a lot of nonprofits in the community, but we're also just looking for partners in general. So if anybody has any questions or is interested in census, please contact, I guess, council member Kame or myself, and we're happy to answer them. But with that, this is our team, Nick Kawata, Miguel Santiago, and myself working for the county. And that concludes my little spiel. And I appreciate the time and look forward to working with everybody. Thank you.

[02:52:02] Unknown Speaker: I actually have one question. What's the date of those jobs?

[02:52:05] County Census Representative: They are ongoing, ongoing. Yes.

[02:52:08] Unknown Speaker: So good summer jobs for teens.

[02:52:10] County Census Representative: So there are a few qualifications for the jobs. You do have to be 18. So that's one of them. But they are hiring now for the fall, they will be doing address canvassing. So every year, the Census Bureau updates, addresses, as housing shifts, et cetera, borders of cities change. I'm not so sure how often that happens, but they want those lists every year. And, um, The Census Bureau doesn't necessarily believe everything that the county submits. So we have to, they will be sending address canvassers into the community to ensure that those are in fact homes. So that's going to be happening this fall. So they are hiring now. Then there's another opportunity for point in time count next January to March. And then the enumeration really happens between May and the end of summer next year. So there are 3 different opportunities for these jobs. And yeah, they are accepting applications on a rolling basis, and you only have to apply wants for all 3 opportunities.

[02:53:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you very much. You, I appreciate it. Hey, next item is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Are there any council members who want to remove an item?

[02:53:40] Unknown Speaker: So I'm gonna pull item 4.5.

[02:53:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any members of the public who wish to pull an item? Okay, seeing none?

[02:53:50] Unknown Speaker: On item 4.5, The council policy and procedures committee recently met and we talked about council policy A13, which has to do with council meetings and public input. And I appreciate whichever council member sent in a clarifying question, because we'd like to tweak a little bit the wording here. So, um, for public input, it says an individual speaker shall have up to 3 minutes to address the council. If requested in advance, and here's what we're adding, of the public input portion of the agenda item to the mayor or city clerk. So we wanted to clarify that if somebody is going to consolidate time, that they have to do so prior to that item being open to public input. so that we can get the right time allocated to them.

[02:54:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so with that clarification. Is there emotion? There's a motion by council member Clark, a 2nd by the vice mayor.

[02:54:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I move the consent calendar, which includes adopting a resolution amending city council policy, A13, city council meetings to be read entitled only for the reading, wave detachment, one in the council report.

[02:55:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, and we're ready for a vote. And, uh, consent calendar is approved unanimously. 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. And it looks like we have one person at least, but if folks could line up, Be sure to fill out a blue card so we get your name correct in the minutes, and we have our 1st speaker.

[02:56:04] Gary: Gary, what's the Mountain View? This afternoon in Sacramento, a meeting was convened of the State Senate housing committee, chaired by a state senator from San Francisco named Scott Wiener. One bill that was considered is SB 50. Which would empower developers to build 4 to 8 story condos and apartments almost anywhere, for example, in Mountain View. without your permission. And local government could not even require more than a half parking space per housing unit. So if there were a couple of condos that were 3 bedroom, the state would allow you to have one parking unit on site, one parking stall required for 6 bedrooms. SB 50 is a new and slicker version of a bill introduced last year by wiener, SBA 27. that did not get out of committee. The Mercury News is reporting this afternoon, that this slicker version did get out of committee, by a vote of 9 to one. There are only 40 members of the entire state senate. The mercury news reports that the bill will proceed to 2 other committees. It'll certainly get a majority in the Senate. It'll move on to the assembly. This whole process is greased. It's rigged, this bill is going to pass. And the question will be whether Governor Newsom will sign it. If he does, you don't need to talk about Terabella anymore, all of that will have been decided for you. If you live in a single family home neighborhood, get ready for high rises right next to you. Now, I warn people about this previously. Other cities are up in arms around here. You need to get together with them. Palo Alto has conducted meetings. Sunnyvale is throwing a fit. Los Saltos is going everywhere to protest this. Don't wait until it's too late.

[02:58:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. And again, this is a comments on item, not on the agenda.

[02:59:01] Alex Nuñez: Hello, my name is Alex Nunez, and if you guys can believe it or not, I'm a Mountain View resident. I didn't have to get put on a bus by someone to show up here, so definitely great place to live. I think, uh, I had some idea of what I was going to say, but the gentleman uh, behind me kind of, uh, you know, segued me right into that. And also, along with some of your comments during the last meeting, council member McAllister regarding rent control and about what it means to have a fair rate of return. I think the, you know, keyword there that struck me as I was listening to was the word, uh, fairness. And the reason why that struck me is because, you know, I don't really think, you know, I need to cite any statistics or, you know, tell you the names of people who did these studies, but up through the 1960s, whenever there were economic booms, there was also building booms that followed. Generally speaking, people were able to get into a home that was sold at a price that was not much higher than the actual cost of building that home. But ever since the 1960s, you know, we're talking like 1970s, 80s, 90s up all through to today, there has been a implementation of strict regulations and controls around how you use land, what you can do with it, what you can build, et cetera. One of the really awesome ways to drive up the value or price of a good, including a home, is to restrict the supply. of that good. So that means that you could have just been some random person, without any talent, you just happen to, you know, or, you know, I shouldn't be something, some talent, some vocation, and you happen to buy a home really cheap, and then you just sat in it for however long and now you're a millionaire. I think that's kind of awful, especially, you know, it's not bad in itself, but it definitely is awful when a lot of the controls that are being put in place. prevent people from being able to come into a economically productive area. Like me, I'm technically a high wage earner. All right? So, by restricting the supply of housing, I'm giving way more of my wages to some landlord, then I need to be giving. How's that fair? Shouldn't I be able to retire? Shouldn't I be able to have a family here? Shouldn't I also be able to buy a home? So honestly, you guys are so up in arms about this SB 50 thing. You guys had your chance. You had decades to build housing. And now when that's gonna get taken away from you, you're all up in arms about it. And another thing that they do in Europe, by the way, is that they don't give municipal governments the ability to control how housing gets built.

[03:02:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:02:16] Reina: Good evening. My name is Reina. And I'll hear tonight because I am skin if you can stop about the politicians. This is my 2nd time that I'm gonna be addicted, but I like to go on a place what is, can I have my family safe? And um, not thinking or not to face another time to be addicted from, again. And um, just, um, Just asking you to see if you can put more affordable houses. I know you being booked on um, for the Arvest, not to park here anymore, which is maybe it's okay with that. But we have to think on them too, to put housing for them too, as well for us too. And then I'm not sure if you did something for the teachers, the workers. So I hope if something happens with that too, with the workers who, with people who works in Mountain View too. So we don't have to, um, commute from long distance to come over here and work and live our kids behind. Um, it's hard to give our kids behind. Um, to another place while you work far away from them. So that's why I'm here to asking you to think about families, to have a place to live with the portable houses. Thank you.

[03:03:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to address the council on an item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing done, we'll close that portion of the meeting, and we will move on to the public hearing. Item 6.one, which is the residential development at 2310 Rock Street. And tonight, our presenters are senior planner, Matt Van Osten and planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams.

[03:04:28] Senior Planner Matt Van Osten: Hi, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. I'm Matt Van Osten, and I'm joined by Stephanie Williams, and today we're going to be presenting 2310 Rock Street. The project location is just east of Independence Avenue and just north of Rock Street with frontage's on both of those streets. It's a 3.one acre site, and the project is 18 units per acre. It's 55 rowhouse units, and it's replacing 59 rental units which are currently covered under the community stabilization and fair rent hacked. The project also features 2 parking spaces per unit, plus 17 guest parking spaces. 41% of it is open space compared to the 35% minimum. It includes a tentative map to create the 55 lots and 2 common lots. And the project meets all development standards, including setbacks, height, density, building coverage, and parking, and there's no exceptions requested. So here's the site layout. As you can see, the 55 units are spread across 13 buildings. There's internal circulation with 2 centralized common open spaces. as well as front yards for each of the units, and special paving connecting all the pedestrian walkways. The project design is a Mediterranean style with wood, stucco, and iron. It also features some tiling, decorative tiling on the ground floor. And here's another view of the project from the centralized open space. As you can see, staff has worked with the developer on creating some differences in character between the buildings with the developer. And just to go into the CSFRA and Trao briefly, the existing rental units on site are covered by the city's community stabilization, and Fair Rent Act, which is CSFRA, and the tenant relocation assistant ordinance, which is TRAO Trail. Qualifying households will receive trail relocation assistance under the current ordinance, which includes 3 months median market rent, full refund of security deposit, 60 day subscription to rental agency, and additional $3000 for special circumstances. So the staff's recommendation for this is for council to adopt a resolution conditionally approving the project and adopt a resolution conditionally approving a vesting tentative map for the project. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[03:07:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We will start with council questions and then I'll open it up for public input. Council member Clark.

[03:07:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just had one. It was based on, it was sort of a follow up to one of the questions that another had been submitted in advance. I was just curious, I know, I think at one point, there might have been a concept to sort of make this neutral in terms of the units lost versus basically the unit count would match what was there. I forget it was 58 units or the exact number. And I know that would require exceptions to, I think FAR and building coverage, I think, based on your response. And my, what I was curious about is typically we can give direction on, you know, make some architecture changes or those sorts of things, and then you can ministerially approve it. if we were to say tonight that we're okay with the exceptions to the specific exceptions for like FAR and building coverage. Would you have, could you ministerially still approve that or would it have to come back to us because the map changes?

[03:08:20] City Staff: It would have to come back to council for the exceptions and map.

[03:08:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, thanks.

[03:08:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:08:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep, 2 questions. One, I asked a question about the 60 day subscription, and we've heard, I've heard concerns from a prior residence that it's not really a proactive device. They give you a send you, they talk to you, see what's available, or what you can afford, and then they give you a list. Have we looked in Are there options where we can get somebody that's more or a process that's more engaged with a rent, you know, fighting apartments for the tenants than a 60 day subscription to a sort of a one and done type of approach?

[03:09:10] City Staff: I would just say that that's what's currently required under the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, so, um, I don't know that we've done any research into doing something different if If council were interested in looking at any amendments, we could.

[03:09:25] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's... that's good. We could... talk about where that fits on the work plan, and you're gonna be having that discussion.

[03:09:32] Unknown Speaker: Well, shortly. Yes. I mean, your mic's not turned on.

[03:09:39] City Staff: There we go. Those services are definitely available. I think we have to look at how we're going to incorporate that in revising the trail. In the meantime, we can ask developers to provide these added more proactive services. So, there are more services that are more proactive instead of,

[03:10:02] Councilmember John McAlister: okay. Definitely. And is there a significant cost with that?

[03:10:06] City Staff: Yeah, those services are more charged per hour versus this $75 for 2 months rental agency subscription. So $75 gets you something to review? You get to pay rental, which is, you input certain criteria that you're looking for, and you get an update once a week or twice a week. What type of rentals are available. That's what is now standardly offered. Oh. If you go to a more proactive individualized service where people talk to you and you work together to find spaces, they help you fill out applications or referrals, that is going to be on an hour by hour basis, and an average amount of 5 hours is usually spent per tenant.

[03:10:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. This is question, so I got another question. So they also we give, there's a, on that gives three months a medium rent for the transition, is, that's not based on what they're paying now. It's based on what the market is charging, correct?

[03:11:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Come on up.

[03:11:27] City Staff: That is correct. So once the project is getting your application in the planning department, and they come to us to set up the trail, we use the costar numbers to see what the medium rent is at that time for that specific rental property, and we are looking at it by bedroom, by bedroom. So if it's a 2 bedroom, it's a different number than when it's one.

[03:11:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So even if they're in an apartment where the landlord kept the price relatively low and below market, they will still be getting compensated for market rate.

[03:12:02] City Staff: Yes, so the ID behind that is, if they have to go look for another apartment, they have to pay that higher market rate.

[03:12:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so when we compare the medium, So is that with Mountain View, or is that in the Santa Clara County?

[03:12:15] City Staff: City of Mountain View. City within Mountain View.

[03:12:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[03:12:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else have questions? Council member Kameh.

[03:12:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I have a question related to some public comment we've received prior, which was related to talking about a moratorium on demolitions. I was wondering if someone on staff could kind of comment on that. I know it's one of the things that we might be looking at during our council goal setting. Just wondering if we could just...

[03:12:45] City Staff: So, you know, we haven't been assigned the work item of any kind of a displacement toolkit or methods to address the displacement and the issue of demolitions.

[03:13:00] City Staff: One of the concerns about a moratorium on demolition is the Ellis Act. And courts have held that limitations on a landlord's ability to demolish the units is problematic from a legal perspective. So we haven't done a great deal of research on that. And, um, have taken a look at it, and I do have some concerns about the Ellis Act. moratorium, we'd have to be able to meet the state requirements to show the urgency and make the necessary findings, and then it would take a super majority or 6 of you to vote for a moratorium. And we could look at moratoriums are typically used for zoning and maybe we could look at a particular zoning district, and discuss a moratorium there, which, of course, I'm sure you might have this discussion also in later this month when you talk about your goals.

[03:13:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: you. I had a question for the applicant, if possible. So it sounds like there's 33 households that remain on the property and of those remaining households, 20 are eligible for trail benefits. So it leaves about 13 households that look like they might not qualify. Um, is there any sense from you, um, on perhaps if they're on fixed income or if they're just over the the trail amount? I know I brought this up last week in terms of doing additional outreach to those that might be just over? I don't know if you've had a chance to do that.

[03:14:34] Applicant Rostos: Sure. So we feel it's important to follow the trail and measure V. We did hear from discussions with Mrs. Cashin and with some other households who live at the complex, that there are, what I've heard, 2 or 3 individuals or families who are slightly over the requirements of the trail by as little as $2,000 or $3,000. We're comfortable increasing the qualifications by $5,000 to let those households in. Our goal is not to be difficult with those families.

[03:15:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. One more question. So, one of the questions that Council member Clark brought up was the alternative where there might be additional units that you would be able to create, should council to kind of go in that direction. Is that something that you and your team are open to?

[03:15:30] Applicant Rostos: We've had the discussion both with staff and members of councils when we met with them. One of the issues that we ran into is that it was kind of brought up pretty far down the line, and it would have deviations from the zoning code, and our sense was that the council preferred projects currently that came forward and met the zoning guidelines. This project is fully compliant. In addition we have a contractual agreement with the seller to close escrow on a certain timeline. And my understanding is that if we were to, if the council were to request that we go with an alternate site plan, that it would be at least three or four months, to get us back to a council hearing, 'cause we'd have to go both through staff review, a formal review, to the zoning administrator, and then back to council. We also have to factor in the summer break, if you guys are. given one this year. So, those were just all the factors that we took into account and decided to move forward with the 55 unit plan.

[03:16:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I see. So are you able to share what that timeline is with us in terms of, when you're contractually obligated to...

[03:16:31] Applicant Rostos: Sure, we're required to close escrow this summer.

[03:16:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: This summer. Okay. Thank you.

[03:16:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You know what, I apologize. I forgot to ask you if you had a presentation.

[03:16:42] Applicant Rostos: I did. You guys have already kind of covered some of the topics but I'm happy to get it.

[03:16:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That'd be great.

[03:16:49] Applicant Rostos: Sure. Well, I'd like to start by thinking staff for their efforts on the development application, works excited to provide 55 new for sale housing units to the city of Mountain View. The Ryan family built this complex and is owned and operated since the early 1970s, and I've made the decision to get out of the apartment business. To date, 25 of the 58 households have relocated to new housing opportunities. I do want to cover what we've done in terms of the tenant relocation to date. We've met all requirements of both measure V and the Trao. And with regard to some of the questions from council member McAllister about additional benefits and the 60 days subscription. We're well aware from doing redevelopment in both the city of Boundview and other cities, that tenants need more help than just a 60 day subscription debate rentals. That's a requirement under the trail ordinance. So, one of the things we did offer was additional benefits. I'm sure you'll hear public testimony that not everyone will throw both them. The goal of auto temps was to do provide specific relocation possibilities to people when they give specific circumstances. It's very challenging for them to send out an email or a listing that meets the requirements of a household or family, if they don't know exactly what amount of money they can afford on a monthly basis, how many bedrooms they need, and what cities they're willing to relocate in. So we tried free of charge to offer those services to all tenants, regardless of their eligibility under the trail. To date, I asked for an update from auto temps. They worked with 12 special circumstances households, and 10 other households to find new housing. In addition, I connected with Todd Speaker on Friday, in preparation of this hearing, he reiterated his interest in helping. He does own apartments in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Redwood City. There again, though, Todd made it clear that tenants have to, and I'm happy to help facilitate this. Let him know what they're looking for. And he will do his best to place them. One other point I want to touch on. I covered with the item about increasing the benefits for those who are close, and That's about it. In closing, we ask for your support. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

[03:19:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I think Council member McAllister has a question.

[03:19:08] Councilmember John McAlister: So you did you said you reached out to another firm that was a lot more proactive. What kind of success rate have they had so far?

[03:19:16] Applicant Rostos: So, auto temps is the firm that we used. Auto temps, before the recent, uh, the trail was updated, was on the approved list of relocation teams approved by the city of Mountain View. So what they do is, they are there to drive households to and from apartments. They're there to provide low-income housing applications. They're there to, if the household says, hey, I want to locate to Mountain View or XCity to provide listings. So how successful? They've worked with 22 families who have relocated. 25 of the households who lived at this complex have relocated already.

[03:19:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Because of auto tech?

[03:19:54] Applicant Rostos: They have been a part of that process. I can't tell you exactly how many gave that listing.

[03:19:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. That's yeah, I just want to see how successful that was. Thank you.

[03:20:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Council member Hicks.

[03:20:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I had some additional questions for Mr. Rostos about the, um, about, uh, movement. move out benefits beyond the trail. Um, one is, uh, if whether you could extend the move out date, beyond the summer date, that you had been speaking of, to fall or winter.

[03:20:30] Applicant Rostos: Sure. So, you know, we heard from a number of member households who lived at the complex and from the council, about the request to give additional time, the current move out date, or the one year notice requires termination of tenancy around June 20th. The remaining, that's for the special circumstances, households, the remaining tenants who don't qualify under special circumstances, receive 120 days notice. We spoke to the owners of the property and are able to extend the termination of tenancy to the end of September of 2019.

[03:21:06] Unknown Speaker: And that would be for all tenants?

[03:21:07] Applicant Rostos: Yes.

[03:21:10] Unknown Speaker: Then, um, Another benefit that had been offered to other people and other properties in the past was getting out of their leases early, if they find a place.

[03:21:22] Applicant Rostos: Sure, that's no problem. They just need to let the landlord know when they're ready to move, turning their keys, and we're happy to waive the right to a 30, the requirement of a 30 day vacation of their unit if they find a new housing opportunity.

[03:21:38] Unknown Speaker: And then another additional benefit would be getting Trao payments upfront, as soon as they find an apartment rather than waiting until later, as happened in another property.

[03:21:51] Applicant Rostos: Under the trail, they're entitled to 50% of their benefit funds, as soon as they verify with the city's relocation team, that they qualify under the program, as discussed on other applications, if they bring forth a lease or some sort of proof that they have found a new housing opportunity, where the funds are kept in escrow that's required under the trail, they just need to notify the city's relocation team, and we can advance some of the funds they need to have startup costs.

[03:22:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. I have one question, and I'm not sure if this is for staff or the city attorney, but can you tell me how the housing accountability act impacts our decision making here tonight, or if it does?

[03:22:37] Unknown Speaker: It does because it's a project that is compliant. It's not asking for exceptions. But more to the point, actually, is the fact that the zoning administrator has already made the necessary findings that this project complies and meets all the requirements for the issuance of this permit. So it makes it very difficult under the Housing Accountability Act to come up with a rationale to deny the project.

[03:23:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister?

[03:23:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep. Thank you. This is for staff. So I had a question about how, in one aspect, we use bedrooms to determine one thing, criteria, and then when it comes to the park in Lou fee, we look at number of units. But in hypothetically, the more units, the more people it's going to house, which therefore would exceed. So it's sort of a catch 22 is one thing they do this, but on the second, they don't have to pay this. So, what needs to be done to correct this sort of a loophole about paying less when we know that eventually there are going to be more people living in this project.

[03:23:57] Unknown Speaker: So are you talking about the parkland fee specifically? It's actually one of the issues that we brought back to the council recently when we made some minor modifications to our Parkland ordinance, and it's been that way in the city's Parkland ordinance for years and years. So it's an amendment process for an ordinance amendment process, and it would probably require some study to be able to figure out the fee on a bedroom basis versus a per unit basis.

[03:24:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, wasn't there some 2.one units? Was that based for rental or ownership? That was for... So I saw that 2.one ratio for apartment to determine how many people live there? Does that ring a bell to either of you to? looking at stairs. Okay. No. I'm used to looking at it. Okay. Okay, so that would be something that would have a council would... come back to and re redo that then. Okay. Yes. That's my.

[03:25:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions from the council? Okay, thank you. Um, we will open it up for public input. If I could see a show of hands of the folks who want to speak tonight, okay, so, um, we'll have two minutes per person. And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card and turn it in with our deputy city clerk, either before or after you speak. I would appreciate it, if you could go ahead and start lining up. I do want to remind folks that, um, tonight, there might be different perspectives on this topic. And so it's my expectation that everyone will be respectful of the comments that are made tonight and listen carefully, and there will not be any applause or any booing. So we're just going to listen to what everyone has to say because we really want to hear what they have to say. If the 1st person could come up.

[03:26:13] David Meyer: Thanks, mayor, vice mayor, members of the council. My name's still David Meyer. I represent Silicon Valley at home. Also mountain residence. I'm probably gonna repeat some of the things that I said last week, so bear with me, because I think that the proposal before you tonight, Here's many elements from the Montecito project that you heard last week. We believe that there are, you know, economic pressures and city policies that are favoring the replacement of naturally occurring affordable housing in mountain view with four cell homes, which are still outside the reach of even moderate income families. Those modern income families are struggling to find alternative housing, affordable housing options, and this situation is even worse for lower income families. We appreciate that the council's deliberations last week, focus and potential policy options for creating long-term solutions to displacement challenges. Building on these council discussions, as well as those held during your first goal setting meeting. The city council should move quickly to prioritize the development of a policy that will address these displacement issues through a consistency wide approach. We reiterate our call on the council's attached staff, granting strategy, to preemptively engage with this challenge. Staff and Council consider range of policy options, to address displacement of law income families, enhance relocation benefits, opportunities, for tents, or nonprofarizations, to purchase adverse properties, known at loss policies. We think that the council should take this opportunity to instruct staff to pursue those options. And just, finally, as I say last week, our intention is not to single out a single developer here. It's one project. It's not about Josh, it's not about the ownership housing, rather, we're seeking to call attention to this displacement challenge, and encourage you to take this opportunity, to look at all the options that you might be able to consider citywide.

[03:28:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Exactly. Council member McAllister has a question for you.

[03:28:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Really? Really? Hi, boss, remember? My question for you is, one of the issues that I hear for people that are being transferred out is income verification. And since your organization doesn't build or do that. But could your organization advocate or get some of your sponsors to sort of have a pool of money or guaranteed for individual's process that they would guarantee at least a year of income or to help those people to get it replayed or displaced a year of guarantee that landlord, you get for a year, we cover it, and that gives those people that are relocating time to establish their credit. Is that something that you guys could get a panel or discuss among your various corporate sponsors and so forth?

[03:29:01] David Meyer: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a really good point, and I think it is a good idea that we should certainly try to explore, and we could maybe figure out what kind of organization could guarantee something like that. I'm not sure if CSA currently does anything like that for lower income tenants, or if it's something that... the housing trust could potentially be engaged in. But I think that's a good idea, and I'd be happy to talk more about it and try to...

[03:29:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[03:29:55] Leland Erickson: Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Leland Erickson. I'm a resident of the 2310 Rock Street Apartments. And much talk about auto temps that came to mind that their response to me on our inquiry was that there was nothing for us. I haven't heard from them in months. Regarding the demolition, I'd like to give you a sense of the human cost to my partner nearly 20 years and I. Number one, we will be forced out of what we call home, our home. We've been there since 2013. a Bay Area native, a peninsula native. Two, we will be forced out of Mountain View. Again, this is raw numbers, based on our actual income, how much we actually have. How much we earn? I'm a disabled person. Three, we'll be forced out of our jobs. That's reality because we've been forced too far afield for the commute to work. We have an old vehicle with over 120,000 miles on it. The wear and tear will exponentially increase. The list goes on. Do you only give me two? minutes, I don't have a lot of time. Four. We will be forced to separate, because we have to leave California. We will no longer have jobs. My partner will go to North Carolina where her daughter's family is. I can't go with her because of my medical issues. I need healthcare coverage. I'm covered through MediCal right now. It's the only thing I can get. So I have to go to a state where I get coverage. Well, the only option for me, because I have no living family, is Oregon where I have some friends. They have a couch. That's where I'll be sleeping. We will have no proof of income. Landlords do not rent if you have no proof of income. A landlord wants first, last deposit, and income from every tenant, every occupant of the rental unit. We won't be able to show that. Landlord will not accept us without that. Thank you. Package is inadequate. I cannot afford the Bay Area. We were just starting to rebuild.

[03:32:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Next, please.

[03:32:20] Sam Henry: I'm Sam Henry, apartment 14, 2310. I'm just gonna be opening honest with you. It's not enough. It's not enough time. I'm a veteran of 15 years in this country. Three years overseas, 12 years in the Army National Guard. I'm honorably discharged. And I'm having a hard time. I'm 70 years old. My wife is two. We know that the apartments and housing facilities are real tight in the Bay Area. And if I have to relocate so be it. But as far as me and my other people at that facility, it is not enough money. We got to have money for first and last. Innocents asperating. I'd rather probably be in combat, I had to face this kind of issue, and it stresses my wife out, it's causing a lot of psychological problems for the residents, and it's really appalling to me. Please reconsider that we are Americans, and we need help. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:33:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:33:29] Kenya Gobles: Hi, good evening. Good evening. My name is Kenya Gobles, and I'm also resident 2310. And thank you for your time. And I'm sure you've heard an array of stories. I mean, people have been coming up for days and months now, and the cost of relocation for a lot of us is just our personal story. Everybody has a story. Everybody has children. Everybody has roots. I mean, it could be five, 10, 20 years in the area, et cetera. For myself, it's approximately it's close to 10 years now. And the biggest cost for me is not only the pain of uprooting and having to leave. But my children and their father, we're separated and I would have to take away their father because I won't be able to afford the area. And again, everybody has a story. So beyond every single person's story that everybody has one, like you all have families. And if you had to move, I mean, that costs time and stress, et cetera. stressing my child out, who has anxiety. She draws pictures all day of, not to demolition, and mommy, when are they going to kick us out? And as much as I try to reassure her, the mommy's going to figure out, that's in the back of her mind. It's obvious. However, have you considered, for the near future, what Mountain View face is going to be like as, um, we just continue, allow this juggernaut to take over and and just change the face of our city, because we are the city. We are the family, the friendly neighbors who greet the incomers, all the foreigners who come to work for Google and Facebook and you name it. We're the ones who greet them. We're the ones who are friendly at the park. When we walk our, you know, our dogs and take our children to the park, it's us. We make the city. It's not just based on buildings and, you know, wonderful new opportunities for building. Obviously, that's gonna come, you know, come with revenue. But the people who make the city are living in droves and we're going to be left with just, you know, uh, not diversity anymore. I mean, just engineers who live here because those are the only ones who can afford it. So I really ask you to consider this as a council for the future of the city, not just for our tenants now. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:35:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:35:42] Joanna Tubert: Good evening, my name's Joanna Tubert, I live at 2310 Rock Street, like many of my neighbors that are here. I wanted to quickly address something that Council McAllister said about the relocation rental help through Bay rentals. I have tried contacting them, and they kept running into proms. Oh, we don't have this. We don't have that. You know, the credit cards expired. And so I called them every day for 2 weeks saying that they would fix it. They would fix it. They would fix it. Um, I have the time during lunch to give them a call and stuff like that, but it's very frustrating that we were supposed to have this help and I have to resolve their problems. I had to reach out to other people to see, okay, who has the credit card in charge of paying for this service? I feel like that's something that if I call, I should have, you know, been helped right away. I also want to say that living at 2310 Rock Street right now, I'm within biking distance of work, of the grocery store, of the train station, of parks. I can walk around in the neighborhood. My husband and I have looked for other places to move, to live, and none of them are really comparable to what we have, um, not counting price at all, just looking at, um, you know, the kind of apartment we have with a little yard and some outdoor space and not being just crammed into basically boxes of apartments like a lot of the places around here. And, um, a lot of them are not within easy walking or biking distance of a lot of things that I can do now. that would force me to drive more, which I really don't like, and our streets are already congested enough. So something that I, like, everyone take into consideration with us moving. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[03:37:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Excuse me? Got a question. So what was the company that wasn't fulfilling your request?

[03:37:25] Joanna Tubert: Bay rentals? We were given their number to give them a call. So I called them.

[03:37:30] Councilmember John McAlister: You were given the number from by the city?

[03:37:32] Joanna Tubert: Um, by, uh, about a ton. Auto tech. Sorry.

[03:37:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Josh, can you help us out here?

[03:37:40] Applicant Representative Josh: No, I just know, listen to the stories and see what we can...

[03:37:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, how does that work? Why is it bay rentals versus auto temps? Yeah.

[03:37:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you know? Yeah. Yeah, come on up. 'Cause we, this is a big concern of mine.

[03:37:52] Applicant Representative Josh: Sure. So Bay Rentals is the 60 day subscription that is required under the trail. Auto temps is the firm that we engage to offer additional relocation benefits. The situation she's discussing is true. It was my mistake. What we did was we set up a credit card so that when any of the households called in and wanted the 60 day subscription, they could immediately get it. That card expired. I believe she reached out to auto temps or ARWS. They notified me, and I updated it, and I apologized, that was on me.

[03:38:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So what about going to that one service where people come, and they actually get a real, you know, person to help them relocate?

[03:38:33] Applicant Representative Josh: Sure. Auto temps held office hours on site in August, September, October, November, and December. We had a very low turnout. I understand some of the tenants feel that the listings they were provided not meet their needs. They were provided their contact information, and if they choose to, they can engage and they are there, free of charge, to offer listings. If they're not giving the type of listings they want, They can email me directly and all get engaged. But it's, as I mentioned before, it's really important that auto attempts understands what it is they're looking for so they can try to meet the need. There are some circumstances that are very challenging. This complex has been built since 1970. There are some longtime residents who have very low rents. So their ability to move, say, from a 3 bedroom into the current market rate of 3 bedroom is very challenging.

[03:39:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, I understand what you're saying, but we're not solving the problem. So, you know, giving somebody a listing and say go for it. I mean, we need to do something better than that. And so you said you had a company that will sit down with the people and be more proactive.

[03:39:42] Applicant Representative Josh: I think you might be misunderstanding.

[03:39:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[03:39:44] Applicant Representative Josh: We've actually already engaged from the moment we announced the redevelopment.

[03:39:50] Councilmember John McAlister: I understand it was so cool.

[03:39:51] Applicant Representative Josh: Yeah So they're there. I mean, there's a project manner assigned for this development.

[03:39:58] Councilmember John McAlister: And, but from what I understand, is that you give them, the tenants would give them some information, then they would send them a list maybe once a week or something like that, versus actually, but you also said there was the option that somebody will sit with them, fill out applications, do the,

[03:40:14] Applicant Representative Josh: no, that was the city was talking about that.

[03:40:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[03:40:16] Applicant Representative Josh: Yeah, so the city's ordinance does not provide any actual relocation assistance in terms of finding a new housing opportunity. That's why we engaged auto temps. Auto temps had open office hours in the pool area on weekends, which were not attended by very many of the households. So they're actually there to meet with them, to fill out applications. They will drive people to different locations if there's an issue.

[03:40:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, Josh, I understand.

[03:40:40] Applicant Representative Josh: Sure, okay.

[03:40:41] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I'm putting you on the spot. Okay. Can we go to the next level? Okay. And help the people, and that this 60 day subscription, Can we go to the next level where we can do? People might have been delayed or hoping for the best. Can you re engage them to come to site? And can you get other people to actually help fill out applications and actually do more than just give them A?

[03:41:05] Applicant Representative Josh: Absolutely. The tenant relocation company will be there, if it's on the weekends, or it's in the evenings, as many days of the month as the households want them to be there. The issue we ran into is that the last three meetings that we held on site were attended by 0 residents.

[03:41:21] Councilmember John McAlister: I understand. We're in different times. We're getting critical time now.

[03:41:24] Applicant Representative Josh: Sure. We're here to help. As much as you would like them, or the households would like them there. They can come in the evenings or on the weekends and meet with them on a one on one basis. I think it's a much higher probability of success if they sit down with individual families. versus a group as a whole of the remaining, let's say, 30 households and try to give general listings to people. I don't think there's going to be a success.

[03:41:45] Councilmember John McAlister: And you've heard that from some of the tenants. When can you send a letter to the tenants and saying these people will be on site?

[03:41:51] Applicant Representative Josh: Immediately. As soon as, you know, we can have, I've been in coordination with Mrs. Cashin, if they want to tell either Ms. Cashin, or the on-site owner and property manager, Mr. Ryan, about what days would be the most flexible and good for them to have someone there, we can have someone there one day of the weekend and one day in the evening during the week, whatever's flexible. know people's schedules are different. We're happy to get that going immediately. Would that be helpful?

[03:42:20] Public Speaker: We actually met with a lady from AutoCome. We did meet with a lady from my husband and I. Um, and but from our understanding is that, um, those services are only available to people meeting certain requirements, so financial requirements. So if you make X amount of dollars over, you know, then those services were not available. The only service that was available was the subscription to the Bay rentals.

[03:42:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Josh, can we?

[03:42:46] Public Speaker: That was the what the woman told us.

[03:42:50] Applicant Representative Josh: That should not have been what you were told. We offered those services to anybody regard. regardless of their trail. If that's the case, then I apologize, but we will get them there and they will work for you and it will be free of charge. Thank you.

[03:43:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:43:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, can I ask a question?

[03:43:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, sorry. Sorry, Josh. Just remember Ramirez.

[03:43:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: One more follow up question to Council member McAllister's interrogation. So I appreciate... Request? Yes. I appreciate your willingness to serve as sort of the liaison between the tenants and Mr. Speaker, and I think it's not going to work for everybody, but it may work for a number of the tenants. And I just want to get a better sense from you on how you intend to ensure that the tenants are aware of that opportunity and that they have, you know, I don't know if they're going to have direct engagement with me, Mr. Speaker, or I'd like to better understand how you envision that communication working.

[03:43:46] Applicant Representative Josh: So I would think that we would send them some sort of an update letter on whatever we agree to this evening in terms of the new timeline and anything we're going to be able to do to help assist them. And in that letter, dictate that they can have. give them my email, my contact information. What Mr. Speaker told me we should do is have them send me an email of the size of their household, how many bedrooms, what locations they're open to, and what range they feel they're able to qualify for. And then I would put them in touch with Mr. Speaker. I think, in general, Mr. Speaker said he would talk to them, and then pass them along into his property manager to find them something new.

[03:44:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[03:44:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I think. Okay, next, please.

[03:44:31] Nancy Codem: Good evening. My name is Nancy Codem. Um, I want to let you know, if you don't know already, that Ryan's our wonderful family. It's been a wonderful place to live. I'm not, I'm not complaining because they've made other, you know, they've, they've, um, sold it or in the process of selling it. But I do wonder why the city doesn't, in least some cases, require that's being built is a mixed community, a community that gives you a variety of people, which, I mean, maybe townhouses mixed with apartments. I don't know why you can't put something in place that doesn't kick out as many people as you do when you tear down an apartment, a big apartment complex, and you don't think about who's coming in or who's this going to affect. I think, really, that's probably your job, your job, to put something that says, look it, if you're gonna replace 59 families, Let's make some of those replacement buildings. Let's make them apartments or a little apartment, you know, a little bit of it, associated with apartments, and then some with townhouses. I've lived in communities like that, all throughout the United States in different areas. And you keep a diverse and vibrant community alive that way. Thank you.

[03:45:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:46:04] Ming Joan: Hi. My name is Ming Joan. I live at the 2310 Rock Street Apartments, and, um, you know, uh... The Mountain View City is a very special place. And, you know, I'm not going to say the same things that I've said to you in person at meetings, or over emails, or say things that people have expressed before. At this podium, very heartfelt, heart to heart. Um, I just want you to really think hard about your decision. And really think about the vision that you want for the city and what kind of leadership you want to take for the city because this development is changing the face of Mountain View. Maybe it just starts with these few families, but literally the middle class is being kicked out of this city. And if our units, if our units and this development is just the 3rd along the line of many, many more, I just want you to think very long and hard about everything you do. and every vote that you have and know that you have the power to have a historic vote, know that you have the power to lead and to have vision for the city and for the Bay Area, for our state and for our nation. And it really is that big. It's each one of our, each of our personal stories and our devastated lives and what we believe is a harm to us and our families. But you have the power to do great good. And so I just call on you to do as much good as you can. And I'll just leave you with that. Thank you.

[03:48:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:48:06] Heather Phipps: Hello, Heather Phipps. I'm a tenant here in Mountain View. I'm also a member of the Mountain View Tennis Coalition, and as well, a member of the showing up for racial justice chapter in San Jose. So I'm speaking, again, in front of you all tonight to ask that you vote no on yet another demolition of affordable housing here in Mountain View. I also just want to add, you know, I don't really understand giving everybody, there's not a long line of people here giving everybody just 2 minutes, just seems extra cruel. Um, you know, based on the stories we're hearing, the least you could have done is just give 3 minutes. There's not that many people here. Um, I think we just just start getting really frank with you all because this is an emergency situation. This is a housing crisis. And you all are just continuing to rubber rubber stamp gentrification. Um, you know, what you should be doing is asking city staff to work on a no net loss of affordable housing because just talking about if there's going to be 59 units or 55 units and this new development when it's all ownership housing is kind of a waste of time. This is you're turning affordable housing into ownership housing, which is not affordable. So you're causing affordable housing to keep leaving this city. This is a crisis that you all are creating. It's not happening to you. You're doing it. Your hands are not tied. You all are doing this to the city. And there are other policies in place that the city is seems to be, you're all just ignoring, which does require there to be, like, you know, a different mix of housing here for different income levels. That's, you know, part of policies here in the city. You also have a goal of protecting vulnerable communities and preserving diversity, which, again, it seems you're just ignoring by just bubber stamping these demolitions over and over again. Um, you know, I just, I implore you, uh, actually, no matter, you know, for you to vote no tonight, but regardless of your vote, I ask you to ask city staff tonight to get a policy in place for no net loss of affordable housing. Thank you.

[03:50:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:50:16] Chris Stubert: Hello, my name is Chris Stubert. I'm also a resident of 2310 Rock Street. There are a few things I wanted to say. The 1st is about the relocation benefits. I did want to say that I believe that what you're saying about the relocation benefits, but that's not the reality on the ground that has been communicated to us. My wife and I went to the 1st meeting. We listened to them. We also had an email conversation with them, and a lot of these these benefits. This is the 1st time we're hearing about it. I also wanted to talk about the community that you're losing. You've heard from many of my neighbors here that this is more than just apartments with people on them. This is a community. It's a community that's unlike any other that I've experienced in my adult life. It's a community of friends, of wonderful and colorful people. I've been truly blessed to be part of that community there. And I want you to be aware of this is something that you're losing. You're losing this community, and many of my neighbors are saying today, and many have said that cannot be here tonight because of work or family. that they cannot continue to be here in Mountain View. So not only are they leaving the community of 2310 Rock Street, but they are, you're losing them from the city of Mountain View. I, um, So, This is part of a larger problem, as you've been hearing, and even if you vote to allow this to continue on this property, I hope that the council will address this problem and will look into larger solutions that can be applied to the city. Thank you.

[03:52:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:52:21] Public Speaker: Hi, again. Well, I like to know, I like to talk about relegation. I think you need to check with all those, um, evicting houses. They already has come and say, yes, I got something from them. Um, So I think once you check the people like me that I already had something from them, like they really helped me to find something where I going to live. I guess you can keep going and going and on and on. Because if you don't stop this, it's going to happen the same thing and every single time we're going to come and tell you, stop demolition and blah, blah, blah. But I think you really have to keep an eye. and see if they do whatever they have to do or if they're really helping us find a place to leave or fill it up applications or look for places to go to the place they want to go because that doesn't happen to me. I'm still waiting for the guy to come and say, or send me a list, to see to give me a price or a place where to go and find something. So I suggest you can check the point because everything sounds good from them, but it doesn't happen. Not for me. And then there's many, many people behind me. It's not only me, it's the monte. Oh, Rock Street, and now they're coming in other ones. So I suggest that. Thank you.

[03:53:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:54:05] Daniel Saber: Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council. My name is Daniel Saber, and I'm an attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, and I'm here 1st and foremost to urge you, once again, along with a lot of the other speakers to vote no on this project and to deny this particular project. I think that it is in your power, and I commend the speaker who really asked you to kind of dig deep and think about your decision. I think you have the tools at your disposal to do so. This project is clearly against the public interest, like many of the projects that have already come by. It's creating the displacement of low and middle income families in this community. It's specifically replacing them with a different group. You're getting rid of low and middle income families for much higher income families. It's like kind of a trade-off here that's happening with a project like this. It's a net loss of units, particularly and more importantly, it's a net loss of affordable units, naturally affordable units. And it's a loss of economic diversity. In terms of the kind of tools at your disposal, I hate to come up here and pick a bone with the city attorney on the housing accountability act, but I have to respectfully disagree with the analysis. I think that there's a couple of technical reasons why the housing accountability act is in a barrier. One is that you have met your market rate rena numbers, which is a sufficient reason to not have to let the Housing Accountability Act plow this through. Additionally, if you have a specific or quantifiable adverse impact, you could also deny a project. Here, we have a pretty specific identifierable adverse impact, which is the net loss of housing, the displacement of many families, et cetera. I'm disappointed to hear that the housing accountability act may be weaponized to actually decrease housing. That's the opposite of its intended purpose. I would also just echo what the other speakers have said, which in addition to this project, I strongly urge you to actually prioritize some policy approach that we're not doing this on a case-by-case basis, and we have a better set of rules for future projects. Thank you.

[03:56:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Oh wait, there's a question. Council member Ramirez has a question for you.

[03:56:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are you aware of any development proposals that were in full compliance with a city's zoning regulations that the council rejected, and where if there was a legal challenge, the council's decision was affirmed?

[03:56:30] Daniel Saber: Yeah, that's a, so I was doing some on the spot research here. So I have, I'll be honest with you. I haven't done extensive research on this, but I did just look at the text of the Housing Accountability Act, and there are several exceptions that it says that you do not have to approve the project if you make a finding on one of the following, and it gives you several options. One of those options is that you've already met your arena quota for the income bracket that the new housing would be for. I believe you've met your luxury housing arena numbers by now. A 2nd alternative independent grounds for denial that's just written right into the housing accountability act is if you can identify a specific, quantifiable, adverse impact. And again, in this case, I think you have, it's pretty specific and quantifiable, you have a net loss of 4 units, you have the displacement of 59 families, there's, I don't see a reason why you couldn't list those as specific, quantifiable, adverse impasse, if you were so inclined. My point is simply to say that your hands are not tied by the housing accountability act. For, you know, you guys all are in the decision making seat, you have to make a call based on your own conscience. Thank you.

[03:57:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. One more question, please. Yes, sir.

[03:57:43] Councilmember John McAlister: So, it seems that Mountain View had three projects in a row that we had displacement. Is there any correlations with Mountain View having rent control to other cities that don't have rent control? Have you seen the same type of activity of tearing down existing natural affordable housing?

[03:58:01] Daniel Saber: So I have two answers to that question. Yes, we've seen that in other cities, and what I would say is, more importantly, we saw this in Mountain View well before the advent of rent control. So I think if you go back and have staff evaluate how many redevelopment projects you've had like this and when did they start to come online. Did you have projects like this that came online before December of 2016? And I think if you go back and look at the records of the types of projects that you've had in the city, you'll find that, yes, in fact, there were quite a number of them well before there was ever rent control in the city. So is it possible that perhaps some landlords are using rent control? Maybe, but, uh, that doesn't seem to explain what's really happening in Mountain View because how do you explain what was going on before rent control? Thank you.

[03:58:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:58:49] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, long term Mountain View resident. Last year, when I was mayor, I met with the residents of 2310 Rock Street, about 30 of them, and it really struck me that these people are the backbone of our community. During the campaign last year, People were talking about the need to keep moderate income housing, the missing middle. Well, right now, the middle is going missing if this project is approved. In December, when the council majority approved the 2005 Rock Street project, Some council members talked about trying to do something to set a policy so it wouldn't have an ad hoc response to each of these proposals. To my knowledge, nothing has been done thus far, even though we consider that, well, council adopted a resolution saying we're having a shelter emergency. So it's very disappointing that nothing has been done policy wise to address this. Maybe you will eventually. It needs to be done because we are losing not just that I care about these people. We're losing people that we need in our community. In addition to that, and the legal points that Mr. Saber made. You have to approve a heritage tree removal permit tonight. You don't have to do that. It's not in the public interest to do that. If not I lose trees, we're going to not have a project that serves our community. In fact, it strikes me. It's really strange that we have a policy to protect trees. in our community, but not a policy to protect our residents. Finally. I listened to all these discussions. I watched last week's meeting, all these discussions, trying to figure out ways to improve relocation assistance. And yeah, I support that. But to me, it really sounds like we're trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Mount View has to stand up and say, We can build new housing, we can build townhouses, row houses, condos, and apartments, all over town on commercial property. Why do we have to lose natural affordable housing? Thank you.

[04:00:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:01:01] Joe McDonald: Joe McDonald, even longer resident of Mountain View than Lenny. And I'm not competitive. I want to add several things. One, the League of Women voters of Mountain View Los Altos did a year's study concerning rent control so that we could have positions on various aspects of rent control. One of the things we learned was that there was little difference between cities that did have rent control and cities that didn't have rent control, in terms of the number of complexes, that were demolished, in order to rebuild or redevelop. That was true before measure V, and it was true after measure V, and it continues to be true. So rent control is not actually the cause. That's number one. Two, if 2310 rock is approved, that will bring the total numbers of affordable housing units to 113 in the last month or so that we have lost, that means 113 households are displaced. And that has a significant, economic impact on the city, because all of these people, or most of these people, some of them are retired and not working. But most of them are working in Mountain View. And I have learned from small businesses, particularly, that they are having such a hard time having keeping employees that they're going to go out of business. Thank you.

[04:03:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:03:12] Public Speaker: Thanks. All right, got two minutes. First of all, um, it might be that market conditions were, um, making the demolition of these units, um, you know, like really profitable in 2014 all the way through today. That might be the case. I tend to agree with John, that it might be the case that by, you know, controlling prices and stuff on rent, then, you know, you might be triggering these things. But still, the reason why I will defend rent control is because there has been decades of property value control by baby boomer homeowners. And now that we, the renters, have decided to put some kind of other control scheme in place. Now it's all of a sudden really bad. Nope, I don't buy that. I'm going to fight to the nail for rent control until we start to build more housing in a meaningful way. The 2nd thing is that we're not saying that people can't. sell their property if someone told you that you couldn't sell your house. I would totally disagree with that. We're saying, this is how you can sell it. Buyers, when you buy this, this is what you ought to do with that property. And so, just echoing what a lot of people have said. There are options, there are options that we can take. The whole tenant relocation stuff. I bet if you asked, you know, this veteran gentleman here, or, you know, the gentleman that left who was disabled, if you said, hey, would more money really help you out here? I mean, maybe for a while, but here are some policy options. Council member Kame just mentioned, you know, moratorium. I think that's a great idea. I think we should use that time to study some policy options, like a no net loss of affordable housing. If you knock down 20 affordable units, you need to replace them with at least 20 affordable units. Dan Rich would probably like to look at the zoning. Couple that with a right of 1st return. If you get kicked out of one of those 20 units, then you have a right to come back and pay the same rent that you were paying before. Or if we really want to make sure people get paid, then maybe we can give people a chance to buy their homes too. So just consider those options. Thank you.

[04:05:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:05:23] Edie Keating: Edie Keating. So, over the course of the prior hearings about demolitions, there have been some encouraging things heard. It's encouraging to hear multiple members of the council, say they're interested in improving the relocation benefits, perhaps removing the income limit and looking at that again. Even more encouraging is the interest that was heard from councils a week ago. Council members a week ago, in changing, quote unquote, the city rules, so that it's obvious that an apartment, a demo or a proposal that includes the demolition of existing apartments, is not something that the city is going to approve. And there are ways, you know, I don't know all the details of what that will look like or what will slow that down. But, That's worth studying. And, uh, this very developer has gotten 2 yeses from you. So, you know, they have work to do to build some, what I'm sure will be very beautiful row homes. But if you really don't like this type of project, perhaps it's time to say no to this particular development. and do the studies that are going to say, instead of demolishing apartments, what is the future of housing and approvals here, and give this developer and other developers time to find different types of properties, like you were in a test discussing, I'm sure, in your study session, that will not, that will allow the creation of housing without the destruction of housing. So, I would say, say no to this one and start the new future for Mountain View tonight. And if you can't say no to this one, you still need to take haste to start the new future of mountain view housing where creation of housing does not mean destruction of housing. So you can do it, and it's worth doing as you're hearing tonight. Thank you.

[04:07:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:07:32] Sandra Sparse: Good evening. My name is Sandra Sparse. I've been resting in it for 20 years and also living here and working here. So as Alex mentioned everything, Also, you need to think about of your staff report. And the staff report on the city, uh, staff, say, uh, they have you guys make 2 big goals. Okay? So one of the goal is about housing for everyone, So they wrap it up all incomes levels. So the other goal you guys said is about ownership, housing for higher income residents. So I was thinking which goal is more important. When I think of people who can buy a 2000000 townhouse. They have many choices. They can do, they can pay as much as they want. They also maybe, it will be easy for them to affordable, nice apartment. They can pay 4,000 or 5,000 a month, because they have the tools. But when I think about the people who live in 223 rocketry, they don't have those choices. They don't have the many opportunities. They don't have any tools to can pay the higher win. So if they cannot find a lower cost apartment in our city, they need to force to leave our city. So, which is the most important, who needs support more city council members? You're just thinking, please, tonight, and please support our neighbors to tonator rock astray. Thank you.

[04:09:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:09:20] Job Lopez: Here I am again, Job Lopez from Mountain View. And I want to congratulate, 1st of all, because my callister, and secondly, Lucas, because they ask questions. Okay, they have asked questions to Josh and to other people. So that shows that you have interest in knowing what's going to happen and what's going on and what the facts are. So thank you. Now, I am hearing support of my brothers and sisters. on 23 10 Rocket Street. And I hope, again, that you don't say yes to the proposal development like you did, or Rocket Street, and for the 1950 Montecito. That will be again a chain. I ask you to be brave. I ask you to say no. You have the power to do so, and you know that. And for what I understand, Legally speaking, you can say no. And the city lawyer is the best one that can, they can inform you and help you to find out. Don't be afraid. that because you say no to the proposals, you will be sued, or probably you will not be reelected next time, because we elected you to do the right thing for the community, not for you, politically speaking, to be well of when the next election comes. And again, just to let you know, to listen to my broken record, you have the moral responsibility to do what you need to do for your brothers and sister within the human family. Okay? Chris, the other day, say that the policies need to be changed, and look, as I didn't mention the same thing. So you have to hurry up and change the policies because the reality, the socioeconomic, the reality of mountain view.

[04:11:26] Public Speaker: Thank you. requires to do so right now. Thank you.

[04:11:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So don't walk like a turtle. Thank you. Like a deer.

[04:11:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:11:34] Job Lopez: Yes, you told me thanks, thanks, thanks, yes. Thank you. Thank you.

[04:11:38] Public Speaker: Yeah. By now, you all know who I am, and, um, it's fitting. I was the very first person to bring up the project at 2310 Rock Street to the city council, and I've been holding out, so I could also be the last one to talk about it. We've been through months and months of discussions about 2310 and about similar projects to it, both the ones that have gone through and the ones that are coming up. And despite all the speeches and discussions, it really boils down to one thing. The rights of a property owner to use his property is. He chooses versus the needs and rights of the people who live on that property. There's no right or wrong here. There's no good guy or versus bad guy, but in the end, there will be a winner and a loser. It's unavoidable in a situation like this. Fundamental issue tonight is what happens is if the loser is the tenants at 2310 rock or any future complex in this situation. I don't know if you saw Dave Price's editorial in the post yesterday about the mega developments being proposed along the peninsula, including some in Mountain View. One of the themes running through it was the need to mitigate the effects of these developments, such as on traffic and housing. Mitigation needs to be the theme in Mountain View as well. Preserving the rights of property owners will almost inevitably run roughshod over the needs and the rights of their tenants. That is where mitigation comes in. We need to delay the approval of projects like this until we have policies and plans in place to assist those people being displaced. And that is where you come in. To paraphrase, Dave Price also said that just once, just once, he'd like to hear a council member say expletive that. My job is to look out for the residents of this city, and this project doesn't do that. I am voting no regardless of the consequences. My question to all of you is, is there anyone among you who is ready to do that tonight? Thank you. Thank you.

[04:13:37] Unknown Speaker: Oh, there. May I ask a question?

[04:13:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Of course.

[04:13:41] Unknown Speaker: Jackie? Sorry. Um, the one of the recurring themes, not only in the public testimony here, but also last week is, I think the challenge that maybe the applicant has or the city in communicating the rights and the sort of addressing the needs of tenants. And I think you're the tenant that I've been in touch with most, and that I would be interested in hearing from your perspective, the level of engagement that the applicant has had with the tenants, and, you know, to the extent you've served as a liaison between the applicant and your neighbors, how effective the communication from the applicant has been over the past year.

[04:14:23] Jackie: My communications, I just started communicating with Josh in the last few weeks, and I have found those effective. He is actively trying to help some of our residents who have unusually difficult circumstances. But on a more general level, um, the issues with auto temps, we've all had them. They show up. The problem is they bring in lists for affordable housing. We don't qualify. We all make too much money to qualify for the kinds of units that they're handing. It's the same way even with CSA. They bring us to meetings that we've had, like the capacito meetings, and they bring us apartment listings that we can't afford. We're all middle class. And that's the issue that needs to be stressed over and over again, that these units that you're looking at demolishing are housing middle class people. We don't qualify for subsidies, we don't qualify for below market rate housing, and, you know, we all know the waiting lists are miles and miles long. But we don't quite make enough money to pay $4000 a month for an apartment as well. And I think this notion of their needing to be more active engagement of identifying people's needs. And a better assessment of the needs because there's a whole lot more complexes down the road and understanding that, just like at 1950 Montecito, most of, from what I've understand, most of the people didn't qualify, even for Trao. So we need to be looking at financially ways that we can help people. Again, you know, there are property rights and we're not interested in taking them away. We've never said that this was an issue, but I don't have $12,000 in my bank account to move. So there's things like that. We seriously need to address or we're just going to keep putting people out on the street.

[04:16:19] Unknown Speaker: I appreciate that perspective and then a quick follow-up. What could, in terms of communication between city and the tenants and the applicant and the tenants? What could have been better? Is there a direction that we can provide? Um... could help improve that communication?

[04:16:37] Jackie: When the project was delayed, that was, and I'm sure this was no easier for dividend, but when they pulled the project out to look at revising it, we just kind of sat there for months not knowing what was going on. So a letter from the city or from dividends, saying, you know, they've pulled the project to revise it. This is how it impacts your move out dates and things like that. Because we were just left in limbo for months. And that's difficult. And I'm sure they didn't like the limbo anymore than we did, but communication about that would have been useful. And just, even if someone from dividend showed up every couple of months and said, okay, I'm here to talk to you. Have you tried looking for a place? What problems are you encountering? What can we do to help? Um, you know, it would help us find issues with Trao that might need to be worked on as well. So I think there just needs to be more direct communication. And I think also that the city needs to take a more active role with the housing office to have them, I think I've mentioned this before, to have them identify apartments that are available, where they're available and taught to the landlords and say, you know, this building is likely to have to be vacated by X date. Well, you have things available and not just with landlords like Todd Speaker who volunteered, but also with all the landlords in this city, to try to maximize the number of people who can remain within Mountain View and not have to totally disrupt their lives. Thank you.

[04:18:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, anybody else? Thank you. Okay, anyone else who wants to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for additional questions and deliberation. Council member Ramirez.

[04:18:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions for, um, one for staff and one for the applicant. So, from the applicant. We've heard from many tenants tonight, and I think that there was a question about the number of special circumstance households that was submitted in advance, and there are quite a few of them. So you've shared, I guess, your willingness to extend the date for to allow folks more time to find a place and willingness to increase the income, eligibility, qualification for folks who maybe just barely don't make the trail. Is there anything you can do for folks who are disabled, who have kids, the special circumstance households that may have more difficulty than other households in securing a new unit or in, any additional assistance we could provide for them?

[04:19:38] Applicant: So we understand that there are some households here who have special circumstances, I do appreciate Jackie's help in helping me understand specific cases, the needs of certain households. I've spoke to Ming, I've emailed with a couple other households. And, um, we do in general think it's very important to follow the trail just because we, we don't want to be handling these on a case by case basis in front of you as a council. We like to go into a city, have a set of rules, and then follow those rules. In this case, we're able to offer the special circumstances households an additional $5000 to help them in their relocation efforts. We understand that some of them with children, with disabilities, need more help, and that's what we're able to do, and we're willing to offer that to the council.

[04:20:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. And then a question for, um, I don't know if it would be Stephanie or the city attorney, but, um, uh, Jenny, you made a comment about the ZA has already made findings, and I'm curious about sort of, I would appreciate a better understanding about sort of the council's role tonight relative to findings that have already been made. So what level of discretion do we have to make alternative findings or to, you know, I don't have a full appreciation for our decision making relative to the CA's role.

[04:21:11] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So you, she's made recommendations to the council to conditionally approve this project. And in order to grant the plan unit development permit, there are particular findings that must be made. And if the council, the council has 2 options, one is that you could accept that recommendation and you would be making the very same findings. In order to deny the project, you have to show that those findings are unreasonable.

[04:21:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: We would have to show. We'd have to make findings. We'd have to, we'd have to make a finding that those findings are unreasonable and we'd have to craft findings to support a denial of the project. Is that something... You know, I don't know how to ask this question. Is that something that we're prepared to do tonight?

[04:22:05] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Right. No, on a previous project, we did prepare in advance. And, um, and that was one that required the exceptions, but where this is one that meets all of the cities, um, all of the cities requirements for this permit. It's not one that we were. If that is the council's desire, then my recommendation would be that we continue it, continue the matter to allow us to draft the findings to bring back to the council.

[04:22:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister.

[04:22:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have those for Anke. A question for you. What's the application has filled out all the necessary forms for tenant relocation? Is there any city oversight over how the process is going or continuing what they're doing?

[04:23:07] Anke: So we are usually in constant contact with ARWS who provides those services. We like for them to do the income eligibility check, verification, so it's a more neutral party that does that. So it's not between the city and the developer. But every time that they receive an application, they let us know whether or not they approved the application and ask for both us and the developer's approval to make the 1st payment.

[04:23:38] Councilmember John McAlister: How about for the tenant finding apartments? Helping people find actually...

[04:23:44] Anke: So currently, we are only offering the bay rental one, so the auto temps services is hired by JOS, specifically, so we don't have an oversight on that. So the city and in the trail, it only asks for the 2 month subscription, and that is a matter of logging on and filling out what your requirements are and getting these listings by email on a regular basis.

[04:24:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you get any responses or concerns from the tenants that's saying, hey, this project or this 60 day tenant thing isn't working well for us? Do you respond or help them?

[04:24:20] Anke: In general, I think the reply we're getting is not that that is not working, but that there's just not enough rentals available in Mountain View. And I did look up at where tenants are relocating too. That was a question, I think, asked in the previous meeting. So, about 50% of the people that have relocated, uh, in the Bay Area, not in Mountain View, and about 30% do relocate in Mountain View, and there's about 15% that relocate, um, outside California.

[04:24:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Is there any opportunity within the city to increase its oversight or to make sure that when people talk to somebody to help them find an apartment that we're doing a better communication between them?

[04:25:12] Anke: What we could do is hire another agency, that provides the one on one contact with the tenants, and tries to find an apartment to their need. I think in general, I think the agencies are trying their best, but as you hear, there is not a lot of opportunity in the Bay Area.

[04:25:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I understand, but if let's say we don't hire another agency. Does the city have a capacity just to follow up and see the things are progressing in a fair manner?

[04:25:48] Anke: We can always oversee. And I don't know what or monitor? I'm not sure how we can... Here it comes. Progress. Okay. Go ahead.

[04:25:59] Unknown Speaker: I think it's hard to say, to what extent, we can help, but I think if the council wants to have a larger conversation in the goal setting about all the things they'd like to see, We can certainly put a plan together, and, um, it might involve a few more resources. It might be that we need to hire a different kind of consultant to help. So it might be a combination of the two.

[04:26:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Kamei.

[04:26:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. I had a question to staff. One of the things that had been discussed previously was that if we, as a council voted know that the applicant, if it's, the project is form compliant, can still go forward with the project, and give a 120 day notice, is my understanding correct, or does the staff have anything to add to that?

[04:26:53] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I'm sorry, Ellen, can you repeat that?

[04:26:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. So, um, one of the things that came up when we were looking at last week's project was that, um, Council would be able to have more opportunity to ask the applicant for items, um, if they were to vote, Yes, and ask for things of the applicant versus saying no, and if the project was form compliant, that the project would still be able to go forward. And so I am asking, if my understanding and that conversation, uh, would apply here as well, is that, the correct understanding. That a form compliant project could still go forward if council voted no. Or it would be...

[04:27:45] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Okay. I think I can ignore you. I'm sorry, I look like I'm not understanding the question, and maybe Stephanie is, so let's... So are you saying could they still give the tennis notice to leave even if the council did not approve the project?

[04:28:00] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that is true. within that 120 days. Yes. They've comply with state law. and with our trail and providing the notice. And so we had that interesting example on 2005 Rock Strait where they had done all of the, all of the, they met all the requirements and council asked to allow the tenants to stay there. And they agreed to do that voluntarily because they could have evicted them. It has less to do with whether it's a foreign compliant project. So if you deny it tonight, that iteration of the project can't proceed, but they can still go out of the rental business and give 120 day notices. And then in that situation, then you're back to there aren't any tenants to negotiate relocation benefits for.

[04:28:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So it's a, that's why I was getting at, but yeah. Thank you. I know that it's come up before, and I just wanted to have it clear, clear as we're going forward right now. I don't mean to be confusing. So that's why I asked the question. Thank you.

[04:29:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions or comments? Council member Ramirez.

[04:29:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't always want to go first, but so you know one of the queue. So, um, I I have a suspicion that the discussion will be substantially similar to the one that we had with 1950 Montecito, because the circumstances are substantially similar. So, um, rather than reiterate all of that. There are a couple of things I wanted to add. Because it has come up. The applicant I met with the applicant a couple of times and they had prepared an alternative site plan with some additional units that I was personally interested in. And then I've also heard in, you know, various contexts, um, you know, that there may be a preference for a project that is fully compliant with our regulations. And one thing I would like to share is I'm perfectly comfortable with exceptions and variances if it means we get a superior project. So a project with some additional units getting closer to parity, I would personally be interested in, to the extent that's useful direction for staff, that I'm not looking necessarily for a fully compliant project. Because I know this kind of project will continue to come before us and it will be hard every single time. So to the greatest extent possible, you know, even if it means there are exceptions and variances, if it results in a project that is superior, in my case, I have a preference for more units, then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I did also want to share that I appreciate, you know, we've had many conversations with the tenants and the applicant, and I appreciate the applicant's willingness to provide additional assistance in time. It doesn't address the deeper challenge of displacement. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't do more than just mitigate the impact of that is created with the demolition of the units. But I think it's an important conversation that we've had. And, you know, there is no obligation to do this, right? You're voluntarily providing this additional assistance in this additional time. And I think that's very valuable. And I do want to recognize that to the greatest extent possible if we're mitigating the impacts of this displacement. That's a good thing. But, you know, if the project is fully compliant with our regulations, I'm not really prepared to make alternative findings. I don't have the technical or legal ability to do that from the dais. I'm very interested in what everyone else on the council has to say about that, but personally, it would be very difficult for me to make findings on the spot that staff hasn't had a chance to vet and that are different from the recommendations that the ZA has forwarded to us. So those are the additional things I wanted to share. Thank you.

[04:32:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:32:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, to address 2 of the things that council member Ramra has said, um, first, I'm also not able to, on the spot, make the findings that would be required, but as for, um, what you said prior to that, that you would prefer a project with, uh, maybe a unit or 2 more to get up to parity to what we had before. My concern is, is, is actually not that at all. I have very little interest in, um, okay, this may, uh, sound cruel at first. I have very little interest in no net loss of housing on a per project basis. We're creating a lot of housing in the city. I would much rather have a better project. My, um, my concern, I'm actually not even, um, that I'm somewhat concerned in no net loss in, about known net loss of affordable housing, but I'm most concerned about displacing people. If we came back with a project that had more units, but they were all at this price point, that would make me feel better at all. And even if we had more units, and everybody we've heard speak tonight, you know, moved away, and some new people moved into affordable housing, I would still, I'm, I'm, um, you know, I'm very upset about what's going on here, and I would still be, pretty much equally upset. Um, I, I, um, although I can't make the findings tonight, I hope we can use the projects that we're seeing come forward, and the number of people we're seeing being displaced, for a reason, like one of the speakers said earlier tonight, people are leaving in droves, and we're changing the face of Mountain View. These are 2 of the things that people have said. And I hope we can use that as a reason to have a real discussion about displacement and about policy and about something with real teeth in it, which I won't, you know, I won't go down the list tonight, but I think that there are things. And not just something that tinkers with the details, um, and gives us, like I said, just no net loss of affordable housing or no net loss of housing. Thank you.

[04:34:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Others? Council member Clark.

[04:35:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: If no one else is going to speak, I've spoken on topics like this a number of times. I'm not going to repeat everything I've said before. I look forward to the discussion that we're gonna have. The answer to this long term is to revisit our policies and determine what we can do to prevent these sorts of things from happening going forward. But the rules as they are today are set in stone, and I don't feel like protest votes are productive or helpful, and I wasn't elected to protest things. I was elected to, when the rules are wrong, to change the rules and make sure that we make sure that we address things on a citywide basis as opposed to a one off basis where we create inconsistencies. So I will start by making a motion, and I'm open to friendly members from other council members, but I tried to capture everything that was discussed tonight. So I'll go down the list, and then if others want to chime in, they can as well. So I'll move that we adopt a resolution conditionally proving a planned unit development permit, and a development review permit to construct a 55 unit Rojas development in Harry's tree removal permit to remove 35 heritage trees located at 2310 Rock Street to be read and tied only for the reading wave detachment, one in the council report, and adopt a resolution conditionally approving a vesting tentative map to create 55 lots and two common lots located at 2310 Rock Street to be read entitled only for the reading wave detachment to the council report. and that we incorporate in the motion, the following things. One is to accept the applicants offer to increase the AMI qualification level by $5,000. I believe that was the amount. Tell me if I'm wrong, so that we capture some folks who were just at the cutoff. And that way those folks qualify for the additional assistance, that we accept the applicant's offer for an additional $5000 for special circumstance households, in addition to the threshold, or the amount provided under the trail, that we accept that the applicants offer to waive the 30 day vacation notice, and if someone has a has a lease in hand, or they're ready to move that they not be required to wait 30 days and give that notice, that we accept the applicants. offer to for everyone to have everyone remaining in the complex to have at least until September 30th to move out, so the 120 day notices would not be given until whatever the 4 months is before that. So anyway, they'd have at least until September 30th to move out at the very, or, um, they were required to move out no earlier than September 30th. And then that we, as we did last week. Give direction to staff that they're authorized to advance tenant relocation assistance funds to tenants who have a verified letter of intent for a lease as opposed to just a just a signed lease. So those are the 5 things that I captured this evening, and if I missed anything, folks can let me know, but that's my motion. Thank you.

[04:38:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by council member, McAllister. Council member Kameh.

[04:38:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. Um, so I guess I was gonna try to propose something else, but, um, I'll, I can speak to the, I'll speak to the motion, which is, um, in, in my tenure, this is the 2nd time that we're looking at something, um, that displaces residents, um, without having the ability to review council policies that we've discussed, um, trying to amend. So last week we talked about removing the income requirement from the trio, we've talked about trying to create, um, some displacement, um, council policies, um, we've tried to, we've talked about maybe looking at, um, a no net loss, um, as well as maybe a right of return policy. And I think that part of what we need to do are align those policies, make those amendments so that, um, so that when we face situations like this, um, we've done everything we've can, um, policy wise, um, to help residents. And right now, I feel like our policies could use some improvement, and I think that's been the discussion, that we've had kind of leading up to this point. Um, and so my, my thought had been perhaps trying to look at a continuance of the items so we could see, um, the 58 townhomes versus the 55, um, and to, um, allow counsel of the ability to try to address some of these policy changes that we wanted to do. Um, So I think for myself, in terms of the motion in front of me, um, I'll be abstaining from from the motion, um, as it's put forward, because I really feel like, uh, as policymakers, we need to make public policy that works for people, for residents. And right now, I see a disconnect, seeing this project, seeing a project that displaces people once again. Um, so I'm open to discussion, but that's my thought process right now.

[04:40:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:41:04] Councilmember John McAlister: So I've spoken, this is going to be the third time on this particular issue. and I guess I'm gonna say a few things, is that, well, it might be this hard here, but I want to start off that I did meet with the tenants, and they were very gracious considering what they were going through. I have sympathy for him. It's hard for me to, I can't say that I'm in their place and I know how they feel because I have never had that situation, but they did touch the way I was thinking and just reinforced some of my beliefs of what not necessarily the city policies are, but some of the rules that we're voted into, and I'm just going to take a hypothetical, and I'm going to talk about rent control. I'm a believer in rent stabilization. I didn't support rent control, but I do believe rent stabilization is very important and the difference is, is one puts a real hard cap on it. The other one is a little more flexible. The gentleman said that I was looking for, you know, individuals were landlords were for looking for a fair rent of return on their investment. And to my perspective, the reality is that we have a situation, the housing crisis, as some say, we also have what rent control does as We need to look at the motivation of the sellers. That's the root call. Let's say hypothetically, the root cause of what's happening is money. then, and that the hypothetical cause that the reseller is selling because they don't get a furred rate of return and they can do better on the open market. Then we need to take address and review it. There's an opportunity in 2020, there's something that's going to be coming along concerning rent control that maybe we can get various organizations together. League of Women's voters, Silicon Valley at home, anybody, the tenants to say, let's look at the cause of why the developers are selling and say, maybe we can find something that's just for all. Some will like it, some not, but to me, that's attacking, hypothetically, the root cause of why these people are selling because they can't get a fair rate of return. Oregon just recently put into place something where they can get up to 8%. I'm not saying the dollar amount is it. It could be, it's not whatever, but it would be something that people could talk about. And revolve so that it does take the, again, the incentive to sell. In this particular case, I understand the family selling. So it didn't really have to do with rent control. It was, The patriarch has 2 children, and one want to say, one, one didn't. And so that's in a unique situation right there. The other ones were particularly because of rent control because someone just said, hey, you know, I can't get a fair, they're perceived fair value, and they said, I want to sell, and this is the way it goes. Two things happens when rent control comes along. It devalues the people's the person's property because he can't say, hey, I want to sell it, and there's a pro parata return, you know. And they say, okay, it's capped down. And then somebody wants to buy it. They says, okay, well, I can't make any money based on 3%. So that's, again, my perception of what's happening. So that is part of the reasons why I see people selling. So if we can address a particular way to say, we can get a fair return, yep, we can keep the incentive to sell the property and somebody wants to maintain an apartment complex. is one way to go down the street to think about doing this. It's a conversation. If it doesn't go anywhere, but that's a conversation that has to be done. I also made the conversation about, again, when a legal women with voters, any advocacy group. I look at talking about trying to get address the concern of people moving is that they don't have income verification. We can address that sooner than later. And that's something I see as a solution. One other thing that I've always talked about is we can buy the units, but there's still not a will from the council. I mean, they still ought to have their justify reasons that they, you know, there's not a good rate of return. I mean, that they can leverage their money better by doing it through these property acquisitions and nofas, but it's important that we look at all options going forward. There's a talk about the you know, no net loss, and I was glad to hear some people identify that no net loss of affordable housing. To me, and I think I agree with council member Hicks, residential and apartments are 2 different. apples and oranges. And just because they had 59 units of apartment, they got to put in 59 units of housing. That's not that doesn't, to me, doesn't make sense, because we want a project that's going in. That's a quality project that the people that are buying into that project are going to enjoy it. And just by adding 5 more housing units, what does that do to solve the problem? It makes one problem worse, but it doesn't solve the problem of displacement. And that's what I'm trying to find is ways to resolve the displacement. The talks I had with Jackie. She was very understanding. She was more understanding than I would believe someone would be, but she was very level headed and courteous to me. But we need to find some solutions that may not happen now, but happen down the road 2 years. And I hate to think that or a year. And that's why I keep asking the questions about the taro, of what we can do to help people minimize their displacement. You know, we are losing 59 units or 113 over time. But I would like to remind everybody that the city has 15,500 approximately of rent control units. So we do have a lot of options out there. And so yes, we're losing 59, and yes, it's bad for the families that are being displaced. But the city of Mountain View on the whole is doing a hell of a job of trying to replace subsidized units. We just did 100 and some 13 are coming online on Evelyn. There's a 90 unit project that's hopefully coming down on El Camino. So we are reinvesting our money into those units, but that's not going to go quick enough. So, oh. It's tough for me to look at this problem, but I'm willing to move ahead with it and say, do the best we can. I agree with Councilman McCay about what can we do to mitigate it the best we can. And so that's what I'm going to forward with this project. But yet I'm going to be stringent or I'm going to be diligent about asking the city what they can do more to make sure the communication process is failing. This is the 3rd time I've heard a project come through. This is the 3rd time I heard the project, that there's been issues about people helping get the relocation. So, you know, I was talking to Jackie in the group before and I said, this is unfortunately a perfect storm. They had a landlord that was very considerate of their residence, but the rates, the rents were below market. And so when it came time to find new things, people enjoyed the benefit of low rents, but now the reality comes in, the family selling, which I mentioned early, which is not a rent control. And just the market is out there for this, Diana of Dale. So, I support the projects, as I mean, there's no reason for me not to support it, other than the displacement, and this gives you a little background of what I'm thinking about and what we can do to move forward.

[04:49:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:49:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was just, I forgot to add one thing. I think, um, I think the, I think the applicant will be able to accommodate this, um, because you'd spoken to it earlier, but just to make sure that, um, because now, um, you know, assuming this goes through tonight, folks are going to be in more of a time crunch. And so just making sure that they have some single point of contact, whether that's you, whether that's someone on your team, that they can go to, if they're having trouble with, and just communicating to them, like if you're having trouble with, you know, this agency, you know, just let me know, um, and just making sure they have a single point of contact in an escalation path so that they know, um, um, you know, how to uh, basically how to how to get around any roadblocks they have, um, especially if the 120 day notices are going to be coming soon. So I just wanted to just wanted to codify that. So just notifying everyone that they, um, Yep, they, this is the single, this is a point of contact that you have in an escalation path, um, if you're not getting the responses that you need from whatever agency you're happening to be interacting with.

[04:50:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[04:50:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, yeah, we've had this conversation several times, so I don't want to rehash, but, um, I wanted to, um, thank the residents, and actually, I think, especially Jackie, for all of the work that you've done, and, um, I feel like you've really gone above and beyond as an individual, and I really appreciate that. And I appreciate, you're, you know, a very rational way of looking at this issue. I think you understand the challenges that we face, and, you know, we're not doing this. It's not easy. Um, we understand the consequences, um, but a lot of what we have to do is to balance, um, balance the different interests and, and so, um, you know, I hope folks understand, and understand that. Um, you know, I just wanted to say that, um, in response to Council member Kame, um, I understand that, you know, in your short 2 months or so, you've had to see 2 of these projects. Frankly, we've had a few of these. Um, I don't recall that many before I left in 2014. I think more came in after that. So I was surprised to hear former council members come and oppose this when I remember they voted for other projects that had the same situation. And because they were conforming, They said they would vote for it. So, you know, it's, and then, frankly, with 2005, it was actually Mr. Saber, who brought up the, I believe it's the Ellis Act, that, as you asked, you know, in terms of the noticing, The reality is, is, yes, if the noticing is done, the property owner has a right to stop being a landlord, and folks would have to vacate regardless. And that was, you know, a big part of our decision making at that night, I believe, in the majority, and at least through the discussion we had, we had some leverage in asking the developer to do more than what was required. So, um, in the past, you know, some projects have moved people out first, and then come to, uh, come in with the applications. So, um, that's another way to do it, frankly, that might not, I mean, we wouldn't see it. It wouldn't be as visible, but that is a reality that has happened. in the past. Not saying that that's good or bad, but that's just another option. So, um, after a while, you know, we've seen different scenarios. that we end up usually, if it's a conforming project, I can't think of a project that we've denied. So in light of that, you know, but I do understand the challenges we've faced, you know, I was, I didn't support measure V, but I was told by proponents that it would take care of all the issues. Clearly it has not. Um, and so I was gonna bring this up later in item eight, um, but I guess I'm not, wasn't quite sure of the timing, but, you know, I did put up in goal setting, the, um, the idea of revisiting CSFRA and reforming it, because we've come up with a whole list of things that, um, I think we need to change. So my concern is that I think, because we have to do that, um, by ballot measure, most likely, the timing is, um, you know, time is ticking, so I don't know if we can wait until we pass the budget in July. And so my interest was to find a way to faster track that, and I was going to bring that up later. But, um, in light of this, in light of the project being conforming, um, yeah, I want to also just talk about net loss, I keep hearing that term. And, you know, we have the numbers. Um, on, as Council member McAllister said, on each site, um, you don't, depending on the housing type, you're not necessarily going to be able to fit the same number of units. And, you know, a 2 bedroom apartment, is smaller than a 2 or 3 bedroom row house unit. So, and a lot of these parcels in our city are very unique. Sometimes they're just not, you know, squares or or rectangles. They're odd shaped lots. And so you try to squeeze in what you can. So, I guess, in that sense, I don't really, you know, regard net loss on a parcel as a real issue. I think overall as a city, we should be looking at no net loss. The fact is, we've built 5,900 homes, I believe, or units, and we've torn down 400 of those, but we're at a net gain of 5,500 units. So, you know, no one brings that up when at these meetings, but we're, you know, we are seen as a leader of building housing, and the numbers are showing it. So in terms of whether they're luxury apartments or ownership or whatnot. Um, you know, that's, we, we, as city council, we can zone and, and, you know, entitle, but we really can't determine the price of these projects, and that's the challenge. I would say. Um, you know, these luxury units, I remember back 10 years ago was when they were starting to come online. And it's been 10 years, and over time, those units do depreciate. So, um, and, you know, I heard about 100 Moffatt, when that came online, the folks in Madera moved over there. So then there was room in Madeira. And that's, you know, that is the market, that's how things, you know, happen. Um, new projects become old someday. So, um, things will change. The market will change and, um, you know, we, I think we should be mindful of that. So in light of that, I will be supporting this project. I'm happy to talk about, you know, other issues that we talked brought up earlier. I think we should do it comprehensively, and that was my reason for my goal setting item. Thanks.

[04:57:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I did meet with the applicant, and I also met with a group of residents, and I appreciate both of the conversations I had. You always learn new information, and it's good to just talk things over with folks. And so I appreciate folks reaching out to me. Um, I agree that we should discuss some of the policies, as we've talked about in the past. I am not sure we all have the same perspective on which policies or how we should change them. But I think it's worth a discussion, because I feel like I've heard a lot of things that I would like to address. But I'm not going to go into detail now. You know, with this complex, as we've said with others, you know, it's not an easy decision to make. We absolutely know that the decisions we make have an impact on people, and, um, in this case, this is a fully compliant project where the owner wants to sell, and, you know, I feel like it's their right to sell their property. And I do look at this in terms of, is this a quality project or not, more so than the actual unit count in the development. And as the vice mayor said, you know, Mountain View is building a lot of housing. And so I'm more interested in, you know, just building more housing than focusing on an individual project, is there a net loss? And I guess it depends on how you define net loss, whether it be the number of units or I tend to look at things by the number of bedrooms. And I've done that when we talk about affordable housing. And the financing of that affordable housing. And so this is very consistent for me to look at this kind of project on a bedroom basis. So, as I said, since this one is fully compliant. There aren't any exceptions or variances requested. I will be supporting the motion. I did have the same list of, uh, additional items that council member Clark mentioned, so I think you covered them all. So thank you for keeping track of those. And is there anyone else? Council member Ramirez.

[04:59:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm just a few things really quickly. So 1st council member Clark, one of the other things we also talked about in 1950 Montecito was notification to the tenants about some of the, um, I don't know, it's, you know, rights or some of the opportunities that we made available with the sort of the knowledge about, you don't need to stay for 30 days. You know, you could break the lease. So if we could include just the notification, I didn't hear you say that explicitly.

[05:00:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, what I'd ask was that there'd be a notification with sort of a, you know, here's your point of contact. Here's an escalation path. And in that, we can, I'm happy to include all the other, you know, like, by the way, you don't need, you know, if you have a lease and, you know, if you've, once you've secured something, you don't have to give the 30 day notice. Like, just summarizing all the additional things that we've done tonight. I'm fine with that.

[05:00:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I appreciate that. It was just more, I thought we had talked about a written notification, just so folks are informed and fully aware of a lot of the changes that we're making here. So if that's already included, then I appreciate that.

[05:00:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, we can all specify it as long as John's okay with that.

[05:00:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I appreciate that. And then I just wanted to quickly respond to a couple of things that Council member 6 and McAllister said. So I also am concerned about the displacement impact. That is what gives me the greatest concern about these kinds of projects. It is, I think we have described as, you know, one of the most significant kinds of impacts that could occur on our residents on the residents of the city. And so when we have a project that displaces people, I know we take it very seriously, and that's why we spend a lot of time figuring out, are there opportunities to mitigate that impact? So I share that concern, and I share, I think it sounds like the, you know, the consensus, the interest in reviewing policies to, um, to address displacement broadly, and not just on a project by broad project basis. I absolutely intend to support those efforts in whatever context they may occur. But I don't see that as mutually exclusive with the concerned about reduction in units. I also think it's, you know, to the greatest extent, we're able to. And there is an alternative site plan that the applicant showed us that I thought was a good project too. It just included 3 additional ownership opportunities. And so, you know, when we have those kinds of alternatives available. Um, my, my, the only direction I was providing is, you know, I'm happy to entertain those. So we're not put in this kind of a position. We can have good projects that come closer to parity in unit count and also be concerned about displacement and try and address those projects. those issues through policy. Um, I share council member commaze concern. with the, not just the, the possibility that the property owner could, uh, evict the tenants wholesale, but also that there's, uh, as we had talked about with 1950 Montecito, the possibility that the applicant can come back with a project that is fully compliant, that doesn't require counsel approval, um, which wouldn't be the case with a rental project, as, if memory serves, if, if it were a rental project that came before the city, it could be approved at the ZA level and not need council approval, and we would still have the same impact, but without the opportunity to get the additional benefits that we've secured tonight. So I share that concern. And, you know, just want to reiterate. I'm also interested in looking at the alternative side plan, you know, or figuring out ways in the future to make sure that we can get closer to parity, allowing for exceptions and variances, that makes sense. that yield a more, in my opinion, a superior project.

[05:03:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Kameh.

[05:03:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. And I wanted to just clarify. It sounds like it's clear where my colleagues are. Um, but the reason why I would abstain is that I, you know, I recognizing that the project is form compliant, um, and that the applicant has done extensive outreach with, um, the residents and is is, uh, amenable to the suggestions of my colleagues. And so that's why it's an abstain. It was a continuance to try to bring some council policies, you know, update them, and then look back at the project. So that's why it's an abstain versus a no, and I just want it to clarify.

[05:04:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[05:04:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Council member Ramirez, I just had a, I just, he'll understand, how bring a project to parity. What does that accomplish?

[05:04:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It provides one of our goals is to increase the supply of ownership housing. And so 3 more units is 3 more units in my mind.

[05:05:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other comments on this topic? Okay, and we're ready to vote. So that is approved, um, six, yes, one abstain. And good. That ends this item, and because it is past 10 o'clock, and we've got a couple more items on the agenda.

[05:05:44] Unknown Speaker: I move that we continue past 10 p.m.

[05:05:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All in favor?

[05:05:49] Unknown Speaker: Bye.

[05:05:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[05:05:53] City Manager Dan Rich: Madam Mayor.

[05:05:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did I hear somebody? Yes?

[05:05:56] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes. If I might. In addition to the next two agenda items, there is a closed session at the end of tonight's meeting. I would like to offer the council the option of starting their meeting next Tuesday at 545 and having the closed session at that time. Or you may have it at the end of this meeting. So, um, the original plan was to have the council meeting start at 6:30. At 6:30. There is no study session at the start of the meeting next week.

[05:06:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So sorry, you said 5:45?

[05:06:37] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Correct.

[05:06:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, by a show of hands, would folks like to move the closed session to next, next Tuesday at um, 545.

[05:06:51] Unknown Speaker: I'll be in Boston. I rather start later, but...

[05:06:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So it looks like, um, there's only two that want to move the closed session to next week, so we're gonna do the closed session tonight. Okay.

[05:07:04] Unknown Speaker: I have a question for you. So thank you for the offer.

[05:07:06] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Welcome.

[05:07:08] Unknown Speaker: Am I recusing myself on 7.2?

[05:07:11] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Only part of it. There's going to be an option that if your colleagues would agree to segment, there's three questions, we'll move one of the questions first so they could segment that.

[05:07:22] Unknown Speaker: Thanks.

[05:07:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I'd like to go through these two if we can, and then, um, take a quick break before we have the close session, if folks are okay with that. Um, 'cause I'm hoping this will be fairly quick. Okay, so moving on to item 7.1, which is Charleston Park improvements. Project 1659, approve conceptual plan, and related actions, and our presenters tonight, our senior civil engineer, Andy Chang, and public works director, Mike Fuller.

[05:07:58] Senior Civil Engineer Andy Chang: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor of Council members. Um, I'll be giving the presentation on the concessional plan for the Shelfton Park improvements. This is a map of the North Bay Shore area, showing the park location. The park sits on a 5 acre site, bounded by Amphitheater Parkway, Charleston Row, Google Plex, and Charleston East Campus, currently under construction. The park was developed in 1997 in partnership with Silicon, graphic campus, the 20 acre side to the west of the park. It is the current day Google Plex, the park mostly consists of open space, and its landscape with trees. There's a water feature in a part that provides a terrace walkway connecting the park's open space with a Google Plex courtyard. The park also has a public restroom. This slide shows the Charleston Road landscape per the precise plan, with bus only lanes, transit shelters, two-way cycle tracks, and landscape sidewalks. Recognizing the changes to the Charleston Road streetscape, the Charleston East development, performing feasibility study, to evaluate how to best incorporate the new streetscape as well as looking at locations to place bus stops along the corridor. And at the conclusion of the study, bust up with pullouts was chosen at the Charleston Park location. This is the slide that shows the cross section in front of the Charleston Park. As a result, 60 feet along the part frontage, are repurposed for these transit and active transportation improvements. These changes necessitates modifications to the southern half of Charleston Park. The area replaced by the transit improvement is shown below the blue dash line. These transit improvements are currently under construction. The area outlined by the red dash, line represents the limits of the improvements proposed by this project. The northern half of the park encompassing the water terrace is not part of the scope of this work. On March 13th, staff represented the part to the park and recognition, three concepts for the Charleston Park improvements. This slide shows the commissions, recommended concept plan for city council's approval, a major goal for this park improvement project is to create a transit transition between the transit improvements in the park. The concept in the park improvements include the Gateway Plaza, South Green, the new pathway layout. This light shows the rendering of the Gateway Plaza. This next slide is the rendering of the south, green. The new pathway propulsion, the park will be between 6 to 10 feet wide. The recommended concept plane will have two major paths, in the north, south direction, serving a star terior for circulation through the park. The third path will meander under the tree, canopy, providing part users and more naturalistic experience on the west side of the park. The pathway layout in the recommended concept plan is most similar in nature to the existing part by preserving a large, contiguous, open space. This slide shows the 2 heritage freeze proposed by the part to be removed. The commission recommended a removal of the evergreen ash, which is mostly dead, and mitigate with 2 to 1 replacement racial. The commission passed a motion to relocate a palm tree, and if transplanting this palm tree is unfeasible or unsuccessful, the mitigation will be the 8 to 1 racial. This slide shows the approximate location of these two heritage trees. Following council's approval, the design consultant will complete the final design by late summer, early fall of this year. Construction project will start this fall with anticipated completion in the spring of 2020. Staff recommends the council on the following items to approve the conceptual plan for the Charleston Park improvements, to approve the removal of and mitigation for the one Evergreen Nash Heritage Tree at 2 to one ratio, and to approve the removal of and mitigation for the one Canary Island Day palm heritage tree at 8 to one ratio, if transplanting is not successful. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[05:12:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council?

[05:12:51] Unknown Speaker: I got one. Where's the restroom? On this, on this site? Yeah, it is fine. Not the bathroom, but the restaurant. Over here. Wait, isn't that It's over here. Oh, there's a sign. Okay. Thank you.

[05:13:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any, um, council member Hicks.

[05:13:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will be supporting what I think is the motion to approve. I just wanted to command you on putting more natural material on the third path. I know that that's been a request on other paths that I've seen, um, and, and I'd incur here in Mountain View. I think it was Heritage Park. People really wanted less cement and more natural paths and encourage more of that in the future. I also know from another city in Canada. People using a product called, I think it's called Echoraster, that you put under, you put gravel on top of that, so that even if it's a more used path, you can still use natural materials. So, I would encourage the use of that, you know, here in other parks. I'm not an expert on it, but I would encourage looking into it.

[05:14:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, thank you. Did you have any questions?

[05:14:14] Unknown Speaker: No. No, just would you like to look into that?

[05:14:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So we're in the question phase here. So, if there are no other questions, we'll open it up to public comments. So if there's anyone who wants to provide us with input on this topic, please come up to the microphone. Okay, saying none. We'll close the public input portion. Did anyone have any other comments? We do have a motion by council member, McAllister, and a 2nd by council member, Kamei.

[05:14:44] Unknown Speaker: So my only comment is, um, I appreciate that the PRC suggested we use um, a more natural in, um, material for the path that goes into the trees, and then I'll put in a plug for having the benches and the bike racks be something other than the traditional ones that, um, are sort of vanilla and be sort of artsy.

[05:15:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, did you have something to say?

[05:15:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so one% of our money going for arts on this project.

[05:15:23] Unknown Speaker: We're not actually funding the project, so no.

[05:15:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, just because it's our project, though.

[05:15:31] Unknown Speaker: Actually, it's not.

[05:15:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, it isn't?

[05:15:33] Unknown Speaker: You know, Google voluntarily did the transit improvements in front of the park under an excavation permit, so it's actually not city funding.

[05:15:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, this is over a million dollars, right?

[05:15:42] Unknown Speaker: It is over a $1 million, and our policy is that when it's a city capital improvement project, then one% of the estimated construction cost does go to art.

[05:15:49] Unknown Speaker: Over $1 million. Over one million? I remember that.

[05:15:52] Unknown Speaker: And so we can't trigger that in this particular situation. Yeah, this would no, this wouldn't the policy would not apply to this project.

[05:16:01] Unknown Speaker: That's how you define it. Good try.

[05:16:03] Unknown Speaker: But if you give staff some discretion to pick the benches, we'll keep the comment in mind.

[05:16:09] Unknown Speaker: Well, let's be done before May first. Nok.

[05:16:17] Unknown Speaker: No plaques, okay.

[05:16:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments by council members?

[05:16:24] Unknown Speaker: I assume the motion is the staff recommendation.

[05:16:27] Unknown Speaker: Oh, emotions made. Yeah, but what's the motion?

[05:16:30] Unknown Speaker: Oh, the motion? I have to read it. It's just, is that recommendation? Is a staff recommendation.

[05:16:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have a motion for the staff recommendation by Council member McAllister, second by Council member, and I think we're ready to vote. saying nobody else in the queue. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. So the next item is 7.2

[05:17:06] Unknown Speaker: Hang on a 2nd.

[05:17:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And this is community, garden procedure, standardization, and fee modifications, and the presenters are recreation supervisor, Sean, Chilkatowski, and assistant community services director, John Marchant. And

[05:17:29] Unknown Speaker: They can stay for the presentation, right?

[05:17:33] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: That's correct.

[05:17:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[05:17:39] Recreation Supervisor Sean Chilkatowski: Good evening, counsel. Mayor and Vice Mayor, Sean Shulkatowski, Recreation Supervisor, with the Community Service Department of Recreation Division. I'm here tonight to talk about Community Gardens. So, out of Objective Sinida's presentation is to, just give a little bit of background on our existing garden programs, review the new garden site that's currently in our construct. Can you hear me now? Discuss our garden guidelines and short-term plots, and then review modifications. So, Currently, a quick background with their Wilgate Garden, has 84 original plots, and currently has 109. I want to touch base on that, explain that in the next slide. We'll get garden. There's no true uniformity in size of the plots, there's no they're not raised beds, there's no borders. So the hardest one is I'm taking up to 396 square feet. And that's Wilgate Garden has a mix of seniors and regular members. Right now it's about 55%. senior members. The senior garden has 63 pots. They're all standard, 6 foot by 18 foot size. Right now it's their garden is located on the kind of hedgehetchy right away. And by requirements 100% seniors. Um, And then we have, here's the 3 garden locations. So you can see on the left hand side, the senior garden, is located on the corner of Croissanto Avenue on Squale Avenue. Wilgate Garden is at the end of Ansbury Avenue, kind of in between Central Avenue and Central Expressway. And then the new Garden Waytham Garden, on Shoreline and Waytham, directly across from Eagle Park Pool, or Eagle Park. So, Watham Cuban Garden. I'm originally sorry, it was a fiscal year 1415 council goal to increase available garden space. And at the time, there was over 120 on the wait list. Um, 2015, the council approved the garden location, um, which is currently the kind of word, the new garden is being constructed at Watham and Shoreline. Um, CSD staff, public works staff, and Verde design was the consultant that led the design of the new garden, hosted 3 public meetings, listing feedback, um, and then ultimately brought final conceptual designs to Park Smart Commission and City Council. Currently, Latham kindergarten is under construction, with anticipated opening this may or June. And then for those that maybe have not seen this before. This is the conceptual design for a Waytham Community Garden. Um, There's 84 raised beds, um, on the kind of bottom right hand side, there's 688 plots. They're a little bit narrower, a little bit taller. Um, So for a total of 84. Um, and then there is, um, There will be parking is going to be a long shoreline Boulevard with a dedicated ADA parking spot. So the new this bringing this 3rd garden online, I really gave kind of staff the opportunity to review existing practices and streamline our kindergarten policies. Previously, there was 2 different sets of policies, one for the senior garden, one for the Willgate Garden. Both were very similar in nature. So with this new set of garden guidelines, really, kind of took our current documents, created one formal document that would be consistent amongst all three, ultimately no impacts to current practices. And highways of these include really keeping pathways clear, actively maintaining guardians, and then general behavior guidelines. And these new draft policies have been made available to existing current gardeners. Um, The idea is to give preference, um, when we started allocating plots of Ethan Gardner to give preference to existing gardeners, um, that will, um, allow us to begin splitting plots at Wilgate. In 2016, uh, again, we began splitting plots at Wilgate because of the size of them. So as a gardener weaves, we split the bottom in half, we get 2 new gardeners in. And since then, that's why we originally had 84 plots, we are up to 109 right now because 25 plots have been split. Um, and hopefully they're, um, over time, there's 59 pots are remaining. Eventually those will be split. And ultimately we'll be able to double the amount of gardeners that we get into the gardens. The garden historically, when we 1st started this project in 1415 was a 5 to 7 year wait. Since we began splitting, the weight's been reduced to less than 3 years. Hopefully there's new garden coming online. We'll even further reduce that weight. And then the short-term plots. So in an effort to, you know, continue to provide more garden opportunity, council provided previous direction to allocate up to 10 garden plots at short term. We're here tonight to get further direction. And then staff is recommending a one-year term on those short-term garden plots. Um, And then we also, I think a highway that was actually at a previous council meeting was the location we have, um, received a lot of interest from gardeners, at either senior garden in Willgate that we've, um, in the vicinity of Shorehunning Watham, um, that would be looking to move over, um, just because it's local. easy a walk or a quick bike ride.

[05:22:51] Staff Presenter: And then garden fee. So similar to our garden policies. We looked at an opportunity to, you know, review fees, which includes, you know, looking at the history, reviewing current revenue expenses, cost recovery goals, benchmarking with other cities. So through that, there's a chart here in the presentation, with kind of what our current fees are and what our proposed fees are. So starting at the top, the senior garden currently is $43 proposing to raise that to $50 Willgate members are currently paying 139, um, and proposing to bump that up to 150 and the Willgate senior members are paying the same 43 as the seniors. We'll get half plot members, or since we began splitting them, have been paying half the price. Through this review, the half pots at Willgate are very comparable to the Latham Garden pots. So we're proposing streamlining the Waytham Garden fees with the half pots at Willgate. This is a little bit of a jump from what the existing Willgate gardeners are paying now. So we're looking at tearing that increase. So it's not a big of a jump. been doing that over the course of 3 years. And then the weight of members, again, it would be $100 for a regular member, and then $50 as a senior member. So seniors across the board would pay the same $50 fee. And then also the Previous council direction was to look into financial assistance for the garden plots. So we began working currently, the recreation division works with community services agency to provide recreation or reduced costs for programs, but that only applies to youth programs. So staff has worked with community services agency and CSA has agreed to incorporate our garden programs into that program. If eligible with family, or if there was an individual where that family was eligible, they would pay the same rate as seniors or the $50 fee. So for some outreach, so we met with senior gardeners on March 7th, gave them a brief update. I look in the proposed fees. I want to catch anybody off guard. And ultimately, there's a lot of excitement with the new garden coming online. A lot of the gardeners have friends that are on the wait list. They're happy just to see that, you know, their friends, their neighbors, are have a chance of getting into a garden. We met with the Willowgate gardeners on March ninth. General support, lots of ideas, you know, talking about a buddy system or kind of mentor system, you know, new gardeners coming in. You know, sometimes it can be a little bit of a shock when you got 2 people that are, you know, master gardeners on either side of you and you're just getting started. And then presented to the Parks and Recommission on March 13th. Um, With this, the proposed fee increases would be effective for the initial allocation of Waytham Community Garden, which would, um, we're anticipating opening this May or June. Willowgate and the senior garden have already renewed for this growing season of his calendar year. So these fees would not, um, would not come into effect until the 2020 growing season. And in general, just overall acceptance of the proposed guidelines, the streamline guidelines and fees. That concludes my presentation. And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to city attorney for a few comments.

[05:26:06] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So we've reframed the recommendations to give the council the flexibility if a majority of you would like to segment the 1st decision so that council members, Clark and McAllister, could participate in number 2 and 3, which I think can be taken together. Correct, Sean?

[05:26:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, but we can have questions about anything at this time, right? Or do we have to segment the questions as well?

[05:26:31] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Now, the Political Reform Act just requires them to recuse themselves sometime between the time that the item is announced and the decision is made. So if you think that... the questions will evolve into a discussion, then you might want to go with the segmentation first, but if they're general questions that aren't going to generate a discussion, then that's okay.

[05:26:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So let's just have questions that can just be answered without a discussion. Council member McAllister.

[05:27:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Only 88 plots? Is there space enough so somebody can get through with a wheelchair?

[05:27:08] Staff Presenter: Correct. So typically the, in between some of the plots are 3 feet, and then kind of the long rows going, I mean, with their forefeet. And there's between those as well. Solid material underneath. Corrects ADA compliant.

[05:27:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Vice mayor Abbe Koga?

[05:27:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. It's the set of question about the one year limit, the short terms. How did you come about with one year? And then if after your year? Are you allowed to apply again?

[05:27:37] Staff Presenter: So the one year came from just benchmarking with other agencies that are running community guards. Okay. And then ideally, yes, you know, somebody comes in, they'd give it for a year. that's something they're they're looking to continue with. They could get on the kind of the permanent wait list.

[05:27:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But let's say the waitlist as long can they go back and do apply for the one year?

[05:27:55] Staff Presenter: I think they could go back to the end of the if there is a wait list for the one year, they could go back to the end of that.

[05:28:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[05:28:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:28:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm just curious what the, um, what the, uh, I guess softscaping material, the grounding materials are, it's, it's mulch. Is that the same as the mulch that's there already at the Latham garden?

[05:28:19] Staff Presenter: It'll be a mulch base in between the pathways.

[05:28:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then, I can't read the one, the ADA one hair ADA? I can't read that word because it's very small.

[05:28:31] Staff Presenter: So in between the ADA pod, it's like a five bar material, so it's an ADA compliant mulch. I think it would be more engineered.

[05:28:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I see. Okay, I know. I know it. And then the third surface, the brown one that says, I can't read it again. Material drop off access, what material is that?

[05:28:50] Staff Presenter: So that it's more of a maintenance access point. So at times, gardeners will do like bulk deliveries of compost. So get a big dump truck will come in and drop, you know, a couple yards of compost or dirts. And so that's where that would, or if we were going in doing some garden cleanup. So our maintenance folks had a an easy way to access the site.

[05:29:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I see, so that surface, what's that surface?

[05:29:15] Staff Presenter: I believe that's a natural surface. A natural.

[05:29:18] Staff Presenter: Yeah, it's what's existing there. So it's a lot of just pine noodles and dirt.

[05:29:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I know it's there. And then is there an equivalent for the, um, the iron fencing? Is there an equivalent fence anywhere? Are you, you know, anywhere in Mountain View?

[05:29:33] Staff Presenter: Directly across the street at Eagle Park.

[05:29:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, okay. So it'll match the fence that's currently right across the street. Okay. Thank you.

[05:29:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Kamein.

[05:29:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, I had a quick some quick questions about the financial assistance program. Um, so for those who, do we have a sense of how many folks apply for financial assistance that are under age 55? I'm sorry, I just thought of it when you were presenting, and I would have emailed it if I had thought of it sooner. I was so...

[05:30:07] Staff Presenter: Off the top of my head, I don't know. I mean, there were youth financial assistance program. I think it's a it's a pretty comprehensive program. There's quite a bit of folks. I think those families with youth in those families that the family will naturally become eligible.

[05:30:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Got it. And for the seniors, even though they get a discounted rate, have you found that they still need any type of financial assistance or are they usually able to cover the $50 cost?

[05:30:33] Staff Presenter: From what we've seen, they've typically been able to cover the cost.

[05:30:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much.

[05:30:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions? Okay, so if we move into deliberation and action, if we take number... Oh, thank you. Well, open the Poseidon for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to provide us with input on this topic? Don't everybody rush here? Okay, saying none? We close public input. Thank you for reminding me. Okay, now we will move to item two. Well, take item 2 first, and I believe a couple council members need to make statements.

[05:31:15] Unknown Speaker: And on the slide we moved it to number one.

[05:31:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, on the slide before you. Sorry. They approve a maximum of 10 plots at Latham Can. Okay number one. Sorry, I was going by the script.

[05:31:27] Unknown Speaker: We, yeah. Sorry, we didn't coordinate. I apologize.

[05:31:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No worries. I don't see the slide. Okay. So we're doing the 10 plots first. Okay, then...

[05:31:45] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so I'll, um, I have a real property interest somewhere near the proposed, or the Latham beauty garden is not proposed anymore. is going to be there. So I'll step away from it. There's another notch on the belt.

[05:32:00] Unknown Speaker: I have a leasehold property close to this property, so I will have to recuse myself.

[05:32:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Don't go too far.

[05:32:12] Unknown Speaker: I was just standing there.

[05:32:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so it looks like there's a motion by the vice mayor. Do you wanna make it?

[05:32:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so I will make a motion to approve a maximum of 10 plots at Latham Community Latham Community Garden to be short term plots for a maximum term of one year.

[05:32:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: There's a second by council member Ramirez. Any discussion on that? Okay, we'll vote on that one. So that is, it passes unanimously with five, yes, and two recus. They came back so quickly. Okay, so, um, vice mayor, obbe coca?

[05:33:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Thank you. So, I will move to adopt a resolution amending the city of Mountain View Master Fee scheduled to incorporate new garden phase to be read in title only, for the reading waived attach, which is attachment one to the council report, and approve the implementation of a financial assistance program for gardeners where eligible garden members will pay the senior discounted rate.

[05:33:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the vice mayor, second by council member Clark. Is there any discussion on this one? Okay, then we can vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item eight. Council staff committee reports. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[05:34:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yes, thank you. In light of the discussion we had earlier, as I mentioned, one of the goal setting items, I brought up at our 1st session was the potential reform of CSFRA, and in light, because if we do, I think whatever's in, including the Trao, I believe, is in the CSFRA, we would have to do a balance measure. Is that right?

[05:34:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The trail is an ordinance.

[05:34:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Is there anything?

[05:34:39] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: There is a reference in the CSFRA to 120% of...

[05:34:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, Regardless, I think there are a lot of other issues that we've been discussing referencing and, um, I would like to start the process of that conversation, um, that could eventually lead to a ballot measured and because of the timing of the, um, elections next year moving up. Um, I'd like to fast track this item, and um, normally whatever goals we said, don't start until July 1st when we pass the, over the new fiscal year, but I think we need to start earlier since we go on break in June. So I was hoping to see if there was an interest in a fast track process for this item. Should there be a majority to move this forward this year?

[05:35:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:35:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I need a legal clarification on this, because I thought that I imagine that you've checked this out legally before you brought it up, but I didn't, so... I thought that because the public voted on this, it had to be a public, you know, that we couldn't change it. So I'd like some clarification on how that works.

[05:35:58] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So they, I understand the vice mayor's, um, item that she's considering is the preparation of a council sponsored ballot initiative that would go on to change the charter. So it would be a valid initiative to be put on the ballot by the city council. that the voters would vote on. Yes. You are correct. Only the voters can change it, but the council can sponsor their own ballot initiative, and there is another initiative that has qualified for placement on the ballot. Regarding the CSFRA.

[05:36:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Ramirez.

[05:36:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a quick question. So, I have limited sense of the workload that this would require. So from staff's perspective, would something need to be bumped to make this happen, or where would this fit sort of in the tentative schedule that we have right now?

[05:36:58] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I won't pretend to speak for the acting city manager, but I do believe that something is a work plan item, because it would involve figuring out whether or not you want to stay colder process and preparing a staff report and staff's assessment of any staff sponsored amendments that they might want to bring forward to the council for consideration, since this provides an opportunity to make some changes for the increasing the efficiency of the implementation. So, I do believe it would cause something to be bumped if the council wanted to consider this before the break, given the, the, uh, heavy agenda structure that we have in the TAL at present.

[05:37:43] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: And just to confirm and build on what the city attorney is saying that it would be both a matter of the staff work to prepare for bringing the item to council and then also finding the place on the agendas over the next few months, which are already quite full.

[05:38:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[05:38:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, and I didn't understand the workload. We have the latest version and I participate in agenda setting meetings. But in light of all the conversations that we've, you know, had and folks being, I guess, frustrated that we haven't started working on it. I think this is important enough that we should consider it. We could start off. My thought was maybe starting with a kind of a status report of, you know, where we are, and, and then, um, we could just set a timeline for, uh, how we want to move forward, as, uh, the city attorney mentioned, do we want to include extensive stakeholder process, um, you know, how much time do we want to spend on that? But just laying out a process, I think, would be really helpful.

[05:39:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[05:39:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: Do we want, is the request? So, what I would assume, And I'm not opposed to discussing anything. Would it make more sense just to bring it up at the next goal, say, and prioritize it? Like, if we want to prioritize it, like, ahead of other things just so we have a, I think it will take quite a bit of staff time resources. So maybe we do prioritize other things. But are you trying to specifically avoid going through the goal setting process or do you want to, is the motion just to like add it to the priority list of things that we should discuss in a week or 2 whenever it is?

[05:39:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And at this point, we're at 2 weeks out from goal setting, so it wasn't so much about getting around the goal setting, but more that, you know, my sense is there's interest and we've talked about interest in doing it. So I hope that means that we will move forward in it. But usually when we do the 2nd we'll do the 2nd session and then we bring everything back for vote, a final vote that goes along with the budget. And so we really wouldn't be working, starting work on it until July 1st at the earliest, and then, you know, we go on break the week before. So my interest is if on April 23rd, we have majority support for it, we direct staff to begin work on it right away.

[05:40:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I see. Council member Ramirez?

[05:40:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But that last statement helps me. So I think I'm, if I'm understanding where we're counsel member Clark is coming from, my preference would be just to have sort of the list of all of the stuff we're doing so I could have a sense of I'm also interested in exploring this, but I would have, I guess, more comfort in knowing what we're bumping out of the way in order to prioritize it. So I don't know if that means having this conversation in the context of goal setting. Or if there's something that you can propose to bump right now, either way, I would just, you know, just given, given the workload, if there's something that we want to propose to move aside or delay to prioritize this, I think that would give me greater comfort in making that decision sooner.

[05:41:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I like to confer a bit with the city attorney, normally under the council items, when something's brought forward, it's to get concurrence of the council to bring it forward at another meeting. And this item is already scheduled to be discussed at another meeting on April 23rd. And so if you're seeking to get counsel's indication that that will be a priority at that meeting, or if it's a priority, how it will be handled, feels to me like a non-agendized item of substance, that the council probably can't get into at great length right now.

[05:42:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so my, yeah, main interest was a fast track process to get it going right away rather than waiting until the new fiscal year.

[05:42:11] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And I think that's something that you can discuss when it comes before you on the 23rd.

[05:42:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. All right, thank you.

[05:42:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, anyone else have items here?

[05:42:22] Unknown Speaker: I just have a couple things to report. We had a meeting of the round table, which is the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County round table to discuss airplane noise, and we had a tutorial on noise. And then we talked about, um, how we other things that would be on our work plan. And then there was a meeting of the airport land use commission on the same night and I was going to say, I had to recuse myself from the Mountain View topic. So there's really not much to report on that one.

[05:43:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, anyone else. Okay so we will adjourn the... Actually, I should ask if we anticipate having a closed session report.

[05:43:16] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: We do not anticipate having a closed session report this evening.

[05:43:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will adjourn to the next council meeting, which will be held on Tuesday. Sorry.

[05:43:27] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: You're actually going to recess to the closed session, and I can read the closed session announcement. Now, Madame Mayor, if you would like me to.

[05:43:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Perfect.

[05:43:34] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Okay. So our closed session this evening is item 10.one conference with labor negotiators pursuant to government code section 54957.6. Our agency designated representatives are the city of Mountain View Assistant City Manager, Chief Operating Officer Audrey Seymour Ramberg, Our Human Resources Manager, Sue Rush, and Charles Sakai, from Sloan Sakai, Jung, and Wong, LLP. The employee organizations include Service Employees International Union, known as SEIU, local 521. The Eagles Association, the Police Officers Association, or POA, and the International Association of Firefighters, IAFF local 1965.

[05:44:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So should I ask for public input on the close session? If there is any.

[05:44:23] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It's noticed, I think so. We might just do it again when we get over to the plaza since it's list in the plaza, but you're welcome to us now.

[05:44:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I would ask now. Okay. If there's anybody who wants to provide us with input on the closed session, Seeing none. Okay, so now we will recess. to the closed session, um, and then the next city council meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 9th, 2019 at 6.30 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →