May 14, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, call the regular meeting to order, and I apologize for us being, uh, tardy here. That was quite a long discussion. So, we will start with the pledge of allegiance. You will stand and join me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the world. One nation under... Our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:43] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. You're gonna start this evening with a proclamation recognizing affordable housing week. And if Randy Suda could come join me. Oh, there he is. Thompson. Nice to meet you. Hey, M. Good to see you. so I know. I'm not sure when I'll get used to it. I'm not sure I'm going to either. take that. Well, I read this, and if you have anything you want to say, you're welcome too. Whereas housing is a basic human need, and each year, 1000s of Silicon Valley families struggle to find an affordable home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. And on any given night in Santa Clara County, 7600 individuals are experiencing homelessness, 74% of whom are unsheltered. And whereas quality affordable housing is vital to healthy, safe, vibrant, and diverse communities, and affordable homes are the solution to homelessness and provide support to seniors, families, youth, veterans, and people with disabilities. And whereas affordable housing is a regional need that requires regional solutions and participation from all cities and the county, and the city of Mountain View is committed to safe, stable, and affordable housing for all its residents. And whereas the city as a leader in developing innovative strategies, to create diverse housing options, which is a council major goal, and the strength of our community and economy depends on providing access to housing options that allow current and future residents of all income levels to live where they work. And whereas affordable housing, near employment centers and transit can reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and emissions, and lowers housing, and transportation costs for local workers, and the city is working with many organizations, agencies, and community members, throughout Santa Clara County, dedicated to addressing the significant need for affordable housing in Mountain View and in Silicon Valley. An affordable housing week encourages the sharing and implementation of best practices, opportunities, and solutions to help meet that need. Now, therefore, I, Lisa Matachek, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the weeks of May 3rd through May 17th, 2019, as affordable housing week in the city of Mountain View. To call upon all members of our community to support affordable housing solutions, and to recognize the successful efforts of the city of Mountain View, and its dedicated partners who seek to improve access to affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View and our neighborhood neighboring communities. Thank you.

[00:03:52] Randy Suda: Well, good, good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for the proclamation. I just wanted to thank the Mountain View Council for your longstanding commitment and leadership on the issue of affordable housing. It's been a commitment and a point of emphasis for the council for as long as I've been associated with the city of Mountain View. And thank you again for your support of 950 El Camino a few weeks ago. And I also wanted to acknowledge acknowledge your terrific staff, Wayne Chen, Tim, and Vera, right? Um, that without them, they're incredible, they're tireless and they're very creative and dedicated to affordable housing. And at this point, I wanted to introduce you to our newest board member, Jack Thompson. We joined was appointed to our board last week and is even better, a Mountain View resident. So I wanted to introduce Jack to you and give them an opportunity just to say a few words.

[00:04:47] Jack Thompson: So we are grateful to this council for your support of affordable housing and for backing that up with some appropriate investments. I live in Mountain View and being in a place with some economic diversity is very important to me, and I think the only way we're going to get there is with thoughtful action and persistence. So thank you for that. We value your partnership, and I look forward to doing more good things here with you all in Mountain View. Thanks.

[00:05:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, Randy. Next on the agenda is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council, our audience, wishes to remove the item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived, unless a council member requests otherwise. Council member McAllister.

[00:06:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Like to pull 4.10, please.

[00:06:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:06:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I'd like to announce that I will not be voting on 4.7 as I own real property in the vicinity.

[00:06:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, Vice Mayor Abekoga?

[00:06:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I have the same, um, condition issue, so I will not be voting on 4.7 as well.

[00:06:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other council members? Are any members of the audience who wish to pull an item? Okay, seeing none? Council member McAllister, did you, was this just a comment on 4.10?

[00:06:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, it can be a question.

[00:06:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Or a question? Question, or?

[00:07:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Well it's more of a comment. But maybe direction, change of direction on this one.

[00:07:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if you'd like to make a motion.

[00:07:07] Unknown Speaker: We're photo on now, the other ones first? Sting case? Okay. Get this voted out.

[00:07:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, we'll vote on the balance of the consent calendar, with the exception of item 10, and then we have, um, council members, Hicks and Vice Mayor, Abbe Koca, recused on 4.7.

[00:07:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, now... And is there anything that needs to be... For clarification. That went really quick. Council member Clerk?

[00:07:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, for clarification, my motion was to approve the consent calendar, minus 4.10, and that includes 4.2, adopt an ordinance approving and a zoning text amendment, to the R4, high density section of the zoning ordinance, to be read entitled only, or read entitled only, for the reading, waived, adopt an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment for the properties located at 525, 531, 555, 565, 569, and 769 East Avon Avenue, from the P 30, Sylvindale precise place R3 dash 2.2, multiple family residential district R4, high density residential district, red entitle only for the reading waived. 4.3 adopt a resolution to participate in the initial planning for potential future use of the Sunnyvale Materials, Recovery, and Transfer Station. Written title only for the reading waived and 4.4 adopt resolution modifying city council policy, D13, Mountain View employee homebuyer program, written title only for the reading waived.

[00:08:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have a motion by council member Clark, and a 2nd by council member Ramirez. Am I ready to vote on that one? If there's no more discussion. And that motion passes unanimously. So then back to item 4.10.

[00:08:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I pulled that this particular item, because here's an opportunity, which I haven't had, or some of you may not have, again, is that the position of city auditor, and in the past, it's been the financial director, and when I came on board, it was the finance director. But the reason of asking council to consider this, or to think about it, is, here's an opportunity to get a better understanding what the city auditor does, and give us a chance to see what potential or options are out there. There may be none, but this would opportunity to have a full disclosure, what's out there is compared to what other cities are doing. Maybe we could find something from best practices from other cities and see how they work. But if we don't actually get a discussion or a fuller staff report on this, then we're going to continue to do the same thing. I'm not saying anything that we've done in the past that's been bad. or inappropriate. But here's an opportunity to get some fresh eyes on this particular subject. It hasn't been broached before. And so I'm just saying, let's take a look at this a little more in depth than what we have in front of us and see if there is some benefit for doing an outside auditor, or city auditor, and maybe there is benefit that we see, and we should just review it.

[00:10:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[00:10:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I don't disagree with you, Council member McAllister, but we had an opportunity during goal setting to do precisely that. There was a project under the miscellaneous 5th category to explore things like performance auditing, and it wasn't prioritized. So I don't disagree with what you're suggesting. But maybe in a future goal setting, we could consider doing something along those lines because my understanding is that the staff impact would be fairly significant.

[00:10:55] Councilmember John McAlister: This is different than performance audit. I agree with you. It's an individual.

[00:11:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. So it may, I think it's worthy of exploration. But I think we had an opportunity to discuss it during priority setting or goal setting. That was my interest. That was one of the things I had introduced and because it wasn't prioritized, I'm not, you know, Well, I'll see what other members of the council have to say, but I'm, you know, I'm supportive of the recommendation made by the council finance committee. I think Jesse as a perfect candidate for the role.

[00:11:31] Councilmember John McAlister: There's nothing against Jesse, but I just think what you're asking is different than what's being proposed here. Performance audience is a bigger item. This is looking at someone that may do those performance on it, but actually looking at someone that is independent of the current staff. So it's, I don't see the correlation between the two.

[00:11:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Fair enough. Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[00:11:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, my understanding, we, we've had, uh, members of the public, um, bring the issue of auditors up, and, um, you know, we have two different auditor roles. This is our internal auditor who goes out to make sure that TOT taxes being paid to the city, so forth. And then we have the outside auditor that audits our cities, performances. So that's, I think, what Council member Ramirez probably is more referencing. In this case, it's, you know, someone, yes, who's making sure that the city is collecting what is due to the city. And so, um, I'm comfortable with it being our finance director, internal, who understands our operations. And, um, so I don't see, I guess I don't really see the benefit of an outside person doing those roles because, um, someone internally has a better sense of what our city, um, processities are and, you know, making sure that we collect what we're supposed to collect. So for that reason, I'm going to stay with the recommendation.

[00:13:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[00:13:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, move that we appoint Jesse Takahashi to the position of city auditor pursuant to section 701 and 710, the city charter.

[00:13:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by Council member Clark, and a second by Vice Mayor Abi Koka? Any other discussion on that? Okay, and we can vote? That passes unanimously. And we are on to oral communications, and this portion of the mating is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda tonight? If you could come up to the lectern, be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And you'll have three minutes.

[00:14:44] Public Speaker: Good evening, Mayor Matata, Council members. Today I have maybe a little bit more fun presentation here. I just want, this is kind of off, you know, obtusely related to the later topic on trip cap, but I don't think it's actually on that item. I just wanted to show you a video, a traffic video, which people seem to enjoy. around here. And it happened when I was coming home from Costco the other day. It was last week, which was the Google Developers conference, but what you're about to see is not a typical. I've seen it before, and in fact, I've experienced it firsthand. sort of on the other hand, you'll see. So I was coming out of Costco on Leghorn. And you'll see, as my car is going by here, you know, if you look off to the right, you'll see flying cars lined up on Ringstorf. What's interesting is what you'll see over here.. Let's see if this works. Okay, so here we are. Oh, let's see, let's look it back up a little bit. Okay, here we are at Reng Store. Look to the right, see the cars lined up there. And look off on the left lane here. These are all cars that are trying to avoid the backup on Rangstorf. And surprising how many there are. You know, we're going and going. You know, it's going to take these guys maybe a couple of traffic cycles to get to that intersection. This is the turnout, Sierra Vista. 101 is in the back there. 9.30 in the morning. Last May 6th. Okay, here I am. Okay, now I thought I would check out my favorite, you know, section terrible at Shoreline. So here I am on Terabella, approaching Shoreline. You won't see the line too much, but what y'all notice is, You know, I have a red, white. White is green for these guys. There's nobody going here because they can't, they're stuck. And actually, I'm going to break the law here. This is a right turn, Wayne, but I'm going to go straight because I don't want to get in this line here, because they may not move. So let's continue here. This guy is doing the same thing. Red car thinks he can go, but nope, too late. Light changed. So here we go straight. And yeah, the cars are all backed up here. These guys are probably going to have a hard time getting on the road there. So my point to all this is that, you know, we see the really big backups on Shoreline, Rang Store, you know, maybe Grant Road, and places like that. And I think as things get worse, you'll see that spill over into neighborhoods where traffic really isn't monitored very well. And you'll get this huge backups on streets that we don't even know about. Thank you.

[00:17:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Was there anyone else? I thought I saw a second hand. If you could speak into the microphone, it can come up to you.

[00:17:58] Bob Scally: I'm, uh, Bob Scally. I've been involved in youth, athletics for a while in the city of Mountain View, a long time, and there seems to be a very big problem with our new soccer field track field, at Crittendon Middle School, on Middlefield Road. Okay? They had a multiple school track meet there tonight with over a thousand people. There is not enough parking in the parking lot. In order to expand that soccer field, they took out one parking lot at the end, uh, of the towards Palo Alto side. Anyway, there's not enough parking. Okay? You also have Callahan, the saltball field there that is also used in the afternoon for youth sports softball, girls. And on Middlefield Road, there is a bicycle lane. Everybody parks in the bicycle lane, because it's wide open. There is one sign that says parking, no parking, from X in the morning till 7 at night. Only during the week. Weekends, it's wide open for anybody park any for the Saturday and Sunday. Now today at the traffic, it's not the 1st time it's happened, they had a multiple school. The police come down there, like sharks at feeding time, and they give out $35 tickets as far as you can see. Now, if you look at the posting, the posting is on a sign that's about 12 feet high, on a light pole, as you enter John Callahan softball complex. The next sign is 150 yards down. The signs have been there for 20 years. It's very poorly marked. People coming from Sunnyvale, from the other side of town, come there to watch a youth program, and they get tickets. Now, this has been going on. Margaret's sign is there on the big plaque. It's a beautiful field. It's getting a lot of use. But, I went down and talked to the police and said to the watch commander, Doesn't a big red light come on when you give out that many tickets at a youth program at 5 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the afternoon? Well, you know, we have to do our job. So, from talking to the watch commander, I come down. and talk to public works. Why don't you guys go down there and take a look at the posting on the signs? It's wrong. You're giving people that come here to visit Mountain View, a real bad headache going home with a $35 ticket. And again, tonight. Thank you. This was 2 weeks ago I did this or a week ago. Tonight, here they are again, like sharks in the water, given tickets. to people that came to watch their kids at a track meet. Gee, that's really nice. Anyway, Thank you. Somebody needs to go look at it. Stop it.

[00:21:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I do believe somebody is gonna follow up. The person taking notes. Anyone else wishing to address the council on an item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, we will close this portion of the meeting, and move on to item 6.1, which is a public hearing on the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district, for her fiscal year, 2019, 2020. And we will start with a stat presentation, and if you all could introduce yourselves, that would be great.

[00:21:54] Tiffany Chu: Good evening, mayor and counsel. I'm Tiffany Chu, and with me is Wayne Chen from the Community Development Department. Tonight is the annual assessment of the Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District for fiscal year, 2019 through 2020. This is the 1st 2 public hearings to renew the parking district. The district supports the overall maintenance and operation of the downtown public parking system. Tonight, the purpose of the public hearing is to take comment on the proposed annual assessment of $158,606 and to preliminarily approve the engineer's report. Any changes to the report will be revised for the June 4th public hearing. Each year, the assessment is uniformly applied to all property owners within the district. The formula is based upon land use parking requirements and parcel area. Any changes to the assessment, boundaries, or formula would need district wide vote. Approximately 8% of the parking district. Total revenue comes from the assessment, while the remaining revenue comes from interest earnings, property taxes, and parking permit revenue. The parking district revenues are used for ongoing maintenance and operations and implementation of downtown parking permit programs. Each property owner in the parking district is notified in accordance to state and city requirements. There were no inquiries regarding the district. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[00:23:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[00:23:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Chris, I'm not gonna do it, but I just want you to acknowledge I was thinking of it.

[00:23:42] Unknown Speaker: He's gonna pass on his standard question. For 7.5 years, Chris.

[00:23:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No other counts questions? Is there anyone from the audience who wishes to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none. We'll bring it back to council. We have a... motion by the vice mayor and a second by Council member McAllister.

[00:24:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, thank you, and, um, my motion is to approve, an adoption of resolution, a resolution preliminarily approving the annual engineers report for the downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district for fiscal year 2019 and 20. Read entitled only for the rating waved.

[00:24:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any other comments on this from council members? Okay, ready to vote? And that passes unanimously. All right, please. Thank you. So we'll move on to item 6.2, which is approval of the Mountain View 2019 Water System Public Health Goals Report. And we will start with a staff presentation, and if you all could introduce yourselves, We would appreciate it.

[00:25:19] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: Oh, good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. I'm Greg Hosfeldt. I am the assistant Public Works Director. With me tonight is Carrie Holman, the water quality supervisor for the city. We're here tonight to request the council's approval of the 2019 Water System Public Health Goals Report. What we'll be talking about this evening are some relevant regulations, the requirements that bring us to you tonight for the public health schools report. the specific elements of the port that are required, and then the elements that we're reporting on, which is a public health goal exceedings for lead, and a maximum contaminate level goal exceeds for gross alpha particles. And at that point, we'll give you the summary and our recommendation. And I will ask Mr. Holman to go ahead and explain the regulatory portion of this.

[00:26:09] Water Quality Supervisor Carrie Holman: So the city currently performs approximately 2000 water quality tests annually to ensure compliance with federal and state requirements. The maximum contaminant level is the highest level of a contamina allowed in our drinking water. So the MCL can either be a primary, health related, or secondary, aesthetic standard. The city also measures compliance with non regulatory goals set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oiha, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Public Health Goals, the PhDs are set by OEHA, the maximum contaminant level goals are set by the EPA. The level is a contaminant below which there are no known for expected health risks. California law also requires water purveyors serving more than 10,000 connections to do this report every three years, if a PhD or MCLG is exceeded. The report includes only contaminants with an MCL. It covers the years 2016 through 2018. And the report includes exceedences for lead and gross salvo particles. For each accedents, we've identified the specific contaminant, it's MCL, NPHG, or MCLG, best available technologies to receive achieve contaminant reduction rule, and the cost of treatment. Planned actions to reduce the contaminant. The requirements for the, excuse me, the requirements must be presented through a written report and approved at a public hearing.

[00:27:50] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: All right, again, specifically, we are reporting on two exceedences this evening. The first is lead, which is a medal that's been used in pipes, paint and plumbing fixtures, as gasoline additive. If it's found in drinking water, it's typically leached from household plumbing, and lead has a number of health effects and is a probable carcinogen, there's not specifically a maximum contaminate level for lead, but there is an action level, and the city is required to take action if 10% of our samples are above 15 parts per billion. Initially, the reason we're reporting on this is the public health goal is 0.2 parts per billion, which requires us to come forward with this in our report. And again, the action level. We have to act on if there's 10% of our samples above the 15 parts. We perform 34 tests in 2016, seven of those exceeded the PhD, and three of them exceeded the action level, which is less than 10%, so there are no additional actions required on the part of the city. It's worth noting that although we don't test specifically for lead in the distribution system, when we have tested, there has been no lead detected in the water that we supply. If we actually had to take action, we would have to follow the best available technologies for lead reduction. We want to tell you what those are and where we stand relative to those. Again, the best available technology is the recommended way to get the contaminant out of the water supply. In the case of lead, we would be enhancing the corrosion control of the water through design pH levels of 8.2 or above. The water we receive from the San Francisco public utilities commission averages 9.2, so no additional treatment would be required. The water we received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water. Actually, it says here is 7.2, but is actually 7.7, but it's also treated with additional corrosion, inhibitors, so no additional action is necessary there. We do supply a couple percent of our water through the city's groundwater wells, and the pH ranges from 7.1 to 8.0, but that water is blended with the higher water, a higher pH water, from the San Francisco system, so no additional treatment there is necessary. It's also worth noting the specific homes where we had the lead detection or is not in the area influenced by the city wells. For gross alpha particles, gross alpha particles is a measurement of radioactive particles in the water, and most of that radioactivity, this was in our city well, most of that radioactivity comes from naturally occurring geologic materials. The water we take from the wells is generally 5 to 700 feet deep, and we know from our sanitary surveys, they're not under the influence of any contaminants. So, we're pretty confident. This is a naturally occurring situation. The maximum contaminant level is 15 pico curies per liter. We had to look this up quite a bit. A cure is a measure, the radioactivity associated with one gram of radium, and a pico cure is a trillionth of a curry. So these are really low levels. The maximum contaminant level goal, which is the one set by the EPA is zero. To some degree, that means it's still being researched. So if there's not definitive information on the effects of this, the MCLGs are typically set at zero. We had one groundwater test result from 2018, that was at 4.3 pico curies per liter, and again, because we are under the MCL, there's no other action required on the part of the city. If there were, the best available technology for the gross alpha particle reduction is blending the affected water with other water sources or removing the affected source. In this case, our well water is mixed with the water from the PUC, so no additional treatment is necessary. Again, to summarize, the city's water meets all the primary and secondary water quality requirements, and we've employed best available technologies to address both the lead and the gross alpha particle exedences. Therefore, our recommendation is to approve the city's 2019 water system public health goals report. That concludes our presentation. We'll be happy to take any questions.

[00:32:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister has a question.

[00:32:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you represent, does this report represent the whole city?

[00:32:13] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: Yes, it does.

[00:32:14] Councilmember John McAlister: So I get Cal water.

[00:32:17] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: Okay, let me clarify that. It represents the water supplied through the city of Mountain View.

[00:32:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So, then, who does that for Kel Water, or should the city be responsible for doing that?

[00:32:26] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: That would be Kel Water, and I believe they are required also to follow the same reporting guidelines. And there's about 600 connections within the city of Mountain View that Cal water supplies, but they would issue their own reports.

[00:32:37] Councilmember John McAlister: And would that be a public notice, or would they get it in the mail, or?

[00:32:44] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: That would be a public notice, everybody, and who provides water to the, in the state has to abide by the same set of rules, so they provide water. They have to do a public airing, just like we're doing here tonight.

[00:32:55] Councilmember John McAlister: And has it been in a consideration of doing that study for those 600 connections so that when you make a report that it does represent the whole city.

[00:33:06] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: Not in this case, we are required and probably authorized only to report on the water that we distribute. I mean, we can certainly find that information and make sure it's provided to the residents, but from a reporting requirement, we really have to just focus on our own water supply.

[00:33:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[00:33:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing none. will open this up for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to address this on this topic, Okay, seeing done, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. And it looks like Council member Ramirez is ready to make a motion.

[00:33:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I move to approve the staff recommendation.

[00:33:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And there's a second by the vice mayor. Any other comments on this? Okay.

[00:34:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I support it. It's great, but if somewhere down the line, you could include the whole city, and those 600 isolated people, that it would be a bonus. So that when you do make that report, there would be... I have more trust in your transparency. The cities and getting the information out versus an independent that sends you a postcard or a letter. So somewhere down the line, if we can incorporate those cities, those residents, that'd be great.

[00:34:26] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeldt: Well, look, we will look into the best way to get that information available.

[00:34:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. We're ready to vote. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is item 7.1, which is the North Bay Shore trip cap report. We'll start with a staff presentation. If you can be sure to introduce yourselves, That would be great.

[00:35:23] Principal Planner Martin Elkhire: Sure. Good evening. I'm Martin Elkhire, principal planner, and with me tonight is RT Shrivastova, our community development director. Also with us tonight is our transportation consultant, Daniel Rubens, who's sitting in the audience. The city's trip cap report focuses on two key policy objectives. Number one, to determine the traffic volumes into North Bay Shore and compare this number to the adopted trip cap, and number two, to estimate the transportation mode share, particularly for SOV or drive alone single vehicles. The monitoring takes place two times a year, fall in the spring, and measures traffic at the 3 North Bay Shore Gateways, Shoreline Ring Store from San Antonio. The first, just a little bit of brief policy background. In December 2017, the city council adopted the new North Bay Shore precise plan. And before that time, we had the previous precise plan, the 2014 version, where we had a trip cap policy mainly concerned with inbound trips from all the office uses. It also measured trips over a three hour peak period. In contrast, the 2017 precise plan focuses on two way inbound and outbound trips in the peak hour. And the trip cap numbers also changed in 2017 to account for the new precise plans, anticipated 10,000 new residential units. The precise plan trip cap policy states that if the trip cap is exceeded at any of the three gateways for two consecutive data periods, no new building permits will be issued until the trips are reduced. An applicant may propose strategies to reduce the trips during this time, and the council may consider new policies to address those issues. One of the key things our annual monitoring reports on is the mode share for 2019, our SOV trips measured out at about 56%, as shown on the screen here, which is above the precise plans, 45% target. And we've been tracking all this data since 2014, the different mode shares, and the chart on the screen shows the general range of results over time and where we are today. For example, the SOV rate has ranged, you know, in 2014 to 2018, 49 to 60% roughly. The 2nd key piece of data we track is the number of vehicle trips. This chart shows that all of the spring 2019 gateway trip volumes comply with the trip cap, that is, the volumes are below the trip cap or the target, and each has about roughly 200 to 500 vehicle trip capacity, depending on the gateway. Looking ahead, the report discloses information about future development and its effect on the trip cap, noting that to stay below the trip cap, each new project must comply with its TDM plan. Also, existing trips in North Bay Shore must continue to be reduced. Secondly, the transportation improvement projects underway, such as the shoreline reversible bus lane project must be in place to help shift the SOV trips to other modes. It's important to note that we will continue to monitor how well the system is performing overall, and what additional studies, policies, or projects may be needed to optimize the system. Last year, spring 2018, the council asked staff to continue reporting on both the 2014 and the 2017 trip cab numbers. Council commented that it might make sense to use the higher 2014 inbound and outbound trip targets now while we wait for new residential units to be built in North Bay Shore. This is a table, again, a lot of information on this table, but it is an excerpt from your staff report, and it shows the comparison between the 2014 and 2017 precise plan trip cap numbers. At this time, staff is recommending that we use the 2014 inbound and outbound trip numbers. Then, as residential units are built in North Bay Shore, adjust these trip cap numbers accordingly to account for this change in land use and vehicle behavior. So, staff is recommending that council accept the tripcap report. with the staff recommendation just mentioned regarding the 2014 trip cap numbers, as well as to authorize the city manager to enter into a contract for the next fiscal year monitoring with fear and peers for the amount shown on the screen. And that concludes staff's presentation.

[00:40:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Council member McAllister.

[00:40:26] Councilmember John McAlister: So, did you guys break out public transit?

[00:40:31] City Staff: We did we did have some numbers for public transit in our accounts.

[00:40:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you know how much? Because when I saw it, I just saw transit.

[00:40:38] City Staff: So was it more in the back detail, but I mean, the primary accounts are obviously the shuttles, employees shuttles, but perhaps, Dan, you can talk about any numbers you counted for the bus lines out there.

[00:41:01] Dan: We'd have to break it out a little bit more, but we did describe just overall transit. That includes the commuter shuttles, the city shuttles, and public transit all combined together.

[00:41:12] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, please?

[00:41:13] Dan: So the transit, when we present the mode chair, is the commuter shuttles from Google and others.

[00:41:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[00:41:20] Dan: The city's, um, Mountain Bugo shuttles, and then the public transit. So the VTA.

[00:41:26] Councilmember John McAlister: But you didn't break it up per se?

[00:41:28] Dan: No, we'd have to go we'd have to go look a little deeper into the doors, yeah.

[00:41:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Because I'm interested in, we got a partner out there in VTA that's underutilized, and we got to figure out how we can, from prior reports, You had it included in prior reports showing it about 2% or somewhere along that line. And so going forward, well, that's the comments, but okay. My other question is, on the slide... The spring mode, it had the mode SOV, this one. I'm waiting for it to pop up here on my screen.

[00:42:17] City Staff: Okay, you have it up there?

[00:42:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. So, we've been investing a lot of money in bikes and pets. And yet, I mean, seeing it's going down and down. If we were to look at this as return on of our dollar spent, it would be discouraging. So why do you think these trends are going down?

[00:42:39] City Staff: Well, um, First of all, we don't have all the, um, projects, um, built yet that will be improving the bike and pet experience out in North Bay Shore. Some of them were built, mainly the Green Loop, Greenway, but a lot of the other things, such as the cycle track, and the bike ped, bridge, over 101. These are all things that are in the design phase, but that have not been built yet. So the hope is that once those get built, and we continue to add residential out there, then you'll see, hopefully, these numbers increase.

[00:43:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, another question. Why is the trend going down? I mean, bikes dramatically went down, and pedestrian was zero. So that's marginal. So why do you think they're going down?

[00:43:23] City Staff: Yeah, I mean, there's a variability over time throughout these studies, on any given day, when we measure, and so it's within a general variability. I mean, we could measure a different week, and we could get a slightly higher number, so it depends on a lot of things, weather, commute patterns that day.

[00:43:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so the spring number is just a shot in time one day. It wasn't a period or?

[00:43:48] City Staff: No, it's a several day period where we take counts, not only the vehicle counts, but also the bus counts.

[00:43:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[00:43:58] City Staff: And carpools, so that's under HOV number of bodies, and that was a, so high occupancy.

[00:44:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you consider Uber or lift, high equipancy vehicles?

[00:44:14] City Staff: So, we did receive a couple council questions on that, and it was, we just started tracking, the TNCs, like Uber and Lyft, in this monitoring report, and in discussions with Dan today, and also our public works staff. What we want to do is continue to report out all of the TNC behavior we see, to see if there's Uber lifts with one driver to categorize that in one table, another table for Uber drivers, with one passenger, and then finally, a driver with two or more passengers. And we'll present all that data to council, but it is staff's recommendation that we would consider only the Uber driver with two or more passengers as an HOV.

[00:44:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Then how would we know if carpooling or van pooling is working? Do you separate that out?

[00:45:06] City Staff: Uh, I believe band pools are counted, uh, distinctly. Dan, I don't know if you have any thing to add on that, but certainly through the individual projects, TDM plans, we would have more information on Banville behavior from each individual company as well.

[00:45:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And when you did this, you were going back for September, this. Was there consideration that, like, Microsoft had sort of vacated some of the property, and so there could have been a variable factor in that, and some of the other companies were moving people to other parts of the peninsula?

[00:45:46] City Staff: That's correct. I mean, what we measure right now, and what we're looking ahead does account for that, what's going on out there, what isn't going on out there.

[00:45:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[00:45:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[00:45:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I wanted to, um, clarify, your staff is asking us to take the 2014 inbound cap only. Is that right, or both inbound?

[00:46:13] City Staff: I guess it's a for inbound and outbound.

[00:46:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, so the outbound would be the lower number than the 2017 number. What is that?

[00:46:25] City Staff: No, it would be for um both for 2014, both inbound and outbound.

[00:46:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So 20...

[00:46:33] City Staff: Right, the 2014...

[00:46:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, the outbound for 2014 is on page 8 of the staff report. I'm reading 1120, and then 2017 is 1990. So you want us to take the 1120 outbound as well. And then... Oh, no, I'm sorry. You want us to go higher. I thought you wanted us to go back to the entire 2014 table.

[00:47:04] City Staff: Correct.

[00:47:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so...

[00:47:05] City Staff: Everything goes back to 2014.

[00:47:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So the upbound would be 11,20. So it goes down. Okay, and then the total is down.

[00:47:14] City Staff: Yes, and then the recommendation. Yeah, that's correct.

[00:47:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. I think that was it. Oh, actually, SOV, 45% target, um, I know it says we have to work harder, but, um, what are the plans, um, you know, as comes by McAllister noted too, there's been an increase in a deep reduction in cycling and so forth, but, um, I can't remember like, are there certain, um, carrots or sticks in our policy that, you know, would get us to the 45%.

[00:47:54] City Staff: I mean, 2 things. In of it, continued compliance with each company's TDM plan. That is, each individual company needs to submit their plan that shows how they are meeting that 45% goal. Again, the district monitoring that we do as another safeguard. And then also the different improvement studies that were, I mentioned earlier, the reversible bus lane on shoreline services from the TMA, other bike and pedestrian services, over time, the hope is that we would get closer to that 45%.

[00:48:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. There's no real, like, restrictions or anything to make us make sure we're gonna get there. other than monitor and keep trying.

[00:48:37] City Staff: Just the monitoring and TDM plan compliance, yeah.

[00:48:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[00:48:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:48:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So most of my questions were asked, but I have one remaining. Um, one of our residents noted that there's a, um, there's a VTA yard on La Avenita that generates a lot of bus traffic and wondered if, uh, we could urge VTA to relocate to, um, reduce any unnecessary traffic. Is that anything that people have talked about?

[00:49:10] City Staff: I know, uh, staff, uh, perhaps receive manager, would want to respond, but we have had discussions with the VTA in the past on that very issue. We would love for VTA to relocate, as would others. And they have expressed some willingness to do so, but only on the condition that they are provided at no cost to them, a comparable size facility in North County, which is extremely difficult to do. place

[00:49:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you done?

[00:49:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah. No, thank you.

[00:49:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, if there's nobody else I have, just, uh, one question, my others have been answered. And, um... you know how we've seen sort of a shift in the peak period to later in the day. And I got to thinking, based upon all the videos we've been seeing lately in the Terabella area. Is that because traffic is at a standstill during the other hours? And so, There's these long queues, and so, Fewer cars are getting through. So we're kind of seeing a, a shift in when cars are actually getting through, which is a higher level. Is that is that what's happening?

[00:50:26] City Staff: Yes, I believe that's correct. And Dan, feel free to obviously chime in, but I think it's what they refer to as peak hour spreading where it is lengthening. It's taking longer times for people to get to North Bay Shore, and that is causing greater delays and the traffic period is spreading out that way.

[00:50:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Because of the cues. Okay. Any other questions from council members? Okay, well, open it up for public comment. So, if you have something you want to say on this, please come up to the lectern, be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. Um, we still have the timer here, but we also have the chime as a reminder at the end of your time. Can I just see how many people want to speak tonight on this? Okay, you can have 3 minutes.

[00:51:16] John Carpenter: Okay, you're John Carpenter, Moon View. I think the problem, uh, reason why you have those numbers, uh, with respect to automobile usage, bicycle usage, and so forth, is that the, uh, as time passes, you, and when you continue to have a housing problem, you know, traffic problems, the housing problem, there it is, right there, it isn't. We have a housing problem. That's why the automobile traffic went up, and then, of course, in percentage, even though you could have more bicycles, the bicycle percentage would go down. The same kind of thing can happen with transit, because when people have to travel longer distance, They go out of range of a transit surface. So those numbers are because there's a housing problem. And by the way, uh, we need, we need to reduce the, uh, maxims to correspond to our greenhouse grass emission go, to drop grass and traffic. Yeah, it's a very, very tight situation, but you got to get and move on that housing, then we can move on that traffic, and then we can achieve our very important screenhouse, please.

[00:52:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:52:56] Albert Jeans: So another video? Hi, again, Albert Jeans. Um, yeah, actually, I have some nice things to say. By the way, this is Shoreline Boulevard again. Actually, you can see, this is the Nealfield intersection down here, so the line is going at least that far. Anyways, I actually read the report put out by, was it, Fair and Pure? I'm not a pronunciation. It's a very good report. I was really impressed. Incredible amount of data, you know, 2 weeks worth of continuous traffic counts, and then they picked the peaks from there. And, you know, they actually estimate number of people on buses, all the buses. I mean, there's just an incredible amount of data. I'd urge you to skim through the report. It's very long, but you know, I found it just really captivating. For example, you were mentioning queuing. They actually set up 16 video cameras, 615 or 16 to actually monitor the traffic. Unfortunately, they only did it for one day. So, you know, I think they might have missed one of the worst times, because here's their diagram for the cute lengths. And, yeah, most of the time, the Sherline queue goes past the middle field, Frank Storr queue goes up to old middle field. So they might have caught a particularly good day. But it's still really commendable if they actually did a very thorough survey. So unfortunately, it's a little bit harder to read. This just gives the Q lengths. And it also agrees with, you know, what you were saying about the maximum congestion being later and later times. And so I just wish that other traffic reports were done with this amount of, you know, comprehensive effort, for example, for a lot of the EIRs. Because this clearly shows, you have cues of 1,200 feet, 1,400 feet, or so long that they couldn't see the end, which is measured by the asterisk cure. And as I try to convince you in previous talks and emails to you, whenever that queue runs into an nearest selection, that invalidates the level of service calculation there. In fact, yeah, it just invalidates it because the assumptions are no longer valid. So anyways, yeah, I really think this is a really good report. I've read some of the past years, they just keep going. I certainly you know, recommend that you renew their contract. And I hope that, you know, staff or whoever can try to get this level of reporting done for all the EIRs. Thank you.

[00:55:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Ex, please.

[00:55:34] Public Speaker: Good evening, Sergeant, Mountain View residence. So my comments are mostly around the mode share. You know, we, you know, project after projects. We have that sort of mantra that all the traffic will be handled at the TFA by TDMs. And, you know, and it's kind of a in, we take a leap of faith, right? We trust that, you know, the TMA and the TDM programs will work and and and, you know, shift the transportation modes to something that's more, you know, green and and and will save our planet. Clearly, you know, in this case, the girls have not been met for 5 years straight. You know, the goal is to get to 45% single vehicle. And the nice thing about this report here is that these are actual accounts, you know, unlike over TDM programs where that's based on surveys. And I've done surveys at work and, you know, that's not, that's not very good data, and to be honest. So the good part is that we do the actual cons, but we have failed. I mean, pretty much 5 years straight and they will talk about compliance and putting teeth and I think it's pretty time to set up some teeth. There was some Turk around the system, EDP programs to have, you know, to buy carbon offsets, to buy some carbon offsets. Maybe that's the type of, you know, kind of penalty that should be put in place for this failed TMA and TDM results. That would at least compensate for the excess emissions that they produce. Thank you.

[00:57:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the council on this topic? Okay, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back, take cancel for discussion. Council member McAllister.

[00:57:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm going to go back to Microsoft and their plant being closed down. If they were open, would they have put us over the threshold? Would that one office building, put us have enough cars to put us over the threshold?

[00:57:51] Martin: Well, I mean, it all comes down to timing. I mean, we factored in, when their project was approved, we factored in the number of trips they would be adding to the gateways, when they would be opening, and the timing of when other improvements would be in place. And right now, all the projects that we've approved, very roughly would meet the trip cap capacities at each gateway.

[00:58:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but my question is, if micro when Microsoft opens based on your numbers that you took for this spring, would that be enough, would that put us over the our trip cap limits?

[00:58:34] Martin: I can't tell you for sure for the exact amount based on this report, but I can tell you that their project approval requires that they meet the 45% SOV goal, and the number of trips that we approved with that project was take into account the available capacity that our gateways has. So the answer would be, in short order, yes, we do believe it would be in compliance.

[00:58:54] Councilmember John McAlister: So if we took their numbers, that they gave you for there, and applied it to this to your current cap and our limits, then that still would be below the trip cap.

[00:59:05] Martin: Again, I would have to get the actual detailed numbers, but the way that we approve the project that is...

[00:59:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I know. Okay, that's in theory. I'm asking practicality, and that's why I say, when you're out there actually counting cars, That's what I was more interested in.

[00:59:20] Martin: Yeah, I mean, I guess, again, the report notes that we have between two and 500 vehicle trips of capacity at between each of the gateways. And so the thought would be that, yes, we could accommodate that additional development within that capacity.

[00:59:35] Councilmember John McAlister: No, but you took... okay.

[00:59:37] City Staff: So just to add to that, I mean, the proof's gonna be in the pudding. When they open, you know, they, as Martin says, they have to meet the 45%. And if they don't, and we do our next six months, and the cap is triggered, then there'll be consequences of that under the rules of the precise band. So, I mean, no one can say for sure at this point.

[00:59:56] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm just looking...

[00:59:58] City Staff: That's why we monitor this twice a year, and we keep track of it, and if and when it ever goes off, then it gets addressed.

[01:00:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments from council members? Okay, well, then I'll say a few words. Um, I... am concerned about the trends in terms of the mode split, and, to me, that is sort of more important than if we use the 2014 or the 2017 numbers for trip cap. Transit is trending up, which is good, but the SOV is trending up, which is not good. And bicycling and walking are trending down. And I think we heard one explanation, a specific group of people, I think, move to a different location. which caused some of the bicycle trips to go down. But, um, you know, I kind of feel like it's time to, as one person said, and get really serious about this, and figure out how we're going to get to the 45% SOV and get the other forms of transportation increasing. So, um, I actually think I would just leave the, you know, I'm not too hung up on this, but I think I would just leave the 2017, um, table in place because that was part of the precise plan in 2017. And, um, you know, if we're worried about, uh, 100 cars. I kind of feel like we're focused on the wrong thing. We need to really focus on the mode split. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[01:02:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I agree with your comments. The whole point of doing the SOV. 45% was to try to reduce the congestion that we had back then in 2008 or nine. I just don't see the numbers aren't showing and the SOV 45%, I guess, was supposed to, in my mind, I thought would trend with these trip cap numbers and it doesn't seem to be. And so that's my concern is like, is it just we have that many more cars coming in. Um, It sounds, seems like there's still more cars coming in and we're not doing the mode shifting. Um, so I don't know, I don't know when or how we discuss that, but as someone, as Serge mentioned, you know, maybe we need to put more teeth into that SOV target. And, um, I would be interested in that discussion. I looked at the, looking at these for 2014 and 2017 numbers. I'm inclined to get a 2014 just because the total is lower. My interest is to try to lower that number as much as possible. Um, But, uh, yeah, so in light of that, um, I would be fine moving back to the or moving to the 2014 numbers. I just wanted to make sure that it was both numbers and not just the inbound increase that we were going to move towards.

[01:03:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Komei?

[01:03:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I too will be supporting the staff recommendation to move to the 2014 numbers for the reasons that were mentioned by the vice mayor. Um, I think the points brought up by both the mayor and the vice mayor are important. Um, in terms of the mode share. I too, as was mentioned from other council members' questions, are concerned about the trending down of both bike and pet. I wonder how much of that has to do with the construction going on, um, and the roadway is not maybe being so bicycle or pedestrian friendly. Um, I think one other area I'd like to see a little bit more information on is I'm encouraged that we are looking at rideshare and agree with how we're measuring them, which is if it's a single person in a rideshare. It's going into SOV. If there are multiple inner red shares going into HOV, I think that makes sense. Um, but I'm interested in how, um, the different companies in North Bay Shore are are dealing with rideshare. For example, my understanding is in Menlo Park with the Facebook campus, they realize that people were treating campus like an airport, and, um, rideshare was just kind of circling around their campus just waiting for people who needed them to pick them up, um, and drop them off. And so they decided to change their approach to rideshare kind of entirely. And so I know that we have multiple employers in the North Bay Shore. I'd be interesting if interested to see if we can get more data and how they're approaching their rideshare programs for the next time this comes back to council. Thank you.

[01:05:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Council member McAllister, you made a motion. Do you want to tell us what it is?

[01:05:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, staff recommendation.

[01:05:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The staff recommendation?

[01:05:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Review and accept the North Bay Shore trip count report and authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with 3 earn peers for an amount not to exceed $158,500 for North Shore. North Bay Shore District Transportation Monitoring for Fiscal Year 2019 20.

[01:06:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by council member McAllister, and I seconded that.

[01:06:16] City Staff: If I could, Madam Mayor. It's not explicit in the staff recommendation, but it would be helpful to staff to get clarity on whether or not you want to use the 2014 or the 2017 numbers, so there's no confusion in the future. So perhaps if you could amend the motion to be explicit on that, that'd be great. And then, I will...

[01:06:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, that was staff recommendation. So, that's what I was saying.

[01:06:41] City Staff: As I said, our recommendation was not clear, which is why I'm asking you to clarify it for us.

[01:06:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so the staff recommendation is to move back to the 2014.

[01:06:48] City Staff: Yes. Staff recommends the future gateway trip count monitoring uses the higher 2014 inbound trip cap instead of the 2017 trip cap. number. Again, that's what I'm asking for clarification on.

[01:07:06] Councilmember John McAlister: I thought it was inbound the entire 2014 table now. It is, right?

[01:07:12] City Staff: That is correct.

[01:07:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 'cause I think... Counselor... Yeah, that's right. Old. In the staff report, it said inbound, so we can eliminate the word inbound. Thank you. And part of the motion would be that future gateway trip cap monitoring uses the 2014 data.

[01:07:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I guess I have a question, um, about that, because I thought, um, the vice mayor said that she wanted, she was open to going back to the 2014, because the total was lower, but the inbound numbers are higher. And that's okay?

[01:07:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm okay with that.

[01:07:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Okay, so we have a motion by Council member McAllister, a second by Council member Clark. Any other discussion on this? Okay, we are ready to vote. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we will move on to item 7.2, which is parking restrictions at 251 South Shoreline Boulevard, 599 Castro Street, and Bryant Avenue between Mercy Street and California Street. And before we get to the staff presentation, the vice mayor and council member Hicks, I have something to say.

[01:08:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, mayor. Thank you. I will be recusing myself from this item due to real property I own in the vicinity of these addresses, locations things.

[01:09:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:09:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I'll be recusing myself for the same reason.

[01:09:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yeah, we'll have the staff report.

[01:09:20] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Thank you so. Members of the council. I am Mike Fuller. You are a public works director. And we have recommended parking restriction changes in three locations. I will describe each very briefly. The first is at 251 South Shoreline Boulevard, which is fire station number one. Currently, we have no parking south of the fire station one driveway from Dana to the driveway, and no parking from the driveway, um, north to kind of midpoint between the driveway and Villa Street. And the fire department has requested that we extend that note parking zone all the way to Villa Street. They have a couple of issues. One, they do get some large vehicles there occasionally, large trucks and RVs, and they do exit the fire station at this driveway, and visibility is critical to them. And they're interested in having that area clear vehicles. Another issue that they have is when other apparatus are visiting the station for training or other purposes, they can park in the red zone. This is actually a very good place for them to park because they can get in, they can get out if they need to for a call. Second location is Bryant Street. We actually have a conflict in our existing resolution. If you see, uh, we have Mercy Street in California Street, and then, uh, Connecting this segment of Bryant Street. We actually have, in the ordinance, in the resolution, 2 hour parking on both sides. And we also have 24 minute parking on the east side. So there's a conflict there. And what we're recommending is to remove the 24 minute parking so that 2 hour parking will be available, which is more useful, frankly, for most downtown visitors at restaurants and so on. We do have some 24 minute parking here. That's actually very useful for very high turnover locations like near an ATM machine. And we do already have that here on Mercy Street. So we don't think there's a great demand for the 24 minute parking there. And that'll add a little capacity to for most users downtown. The 3rd location is at 599 Castro Street. We have the existing Wells Fargo location at the corner of Church in Castro on the west side. There is an application in for a provisional use permit to move that across the street to the new Cerrado building. And the request from Cerrado is to create three 24 minute spaces here. They're currently one hour spaces, and so that there's no net loss of parking. Sobrado's proposing to close the driveway, the existing driveway to the existing Wells Fargo location. They can get 3 parking spaces there. So there's no net loss of one hour parking, and the existing Wells Fargo site is still open on Church Street with 2 driveways. So, we now adopt parking restrictions via resolution, and so, this is our recommendation, it would amend the existing tables in our parking restriction resolutions to reflect these recommended changes. That concludes my presentation, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:12:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Council member McAllister?

[01:12:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, one question on the one on Castro Street. That would only take effect once the Wells Fargo bank is built.

[01:12:52] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yes, it's conditional on the approval of a provisional use permit, and I think there's a ZA hearing May 22nd. So, um, if for some reason it didn't happen, we would just bring a resolution on consent and reverse this decision, but, um, it is conditional on that, yes.

[01:13:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark?

[01:13:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then on that same side topic, would they would just be more diagonal spots that would look like the ones that exist now.

[01:13:21] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yes.

[01:13:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: So there wouldn't be any, we wouldn't be doing anything that would be permanent that might prevent you a pedestrian thoroughfare there. We'd just remove the parking someday if that ever happened.

[01:13:31] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Correct.

[01:13:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing none? We'll open this up for public comment. If you have input on this, please come up. Be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. You can have 3 minutes.

[01:13:51] Serge Bond: I won't knit for units, but... So, I had 2 comments on Serge Bond, Mountain, your residence. I had 2 comments. The 1st one is on the shoreline, you know, a proposal. So to the extent that, you know, large fire trucks can now could potentially bark along shoreline. I'd like to make sure that you maintain a sizable buffer from the crosswalk by Villa. you know, because, you know, just like fireman, fire personnel doesn't want to have good feasibility. I think anybody who's using that crosswork or has to make a writer needs that visibility. you know, if you had a large truck right there, pretty much pedestrians would not be seen, you know, you wouldn't see anything when you make your your right turn, that's a bad thing. So, and I'm not sure how you put extra red on red, but so, but somehow you should you should make sure you have a buffer. And then for the proposal on Castro, There is probably some stuff that you guys discussed in closed doors, but to me, it seems to me that we are dedicating some public parking spots to a specific business. And it's, you know, I don't know, it seems a bit of a corporate giveaway and, you know, out of our corporations. Wells Fargo is not the best citizens. So that's a bit an issue. And I don't quite understand why, you know, that type of parking was not provided as part of a project. My understanding is that there is guest parking somehow there, and I don't know why, you know, this free short-term parking, you know, couldn't be provided as part of a guest parking, but, you know, you guys may know more than we do. Thank you.

[01:15:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments from the public on this topic? Okay, we'll close public input and bring it back to council for additional questions or any discussion. Council member McAllister?

[01:16:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Make a motion that we adopt a resolution amending tables 19.97, designating 24 minute parking. Zone 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 19.99 designated, no parking zone, previously adopted by resolution, number 18250 pursuit, to Mount View City, code section 19.97 and 19.99 to be read entitled only further reading wave attachment went to the council report.

[01:16:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by council member, McAllister, and a second by council member, Kameh. Any other comments? Okay, we can vote. So that passes 502 with Vice Mayor Albikoga and council member Hicks recused. Do you need a break? Okay. Yeah. Well, we'll keep on going, then, when I take a break. Okay, so we will move on to item 8.1. which is below market rate, housing program, phase two modifications, and we will start with the staff presentation.

[01:17:29] Wayne Chen: Thank you and good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Wayne Chen. I'm joined by RT Shavastova. Also want to introduce Darren Smith, who is with economic and planning systems. There are consultants for this project, and Lauren Bigelow from Polito Housing Corp. They are our BMR administrators for the program. They're here for assisting with questions as needed, as they come up for counsel. So the BMR program is one of various tools in the city's housing toolbox. And together, the various complementary programs work together to address diverse ranges of housing needs. So we're really appreciating the opportunities to talk with you tonight about phase two. So briefly, the meeting purpose is for the council to provide feedback on recommendations for phase 2 modifications for the BMR program. The input will be used to finalize the guidelines for the program and to make amendments to the BMR ordinance to be taken through the subsequent public process. Brief background. The BMR program was established 20 years ago. It included a for sale and a rental component, a 10% requirement for each, with the income levels being 80 to 100 per- uh, 80 to 100 AMI for the for sale program and 50 to 80% AMI for the rental. We would call those the moderate income category for the for sale and the low income category for the rental program. The city suspended the BMR rental program, like many other jurisdictions due to the Palmer case in 2009. But the ownership side continued. After AB 1505 was passed, the city resumed enforcement of the BMR rental program in 2018. Council provide direction on various BMR modifications in late 2017 into study sessions. In those study sessions, there were some key priorities that the council emphasized. The 1st one being the development of affordable units, rather than receiving fees, increasing the requirement to 15% for both ownership and rental, achieving a diverse income range of affordable housing, adding the moderate income category to the BMR rental program, and then expanding the moderate income category from 80 to 100 to 80 to 120 percent AMI, which is the typical way the moderate income category is defined. Also to establish a fee level that establishes a rental equivalency to the on-site BMR requirement, exploring increasing the fee amount and the threshold for the ownership program. The current program allows ownership projects to provide it in Luffy. If the sales prices are above a certain threshold that adjusts annually. And currently that threshold is about 750,000 a unit. And also to shift the 3% inloofy methodology on the ownership side to a per square foot methodology for ownership units. The modification process has taken 2 phases. The 1st phase went into effect in April of 2018. It focused primarily on the rental side, so it increased the rental requirement up to 15%. and modify the fee amount to a higher level. We added some additional language on alternative medications. And the council adopted the following exemptions for phase 2 modifications regarding gatekeeper projects and non-gatekeeper projects. The phase 2 modification process, we've been working on that for after phase one was completed, and that modification process for phase 2 includes all of the other items that were not taken up as part of phase one, which includes increasing the BMR ownership requirement to 15%, modifying the in-luve methodology and amount and amount, and also the modern income range for the BMR ownership program. And there were other components that we were cleaning up along the way because it is 20 years old and there were various places where it needed to be cleaned up. The phase 2 process did include a peer analysis about what neighboring jurisdictions have in terms of a BMR requirement, modeling to develop the basis for the Luffy equivalency analyses. Ground truthing in terms of talking with developers to test that the assumptions being used for costs or revenues and sales prices were reasonable and current and holding a community meeting 2 months ago. So in terms of the peer context for BMR ownership programs, Most of the cities that have a BMR ownership program have at least a 15% requirement, some have a 20% requirement, and most of them have a deeper affordability target than the one that we're looking at for phase two, which is the expanded moderate income range. If we were to bring the 10% up to the 15%. That brings us basically in line with other cities. Similarly for the BMR rental program, most cities with BMR rental program, have at least a 15% requirement. Some have 20% requirements, and they are also at a deeper affordability targets in general. than the city's BMR program for rental. So regarding the recommendations for phase 2 incorporating the council direction on the key priorities. These are the general provisions. We're establishing that the objective standard of the program is units, BMR units, on site, with on-site defined as being integrated with the marketer rate units. This would apply to all residential product types. ADUs would be, though, except from that definition and licensed care facilities. It would be a 15% requirement for rental and ownership projects, and asking Celts to provide input on an up to 25% for rowhouse townhouse projects. We're recommending a weighted average methodology for income levels, and we'll talk about that a little bit more. And then having the BMR units affordable in perpetuity, rather than the 55 years to preserve the affordability of the unit. Units can pay a fee if there are fractional units, resulting in 0.5 or less, but for projects that have fewer than 7 units, they could automatically just go ahead and pay because they wouldn't be able to achieve a single unit, less than 7 units. Regarding the weighted average methodology, the primary goal for that is being able to have various income levels, um, within a certain income category. So you can have different levels within a category, um, with the provision that there has to be at least 2 income levels. So you can't set all of the units at one income level to hit that weighted average. And the goal here is also to have the city provide periodic guidance on specific housing priorities that could evolve over time if we're doing particularly well in one income level or income category. We could work with the developer during the entitlement process to say, hey, could we consider having income levels at a different level to maybe hit some arena targets, for example. Again, the rationale is that it would incorporate moderate income units, but it would achieve a greater diversity of income levels rather than having all units at one level. And it provides flexibility for both the developer and the city to achieve clear policy goals. So here is an example for ownership projects. Moderate income category, the moderate income category is the income target. We are recommending an 80% floor, meaning that a developer who wants to meet the BMR ownership requirement, would not be able to provide BMR ownership units less than 80% AMI, unless a special set aside, was created to maintain the affordability over the life of the unit. The weighted average would be 100% with at least 2 income levels. And so these are just some illustrative examples of how the units could be set at different AMI levels to hit a weighted average of 100%. What's not shown on there are options for a developer to say, we'd like to have some units at 90% AMI or 115. So it could really be set at anywhere on that range. Typically, I think folks may round up to the nearest 5%. But it does have that flexibility. So again, these are illustrative examples. The rental side, it's the same thing. The range would be greater. It would go from 50% AMI to 120% AMI. And for rental projects, there isn't a floor, a developer, if they wanted to, could go lower than 50% AMI with a weighted average of 65% AMI or less, again, 2 income levels minimum. Again, these are illustrative examples of what the variety of options could be. There could be 55% AMI units, or 90% AMI units, these are just illustrative examples. Regarding density bonus wanted to just point out that under the existing program, compliance with the BMR requirements doesn't entitle development to density bonus, but there have been a case law that basically stipulates that if you have BMR units, they could be double counted towards density bonus, if they're meeting the requirements of both program, as long as it meets the stricter requirement of the two. So we want to make that modification as well. And that currently the BMR program has the BMR requirement placed on the total unit after density moment. And based on the general interpretation guidance of application of density bonus law, where modifying it so that the BMR requirement is applied to the base number of units rather than the total. So a couple of questions here is, does the council support a higher BMR requirement for rowhouse townhouse projects up to 25%? And then does council support the recommended BMR onto requirements for rental enforced sale projects overall, including BMR units in perpetuity? Regarding alternative mitigations, because the objective standard of the program is BMR units on site. anything other than that, and anything other than the complying with the set of requirements for on-site units, would be considered an alternative mitigation. We do include some additional parameters in the guidelines. And the general requirements are exceeding the affordability requirements, and it advances other city affordable housing goals. And those, again, could be further clarified through periodic guidance that those city issues in terms of what might be some other housing goals that would be of a greater benefit to the city. and have that in consideration as part of alternative medication considerations. There are also additional requirements put into the guidelines for land education, build off site, and in lieu fees. And developer could also request other alternate medications, not listed there, there are probably many ways that a developer could request in alternative mitigation, and we would be evaluating that based on these parameters in terms of benefit to the city and advancing other city goals. Question 3 is, does the council support the recommendations regarding alternative mitigations? Inloof fees would be a specific alternative mitigation, that would be a request instead of providing units on site, which is the basic requirement. The equivalency analysis conducted was to determine where a developer would be economically indifferent to providing units on site and paying an inloof fee. And that was also part of council duration of looking at what that equivalency is, and as a way of facilitating onsite units. The math shows that for rental projects, $96 per net habitable square foot, is that point of equivalency and for ownership projects, 5450 per square foot net habitable is that equivalency level. I didn't want to provide just a quick comparison with what the program currently is versus the range for other cities. And so the highlighted box is where the math is showing equivalency is based on the economics of today. The existing line is why it currently is right now, and you can see the range of other jurisdictions. And just to note that jurisdiction set fee levels for various reasons and at different times, and so the economics could be different as well, but typically those fee levels are below the equivalency of providing units on site. So again, as an alternative mitigation, the inlu fee amount would need to be of a greater value or benefit to the city. So what that means is that whatever fee level is established, it would be some level higher than that on a per square foot basis to be qualifying for those alternative mitigation parameters for new fees. Again, it would apply to both rental and ownership units, not recommending any thresholds for ownership projects, all ownership units would be subject to this provision. There is enough sort of ability to fee out, just because you're above a certain threshold. We talked about fractional units. It would be adjusted annually by CPI. And looking for council input there. For timing of delivery, uh, regarding on-site BMR units, because there should be built concurrently and integrated, uh, the BMR units should be delivered, and shall be delivered no later than the market rate units. And for alternative mitigations, generally, it's having land dedication in loop fees, delivered prior to the 1st building permit issued for the entire project. even if it's mixed use or for multi-paced projects. And for off-site BMR units, having those units delivered no later than market rate units again. Regarding exemptions, we wanted to provide council some information and some data points about what is currently in the pipeline for council input. Currently there are 19 projects with a formal application that has been filed with the city. It's under review. And that represents just over 3000 residential units. Nine of them are gatekeeper projects, about 2700 units. So the majority of the units are gatekeeper projects. We put in a 60 day period as a reminder of what the council approved last time. And if there were a 60 day period, the effective date, is estimated to be late August, if we are on track for the public process schedule that we'll talk about in a moment. And so this is, uh, using, essentially, the framework for phase one, regarding gatekeeper projects, and then also non-gate gatekeeper projects with some some refinement on non-gatekeeper projects, but the ability for, um, a project to still file, a non-gatekeeper project by June 30th, and having the ability to still be exempt, um, uh, if there's response to the city's 30 day letter. So question 5 is regarding counsel's input on exemptions. Rental projects with condo maps in the past, the city council has expressed an interest in facilitating such projects, potentially as a pathway to homeownership. And in the past, the input that we've received is those projects had been treated as ownership projects. At the time, the 3% loop fee and the rental fees at the time, those 3% loop fees resulted in a higher cost, than the rental in loop fee. Currently under phase one. is actually reversed. The rental in Lufee amount is actually higher than the 3% in Lufee, and depending on where council sets the phase 2 fees, then that that direction may still maintain in terms of rental fees being higher than ownership fees. The recommendation is that condo map, the rental project should be treated as rental projects. And the basic requirement is still to have condom rental projects provide units on site as the basic requirement of the program. If there is a fee out request, that would be considered an alternative mitigation. And, um, it would be subject to the rental in Luffy basis. If and when units convert to ownership in the future, they would need to convert those BMR rental units into BMR ownership units. Regarding annual eligibility, focusing here on renters is looking for a way to balance preserving the stability of existing households who may experience an increase in their income over time, but then also providing opportunities for eligible households on the waiting list to also be able to occupy a unit. And so there's a way potentially to balance both. The recommendation is to allow households who place into an affordable unit on the rental side to go 10 percentage points over whatever that rental level is set at to allow that flexibility. And it's only after going over that percentage point increase, then there would be the need to transition out, but still giving up to one year to transition out. So if the unit is a 80% unit and the household starts to earn 89% AMI, they would be able to stay. 90% AMI would be able to stay, once they hit the 91% AMI level, they would have one year to transition out. So it provides a little bit more flexibility and stability, but a little bit of turnover for placing folks on the waiting list. So question 6, does council support this approach? There are various other elements and requirements in the guidelines. such as dispersing the BMR units, having them be comparable quality to market rate units. The rents in the sales prices would be based on this bedroom +one formula. So if it's a one bedroom unit, we would assume a two-person household, the rents and sales prices would be based on the income level of a two-person household, for whatever income level is appropriate, whether it's moderate or low income. The minimum occupancy would be one person per bedroom with some reasonable accommodation, flexibility. The phase 2 process, again, has been going on in terms of staff research with our consultant team. We had a community meeting late March, EPC study session in late April. Tonight, we have our study session, and we have upcoming public hearings scheduled for the end of this month and into June. This is a summary of the council questions. There is a question seven. If council has input on any other components, The questions are a little bit out of order to kind of group them a little bit. to facilitate discussion. And that concludes staff's presentation, welcome any questions. Thank you.

[01:38:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Since this is a study session, we will open it up for public comment before we have to cancel, ask questions and make comments. So if there's anyone who wants to address the council on this topic, He could raise your hand or stand up or... Okay, it doesn't look like there's too many, um, so we can give you three minutes. Be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and leave it with the city clerk.

[01:38:55] Pat Tacito: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. I'm Pat Tacito with BIA Bay Area. here before you this evening and appreciate this time. BIA has submitted a letter that contains a significant amount of information and perspective regarding the proposed phase 2 BMR program recommendations. Well, I won't read the letter. It's too lengthy. There's a lot of data in there, and a lot of information. I'd like to highlight just a couple of things. At this point in time, with the housing crisis at full throttle, we believe that taking an action that will raise the BMR inclusionary percentage to 25% for market rate townhomes, will significantly constrain the construction of ownership townhomes going forward. As we all know, the townhome is the city's most reasonably priced home ownership residential product in today's market, not just a mountain view, but everywhere here in the Bay Area. Mandating a 25% BMR inclusionary will significantly reduce home ownership opportunities for that missing middle, wage earning family that we all say we want to provide home ownership opportunity to. That's what they're looking for, is the town home. I'd also like to know that in the study session memo, table two, comparison of BMR requirements for ownership housing, It's noteworthy that the cities of Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Foster City, do have a greater than 15% BMR. requirement. Interestingly, historically, these same cities really don't provide a lot of housing for worker housing, for the Silicon Valley region. If there is a link, I think we can all see what it is. BIA encourages the council to allow flexibility and project design. The option of aggregating BMR units affords increased opportunity for private and nonprofit developers to partner and to deliver more affordable housing. Quality control of the unit is all held by the city, through your design standards, and your building requirements. You control that, not the developer. Control, the quality. BIA suggests greater flexibility in alternative mitigation policies. Providing reasonable incentives to produce units should be seriously considered. The continued mandating of complex, and just listening to all you just listen to, complex, burdensome, regulatory requirements will only continue to constrain the development of rental and ownership housing. Thank you.

[01:42:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:42:06] Katya Kamengar: Good evening, Mayor and council members, Katya Kamengar with Summerhill Housing. And, um, really, there is no question that more affordable housing is needed in the region, and we fully support your efforts in that regard. What people often don't know, though, however, is how significant the cost implications are on market rate projects that include affordable housing. So that's what brings me here. Because going from the current rule of the 3% in Luffy to 15% on-site requirement basically triples the cost on a housing market rate housing project. basically the subsidy, in essence, and going to 25% would make it 5 times higher in subsidy. As a side note, I did also want to mention that I just learned 3 weeks ago when I was reading the EPC staff report that you're considering this 25% on row homes and townhomes. And I just really don't understand where that's come from or why you would single out one type of ownership housing. the one that's most currently being built throughout the Bay Area. That said, we are partner with the city. That's how we view ourselves and our goal is to work within the rules that you have. But given the order of magnitude of the subsidy, change being proposed, and the fact that it takes 2 to 3 years from the time that we get into contract on a piece of property until we get the approvals on a project. Our ask is that you roll out this new rule in a thoughtful way and going beyond what's recommended by staff in terms of the phasing. So that you apply to new projects, but don't hurt the projects that are in the pipeline. So our specific request is, the projects with gatekeeper authorization remain with the current rules. We're also asking that Summerhills East Wisman TDR project, which many of you are familiar with. We asking that that remain with the current rules. This is one of 2 residential projects in East Whisman. It has TDR gatekeeper authorization, and we went to council last October, just 6 months ago. to decide on the affordable strategy for that project explicitly. Because I knew the rules were changing. I needed some clarity to know, you know, where is this headed? Can we keep this project still viable? So we hope you'll honor that direction you gave in October. Lastly, we request the projects with formal applications on file before the 1st reading of the ordinance also remain with the subject current rules. Because you don't deem projects complete until just a few weeks before it goes to final hearings, and that means we've been in the process for one to 2 years and made significant investment in the property, both the land and the project as well as staff time. And really the only way to recover from threefold or fivefold increase in the largest fee, if the costs go down, but construction costs are at their highest or if home prices go up. But right now, it's the trend is the other way, unfortunately. So that's our request. Thank you.

[01:45:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:45:29] Adam Cates: Good evening, Mayor Madeshak, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, and council members. My name is Adam Cates. I'm a vice president of classic communities. We're a local developer of ownership housing. We've delivered just shy of 200 ownership housing units in the city over the past 5 years. And Mountain View has been a leader on housing policy for the region, and we commend the city's ongoing efforts to address the housing crisis, which is both a crisis of affordability and relatedly a crisis of short supply. In taking the next step toward tackling the housing problem. I would like to share 2 recommendations with you. First, I would recommend an incremental approach to the phase in of any increases to the BMR requirements for ownership housing. The concepts being presented for tonight for discussion, if adopted whole cloth, would dramatically reduce residential land values such that I would fully expect the land market for potential residential development sites to seize up for many years before seller price expectations would, again, align with a developer's ability to pay for residential land. The at the 15% subsidy, in 15% on-site requirement, I would anticipate something like a 20, 20, 21% reduction in land value. And at the 25% level, it jumps to something like a 38% reduction in land value versus today's baseline, if nothing else changed besides the BMR ownership ordinance. Second, I would recommend that the trade-offs of inloof fees versus on-site units for ownership housing be studied very carefully and be evaluated on the basis of the return on investment, which in this context would be stretching the subsidy dollar to provide as much affordable housing as possible. My expectation is that this analysis would reveal that collecting an increased affordable housing fee, which could then be levered up and matched with other sources of public subsidy, as well as low income housing tax credits, would yield many more affordable housing units, and take a bigger bite out of the affordable housing deficit than would requiring on-site ownership units. I think, uh, And I think doing this careful analysis and taking our time with it would sustain Mountain View in its position as a leader in housing policy for the region and affordable housing. A lot of the other cities up on the slide are have a higher requirement, but they're not getting the units because it's a deterrent to housing production. Thank you. you.

[01:48:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:48:26] Molly Neighbor: Good evening, council members. My name is Molly Neighbor, and I'm a project manager with Midpen Housing. We're a nonprofit affordable housing developer based in Foster City. We've built and operated 9 properties in the city of Mountain View with one of those properties scheduled to complete construction of an additional 60 units next year. Currently we have 2700 households on our wait list for only 916 units in the city of Mountain View. And we know from our lease ups that we'll have 1000s on our wait list for the upcoming Shorebreeze expansion. And in this climate, we're very grateful to the city of Mountain View for your commitment to building more housing, and we're excited about the proposed extension of the affordability term for BMR units at market rate developments from 55 years to perpetuity, given the demand that we see. However, we urge caution in applying the in perpetuity restriction to affordable units at 100% affordable developments, as this could conflict with our ability to leverage the low income housing tax credits, that we need to make the 100% affordable developments pencil. We also agree with the intent of the council's emphasis on developing affordable housing units instead of receiving fees in order to accelerate housing production, but the proposed requirement that BMR rental units be on site, integrated with market rate units will make it harder for us to develop units with deeper income targeting. For example, the housing impact fees in some of the neighboring communities help us leverage additional public funds to build our 100% affordable communities that serve families earning less than 60% of median income. Also, the housing impact fees give us flexibility to take advantage of real estate downturns and lower construction costs, to move 100% affordable housing developments forward independent of market rate developments. So, in summary, I urge the council to allow flexibility in locating the BMR housing units, as this allows us, affordable developers, the flexibility we need to put together the resources necessary to make our communities work. Thank you.

[01:50:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:50:53] Alex Nuñez: Hello? My name is Alex Nunez. I am a resident of Mountain View. I work with many residents here in the city who are either going through redevelopment projects and helping them navigate what, you know, it means to have to leave the city of Mountain View, when I 1st, you know, started working with these residents, it really was a lower income demographic, probably 50% or below of the AMI. But very recently, I've started to just notice that for residents who are on that 80 to 120% undergoing this redevelopment process as well. It's uh, actually very difficult for them to uh, be able to afford the market rate rents here in the city, which would indicate to me that it would be very difficult for them to afford the market rate ownership mortgages as well. So I, with that said, very much, am grateful that we have very talented, very, you know, good staff who does a lot of research, does a lot of homework, understands the laws. And I very much support the 25% BMR requirement for the row home and townhome product type. Uh, in particular, um, you know, I think one of the speakers who, uh, I think it was the 1st one said it's a very reasonably priced, uh, type of product for uh, consumers. And, you know, for me personally, I am one of those missing middle people, and I can definitely tell you that it's not an affordable product type for people in my economic bracket. And you can also see that from the 2310 Rock Street project, the, you know, 1950 Montecito project. Those folks weren't that very low income or low income demographic. That is the missing middle and they're going to have to leave the city. They're not going to be able to stay here. So I know the missing middle is definitely a very, uh, you know, um, uh, big area focus for the council. I believe that it was a part of the goals that were being set, ownership opportunities for the missing middle. And I think the 25% BMR requirement is a good way to actually make that product type affordable and accessible to residents who are in that demographic. So I very much strongly support that. I also very much strongly support staff's recommendation for the grandfathering and the exemptions. I think that there's definitely been a lot of, you know, advanced notice, broadcasting about this being a project or a program that was going to be opened up for possible changes. So I'm very much in favor of a staff's recommendation there. And also just very much would like to thank staff and thank everyone and hope, yeah, go with that. Thank you.

[01:53:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: X, please.

[01:53:56] Public Speaker: So, Sergeant, Mountain View residence. So I support the direction and most of the elements that are proposed here. I think that's very important that we start to build BRMR units outside and integrated and included with the market rate units. It's not just a need for housing. I think it creates a more diverse type of community. I'm kind of concerned that project after projects, we kind of ship the affordable units somewhere else. And it kind of creates a lot of enclaves throughout the city. you know, it doesn't look like a gated community, but this is more like a gated, you know, apartment complex where there is no interaction with, you know, people who may not be in the same economic area as you. So I think I see this as a good way to promote, you know, mountain views diversity as well. I had one comment on the, I guess it's part of the alternate where the Guillerma on-site, you know, maybe provided under some conservations. I think you should make sure that offside means within Mountain View, because I wouldn't want a system where we kind of ship. pay much lower economic, lower income, people, you know, all the way to Gilroy or Central Valley. So, and I also wanted to address one command from, I believe, Midband where, you know, it's definitely a conundrum where, you know, if you start to have more BMR units built on sites, you're going to kind of dry out, maybe, you know, the thought about housing funds, that Midband relies on. But I think that's where, you know, the state and the county and ourselves as taxpayers, you know, have to step up. So they have been some housing bonds that have been put in place. You know, in Santa Clara County, we have measure A, and I'd like to finally see some projects using these funds that we voted for and we're paying for. So thank you.

[01:56:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next place.

[01:56:10] John Carpenter: Yes, John Carpenter again from Mountain View. Uh, it seemed like there should be... for the interest of the global, uh, global warming, it should be an emergency. There should be a way for BMR developers to acquire a little land, which is the most expensive thing, acquired a land, or reduced purse. It should be a mechanism in place for allowing them. And then, uh, then for people that are just holding the land for appreciation, they should pay a penalty on the sale of their land. You know, global warming, no more specification. That's over. That's, Dan, we can't achieve greenhouse gas goals when the speculation is going. So, yes, they will have to pay a penalty, and that would have fund the bona fide, developer, who will offer, be able to offer a photo... housing without cutting his income. And I'm talking about well deserved income, because they're doing the proper use of the land rhythm, they're just holding for ransoms, sir. So, uh... We should get that type of mechanism in place because we need your affordable housing. And in a way, we can get to reachieve agreement, greenhouse grass, gas goals is affordable, housing. Thank you.

[01:57:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:58:00] Public Speaker: Vice mayor, council, and staff, I'm speaking for affordable advocates for affordable housing. And we are very appreciative of the work that staff did in this. We definitely support the delivery of BMR units on site. And we appreciate the equivalency fee level that has been worked out. It makes a good deal of sense, 3% clearly, was way under what it should have been. And so, that is a good thing. We are concerned about, Oh, 1st of all, we appreciate the expansion of the AMIs to 120% for sale units. But we suggest that perhaps the high point for rental units should be 100% instead, because moving the top for rental up to 120%, is really going into the market for what the missing middle could afford in ownership units. So we would appreciate that change. We had not thought about the problems that, including BMR units in perpetuity, might have in terms of leveraging funds as a former a previous speaker, mentioned. So, I think it might be a good idea for that person to be talking with the staff, to see about modifying that statement, so that we don't put a barrier up for 100% affordable housing units. Thank you.

[02:00:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So anyone else wishes to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public comment portion. And before we continue on, Did anybody need a break? Or should we just power through it? Power through. Power through.

[02:00:37] Unknown Speaker: Yay.

[02:00:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, um, does anyone have any questions? Council member Clark.

[02:00:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so we have a few... I'll try and go and order the presentation. And the first is, I just wanted to confirm that the recommendation here is, um, that we're requiring on site units for both rental and ownership.

[02:01:01] City Staff: Correct. That would be the basic requirement for both ownership and rental projects.

[02:01:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: With no, I saw the note, so no threshold, you're making no sales price threshold. So whether it's a $500,000 studio condo or a $5000000 single family home or, I don't know, whatever, not single family, but whatever a town owned them is it costing someday.

[02:01:23] City Staff: Correct.

[02:01:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then... The timing of delivery for the on-site BMR units. I assume, would there be some no later than the market rate units? I assume that's not being so strict as to say, they could be finished at, like, the end of the project, like, if they're starting to lease up or sell some units, it would be okay if some of the last ones, as long as as long as it wasn't, you know, 6 months or 12 months later, there'll be some reasonable period of time.

[02:01:58] City Staff: The recommendation in the guidelines, um, are recommending that the certificate of occupancy of the, um, essentially the market units, um, would, they could either be concurrent or the COO for the BMR units would need to be prior to that, but they can, They can't they can't be after the market rate, CEO.

[02:02:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, I see. And then for the offsite BMR, similar question for the offsite BMR units delivered no later than market rate units, I know we've had, I could foresee some scenario where, you know, some deal is done where, you know, there's assurance that the BMR units are like under development or that we're confident that they'll be finished, but they might not be delivered around the, like, identically the same. I assume we'll just deal with those on a case-by-case basis or deal with the language some way to deal with that.

[02:02:57] City Staff: Right. The overall intent is to ensure that the BMR units are delivered with the um, with the project that has a market rate component. And so, to the extent that on a case-by-case basis, there might be provisions that could be modified, that the council would, uh, would consider, um, provided that, uh, the council felt that that alternative mitigation met the intent and the requirement for the, um, such a greater requirement parameters contained in the alternate mitigation section. But I think there could be some flexibility on a case by case basis, but wanting to make sure that the delivery of units would be insured.

[02:03:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. And then I think the last question for now is on the condo mapping. So I understand the removal, basically we're removing the impediment that was there previously. There was sort of a disincentive, basically, to do the, to do the condo map, because you get hit twice, sort of, or not really. But there was, I think there was a financial disincentive. But basically what we're doing is removing that impediment, but we're still subjecting them. There's no, there's no incentive to map it. But so there's no disincentive, but there's also no incentive under I think the proposal is the way that I read it.

[02:04:23] City Staff: Yeah, I think to characterize it. In the past, the 3% loop fee structure with the former, um, at the time rental housing impact fee or the or the BMR, um, in loop fee for, for rental, I, I suppose at the time, primarily was the rental housing impact fee that was in place. And so, the treatment of condo map rental projects were to look at those as ownership units. And at the time, the fee structure was that the 3% was higher. With phase 2 and the rental BMR rates being increased, they're now, even right now, a little bit higher than what the 3% would come out to be on a per square foot basis. And so that, uh, economic structure has it inverted. And, uh, with the potential increase in fees, depending on where council, um, sets it out, that that inversion would still, uh, be there. So I think to your question, you're right that the recommendation would be treating condom app rental projects as rental projects. And so the, the, the cost issue doesn't necessarily go away, but in staff's assessment, a condo mapped rental project would be facing the same costs as relatively the same costs as a non-condo mapped rental project.

[02:05:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. And that's that's, I think, part of that's where I wanted, I think, you know, several of us wanted to get to. I think the other question I was asking is there is time and money associated with filing the map, and that's something that I think in the past, we said that we want people to do. And so I was, I can't say that for comments, but I was thinking through ways to maybe give them a little extra push to actually file the maps. So we'll save that for later. That's it.

[02:06:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council member McAllister?

[02:06:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, um, we're gonna go. quick. How did you come up for your, for the, um, row houses and townhouses? How did you come up with 25% and are excluding stack flats?

[02:06:35] City Staff: There were a few things that arose during the process, in terms of the testing, in looking at what equivalency levels were, various prototypes were tested, for rental and ownership, at different densities, and the math was indicating that, Rowhouse product types are the most profitable product type. And the council has also indicated a desire for stack flat condos as well. And so part of the thinking with that imposing the question to the council is, this product type, even up to 25%, the math shows that it would be able to achieve returns that the market would be looking for, that the requirements could potentially help lead to incentivizing more stack flat condos. And if the council votes on directing staff to do work in terms of reviewing the R3 zone for more foreign-based or stacked flat provisions that can lead to those product types in an, uh, creating more opportunities on R3, 4 stacked flat than, um, the thought was that if there was a high requirement for that desired product type at a lower price point. that would be something that wouldn't help facilitate that if a stack flat condo product had a higher requirement.

[02:08:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, if you take, what would that affect the price? Yeah, for a row house project, if you're raising 25%, so they're going to have to raise their price of the sell price, which then therefore raises the price of the BMR price because that's a percentage of the, am I correct on that one?

[02:08:25] City Staff: But. Well, our understanding is the products sell for what the market can bear, and if the market isn't able to bear and increase it won't bear it, and typically market units are set up market prices. And so the input that we've received, and I think we've heard one comment, which is that requirements are most likely to come out of the residual land value, and lower the price that developers might bid for site in order to develop housing.

[02:09:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you showed a slide where other projects were going at the other cities were doing 15%. And yet you're coming in at 25. So, What was your point of saying that the 25%? Yeah, 15% there and you're going to go 25? I know what you're saying is, well, you'll incentivize people not to build row houses. So what are the, what 15% are you looking at here then, or what?

[02:09:29] City Staff: Yeah, so just to make a clear distinction. This is just a chart for ownership. There isn't a distinction for a specific product like row house products. The overall BMR ownership requirement is bringing that from 10 to 15% per council direction, and the up to potentially 25% for rowhouse products wouldn't, I mean, wouldn't necessarily show up on this particular chart, but it would be for that particular product type. But the overall BMR ownership program would be 15% per council direction.

[02:10:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So you said up to 25. So what would be the what would be the determining factors to bump it from 15 to 25? Who makes that call?

[02:10:12] City Staff: The council does. So it would be based on some of the factors that we had just mentioned about the feasibility of the project and potentially creating BMR requirement component that could potentially incentivize other product types like stacked flat condos. So those are at least a couple of potential rationales for it.

[02:10:38] Councilmember John McAlister: What was the downside? What is the downside of? Yeah, which people look at 25%. And then nothing. I mean, was there a talk with the stakeholders and saying, hey, if we go to 25, that would disincentivize any of this type of product? Because, like, you take a small property, you know, where you maybe put in 5 row houses. You really can't put a stack flat in based on some of the stuff. So what are you doing to them?

[02:11:03] City Staff: So a couple things, I don't know that we had a specific conversation about 25%, but the phase 2 analysis did include stakeholder conversations with developers, about costs and assumptions, about sales prices, et cetera, and the math appears to show that even at a 25% requirement, it is achieving market rate returns. So, I think the question of whether that would bear out in reality, we would have to see, but the math is showing that they're achieving returns, that is required to attract capital to develop that kind of product type.

[02:11:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So you're saying this is our theoretical, then?

[02:11:49] City Staff: We're saying that the math is showing that this product type, at 25%, seems to be able to achieve market rate returns.

[02:11:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Is anybody else doing something like that? Yeah, the US cities. That would sort of give you a sense of confidence in your approach?

[02:12:08] City Staff: I might see if there has any input, but I understand that East Palo Alto, which is experiencing a lot of development, just had their BMR program approved at 20% for both rental and ownership last week, and perhaps Madera has maybe additional information about maybe particular requirements for certain product types and other jurisdictions.

[02:12:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Another question. So requiring.

[02:12:33] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. Can I answer your question?

[02:12:36] Councilmember John McAlister: You're the economic guy, right?

[02:12:37] Consultant Darren Smith: Good evening, yes. Darren Smith with economic and planning systems. We've worked on a number of the inclusionary programs that are shown on this, and certainly are familiar with many of them, even those that we have not worked on. It is not typical that there would be a distinction drawn between product types for one standard for row house type of product versus a separate standard for a stacked flat or multifamily condominium, more typical condominium product. That's not to say there's never been such distinctions, but it is not typical to do so. I think there were places like Salinas, for example, which is obviously a very different market. But they made distinctions based on the location within the city, and whether it was extraterritorial, or needed to be annexed, and one standard, I believe, for single family versus multifamily product types. So there are examples out there, but again, the typical program sets a standard that is the same regardless of product type.

[02:13:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[02:13:44] City Manager Dan Rich: Just to be clear, staff is not saying what to do. This is the policy question for you. What we're saying is the economic analysis shows that the market can support a 25% for row houses and townhouses. entirely up to you whether or not you want to do that tonight. That's one of the questions we're asking you.

[02:14:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. City manager. Okay, another question I have for you. It was brought up that support, uh, recommendation to be on our on site requirement for rentals and so forth. And midpid, so I, well, you know, if you're tying everything there, we don't get funds for additional projects that we might want to finance somewhere down the road, how's that going to be considered? Is there one or it's all or nothing, or can we can council say each project can be determined? Because we do get some money out of that within the reinvest in other products. But if you're saying everything is going to be built on site. And again, I like the idea that economic downturns, construction costs go down. It's nice to have a pocket of money in there that we can react. But we're not going to have that extra money now. So what's your thoughts on that?

[02:14:58] City Staff: So the basic recommended requirement is on site, BMR units, but there could be an in-loofy option under the alternate mitigation. So it is still there. It's just it's going to be an alternative to the on-site. The city's housing funds is composed of BMR fees and also the 2 commercial linkage fee programs. The bulk of our housing fund program is based on the commercial linkage fee. So the traditionally rental projects have contributed a much lower amount as a total proportion of the city's affordable housing funds. And so, we anticipate that in our projections going forward of our housing funds, that a significant amount of that are from our commercial linkage fee program, that we would continue to leverage, and complement the BMR program to achieve different income targets for different populations. I didn't want to also note for the perpetuity question is that is not meant to apply to 100% affordable, because of potential financability issues with tax credits. Our understanding is that it would be illegal to do so. It's just that it could cause some more challenging financial components. And so this is really focused on perpetuity for BMR units created through the program that typically don't seek tax credits or external funding sources to pencil the project.

[02:16:32] Councilmember John McAlister: When you say build offsite, does that literally mean that they would give, like, Prometheus actually came along and gave $22 million to follow up to housing and say, okay, we're going to give that kind of money to you guys, you build. Is that what you consider offsite?

[02:16:49] City Staff: That may be some sort of hybrid or some kind of smushed together permutation. Um, I, I think, I think the idea of offsite would potentially be a developer in the, in the strictest sense, uh, having another parcel that that then there would be 100% affordable, um, development on, um, but it could take the form of, well, maybe fees are paid and then it, and there's a link with a partnership that the applicant has had conversations with a nonprofit developer. And so that's the way it looks. And so there could probably be a variety of mechanisms of saying, okay, this is, this offsite project is linked to this market rate project. So in the strictest sense, the ideas, I think the developer would be building off site, but it could look different on a case-by-case basis.

[02:17:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Would it potentially if a developer has their own office apartment building and is willing to say, okay, in lieu of paying you fees, we give you this apartment complex.

[02:17:58] City Staff: I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis, that would be under the alternative mitigation. It would need to meet the parameters of achieving a greater benefit than the onsite requirement and achieving and advancing other city goals. So it would really have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[02:18:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, Prometheus did that, offer to include us in another apartment complex, so that's why I bring it up. Then I had a question on the gatekeepers, and a lot of, I had a lot of interest from the development community out there. And does gatekeepers, do they get a, the process include what's called a complete application, or do they always, you know, it continues on it. Whereas a non gatekeeper would get a complete application where a gatekeeper may not, is. Could you clarify that for me?

[02:18:56] City Staff: I'll try to clarify that. The word complete is used very often in the context of permit streamlining act, which applies to projects that don't need general plan and zoning amendments. So, when we're talking about completeness, we're not talking about gatekeeper projects. However, when we talk about our city process, what we try to do with, let's say, the private streamlining projects is as soon as they're deemed complete, which means they've provided all the information that's necessary, we have reviewed it and they're, they've provided everything we need, we schedule them for a hearing, at which point they're deemed complete. We do something similar with gatekeepers. But, you know, sometimes, but we're not compelled by state law. That's just our practice, because we like to keep things rolling, and we don't like to hold projects up for no reason at all. But we're not compelled by state law on that completeness issue for gatekeeper projects. So I'm trying to help you with the difference between what projects require completeness, being deemed, and which projects don't, but our city practices, to keep projects moving, regardless of whether they're gatekeepers or not.

[02:20:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so when we get into the point where we're saying of cutoff dates, so some of these projects will be exempt from or included in the feeing, then when you say complete application, then those particular projects also then could be considered complete projects.

[02:20:35] City Staff: Yeah, we've been careful to stay away from that word with our recommendations because gatekeepers don't typically have that. So we're saying that gatekeeper projects with project entitlement, by the effective date, which is August, is consistent with what was done with phase one. Again, we're providing you information and asking the council's direction on this, we're reminding you that that's what was done with phase one.

[02:21:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'm just trying to get a better answer. Because I know we've had a couple of projects have been in the works for, like, 3 or 4 years, and part of the projects have been gatekeepered, but a year later, they got assigned staff, and other things come along, and so they are doing their due diligence, but because of the city is delaying the project, where therefore they may not be able to qualify under this particular proposal. And so that's why I was trying to get it.

[02:21:30] City Staff: Yes, we have, we do come to council to talk about the timing of the acceptance of a gatekeeper project. And we put all applicants on full notice that because they're gatekeepers and the city's compelled to work on council goals and permit streamlining projects, we have to look at staffing. And so when the council makes that decision about when to start a project, um, they understand that there might be things happening during the course of that. And they do go at risk, but they're free to provide their comets.

[02:22:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So what applicant that has actually come to before the city council? And we said, hey, we want you to, They ask us what to do. And we said, well, we'll modify it. We want you to do this and this and they go back and do it. But they're not all the way to the formal application. Would they still be considered non-compliant? based on your what you're thinking.

[02:22:21] City Staff: Right. So when you look at the way we're treating gatekeeper projects in this case, we're saying those that have project entitlements. So those that actually have a project approvals, are the ones that get exempted, but not the ones that don't have approvals.

[02:22:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Maybe I'm hung up on the word entitlement.

[02:22:39] City Staff: Right, entitlement is project approved by council.

[02:22:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Yeah. Not actually permits, but just

[02:22:46] City Staff: No. Council gave him the... Planning project approved.

[02:22:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And going back to Council member Clark's question about the condo mapping, the fees. So you're saying instead of the 3%, it would be the some 90, but that would be paid at the time that the project was built.

[02:23:07] City Staff: So, just to confirm, the inloof fee option is becomes a potential option if it is a request to deviate from the onsite requirement. And so once that is part of the applicant's request, then we're in the alternative mitigation world with those parameters.

[02:23:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, this is for the mapping. Oh, the fee. Okay.

[02:23:30] City Staff: Correct, right. So even condo map, rental projects, the requirement is built on site, and inlu fees becomes part of the alternate mitigation.

[02:23:40] Councilmember John McAlister: So when the project's built or bought, And they say, we want to make it, we want to do condo conversion. What fee would they be paying and when would they pay it?

[02:23:54] City Staff: To clarify if a project bought...

[02:23:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, see, we have an existing project right now, but it hasn't, so it was built 10 years ago. 20 years ago. They come along and they say, okay, we want to map it now and convert it to ownership. What is the fee? Is it still the 3 or the, to get it mapped?

[02:24:19] City Staff: There's no, no, there is no existing fee then. Maybe it would be help to distinguish between an existing building that is converting versus a new project coming in. Let's say an existing building. I can tell you how we've done this in other jurisdictions. And, you know, typically, we keep some records of whether they have paid via Murphys, or they're renting projects out as rentals, as BMR rentals. And if they've paid the fees, then they're exempted, because they've already paid the fees, if they have projects that are being rented out, then they're sold as BMRs, and we've been able to work with...

[02:25:01] City Staff: And I think we're trying to anticipate projects, and we never know where the projects are in that phase. And so we'd have to treat it on a case by case basis. But with condo map rentals, We're treating them as rentals if they, if they're proposed as to be rentals. So they provide on-site rental units. But if a project came in and said, hey, I'm a rental and I'm condo mapping today, then we would say, well, do you have BMR rentals on site today? If you do, then you will sell them as BMR units when you're ready to sell, because they're designated. And if we say, well, way back when you paid the fees, so you don't have any BMR units on site, then you've already met your requirement. But once they decide, they declare we were going to map it. There are no fees paid at that time. I believe that if they... Again, we have to look at it here, but in other jurisdictions. Yeah, we've said, if you've already paid your fees, then you don't get double counted, typically. But if you've got units on site, then they get sold as BMRs. And perhaps the only qualification is that if there's a difference between the ownership fee versus the rental fee.

[02:26:13] City Staff: So that's the, that's a good point. In our case, the ownership is lower, so they would have paid, but that can sometimes be a cost differential.

[02:26:26] Councilmember John McAlister: If so, then I'll go over to eligible annual eligibility for renters. So even if someone does exceed the 10%, because they were paid, I mean, their rent was pretty low, would that still not cause displacement? I mean, have the difficulty for them to pay for the current market rate properties?

[02:26:49] City Staff: It could very well, and that would also depend in part on what income level that unit was at, if it were, say, 120% AMI, and they went up to 130. There would still be a challenge, but the challenge is less than if someone were at 60% AMI unit and became over income by a 70%, became 70% AMI or greater. And I think that's part of the council deliberation if that's where you want to turn the dial and whether 10% was reasonable or appropriate or it could be higher. It could be more than 10 percentage points.

[02:27:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Because I'm thinking of Franklin Street and how people could improve their lives, and all of a sudden they're getting displaced, and even though, like, all its comments. Okay, won't do that. So other elements, requirements, you go maximum one bedroom. What if it's a studio?

[02:27:47] City Staff: It would be based on a one person household. One bedroom.

[02:27:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I think I killed enough time, so...

[02:27:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[02:27:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I wanted to thank staff, Mr. Chen, we met earlier, and he covered a lot of my questions or answered them, so I appreciate that. But I did have one question that came up, and I guess it's been in this discussion about the inland fee as an alternative mitigation. Um, I think what I've seen over the years is not so much what the fees do, but just what the economy does and how that affects development, production, um, even how these fees affect, um, that all that. And so, in light of the fact that our current policy is 20 years old, has there been some like thought or recommendation on like whether we should put in, place, some kind of check-in time? So as economy fluctuates, we try to move with the market.

[02:28:54] City Staff: Thanks for the question. There's a couple of thoughts to that. There could be the annual increase that could fluctuate with, say, CPI up or down, but there was also an APC recommendation that suggests building into the BMR program, periodic check-in, like every 5 years, and we would just sort of redo the analysis and see where we are given the economics at that point in time. So that's an option.

[02:29:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[02:29:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. A few questions. So, I wanted to clarify a couple of things in the written questions that were submitted. So for the bedroom mix, I still wasn't, I'm still not totally clear on how they will be distributed across the spectrum of affordability, for lack of a better way of putting it. So let's say you end up in a scenario where you have to provide 3 affordable units, and, you know, in order to achieve the weighted average ones, very low, one is low, and one is moderate. And the way the bedroom mix works out to be proportional with the market rate. complex, you need one bedroom, a 2 bedroom, and a 3 bedroom. How would you discern which unit is assigned to which level of affordability?

[02:30:28] City Staff: I think that could be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the project, we would take a look to see, um, if the way that the BMR units get allocated is meeting 1st the intent and the requirements of the, um, of the BMR program. So we would take a look at, it's certainly easier with larger projects with more units. And it gets a little bit more difficult with smaller units. We would be taking a look at potentially through periodic guidance that talks about things like perhaps the city is preferring more larger bedrooms that are affordable versus smaller units that are more affordable. The council has provided direction on that or various times throughout the last couple of years of saying. We would like larger bedrooms, deeper affordability. And so those could be things that could be incorporated into periodic guidance that would go into implementing the guidelines. I think we could, we take a look at it on a case-by-case basis, bring the recommendation that the council and the council could, could then provide input about whether it felt it met the requirements of the BMR program and potentially provide recommendation about maybe shifting where they, you know, my levels are at for the different units.

[02:31:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. very helpful. And then a question about the increase in AMI and how that affects the increase in BMR rents, and from the answer and the written question, it looks like the rate of the rent increase is greater than the rate of the actual wages that the eligible low income tenants are making. And I want, I was curious to know if that's, if that's a problem, if that's, if that means that people who are currently living in BMR units, you know, their rents are increasing faster than their incomes are able to keep up. Have we have we seen that become a problem?

[02:32:45] Mr. Chan: I might look to, or if she has any comments about that, but if the, maybe just as a general remark, if the income limits are more or less intended to reflect the incomes that are out there for folks who are at that level, say 65% AMI level, or 80% AMI level, or 120% AMI level, then hopefully there is some sort of reflecting of what is occurring out in people's actual wages. and how it gets translated into the state income limits and how it gets modified that way. So that just a general comment and if Lauren has any other specifics.

[02:33:28] Lauren: Evening, everyone. Thanks for the chance to talk. I would say that regarding the difference between income limits and rents, um, really careful in working with the city about capping the amount that the rents can increase and um, there is an analysis done every year regarding the income that usually takes into consideration cost of living increases.

[02:34:00] Mr. Chan: So just to be clear, the rents are not increasing automatically when AMI increases. You have a control to ensure that, you know, if AMI increases 10%, the rents don't automatically increase 10% as well. It's your recommendation. Maybe one of the components is providing that direction, if the council has one about how we would implement annual increases based on changes in state income limits and how that could be potentially mitigated, if it increased at a rate that seemed to be faster than X or something like that, with the goal of maintaining the affordability and the stability of the households, and then we can work with PH to implement it in that manner through the procedures and the rental roll.

[02:35:08] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Last question. So the objective standard also applies to the alternative mitigation, just to be clear, so if an applicant proposes to pay the in lieu fee, as long as they're meeting the objective standards that we've established, they would be able to do so. We can't say, no, we want the units instead. Am I understanding that correctly?

[02:35:31] Mr. Chan: There is discretion to review and provide analysis about whether we, the city, think they have met the parameters, but let's say for the sake of discussion, it can be demonstrated that it meets the requirements. The city is pretty limited in the ability to deny that request. However, there could be findings for public health and safety reasons of denying that recommendation, but then would have to make that finding to deny that request.

[02:36:06] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[02:36:07] Mr. Chan: And the city could also decide what it wants to allow as alternate mitigations. So, if it wants to allow the inlu fee, and then, obviously, what the criteria are, and we would use objective standards to define the criteria.

[02:36:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh?

[02:36:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I also want to thank staff. I met with them, and that was very helpful. Two questions came to mind as we're going through this discussion. And so when we're talking about an applicant, um, putting aside, um, a reserve for future increases in HOA fees, um, Are we talking about kind of all of the housing types or all housing types in the spectrum of that 15%?

[02:37:01] Mr. Chan: In that context, it's only in the BMR ownership context, and only if an applicant wants to provide BMR ownership unit's less than 80% AMI.

[02:37:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So it's only... Okay. And then for the question about the terms, so, um, right now, the existing is 55 years, uh, we're discussing the perpetuity tonight. Um, is instead of moving to perpetuity, um, would it, has staff looked into maybe, um, a renewal of 55 years or any type of other kind of set term. I just came, I was just thinking about it when we got the question from midpen in terms of, um, yeah, how that might be limiting if we keep things in perpetuity versus the set amount of time.

[02:37:58] Mr. Chan: Yeah, so just in 1000 of art, anyone else has some thoughts. Typically when at 100% affordable housing and development reaches its 55 years, but usually some period before, there would be a conversation about whether to keep that as 100% affordable and there would be funding that would need to go into extending and maintaining the affordability of that unit. the ability to renew that in a BMR context would probably be limited, because the market rate development was approved on the condition of a term. And for that term to be extended upon expiration would need to be a conversation with the developer or the property owner if they wanted to do it at that time, but they would have already met their obligation 55 years ago. And so likely it would require some kind of subsidy to maintain and preserve the affordability if the property owner wanted to do it. So those are some thoughts and welcome if there's any other thoughts to that.

[02:39:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. I just had a few questions. On page 18 of the staff report, it lists, um, by category, the regular gatekeepers and the TDR gatekeepers, and, um, the TDR gatekeepers, I was wondering, that's the Summerhill project on Middlefield. And is it also the, um, project on Logue?

[02:39:48] City Staff: Correct.

[02:39:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And what are the 4 regular gatekeepers right above that? Which projects are those?

[02:39:56] City Staff: I had my list and I did not bring it with me, but I'm trying to recall the top of my head. Let me see if I can recall what those are, and I'll follow up if I...

[02:40:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: okay Yeah. Because I was also going to ask then the regular gatekeepers that are inspected to be entitled. 3 of those.

[02:40:17] City Staff: answer that one to me. One of them is the 1001 Shoreline project, and I'll see if I can recall the other three.

[02:40:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[02:40:39] City Staff: So, it's you... The projects that are supposed to come before the summer break that I believe are gatekeepers, there's a villa, and 777 middle field. I'm not sure what the third one would be. Yeah, I think I misunderstood the question. I apology. I apologize. So those are the three, Shoreline Villa, and 777 Middlefield, for the regular gatekeepers, that are scheduled to come before council before August 24th. Yeah, I apologize. The shoreline one is, um, would be after.

[02:41:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: After. Okay.

[02:41:15] City Staff: I answered the question you didn't ask, sorry.

[02:41:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It's okay. Charlene would be after. Um, okay. I do want to get while you're thinking about those.

[02:41:28] City Staff: Oh. It might have been... It might have been the Prometheus Flower Mart one, so that is already done, so if I'm remembering correctly.. Looking at the tentative schedule for the rest of year, I believe there's only 2 more that are scheduled to come before the summer break, and that's Villa and 777 middlefield.

[02:41:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. But the 1001 shoreline is part of the number 4 here, right?

[02:42:03] City Staff: Correct.

[02:42:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So then, I do have some questions about the condo mapping. Like everybody else. So, yeah, the more I got to thinking about this, have we had very many apartments convert to condos, like in recent memory?

[02:42:26] City Staff: So existing apartments, filing a subdivision map. I don't believe we've...

[02:42:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so the there was a cap, I believe, on condo conversions. Are we to the point where that's still in effect, or is that, is that, we're past the cap?

[02:42:46] City Staff: Yeah. There was one on Rock Street. There was one a while ago on Rock Street. where they converted the apartments to condos.

[02:42:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay.

[02:42:57] City Staff: But that was several years ago.

[02:42:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, several years ago. Do you know about how many units that was? Was it a small, medium large? Okay. I guess because the more I thought about this, I thought if I'm not so sure anymore that the BMR requirement was the reason that apartments were not being mapped. I remember when during my past and here where we were going through a few of those and the 2 big impediments were the park fees. And the 2nd one was building code requirements, because you have to updated to the current building code, when you sell. And so, sometimes, the expense of doing that was quite a bit. But there were some apartments that did convert. And I remember some generally off of the middle field area, some, you know, Rock Street, and can't remember Sierra Vista, but there were a few in that area. Okay. And then, now, as developers come in and talk to our planning staff, Are there discussions about stacked flats and wanting to do those, but the zoning or something else is preventing them?

[02:44:30] City Staff: Maybe I'll start in RT, please for free.

[02:44:34] City Staff: last few weeks, there have been a couple of stacked flat projects that have come before council. Hopefully that is maybe indicative of where the market is going, if that's where we want to go with more stack flats. in conversations with developers. You know, we have heard that the R3 zoning, because of the densities that are allowed there, don't quite align as well, what the densities that folks are looking for. And that's why some of the projects may be looking for some of the, um, you know, um, alternative ways of getting more more density. And I think part of that is really reflective of council input in the goal setting process of really looking at that R3 zone and seeing if there are opportunities to update it or modify it, to facilitate the densities that stack flat developers are looking for.

[02:45:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Let's see. I think that's it for my questions other than, um, which other projects? Because I think we're missing a couple. So, um, council member Hicks?

[02:45:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I also wanted to thank staff and Mr. Chan, I met with him, and he answered most of my questions before tonight. But I did want to, there's a question that has come up several times tonight, and I just wanted to clarify that my understanding of it was the actual case, and this is about affordability and perpetuity. So I should say, when I worked for an affordable housing nonprofit, we did only permanently affordable housing in various forms, mostly ownership housing. And so I'm very much in favor of it. And my understanding, initially, when you addressed this question was that it would not apply to what, it would only apply what we're speaking to tonight, would only apply to the inclusionary units. It would not apply to something like what midpen or Palo Alto housing would develop, which would probably most often have tax credits that would expire, but there would be no conflict if we vote tonight for this particular policy to be in perpetuity. There would be no conflict with that situation that was raised earlier tonight, is that true?

[02:47:15] Mr. Chan: That's correct. I might pose maybe a possibility that we haven't necessarily seen, which is, if a developer wanted to do an offsite build, and maybe, for whatever reason, wanted to look at applying for funding for that 100% standalone. That was a part of the requirement for the BMR. Um, I don't understand that to be very common. I think I maybe heard of some examples of that, but if a mark rate development with a BMR requirement were to look at other funding sources, that could potentially cause some additional difficulties with financing. But again, it's not a, it's not a legal issue, it's how do you put the deal together from a finance perspective.

[02:48:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, would that, then, could we deal with, there's another part of this policy is to allow alternative medications in the rare case where that happens, couldn't that fall under, couldn't we structure it tonight so that that would fall under that case? Because I would hate to throw a wrench into the whole idea of permanent affordability or perpetual affordability just because of this possible rare case.

[02:48:35] Mr. Chan: I think that's a really good clarification to make that, um, we could include that, if that's canceled direction.

[02:48:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister?

[02:48:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I need some more clarity on the gatekeepers, and so when you said entitled, you said authorized. And so I was thinking that the council gave the gatekeepers to move forward was entitlement, but now you're shaking your head and no.

[02:49:07] City Staff: Just to clarify, an example is the flower mart. That was a gatekeeper that the council approved. That's entitlement.

[02:49:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Not authorized to move forward, but approved, yeah. So, I'm still confused on the, I'm still, like, clarity on the three projects that are entitled in the six that are not, um, as we go forward. But, so, I keep using the example of the 101 or 100... one on the shoreline. I mean, they've been doing this for four years, and they keep coming back and doing things for us, and we keep, you know, EIR or whatever, and so forth. is, and they get each time they come back, they're getting cleared from council. So Where are they, so that you're expecting them to be entitled after the 24th. So, and then I'm still trying to figure out Summerhill that's been in front of us a couple of times, Logan's been in front of us a couple of times, discussions. Middlefield has been in front of us a couple of times. To me, in that sense, is entitlement. I mean, that they've been going through things. And so I want to get some clarity on how these are being affected because I'm not ones who wants to, I like to try to get as much as possible from a developer, but, uh, and everybody knows that, but I want to be fair about the process that we're doing here.

[02:50:30] City Staff: I think what we're saying is sort of giving you the lay of the land to say, here's how it lays out if you use the same exemptions you did in the BMR phase one. And we're asking for your direction on how to treat these projects.

[02:50:46] Councilmember John McAlister: But that's why it's important to know what the projects are. Some of that just comes in as one thing, but somebody's been working on something for years, to me is a different story.

[02:50:54] City Staff: Right. So I think we can, we need to give you the names of 3 more of the regular gatekeepers, but one of them's the shoreline and the other 2 are the, the Summerhill and the lobe projects in East Wisman. Those are the TDR ones. The 2 that is right here is Summerhill on Middlefield and the low project.

[02:51:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Logan, okay.

[02:51:16] City Staff: Logue.

[02:51:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:51:17] City Staff: The 3 that's right here.

[02:51:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh-huh.

[02:51:19] City Staff: is Prometheus Flower Mart, Prometheus Villa, and 777 Middlefield.

[02:51:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay

[02:51:26] City Staff: And then this four, the one we know of, is 1001 shoreline. That's just...

[02:51:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, so this carries over.

[02:51:33] City Staff: Yeah, these are...

[02:51:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's one. We know one. We know one, so we need three other. Three more. So we need three more. Is that right? Is that your understand?

[02:51:43] City Staff: Yeah, so I was just going through the April? Yes, yeah, and it looks like this is just, you know, eyeballing at the Avalon Project 555. If I could make a suggestion, we've got 7 questions to go through tonight, and this is one of them, while we're going through the other 6 questions, I think we can get from downstairs in our computers what the pending gatekeepers are.

[02:52:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, any other... Uh oh. It's not a question. I was gonna move us into the...

[02:52:16] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay. if you want.

[02:52:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So what I was thinking is, um, let's, um, each person do questions one, two, and six. That's the first bucket.

[02:52:28] Unknown Speaker: I was gonna suggest we take the three easy ones, at 6, 3, and 4, and then do, and then do one, 2, and 5, because I think those will be, I think maybe 6, 3, and 4 won't have too much discussion, maybe.

[02:52:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But all different. We talked about whatever the m there was. at the agenda review meeting and kind of we're bucketing.

[02:52:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay, if you've got it bucketed, then we'll go with whatever you want.

[02:52:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so on page 39 of the staff presentation tonight. The questions were left with their original numbers. But we were talking about Q, yeah, Q one. Question one, 2, and 6 we thought were fairly straightforward, and that we could each cover those before we move on to question three. So do you still want to go first? We can skip you. Council member Ramirez.

[02:53:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just to keep things going. So, for question one, I'm very interested in hearing the comments from everybody else in the council, but I'm inclined to support this for a couple of reasons. First, the for lack of a better word, the subsidy for ownership BMRs is less than the subsidy for the rental BMRs, because the level of affordability is not nearly as deep. So I'm thinking that, you know, the impact is not as significant as if we were saying that these have to be BMR units geared towards very low and low income people. And we can tailor it too. If, you know, if there's discomfort with proceeding with 25% at the 100% weighted, um, weighted average, then maybe we could say the 1st 15% is the same as everything else, and then the remaining 10% could be geared towards just 120% AMI. just to again sort of minimize the financial impact. But the key thing for me is this is, I think, how we're most likely to get units that are affordable for moderate income people. I'm more comfortable with deeper levels of affordability with rental BMR units. We've talked about previously, some of the challenges associated with ownership BMR units targeting lower income people. And I appreciate the recommendation for the reserve to help, you know, address that, you know, the payment with the HOA fees and that kind of thing. But really, I think this is where we're most likely to get affordable housing for, as I think Alex mentioned, people, like the folks who live at 2310 Rock Street, many of whom testified that they're not low income people. They're just not making enough to be able to afford market rents. And I like the idea of using this also as an opportunity to access the ownership market. Um, And, you know, one of the other concerns that had come up was this idea of sort of a windfall profit, but it sounds like, as I understand it, that doesn't exist when you have affordability and perpetuity. So I'm comfortable with this. I'm interested in hearing sort of other where other members of the council are coming from. But I think there are things we can do to make sure we provide more affordable units for moderate income people without the financial impact to the development community. And then for question two, I very strongly support BMO units in perpetuity. This is the direction of memory serves that we gave for North Bay Shore, and I'm interested in exploring this citywide. And then question six. I support the two-tiered approach for ongoing tenant eligibility. Thank you.

[02:56:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Councilman. Okay. Council member Ramirez, can I just clarify that for the 2nd question? There was the, including BMR units in perpetuity, but it was also confirming whether or not you support the recommendation of the on-site requirement.

[02:56:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I do.

[02:56:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark?

[02:56:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Did you want to go, or you want me to go? I don't, yeah, sorry, I didn't realize I was still in there.

[02:57:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's okay. Council member McAllister.

[02:57:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Okay. For number one, I think the 25%. is too high. If we're gonna, I think we should start at 15. Every time we talk about subsidizing units, it always raises the cost of the other units to subsidize this. And so I think it has the opposite of what Council member Ramirez was thinking. And I think we're just going to discourage this particular deal. And my gut feeling, and even though we have the economists say that this market is, it can bear it, and that the pricing is going to work, I just have a good feeling that the market is too volatile to understand theory. So I can't support the 25%. support 15, which is then in line with other cities, but I wouldn't go with that. On question number two. I would support on-site for high density units. But for smaller projects, I would probably take the in Luffy because maybe, you know, it gives us a little balance between getting some money into the project. So I was looking for that and yes, perpetuity. I brought that up in North Asia. So I'm totally supportive of that. On the 2 tier approach for ongoing tenant eligibility, I think 10% is, is, we got to do some more research into it because I think even if you got a 10% increase, you know, to, even if you are disqualified for that, you're still not going to be able to maybe qualify for any regular, be able to move into market rate housing. So all of a sudden now you have one family that's displaced and you're exchanging it for another. And so I'd rather stick with some kind of consistency for an existing family, if we work with that, but 10%, I don't think it's going to make that kind of a difference. So I would rather see something a little more flexible. And again, more related to what they're going to versus their income.

[02:59:05] Unknown Speaker: Did you have a definition of higher density?

[02:59:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so, I mean, we got some... Well, okay, so we're like row houses, you know, when we're putting 5 or 6 in there. I don't think that's going to make, if we do that. I was thinking more of on-site of apartment, well, it's just rental apartments. If we're doing something of a small apartment project, maybe under 50 versus we're billing a bunch of 5 and 600 unit apartments and so forth, or 200 or something like that, to me, that would make more sense that the, then, as quote, the developers would be able to absorb the BMR units on site because you'll have more units to support it. So that's a guy.

[02:59:52] City Staff: Just to clarify, I believe the way it's structured now, this would be for seven units or more only, correct? Just make sure everyone understands that.

[03:00:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I saw that for townhouses, yeah, but I'm just thinking...

[03:00:04] City Staff: I mean, it's up to council. You could have a higher threshold, but that's what it said at right now.

[03:00:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, Vice Mayor, I'll be Coca.

[03:00:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Regarding the first question. Um, I, uh, I too would like to stay with the 15% across the board for ownership. I think, um, The real question is rental versus ownership, and, um, once we start to delineate between different product types, when it just gets complicated. too, I want to be consistent with other cities, and if other cities aren't doing that. Um, you know, some develop, someone, I think it was a developer who said this is complicated. So, although, you know, I think we all were able to digest it. I don't want to make it more complicated for them. So, I'm fine sticking with the 15%. And, um, yeah, I think it is important to be mindful that there, I think there is, you know, a cap, frankly, to when it starts to affect prices and so forth. And so, um, I'm fine with the 15%. Um, in regards to on-site BMR. Yes, I do support that. And BMR's units in perpetuity. Yes, I could support that. My one concern was that with ownership, um, you know, there's other models and I guess I was interested in the, um, the model of maybe like a appreciation allowed with an equity share at the end, um, just so the owner could get some benefit from owning it. But, um, Mr. Chen had explained that, um, what you get back is the, what you put into the unit. So it's like paying, it's like a savings account, you know, for down payment for something else. that hopefully you can afford down the road. So in light of that perspective. I am fine with in perpetuity. And then the 2 tiered approach. So, originally I thought yes, but Councilman McAllister did bring up a point. So, and maybe this becomes a question, but let's say you are at 65% AMI and your income does go up to 10%. So then if you're if you are made to vacate the unit. Even at 75%, you're still part of the low income category. And so what happens to you? You know, you're still not able to most likely afford a market rate unit. So how do we take care of those types of situations?

[03:03:09] City Staff: There's maybe probably a variety of ways just on, uh, depending on where the council wants to strike that balance between maintaining stability of the existing household and then maybe allowing some transitioning to allow eligible households on the wait list to also also place um, into the unit. There, there could be maybe just a straight, um, higher threshold, say, say 15% across all income levels, or maybe we can, uh, do something like a, a graduated, um, Tyran, which says those at, say, 50% has a greater band. And as you increase through the income range and getting closer to 120%, that band shrinks because they're getting closer or any kind of any number of ways. It's, um, wherever council feels like is that right balance. We can craft it to hit that balance.

[03:04:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So that's exactly where I was going. Thinking was, um, you know, my inclination would be to say, if you, your, your income increases to get you out of the 120%, AMI, because that's what our BMR program is for, then they would need they should transition out. If that makes sense.

[03:04:38] City Staff: If I may just, I think we're setting certain average AMI targets for rentals versus ownership. And so the rental targets are a little bit lower than the ownership, so you may not get to 120% AMI is an average, right? You're trying to hit a 65% AMI. So at some point, everybody in the rental could conceivably get up to the 120. So, I mean, that's just an example of what could happen. But we could do that.

[03:05:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And my concern is, if you're at 50%, and you increase your income by 10%, you're still low income or very low income, right? So you really have to get to 120 higher than 120 to be able to afford a market rate apartment. So what do we end up doing with those folks who are, you know, have an increase in income, but they're still not able to afford something market rate. So I get, I understand we have the wait list on the other end of people wanting to get into that 65% unit, but the person who went up to 75% income, what do we do with them? They're still going to need help. So how do we capture that concern? I guess is my question. And that would determine how I would vote on this.

[03:06:09] City Staff: Yeah, I think it would, um, it would depend on where council wants to go. One additional aspect I would just include in there is just the administrative component. So the more kind of fine grain we get, the more complex it can be just to track what each unit is, but, um, One thing is that that 1st tier, um, is there a percentage threshold that the council would like to see that's maybe either graduated or greater than, say, 10%? And so that's at least one alternative. The other could be providing a greater length of transition time. So this is this is 10 percentage points +one year when you go over, both of those aisles could be modified as well.

[03:07:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So then, yes, I would look at some kind of graduated formula. I think the increasing the or decreasing the band as you get higher and the AMI income, it would be my 1st preference. And then if not, adding time to give folks more time to transition would be my second.

[03:07:28] City Staff: Is there any guidance on what the band might be at the 50% level and what it would narrow down to at the 120% level?

[03:07:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, so that, I mean, that's a difficult question. I guess I would say just, you know, off the top of my head and from what I've read, maybe the 50% folks, if they hit up to 80%, then they would have to move on. So just a suggestion.

[03:07:54] City Staff: I think it'll be helpful to hear from all accounts on this question, and depending on the majority direction, we'll go craft some alternatives and bring them back to you with the ordinance in June.

[03:08:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:08:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Let's say the first question, do I support greater BMR requirement for row houses and townhouses? I actually like the 25%. Um, I think it, you know, partly because it addresses the missing middle housing that we've been looking at. Um, I would go if most people won't go for the 25%, at least 20%. I would like to do that in some way, although I would go for the 25%. I also like the idea that it might encourage stacked flats because I've hurt a lot of interest in those. So that's question one. question two. Do I support the recommended below market rate on-site requirements for rental, and for sale, and in perpetuity. Um, So, I do support them on site for rental and, uh, for rental and ownership, and I, I strongly support perpetuity. I should say, um, like I said before, my background in affordable housing is with a really different configuration where everything was permanently affordable. Um, and and the, um, so although I support this, I'm also very supportive of other forms of affordable housing. And I guess that gets me down to the one we're not addressing yet, alternatives, but I'll just hint it that now. Um, I actually support. I support pretty flexible alternatives so that we're, although I support on-site, Randall, and for sale, I also support other things, and I would like, I, for example, I, the affordable housing that I, that we were developing when I worked in the past was all intentional communities, there was a big focus on, you know, on, on, people really investing in living in that neighborhood for a long time, even though most of them would be various shades of low- income. So I support that form as, I'm not, I support that form of affordable housing as well, and would like to make sure that we, um, that we're still developing that and a good amount of that. Okay, so then question six, the two-tiered approach. I share Margaret and John's, um, uh, reservations about this, and I'm hoping that we can craft, maybe that we can craft something a little more flexible.

[03:10:53] Unknown Speaker: I see, while you were talking about that, the economic consultant was smiling. So maybe he has some ideas. I don't know if you want to share them now or no afterwards.

[03:11:07] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Well, if it's short, sure.

[03:11:12] Consultant Darren Smith: Sure, sure, something short. Again, Darren Smith with economic and planning systems. One idea that I have heard spoken of is that, you know, if you're aiming for, say, a 65% weighted average AMI every year, and there is, in fact, confirmation, validation of income levels every year. One way that you could address this without displacement, potentially, is to just have, as people graduate, naturally gaining more income, hopefully, for them. that, that the next available unit would be reset, to establish as close you can, to the 65% weighted average. So if everyone is kind of moving up. And these are rental apartments, so there will be some turnover, even if it's not quite as rapid as you might get in a market rate scenario, that if people are moving up, then the next available one gets reset at, say, 50% of AMI, and then they graduate again, and then you reset over time. And I know that would be perhaps an administrative hassle to take on, but it is one way of potentially addressing the displacement concern while still maintaining the overall weighted average goal.

[03:12:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Well, I would like to explore something like that, because my past and affordable housing has been largely about creating community.

[03:12:41] City Staff: Just to add on, I think that is an alternative. In the BMR guidelines, it's recommended that the units be fixed, not floating, as a way to help with the administrative component. And so if that allowing a unit to change the AMI levels and then looking for the reset is an alternative that we could look into, we would probably have to explore maybe a couple of tweaks and then figure out maybe later on in procedures, how to actually attract the units and ensure compliance. And we're not, we're not losing track of where the AMI levels are. So that is an option. There are trade offs with the other one. We'll let you know the staffing implications too.

[03:13:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[03:13:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: We gave an award to Palo Alto housing. Surely they can help us. Some of the staffing implications of that. Okay, so 25%. I will offer, um, so I do support the higher, um, I generally support the higher requirement for row house and town host projects. I will throw out a, an idea, and the city attorney might frown upon it, but 11 perhaps alternative middle ground would be to impose the 25% on Roham's townhomes that displace rent controlled rental units. So it wouldn't necessarily the higher threshold wouldn't apply. The 25% wouldn't apply if it's just an empty lot, or if you're just converting existing ownership, single family homes that are sold or being converted to a higher density product, but perhaps the higher threshold to sort of mitigate the impact of the loss of rental housing, and the loss of naturally affordable housing, perhaps you impose the higher threshold on row homes or townhomes, or anything new that's displacing rent controlled units. There are different ways to think about that. But that's one way to sort of target that a little more than just applying it across the board and sort of discouraging ownership units in general. Just a thought. Does the, um, so the, I do support the recommended BMR on-site requirements for rental projects. I still have reservations about requiring them on for sale projects or most for sale projects, except for entry level. I still don't I just don't think that having, you know, uh, one.5 million dollar, $2 million townhomes that are in the BMR program that have HOA fees that are significant, that have ongoing maintenance costs that are really significant, are, um, I, in those cases, I'd rather have that those funds, um, pooled and be able to use those. So I will have more comments on this in question 7 and some ideas that we might look at instead of that. But in general, I'm fine with the onsite requirements for rentals. I don't think we should just require them across the board on for sale projects, and I'll talk more about that later. Um, I can get behind the two-tieered approach. I'm curious about, I'd be open to staff saying, in terms of administrative burden and long-term strategy. Perhaps, is it better to have a more graduated system or is it easier to just have the unit float instead of be fixed in terms of their MI target? I'm open to, I'm open to sort of any solutions that allow a little bit more, um, a little bit more stability for, for those who are already there, whether that's more time, whether that's a, uh, looking at it in a more um, graduated way with the bands, um, some combination of the 2 or having the units float. I'd be open to all those in a And if none of those, I think, I think a two-tieered approach that you've outlined is better than what we have. So that is a would be okay for me. And then just because question 3 is easy. I do support the alternative mitigations.

[03:17:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do you support in perpetuity?

[03:17:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: I do, yes. I think, and I've been, I've talked to some developers about this. I think the inclusionary units on site, I think there are very few issues with those being in perpetuity. I think it's more of the off site units in a 100% affordable housing, where you're dealing with tax credits, that's the issue where you get into perpetuity. So.

[03:17:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh?

[03:17:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, so as I, um, was reading the staff report, one of the things that's been coming to my mind is what's gonna give the city, um, the greatest flexibility and how we can use the different things outlines as tools. So I think when looking at question one, one of the things I was contemplating was if it could be a threshold. So, uh, a range of 15% to 25% requirement, um, you know, kind of uh, Council member Clark brings up an interesting idea. Um, you know, one that I'm interested in, but I think a range may be a way of approaching it, especially, um, you know, one of my concerns is in calling out certain product types is that it might discourage that one and that we might get see more of another. And I think that we, as a council have talked about wanting a variety, to meet the needs of residents, right? So, um, that's why I was thinking towards the range, um, element.

[03:18:58] Unknown Speaker: For question number two, before you move on, what would that range be based on?

[03:19:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I haven't gotten that far. I haven't come up with any type of that. I mean, it's a study session, so I thought, you know, I just throw the idea out there. Um, and we have some council members who have talked about wanting to stick to consistency with just 15%. But, you know, if we have the market analysis that says we can go up to 25. Um, you know, I'm interested in that. So that's where I'm trying to seek what I mentioned in my opening, which was kind of flexibility. So I'm not putting forward a straw motion. I'm just kind of throwing the idea out there. Um, for question number two, um, yes, I support the recommended BMR on-site requirements for rental and for sale projects and uh, BMR units in perpetuity. For question six, yes, I support the two-tiered approach outlined. The suggestions from EPC in the staff report were interesting. I mean, I think the biggest concern for me is making sure that people can stay in their units, that people can stay housed. And I think that we as a city have supported different efforts, for example, through CSA and trying to make sure people, um, can make their rents and stay, um, and stay stably housed. So, you know, I think other ideas that council members have put forward are, again, interesting ideas. But I think that this staff recommendation is kind of going in the right direction.

[03:20:53] Unknown Speaker: Guess I'll remember McAllister, can I go before you?

[03:20:57] Unknown Speaker: Your next... Okay, I just want to go back to number two. Oh, the, oh, no, the two-tiered approach. And my thinking was that whatever the market rate was, that if they got to that income level, then they would trans- if we knew what the market rate as an average was out there, as they got to that income level, that would be their transition point out. And so you would sort of work at, this is the market price, then work backwards, and then so that they would keep the continuity going and saying, well, if they're this percent or whatever. And so that would be their transition out is once their income can meet the market, an average market rate, or whatever index of market rate, then that would be my idea of transitioning amount instead of saying, well, you're at 120, well, 120 What does that mean? If the market rate's 140.

[03:21:47] City Staff: Just for reference in your slides in front of you, there is a reference chart that provides for households between one through 4 persons, and it provides what the income incomes are, maximum and what the maximum rents could be for those households at those income levels. So just to, um, as reference for your deliberation. But as an example for a moderate income household of four, that's $157,000 a year, that's about $3,900 a month for a moderate rent. That's the maximum they would be able to for. That would be, we would say, it's a 3 bedroom unit, with that bedroom plus one formula. And the 3 bedroom rents, if they're at market, are, for the new ones, are going to be quite a bit higher for some of the older units. They're going to be a little bit closer.

[03:22:52] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So on question one, I would like to have consistency across all of the product types in, I would say, 15% works for me. I'm concerned about trying to incentivize other types of products with BMR fees. I would rather understand what is driving the development of the different housing types and address concerns like we talked about with stack flats, with bringing them up to code, if their apartments converted to stack flats. And so I would rather address those issues than try to manipulate it with the fees. So I would have this at 15%. On question two, I do support in perpetuity. The question of on-site is a little bit more difficult for me. I think we could actually help more people if we had some standalone product projects. And I get that we do get the commercial linkage fees to do that. But, um, I think for rental, I do support them on site for ownership, I have a lot more flexibility there and I'm fine with, um, in Luffy's. for ownership units. In terms of question six. I think it would be great if staff could come back with some ideas on how to address this because my biggest concern is, um, displacement of the folks that are there, I want to make sure we're not doing that. Um, but I also get that at some point they should transition out of the BMR units, um, when their income is such that it enables that. So, um, I like the idea of the decreasing bans at the higher income levels and perhaps more time, but just in general, I'd be looking for, does this mean that we're not displacing folks?

[03:25:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. It's actually, you know what, before we move on, maybe we can summarize the council, they'll put on one, these 1st three. No?

[03:25:17] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Oh, I thought you were moving on to the next one.

[03:25:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, go ahead.

[03:25:24] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So, 1st mayor, I agree with, so, I also have some difficulty with framing it, has, or framing a higher affordability requirement on townhomes and row homes as a way to incentivize stack flats because it sounds very punitive, which I'm not very comfortable with. And the way I'm thinking about it is how can we increase affordable housing opportunities for the folks who are not going to be served by the rental BMRs that we're likely to create. And so, and I appreciate Council member Kim May's suggestion, and maybe one way to think of sort of a range of requirement or range from 15% to 25% is to tie it to the affordability level. So because, you know, the There is a financial impact with deeper levels of affordability. And you could just looking at page 15 here with the household size and the income levels, you know, a BMR unit affordable to a low-income family is, you know, much less expensive than a unit available at the moderate income level, 120% AMI. So maybe that's one way of thinking about it is if one of the concerns is we don't want to jeopardize the financial feasibility of these kinds of projects, then we can shift up the weighted average. So we're targeting more of the missing middle, the moderate income households, which also has the ancillary benefit of making sure that these projects are not negative, not as negatively impacted as if we were targeting the 80% AMI level. So I wanted to suggest that as a possibility. So, you know, we're not getting deeper levels of affordability with the ownership program, but we are still, we are opening up ownership possibilities for moderate income people. So just an idea.

[03:27:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I spare Abe Koka.

[03:27:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, just a question I probably should know this, but are we restricted to one is 120 the limit we can go to?

[03:27:38] City Staff: Because it's a BMR program. It's council direction to expand it to go up to 120% for the moderate, and that's the traditional definition. I don't know that there would be a constraint necessarily to say that the BMR program could potentially go above the 120 as well, especially because there isn't public funding or dollars in it. Maybe if council could give us some direction, we could explore this with our council and come back, legal.

[03:28:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. I can save it until we get to question 7 or yeah, why don't I just do that?

[03:28:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I feel like there's a range of perspectives on this one. And the only one that is totally clear is 3 of us said we do not support going above 15%, but then 4 folks had varying ways of, um, having, yeah, a higher, whether it be a range or based on the situation. Um, That's not good. I heard too. Yep. Um,

[03:29:06] City Staff: Yeah, can we maybe, I think maybe we can explore the range slash, flexibility slash displacement issue and bring that back to you in June with some options or recommendation, and then, you know, it's basically, we can fill in the blank. The attorney doesn't like that idea, though.

[03:29:30] City Attorney: Well, I think it just makes it challenging for staff to come up with three different approaches. I do have some concerns about linking it to displacement in the Ellis Act. You know, we're clear on the concept that you can pick the product type and you can do that. And then I think if it were a range, we'd have to have a formula because we need to go with an objective standard. So, and I think that developers would really want certainty, so they would know what the formula is as opposed to they could come to the council meeting, and it could be anywhere in a 10% range. So I do think in this instance, just given the number of questions and the number of, um, kind of fill in the blanks that we have in this ordinance, it'd be helpful to have consensus on what you're looking for in that, that particular aspect of the ordinance.

[03:30:27] Unknown Speaker: I think, just, what I was thinking was, so you, uh, in, um... in removing rent controlled units, there's obviously, there's tenant relocation assistance for those folks, but you're also creating, I think, some additional burden of affordability, affordability of the housing stock on the city. And so I think that, in my mind, is sort of the nexus to that. But I will, I won't die on that hill. I think um, I think for me, one other thing that I was thinking of that I would be comfortable with it. I was I was comfortable with 25% because in my mind, I had already decided that I don't really want row homes and towel, like units, row homes and townhomes dedicated. I'd rather just have that that fee. So that I wouldn't impose 25% if we go down the route of having units from all affordable projects. I think that's too significant. I think one thing that we could say is if we end up not going the route of requiring units in those types of in those housing projects, perhaps what we do is, you know, a 20 or 25%, just in Luffy that's applied there. And then that would be the requirement instead of units. That, I think, would be more the alternative mitigation process.

[03:32:00] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I think what we're trying to have is a standard for on-site, and frankly, maybe it's simplest just to keep it at 15, and then the alternative mitigation, you can, you know, have a higher standard for that.

[03:32:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Committee.

[03:32:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. I think kind of given the discussion that's happening now, I think the consistency of the 15% makes sense because I think requiring 25% on-site row home townhome units. I just I would need more information on that to feel, I think, Yeah. Um, So I think at this point I'm comfortable with the, with the 15%. I think that there were ideas floating on that I was interested in, but if those are too owners and cumbersome to kind of pursue with too many different variables, then I think keeping at 15 with the idea maybe, um, there was conversation about coming back in 5 years and evaluating the program. So maybe in 5 years, we could look and see if we could raise the percentage for townhome and row homes. Um, you know, that could be one avenue. So thank you.

[03:33:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Council member Hicks, was your comment on this topic?

[03:33:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thanks. The only thing I thought that council member Abbe Koga was going in the direction of it was something she was gonna say for question seven, but I thought it fit into number one, that you were maybe gonna say that we could go for higher than 120%, because we're not relying on any tax credits or any other funding sources that marries us to that particular percentage, and that we could go to, I don't know, what, 1,30, 140, and then we could, then it could seem more feasible to go above 15. I thought that's the direction you were going in. And I don't know whether that's better addressed now or later.

[03:34:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so that was what I was looking at. From my experience, even at 120%, it's still, I think, a stretch for most folks to be able to afford and pay the, you know, the mortgage and all the other costs of owning a home. And you know, most people know who followed me, I've always been supportive of ownership housing. I still think that, you know, that is the American dream. And what has been really troublesome is to hear that, you know, young people these days, they don't even have it in the realm of possibilities because it's so expensive and the cost of like tripled over the last, you know, at least 20 years and their income hasn't matched that. So, you know, what are the program? There are no programs if you're making over 120% to still help you to buy a home. And that's always been of interest to me. I know that some folks think, well, that's, you know, too much of a subsidy for people who make higher incomes, but the reality in this valley is, I think you have to make like 170% are close to that to being able to really own a home. So that's my interest. And if that, if that higher, um, AMI would then allow for going up to 25% or maybe, I'm actually not. say I'm not comfortable with 25% because I don't see that in any other city right now. Maybe San Francisco, but I think I've heard that they're having some challenges. So I'd say 20%. And I've seen in the other cities, they have, like, two... Palat had 2 options. So one at a higher percentage at the middle income level and then a lower one, I think, if you have more low income AMI. So we could do that. So in that sense, I, you know, I would be open to that kind of range, but I really think that to make it work, it has to be over 120%. And I know that's a debatable topic. So, yeah, that's why I thought I'd save it till later.

[03:36:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member at Ramirez.

[03:36:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just very briefly. So I would support the compromise suggested by the vice mayor. So just, and, you know, I don't want to dwell on this too much, but it sounds like 20%, but we're shifting the weighted average, so it gets closer to like the 150% AMI level. Is that kind of where you're going? Or the average, was it a, it's 120 right now, so...

[03:37:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's 100% AMI weighted average, going up to 120. So. Oh, I think it would have to be 120 weighted average. But you're at fit 20%. So I do 20% at a... higher weighted average of 120% and then 15% if you have a... 100% a lower high. So, um, I did not to make this complex. Well, I, I, yes, I, I don't want to make it complex, but, you know, I just really have, for a long time. held this concern that, you know, folks making 120 still aren't able to afford.

[03:37:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well that's why I'd like to look at what are the issues that are, um, not incentivizing building stack flats, ownership stack flats, as the entry into the ownership market.

[03:38:06] Unknown Speaker: And I, you know, I, I, I understand that and I'm supportive of that too. I think for me, I am actually interested in road homes because as, you know, the reality is, is as families grow, you do need more space, and condos are great, but at some point, you know, if you have a family, you want a bigger place. And that's what row homes and townhomes tend to be. And I'm just concerned that if we can, you know, I mean, we're already talking about like in North Bay Shore and even East Wisman, the microunits and the one bedroom studios. And to me, that's kind of skewing the type of the demographics of this community. And I want diversity. I want a place where just like I was able to raise my family, others can do the same. And so I actually don't support not doing more homes. I think we need to continue to do that. And I support BMRs because, yes, it's a bigger I understand it's a windfall, but the reality is, well, one, by doing this, I think we'll get more of them. Two, I just think that the affordability is, like, has the gap has just increased so much that we just have to do this to help more of people be able to get into an ownership unit.

[03:39:29] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think, um, Steph in the questions that we sent in, um, when you have in perpetuity, you don't have a windfall. Right. So, yeah, so I think the way they did it is helpful in that sense, the concern before. The words all you were talking about, though?

[03:39:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, you know, in the past, when we talked about this, and I think the way this 20-year-old BMR policy was set was people thought, you know, those the council members back then, certain ones thought that, um, one person getting, let's say, let's say, you know, a $1000000 home for $200,000 was so much for that one person, and it wasn't being spread out enough. And that's why they set it up in this way. But I just think that times have changed so much that you really have to help those folks, you know, to be able to get into ownership, to give them that kind of subsidy. But if we're doing it by increasing, you know, to 15% and all of the other provisions that are in here, which are very well thought out, I think we are minimizing that windfall as much as possible.

[03:40:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:40:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you help clarify something? So we're going from 3% to 15%. We are going from 10% BMR requirement to a 50% BMR for number one. For ownership.

[03:40:59] City Staff: So the 3% in Loop fee, the 3% refers to the in Loop fee on ownership, and that's recommended to be converted to a per square foot fee. And then the 15% is the BMR rental and ownership requirement. And then the 25% discussion here is related specifically.

[03:41:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, forget the 25. Just let's keep it simple for me. So, the 3% was that in Lou fee, for ownership, for ownership. Now, the 15% now for ownership would be...

[03:41:32] City Staff: The 15 is the BMR on-site unit. So you would have to require this.

[03:41:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So the fee, though, would still be then the fee would be the $96, which was equivalent.

[03:41:41] City Staff: The 96 is on the rental side and the 5450 is the equivalency for ownership.

[03:41:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, 54. Okay.

[03:41:47] Unknown Speaker: And just to clarify, today you need a 10% requirement on site.

[03:41:52] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I understand. How does that $54 equate to the 3%? You're saying it's equivalent?

[03:41:58] City Staff: The 3% translates into roughly about $30 a square foot on the ownership side, so the 5450 is higher than what the 3% would roughly translate into. So it's a good percentage increase. It is higher than what the 3% would translate it into.

[03:42:15] Councilmember John McAlister: So just, I'd like to... So, Margaret, just let's try to keep it simple, because it is a huge increase already, so let's stick with 15 and see where it goes and move off the side of them. as Dan says.

[03:42:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I feel like we already do have a lot of row houses, and so I think there are opportunities for folks to move from stack flats to row houses and still own. I'd like to just keep this simple and not have a huge increase and just go with 15.

[03:42:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So it may suggest a straw vote, since we are on question one of seven, and this was supposed to be one of the easier ones. So maybe we can take a straw vote, and I think there's sort of two proposals on the table. One is just to keep it at 15, and one is to have a different standard with a higher AMI. Okay, so how many would like to just move this from 10% to 15%. Wow, we lost another person.

[03:43:27] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I just changed my boat because I didn't think we could go above 120, but if we can, then that does change my consideration.

[03:43:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I guess the other Strava would be, um, yeah, something other than 15%, which might be, um, a range, um, increasing the AMI, Um, There's, I guess we'd have to have staff come back with options, but he said we didn't want to do that unless you just want to vote.

[03:44:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, it's actually, I'm only interested if we can increase the AMI. If we can't or there's not support for that, then I will go back to the 15%.

[03:44:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So what I heard, the vice mayor, say earlier. It would be 15% of the, if the weighted average was 100%, and it would be 20% requirement, if the weighted average was 120. I think we just need to go back and confirm whether that's doable legally or whatever. administratively. And if so, if there's 4 nodding heads, that will be our starting point. And if not 15% would be what we come back with. So are there four nodding heads or raised hands for the...

[03:44:50] Unknown Speaker: There is... Yeah, I'll support either, or like, if you need to go back to 15, then so be it. The only thing I would say is I would tie it more to the 20% that she mentioned and not the 120. So if the weighted average of 120 makes sense, then that's fine if it's, if it makes, if it's 125 or 30 or I don't, I don't know. I would just say what is appropriate at 20%. That's what I type.

[03:45:19] Unknown Speaker: Up to 150% AMI was the...

[03:45:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure. Any other comments on that one? Dan is trying to encourage people to vote.

[03:45:35] Unknown Speaker: Oh, so for that?

[03:45:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: For what?

[03:45:39] Unknown Speaker: For the vice mayor's suggestion. It would be 20% if we can increase the AMI with the weighted average about 120, but up to 150. And then it would, if that's not possible, then it would be 15%. Right. Is that your?

[03:46:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I actually thought it was both. If a project, what I was envisioning is, if a project comes in with a weighted average of 100%, they would be required to do 15%. If a project came in with a weighted average of 120%, they would be required to do 50. So it's really the developers, 20%. The developer would have the option, and they could propose it either way, if that's administratively and legally feasible. I really wanted to keep this simple. It's actually very simple.

[03:46:39] Unknown Speaker: No, it's not. You just added a new ANY category..

[03:46:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do we get a consensus here? Okay, so question two. The requirement of on-site, and it looks like it's yes for that in perpetuity, yes. Yeah. So then...

[03:47:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, several of us said that we would be okay with the units. I'm sorry, with the inloofies for ownership units. Can we get some clarity on that?

[03:47:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: There were there wasn't necessarily consensus. There was definitely consensus for on-site for rental, and I think there was majority support for imperpetuity, but there was some ambiguity on-site for ownership. So maybe we can have a straw motion on that one. John. Where's John? Um, yeah, so for question number two, I had slightly different notes, but um, let's do a show of hands of those folks who want to require on-site ownership units. Versus giving them a pretty good option to pay in Luffy's instead. too.

[03:48:15] Unknown Speaker: I mean, remember, they do have the option to provide alternative mitigation. It has to be greater than what would otherwise be required. I think the question is, what's the premise? What's the starting point? And is the assumption that they're going to provide on site? Or frankly, right now, the assumption is they pay the fee and we need clarity on changing that.

[03:48:40] Wayne, City Staff: If I could just add one comment. If one of the goals is for more moderate income ownership opportunities, the FIA option likely doesn't achieve that because we would typically fund 100% affordable rental projects. And so I just wanted to make that note.

[03:49:05] Unknown Speaker: Well, you might end up with more units because you might be able to build more units with the fees, then you would have units built on site when it comes to the ownership units. potentially,

[03:49:15] Unknown Speaker: yeah, potentially. I think the point Wayne's trying to make is when you take the fee and we convert it to 100% affordable project, it's generally low income rental versus ownership or moderate income. So you just have, there's a trade off.

[03:49:30] Unknown Speaker: Right, but if the goal is more units. Which I'm not saying it is, but yeah. Right.

[03:49:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, I wasn't sure. I saw Lucas kind of... The question was, how many want to require, I hate to say required, because you can do an alternative mitigation, but have a propensity to have the ownership units built on site.

[03:50:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I think, so this will save you from me talking under question seven. Because I was going to ask this then, was, Is there, is there some way where we provide relief from the fee or the on site requirement to entry level ownership opportunities? So, say, below a median sales price, or they don't they pay a lower or no fee, right? And so you're actually incentivizing the creation of units at that end of the market spectrum, as opposed to just collecting fees and onsite units of any type. That's what I was going to ask under question 7, whether there's a way to incentivize the creation of units at the lower end of the ownership spectrum by providing relief from some of these things.

[03:50:51] Unknown Speaker: If I may jump in, I think it all depends on the guarantee that the city needs, that those rents are gonna be, or the prices are gonna be kept at those, because very often they may start out as such, but the expectation, you know, can be achieved over time without some kind of a deed restriction. So.

[03:51:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: You couldn't just, in my mind, it was looking at the initial sales price if it was above a certain amount, if it was above more than what our threshold was for fee relief, they would have to pay not only the fee, but a penalty on top of that.

[03:51:30] Unknown Speaker: We could look at that. But I think we need to treat all units similarly, um, and we have to kind of have some kind of a, a way to figure that out so certain units aren't given a pass. So I think it gets a little complicated, but I get where you're trying to go.

[03:51:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I was just trying to figure out some way to incentivize the creation of entry-level ownership unit. If that won't work, then so be it.

[03:52:00] Unknown Speaker: So the, um, The item we're voting on now, to clarify, is if we have a preference for units, for sale, units on site, for the project, but they can do an alternative mitigation where they can pay the inloof fee. Is that correct?

[03:52:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we were just voting on the part of the question, which is, do we want to have mostly on-site affordable units? So that's the... on different ownership. On site preference. Okay, thank you. Because the other question is about alternative mitigations. Okay.

[03:52:40] Unknown Speaker: But you, in theory, always have the opportunity to provide an alternative mitigation, but it's more units or deeper into the income.

[03:52:51] Unknown Speaker: Got it. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[03:52:54] Unknown Speaker: Or land dedication. Yes, sorry.

[03:52:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But I feel like people are not very committal tonight. So, um... Well, I got one hand. life. So, well, Allison, um...

[03:53:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So to me, it depends partly on this other the other question, what exactly it means, the alternative mitigate alternative, you know, the flexibility for alternatives.

[03:53:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, we can, why don't we continue on? Let's talk about question number three. And then we'll come back. Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[03:53:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I am okay with alternative mitigations, but as staff recommends only if they exceed the minimum affordability requirement. And, um, I think this is an example, but so the, to me, the issue, the, the biggest barrier challenge I see is land and the high cost of land. And so, you know, land dedication could be that mitigation. But I go back to the Flower Mart project we passed earlier today, and if we had done the 15%, they would have had to provide 71 units on site, but because they came in before and whatnot, they offered the fee plus 50%. And that got us to 71% affordable units. And so there's definitely, I think, going to be a difference. with a fee versus on site, so that fee has the pay, the payment has to be higher than what the on-site requirement is to get the equivalent is how I'm thinking. So that's why I think it does have to be higher. But at Camiland, because land value land is the most expensive, I think, piece, I think. But if it's going to be a feast, then it has to be higher than the minimum.

[03:55:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[03:55:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. very quickly. I agree with the vice mayor. I think this is, you know, we have an expectation for, well, I guess we'll clarify, but my preference is for on-site units. And so if you want to do something other than that, then I would expect something greater that helps us achieve other goals. So, you know, achieving arena targets or, you know, accessing deeper levels of affordability. So I support the recommendations regarding alternative mitigations, but I agree very strongly with vice mayorabicoga. I wouldn't expect them to be much greater than if they just provided the onset units.

[03:55:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else?

[03:56:01] Unknown Speaker: I was just gonna say, I agree. I think the alternative mitigation should be demonstrably... of greater value than the units or the equivalent fee, and I think they should understand that, you know, it's gonna be hard for us to set that in advance, and so they take the risk of bringing that to us, that we might, either staff might give them guidance, that that's probably not significant based on current council direction, or they end up in front of us, and, um, you know, they should they should expect to fall back to providing the units. They should just understand that risk, which I think they would, but it's hard for us to say in writing, like this is the level that we would accept because counselors are going to change over time.

[03:56:48] Unknown Speaker: I think we might be developing some objective standards because with state law, more and more, we have to stay away from being too subjective. But so the level of discretion will be lower, but we can, if there's a finding to be made about public health and safety or achieving city goals, we can, we can get you there.

[03:57:11] Unknown Speaker: But we like being subtracted.

[03:57:12] Unknown Speaker: I know. I know. It's fun, but I think the window is pretty small in with some of the new state laws. And it's what's really making it challenging for us to come up with the flexibility that you want. And so the alternate mitigation is really one way to get there and allow the developers to be creative, but more and more we're finding that it's, your discretion is getting more and more limited.

[03:57:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I do support what's in the staff report for alternative mitigation. Council member command.

[03:57:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I do too. And I just wanted to say I've enjoyed the projects that have come forward, that have been created. Um, you know, I think one of the others could be exploring the prefund, like we saw with the Flower Mart project, and I would say that could be another item that we could add into as an alternate medication.

[03:58:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:58:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I agree with the direction that council's been going. I agree with what's been said previously.

[03:58:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member McAllister? More on question three.

[03:58:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm poor, but, you know, is there a possibility that... I mean, a kid could be a very broad definition, I mean, can developers come to us? and say, Here, propose something, it would give us a little more flexibility than they may come up with something that we hadn't thought about doing.

[03:58:57] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the guidelines specify that there could be various alternative mitigations that aren't listed, and it would be up to the developer to people to demonstrate that those alternative mitigations that we may not be thinking about right now, are meeting the parameters set forth in the guidelines, and showing how those alternative strategies would provide a greater benefit to the city.

[03:59:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thanks.

[03:59:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So it sounds like on question three, we all support what's in the staff recommendation.

[03:59:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Question four. Wow. I heard all but you. So... Well, I always like to get your perspective on things.

[04:00:01] Unknown Speaker: Just trying to help Dan get home.

[04:00:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so on question four, yes, we support the staff recommendation, question five, the exemption. Oh, this is...

[04:00:19] Unknown Speaker: Yes. We do have the information here. if that helps. So for the gatekeepers, if the effective date were late August, then the gatekeepers that are having an anticipated approval date would be the 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard, that's 303 new units, the 25, 45, and 2655 Fayette Drive of 44 units that you heard recently. 555 West Middlefield. So 334 units. And there's a small project, 360 South Shoreline Boulevard. 7 units. Those are the ones that would be coming to council for entitlement hearing after the effective date, if the effective date were late August.

[04:01:27] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, what's the 360 South Shoreline? That's a small project you said?

[04:01:31] Unknown Speaker: It's a small project. It just shows 7 units. I don't. Oh, and if it's 7, if it's 7 units, then it would apply the, I think the fees would apply. It's 7 units are more is on site, but less than 7 in lieu. Yeah. What a... Sorry, they need one unit, I guess. Okay.

[04:02:04] Unknown Speaker: And then for the TDR gatekeepers, that's the, as mentioned, 355, 415 East Middlefield, and the 400 Logue project for the TDR gatekeepers.

[04:02:23] Unknown Speaker: So there was a question about the 360 South Shoreline. Those units are on the school's property, right? For teachers. Is that subject to the same requirements as these other projects in terms of BMR?

[04:02:40] Unknown Speaker: I think that's the 777 middle field, and that's part of I'm sorry. Maybe I'm getting confused. This is Mountain View Academy. Shoreline one is a very, very old gatekeeper, and I don't believe there's been any activity on that for years, and frankly, I'm not sure if it's still alive. alive. Okay.

[04:03:10] Unknown Speaker: The 4 gatekeepers that are, the 4 non-TDR gatekeepers are the 1001 North Shoreline, 2545, Fayette, 555 West Middlefield, and then the 360 South Shoreline. They would not be... They... They would be projects that would come after the potential effective date if the effective date or late August, and it's up to Council to deliberate if that's the effective date, and that's the exemption you desire.

[04:03:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So is everyone clear on, if you look on the staff report, page 18? The three projects, regular gatekeepers, exempt, from phase two. Well, flower m has already been approved, but, um, Prometheus on Villa and 777 Middlefield. Then going to the right, subject to phase two. The regular gatekeepers, those four, are 360 South Shoreline, 1001 Shoreline, the Fayette Project, N 555 West Middlefield. And then the two below that are Summerhill on Middlefield, and the Project on Logue.

[04:04:35] Unknown Speaker: The, there was a third, the very first one, you said flower mart, triple seven middle field, and what was the...?

[04:04:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Villa. Prometheus and Villa. Yep. Okay, now does everyone have the projects? Okay, so then the question is, if we followed what was done for phase one, This is how it would turn out, but, um, we want to talk about that. So, anyone in the queue? Council member McAllister, right?

[04:05:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, the cue. So I guess this is time to advocate for various gatekeepers, then?

[04:05:15] Unknown Speaker: Okay. It's time to advocate for a consistent standard that the council chooses, and you have the right to pick your methodology and your date, but it should be a objective consistent standard. Yep. 'Cause you're not deciding particular projects this evening. You're providing direction to staff so that we can draft an ordinance that we're going to bring back to you.

[04:05:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, then, uh, we'll just change the date to December 2019, and then I guess we'd be in better shape.

[04:05:45] Unknown Speaker: No. Oh, you could. You could.

[04:05:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Then how would that affect the projects? They would have to have their entitlements by that date, right?

[04:05:57] Unknown Speaker: Correct. Of the remaining gatekeepers we have on here, 555 West Middlefield would come at some point in 2020, and 400 Logue is in 2020. The other ones on our tracking sheet showed that they would come to council by the end of 2019, but that could change. depending on how the entitlement goes.

[04:06:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, then I'll go with a consistent standard. I would propose, well, I would like to see projects that have actually been presented to the council and been discussed by the council, even though they may not have been entitled, but they have been given direction by council to be included as exempt, because they are basing that project based on council feedback. So depending on these projects that have been in front of the council, and we have given feedback. I would like to see, I would propose that those would be exempt. Would that be all of these? except for the 360 shoreline, or did that one?

[04:07:06] Unknown Speaker: No, that was a gatekeeper. That was before me. Yeah, I think you... How are you define feedback from council? I mean, everything, every gatekeeper has come to council to be approved as a gatekeeper. Okay, you're saying if they've had a subsequent study session where direction was given?

[04:07:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. I think that would be fair.

[04:07:26] Unknown Speaker: How about the PSA projects, the ones that are subject to project streamlining? Suggest we take this in two chunks. Let's deal with the gatekeepers in one chunk, and then the non gatekeepers, 'cause there may be different standards. And then just for Ramirez?

[04:07:43] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry. Just one clarification, then that means that the BMR ordinance, as it currently exists, with the... with an in loofee for ownership, and that would apply to those projects, right? And at the 10%? So potentially around 1,500 units would be at the lower standard. 1,500 market rate units. What about the owner? Right? Yeah. Um...

[04:08:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez.

[04:08:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I have a different opinion, I guess. I've been, this is one of the ones I was struggling with, and what I've, what I've concluded is, this, in my opinion, shouldn't have come to a surprise to anybody. This was, as I understand it, part of the direction that the council provided, I think it was 2017. And when I had asked staff and folks in the development community, whether they had heard about this. They knew staff had been working pretty closely with them. And so it's hard for me to justify an exemption when I think there was a reasonable expectation that this was going to occur. And, uh, I guess one way I was thinking about this because I share concerns broadly about impacts to development feasibility, the financial hit that's incurred. We still, you know, will have opportunities to review these projects. And we can think about other ways to soften the blow. So, for instance, there's generally a community benefit expectation for gatekeepers, which I totally support. But, you know, those the value of that community benefit was calculated with a different affordability requirement. And so maybe we can say, well, based on the new affordability requirement, it would make sense to reevaluate the value of that community benefit expectation. So there are things we can do in entitlement review to get the additional affordable units and also be sensitive to potential impacts to financial feasibility. And that would be my preference rather than trying to craft different ways of exempting some of these gatekeepers. My understanding is the way the council historically has treated gatekeepers with an understanding that there's a risk involved. You know, you're not entitled to a rezoning, not entitled to a general planned amendment. And so you the value you get is increased density and height, but there is risk incurred. And part of that risk is evolving expectations from a council. So my preference would not be to I support what staff is proposing in the report. And, you know, I would expect in the context of an, of an, you know, development review that we find other ways of addressing that concern.

[04:10:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: John, did you ever comment on that?

[04:10:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I just like to, I could, yes, if they hadn't been coming back to council, haven't they hadn't spent time with staff, and they've worked through the process, so it's not, oh, the 1st time they see us, they're a gatekeeper, but these are projects. Some of these projects have had multiple meetings with staff, multiple, you know, council feedback. And so they've developed a plan and they move forward. And so, yeah, they may have been known the gatekeeper, but look at the time that they've put into it to say we're changing direction now. And so if it was early on in the process, I have no problem with that. But a lot of these folks have invested time based on their discussions with counsel and staff. So, in the broader sense, that to me is a more, you know, you want consistency. You want to have certainty for those developers, and that's what they're looking for. So please consider that. as why I am looking for exemptions for it.

[04:11:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[04:11:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I'm actually inclined to support Councilman Ramirez's position and the reason, well, there's a lot of reasons, but when we talk about the timing of these projects, You know, we do our best effort to move them along, but we are not in full control of the timing. And when I look at these projects, I mean, I was an on council, but I recall, I think they've all had some kind of input by council. I remember the 6360 South Shoreline was the teacher housing for Mountain View Academy. So my question is, is that going to be counted as affordable? But I haven't, we haven't heard from them since, and that's at least been 3 years now. 555 West Middlefield. I believe that's the Avalon project. And I remember we gave them a lot of guidance and haven't heard back from them for at least 2 years, a year and a half or 2 years. It was like, yeah, my 1st year on council, I believe. Fayette, you know, they changed ownership or they changed their project 3 times. So, again, you know, not our deal. That was their decision. That's what's caused the delay. And Shoreline 2, it changed hands. And so, um, you know, this is a, and, you know, this is coming at a just a bad timing maybe too, because with all the housing, you know, policy meetings I've been immersed in, um, there is this, you know, peace that is not being talked about at the state level is that, again, cities, we can permit and approved projects, but we can't control when they're built. And this is exactly that an example of that. So, you know, Sure, we might have had delays, but again, I'm going to say too, gatekeepers or what causes delays. We are planning in our precise plans for seven, 15,000 units. And if you can find parcels there in our precise plan areas, you should sail through, right? But these gatekeepers are rezonings, and they take a lot more time to do, and that causes the delay. So it's a privilege to be a gatekeeper is how I look at it. You know, we expect more from them. And at this point in time, I don't think the blame of the, you know, them not moving before August 24th is all on the city. A lot of on these examples, they are all, they've had, you know, the developer side has had delays. So in that sense, I'm just not inclined to give them an exemption. Well, so there's also 2 TDR gatekeepers. Did you include those?

[04:14:41] City Staff: Yes. So the Summerhill project. And in those, it's a little more challenging because of the TDR issue and that that's on LAST,

[04:14:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: but I would say that, you know, as the council member has said, this is not a surprise in any way. We've been talking about this for at least 2 years now. Ever since Palmer, the Palmer case was turned over. We knew the rental side was going to change. And we knew we were talking about changing the ownership side too. So I don't, you know, I don't know why developers can't or they should be able to. I haven't heard why they can't. Um, create pro formas, financial performas with the, you know, increased requirements. And if they didn't do that, I just don't think that should be on the city.

[04:15:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:15:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I'm in search of a line to draw in the sand from staff, but I, um, so, but I do have some, I have some strong feelings about a few. So the Fayette project. It changed multiple times at our, but because we directed it to, and at this last meeting, we told them exactly what they should do. It was the inclusionary units at a specific, I believe that we directed units on site at a specific amount. But, um, or we... Right, but I think we just, we gave them clear direction, and they, the reason they've taken so long and done all this was, it was us telling them to take longer. It wasn't them taking forever.

[04:16:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I mean, well, with all due respect, they had an approved project, they requested a gatekeeper, and then they requested a revised gatekeeper. So those were all their requests. They had a project that could have been built two years ago.

[04:16:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yep. It could have been. But anyway, that doesn't change what I think. That's the stacked by Condos Project. I'm not going to apply change from our current requirement to something completely new and make them potentially redo it all again. So, um, that one, I feel pretty strongly about, does does staff have an anticipate it for the um, for the, um, East Wisman middle field one is that anticipated in 2020 or pre, or this year? Or do you know if that's

[04:17:13] City Staff: The TDR Gatekeeper? Yeah, that is end of 2019 on this document. Oh, one of them's 2020. Logue, yeah, the mirror. But on the middlefield one, I would say it's the same as Fayette, where we had a...

[04:17:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, I totally that's the other one I was going to call it. We had a study session to actually talk about what the require, what the alternative mitigations might be. So, um, So what I'm, um, I'm thinking of a couple of things. One could be that the application, since we typically, we would deem the applications complete pretty close to the hearing date. So if we had, basically, we exempted the applications as long as they were deemed complete by the end of the calendar year. I think that would cover everything, but everything that I sort of care about except Logue, unless you think Fayette would come back in 2020. And then the other thing that you could do is you could phase this in, you could say that 50%, basically 50% of the new requirement kicks in at a certain time. and then 100%. Instead of just doing the new requirements all on, you know, September one or August 24th. But I think the cleaner way would just be to exempt the to exempt the gatekeeper applications that are deemed complete by the end of 2019. But I'm open to what other people think or if staff doesn't think that's the right timing or designation for things. Do you want to go?

[04:19:03] Unknown Speaker: Cancel, I'm coming. Oh, that made me just have a question. So of the of the list, then which ones would not be deemed complete, I guess. You know, it sounds like one for sure. I just feel like it gets tricky when we...

[04:19:25] City Staff: Yeah, I just want to remind everybody that deemed complete is not typically used for gatekeepers, but if we said, okay, you're ready to go and ready to be scheduled and scheduled for hearing, that's one way of quote unquote, deeming them complete, that means they've given all the information we're ready to go. Yeah, it was just a caution. I mean, this can put staff in a very uncomfortable position where developers will be beating down the door, saying, deem me complete, or I'm ready to go when we have concerns. So, you know, frankly, personally, I think, something like Council member Clark was saying, maybe, you know, what we presented to you is to be consistent with how you did phase one. If you have concerns with that timeline, maybe a phased approach is more appropriate, where we say, you know, 50% of the new fee is due, according to this rule, and, you know, the rest will be a year later, or whatever objective date is.

[04:20:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm open to phasing. I'm also open to, I get that that puts you in a really tough spot. I think the only other thing that I would say is, has staff heard. The reason I don't want to follow what we did last year was because last year's change was it was super obvious. We'd been moving toward the exact sort of numbers and everything that we were doing for quite a while and it was easy to implement Fairway quickly. This, I think, is a deeper sort of overhaul of everything, and I don't mind giving people more time. Have we heard from Triple 5 West Middlefield or 360 South Shoreline? Have they been sort of active, or have they been pretty dormant?

[04:21:20] City Staff: I'm not able to comment on 360? My understanding with 555 West Middlefield is that it had been pretty quiet for a decent amount of time. I believe that there's been sort of renewed, picking this project back up. I don't know to what extent, but it has been somewhat dormant for a good amount of time. Our estimate is 2020 for this point.

[04:21:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, okay.

[04:21:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, Ellen or Allison?

[04:22:11] Unknown Speaker: Just go cancel order, can I?

[04:22:13] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, I was looking at Alison. I wasn't sure. I thought you were pressing your butt. So, I mean, I think that council member Ramirez and the vice mayor bring up good points. Um, I think, though, I think, as a member, Clark brings up a good point on there, there's some that are pretty far along that might not meet that August date. Um, and so I am interested in hearing about the, or if we could look into the phasing. I don't know if that's concrete enough or if we have to do a straw hole on that, but, you know, generally, I'm comfortable with the, you know, um, staff's list, but I think there are a couple projects that are pretty far along that are almost ready to be whatever word we want to use. That's not deemed complete, but, you know, in the approval pipeline. And so I wouldn't, I would want to see those. Cross the finish line. So the 2 options I'm hearing in terms of, um, kind of grandfathering certain projects in is uh, whether they're scheduled for a hearing by the end of 2019, but, but there are there, you find that problematic.

[04:23:46] City Staff: Yes, you find it problematic. I think just from a staff perspective, because they'll... Right. We can process applications very quickly when they have all the information and it takes a lot longer when we have to ask them to provide the information and resubmit them. And so, I just have a concern from staff's perspective that if you put that date out there, that you're going to end up having the pressure exerted on staff as opposed to fulfilling the goal of what you're trying to do.

[04:24:19] Unknown Speaker: And then another option would be to say if they'd come to a gate keeper by a certain time, but then it sounds like some of them are dormant for a long time, so that doesn't work either. Okay. Yeah, no, that's, I meant if they came to a certain gatekeeper at a certain, on a certain date, but some of these have been dormant for so long that that doesn't work. So that was one that I had in mind. So the phasing seems to me be the most practical option.

[04:24:56] Unknown Speaker: Can I just ask real quick? Have Triple 5 Middlefield and 360? Have they filed formal application? Or is it just the gatekeeper applications in filed?

[04:25:04] City Staff: These are all formal applications.

[04:25:06] Unknown Speaker: file form applications, okay. So I would, um, I think my thoughts are closer to council member McAllister's. I feel like if a project has already come to us that, and we've given substantial input on it, that, you know, we're setting expectations and to change those expectations midway through, I think, makes it difficult for everyone. So I would exempt the TDR gatekeepers because I think we've given substantial input on those. For me, maybe the compromises, the TDA, our gatekeepers, are exempt, but the regular gatekeepers are not. Yeah, that one is has changed. Enough that I'm okay. It's changed. The project has changed a little bit, too.

[04:26:07] City Staff: No, they're still doing 100 ownership units plus the apartment. So, one the one at 101 shoreline has... Yeah, they changed ownership, but the project has basically stayed the same. And so that's, I mean, you're still getting the same project and we are getting ownership and we're getting apartments.

[04:26:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, it's, let's see, are there any other comments, because it sounds like we, are you in the kid? Okay.

[04:26:36] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So, um, maybe this is a question now, but uh, since we are allowing alternative mitigations, is there, there's some room there? So maybe it's in phasing, or instead of phasing, could they offer something more, if not on-site units, to satisfy this?

[04:27:06] City Staff: If they came in under the new rules, yes, they could, but that would be over and above this new high bar that we're setting.

[04:27:20] Unknown Speaker: So to like, I don't know the value of prefunding, for instance, but if it was something like that. We had trying to find a compromise here.

[04:27:34] City Staff: For the prefunding, in terms of alternative medications under the new program, we suggested maybe one way of getting at the estimate of the value of that is just the time value of that, of that. And I guess with the alternative mitigations, as RT is saying, is that, um, if the notion is that the alternative mitigations could provide some flexibility that would ease the burden, that would actually be the, it would go in the different direction of alternative mitigations are meant to be, which is provide a higher requirement, than the 15% on-site.

[04:28:09] Unknown Speaker: Yes. And I understand that. But because these are in this, you know, timing and we don't have a clear, I don't think, I don't know if we have a clear direction right now, I'm just trying to find a way to compromise here. It might be better to just set a later approval date rather than trying to But I don't want to burden you for staff, frankly. They're all going to be now, you know, coming in.

[04:28:40] City Staff: Yeah, they will, but, you know, to some extent, we've used that in the past because the council approved your project. And that I think we've done often enough. It's sometimes a completeness. We're scheduling our project as we look at the TAL. Sometimes you have to move things around to make sure things fit and it's not always clear.

[04:29:03] Unknown Speaker: The other option I thought of, you know, just trying to be, is then setting it at 12.5%. That would be a version of the phasing that, you know, under the staff recommended timeline, it would be 12.5%, and then after a certain date, a year from now, or whatever, it would go to the 15%.

[04:29:31] Unknown Speaker: One question, and I have a compromise proposal, and then you can all decide if it's good or bad. The 1001 shoreline, do we expect that before the, when are you?

[04:29:42] Unknown Speaker: End of 2019, I don't have a specific month on that.

[04:29:46] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So I think, um, so my, my, um, My proposed compromise would be to one, um, so I would exempt the, the TDR gatekeepers, um, and I would exempt, um, um, any, any projects, um, any, any of the other gatekeepers that, I don't know whether it's, I don't want to say deemed complete, but basically they set the date of, like, the end of the end of the year, because I think that'll cover 1001 shore wine. It'll cover Fayette. It won't cover the 2 that have been dormant. And I don't think we should worry about that. And then, and then, and then proceed for everything else, proceed with your recommendation for the 60 day period with the estimated effective date.

[04:30:43] Unknown Speaker: So there'd just be the TDR exemptions. And we essentially grant exemptions to 2001 Shoreline and the Fayette project is really what it boils down to. But if you want to use the date of the end of the year in order to do that, that's fine too, or if you want to call out specific projects, if that's easier, we can do that too.

[04:31:02] Unknown Speaker: So I would just say, use the exempt the TDR gatekeepers, that category, and then exempt anything that you schedule for a hearing before the end of the year. Of the 4 that are regular gatekeepers, they would have to be scheduled a hearing before.

[04:31:19] Unknown Speaker: They would, which it sounds like we expect the 1001 Shoreline and Fayette projects to come to us before the end of the year. Are you saying there's a schedule, they're entitled by the end of the year, or something is scheduled by the end of the year, because, you know, we may deem them unofficially complete in December, but we wouldn't take them to EPC till January in the council till February or something, so I just want to be very clear what the expectation.

[04:31:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think, whatever you feel, the designation that will cover those two, um, that, that category of those two would be, that, basically, those are the two that have come to us, um, or that we've, um...

[04:31:59] Unknown Speaker: They'd be ready to be scheduled.

[04:32:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. It's not deemed complete. It's whatever... whatever designation you would...

[04:32:07] Unknown Speaker: So does this apply to all the gatekeepers, or the TDR gatekeepers are in a separate category, exempted no matter how many years?

[04:32:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was putting the TDRs in a separate category.

[04:32:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So, basically, even if even if the lobe project comes to us in 2020. Or 2021.

[04:32:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, then, well, then, well, then, well, sorry, okay. If you think it's easier just to set the date at the end of the year, then let's do that and not even get... I would put all of them under scheduled by, if, you know, just because an example is the 7 unit project that has just been sitting dormant for 3 or 4 years, you don't want to incentivize that.

[04:32:50] Unknown Speaker: Okay. We'll have to figure out a way and come back to you with some option of how to get there. But the idea is that they would not necessarily have the date before the end of the year, but the date would be scheduled before the date would be set. Is that what you're saying? I wanted to clarify that, because it's, we could schedule a date by December 31st, but the hearing would be after. So are you talking about the hearing would occur before the end of this date or that a date would be set for a future hearing before that date. Because there are 2 different things.

[04:33:29] Unknown Speaker: So I think Chris was saying, a date would be... They can't control the council schedule. They can control when they submit everything and get your sign off on your ready to be scheduled for counsel. That should be, in my mind, that's what's fair to them. And that's what should be by the end of the year. I have no idea if there were 4 other people or 3 other people for that, but that's where that's where I was heading.

[04:33:54] Unknown Speaker: To clarify, TDRs are not being treated differently now.

[04:33:58] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:34:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, sorry, Council member Ramirez.

[04:34:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Very quickly. So the timing is proving very challenging and I'm, it's hard for me to, I don't like arbitrary dates or, it just feels like there's, we're trying to find something specifically to carve out exemptions for certain gatekeepers. And I'm really struggling with that. My preference and there may not be support for this, but, you know, a couple of months ago when we had the study session on the villa gatekeeper, the Prometheus Project, you know, there was a determination that the community benefit that was being proposed was insufficient. And I lost the vote, but the council had directed, you know, a greater expectation of community benefit. There's nothing that prevents us from doing kind of the reverse. So if part of the concern is financial feasibility, you know, when these projects come back to us, we can say, we understand that there's a financial impact from the new affordable housing requirement, so we can be more lenient with some of the other expectations. And I'm thinking in particular of community benefit, but there may be other things we could do to ensure the projects aren't, you know, aren't highly negatively impacted. There are other ways of demonstrating sensitivity than trying to find an arbitrary date that makes sense.

[04:35:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: I like your concept, but then you're doing it project by project, and you're making a decision on a project by project basis about whether how much less community benefit they should be able to ride. And I think a date is a much cleaner line in the same.

[04:35:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But historically, I feel like it's always been project by project with gatekeepers. I remember, you know, observing the council in 2013 and the community benefits that were expected then were far less than our expectation now. So it's always been evolving. And that's the fundamental risk with gatekeepers. Is that our expectations of all?

[04:36:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[04:36:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so I actually agree with counselor Ramirez, council member of Ramirez, hard to say. Um, there is a community benefit component, and I didn't really necessarily want to bring that up, but, um, I think that does offer flexibility, so we could take this into consideration when we're looking at benefits. But, um, I get my, I don't know, clarification or request would be to go to 12.5% for projects up until the end of this year that are scheduled to come forward. I just don't think a complete exemption is really, um, is... It's a fairness factor for me. And, you know, as I continue to say, as much as it's on the city, it's also on the developer, and I don't think this was not a surprise. So I just feel that there should be some responsibility on the developer side. And, you know, again, whether these projects are good or not or not. I actually don't even know at this point, like what 555 West Middlefield's going to be like. So I don't really want to pick and choose projects, to be frank. And I think we just set a date and said, yeah, if we if you're willing to go to 12.5 , I can support it. But if not, then I can't.

[04:37:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The reason I can't, I'm not comfortable with 12.5 is that We've looked at the, we've had a dedicated study session with one of these gatekeepers and said what our expectations are, and we've had and we've done the same thing with another one of them. And I just, I just don't think that's, I think that's right. And then everything else that you mentioned triple 5 and all that would come in 2020 and wouldn't be exempt.

[04:38:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I think we're at the point where we can do a straw vote. And we've got a proposal from council member Clark, which is, if I've got this right, the project's listed on page 18 of the staff report, if they have, if a date has been set by the end of the year for when they would be heard, They would be exempt. I would like staff, I mean, but it's basically, they deem that they're ready to be scheduled. But... So how many are in favor of that?

[04:38:53] Unknown Speaker: Wow. Well, I... There you go.

[04:39:03] Unknown Speaker: Just to confirm, this includes the TDR application.

[04:39:07] Unknown Speaker: Great, I'm not calling them out separately.

[04:39:09] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[04:39:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Nobody has anything for question seven, right?

[04:39:15] Unknown Speaker: I do. Sorry. Just that... Um, the only issue is, uh, the check ins, and I would like to, um, say, 5 every 5 years, at least, we revisit this. I don't think I'm leaving it for 20 years was much too long and waiting for the council to make it a goal or whatnot. It's just too much effort. And, you know, who knows how this is gonna work. And so I think it would be prudent for us to go ahead and put in a check in time. Do folks, how do you folks feel about that?

[04:39:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so I check in and in 5 years. Okay, um... Council member of Ramirez.

[04:40:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I've got two, and if they don't make it through, that's okay. But the first is, um, the concern about the BMR rents increasing more quickly than household income. So my understanding is that the AMI has increased fairly significantly over the last couple of years, and if the BMR rents are tied to that and increasing correspondingly, that could be that could pose a financial hardship to the tenants. And so I don't have a solution for that, but it would be, you know, just sort of exploring if there are ways to address that. And then the other, I think it was Joan, who suggested, looking at a slightly lower maximum AMI for rental. In my mind, you know, we're serving 2 different demographics with this program, the ownership is serving the missing middle, the moderate income, and the rental housing is more appropriate for lower income folks. So I would have a preference for having the maximum 8 AMIB 100% instead of 120%. And the other concern that I had thought of, you know, based on the experience that the vice mayor has brought up a couple of times, if there's a recession, then we could end up with BMR units at the 120% AMI level that are actually above market. And so I, to minimize that, I'd rather sort of focus that program toward lower income categories. So those were the 2 that I would suggest.

[04:41:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do other folks have comments on just those two? Vice mayor, I'll be Coca.

[04:41:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, my question is, what do you do with the folks between a 100 and 120% AMI? I think we have to have a continuum, and so that's why I'm inclined to keep it the way it is. Because then you have this gap and I don't know how you feel that.

[04:42:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I, not to revisit question one, but, you know, I was, you know, I'm fairly comfortable serving that income bracket with the ownership BMR side, but so I'm interested in other comments as well. But my preference would be at 100% AMI. We could probably do some of both, but I have a preference for using the ownership program to address that need.

[04:42:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[04:42:53] Councilmember John McAlister: The only thing I would be interested in is making sure everything was adjusted for inflation. So that, you know, we don't have to always come back and readjust and inflation goes up, goes down, we could adapt. So I'd like to see that incorporated into all your numbers.

[04:43:12] Unknown Speaker: I would agree with that.

[04:43:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Others? I say lots of nodding heads for that one.

[04:43:20] Unknown Speaker: Just to confirm that, that does, um, upward and downward adjustment for inloofy is based on CPI.

[04:43:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, um... I guess I'll ask... Staff. Um, did we summarize everything?

[04:43:42] Unknown Speaker: I think we need to go back to question two, unfortunately. I don't think we got final clarity on the ownership part of that.

[04:43:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Sorry about that. That's true. Okay, so, um, if we are going to say there's a preference for ownership units on site. And people did answer, but we didn't have a clear consensus on that one, because some folks said they wanted to address, I think it was question three, the alternative mitigation before they responded to that. So, I mean, we can do a straw vote and see where we are. So do folks, um, want to say that we have a preference for the onsite ownership units. If so, raise your hand.

[04:44:37] Unknown Speaker: Well, is it a requirement?

[04:44:39] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's the question in my mind. It's Except if you can propose... the expectation, but there's always the option of an alternative mitigation.

[04:44:48] Unknown Speaker: It is a requirement. Oh, it is a requirement.

[04:44:50] Unknown Speaker: But there's always the option of the alternative mitigation. Okay. That provides greater benefit to the city.

[04:45:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, okay, so the requirement that you build the ownership units on site, but you do have the option of proposing an alternative mitigation. Raise your hand if you're okay, okay, give that. I can't see. One, two, three... Hold on, sure, pancakes. I can't say. Oh, thank you. Okay. So that's five. Okay. Did we cover everything?

[04:45:35] Unknown Speaker: Just to confirm that that date we set for exemption works for all projects, right? Through the spectrum, gatekeeper, non gatekeeper.

[04:45:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay, yeah. Oh. Oh, I thought we were just talking about gay keepers.

[04:45:49] Unknown Speaker: Well, there's also non gatekeeper projects.

[04:45:52] Unknown Speaker: The non gatekeepers, what I had thought we were doing was going with your recommendation for those.

[04:45:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay. The staff recommendation, which was the 60 day notice.

[04:46:04] Unknown Speaker: Okay, go with staff recommendation.

[04:46:05] Unknown Speaker: Okay. But you should confirm that with everyone else.

[04:46:08] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think I think just some sense of if everyone is okay with that.

[04:46:14] Unknown Speaker: That was my assumption, too. Okay.

[04:46:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I think we're done with this topic.

[04:46:30] Unknown Speaker: I move that we continue past 10 p.m. to item... whate... 9.

[04:46:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, so, um, let me see here. My agenda's got buried on this table here. Okay, so that would end, um, 8.1, and we would move on to item 9, council staff, committee reports. Are there any? Vice mayor, Abbekoca?

[04:46:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. On Thursday, we had a cities association legislative action committee, meeting, and we took positions on several bills. Um, most of them on the housing bills that are moving through the state legislature. I'll just read off the numbers and what they're tight or what their description is. AB 1487 is the regional housing enterprise, the hubba, the new agency that's being proposed. We took a pose position. AB 11 is the RDA replacement. That one was a support with amendments. So MTC and A-Bag legislative committees should have met on Friday, and there are some recommendations to amend that Bill and we, um, the big one was about how schools are, um, are made whole. Um, so we included those amendments. SB 50, which is now combined with SB 4, a pose, AB 1279, the high resource area, designation, oppose, AB 1485, is a streamlining, um, for middle income. We support with amendments and I'm sorry, I don't have the amendments here with me. SB 6. This is about creating a database of developable land. We're staying neutral on that. And also we're just going to watch SB 13, which is an ADU bill, um, that seems to, right now, seem a bit heavy-handed in compliance and reporting. We also reversed our position on ACA one, which would have lowered the threshold for bond measures to pass for affordable housing projects to 55%. We had originally taken a support position, but that was reversed to oppose. And then when non housing bill. Um, there's some concern about these other bills, the housing bills like the, um, you know, the hub, the new agency, and if that agency is able to put bond mentures on the ballot, um, it would then be at the 55% threshold and several. It was a split vote, but several members just don't support the agency creation. So they didn't want to give that authority, should it be creative. Um, and then the non, uh, the non-housing bill was uh, A, B, 836, which is um, the Clean Air Centers pilot program that, um, the Bay Area air quality just management district is uh, sponsoring. I can send more details on these bills if you have any questions.

[04:49:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, happy to. Send it along and as, and then I know Councilman Will Clark will be discussing these at A-Beg. soon. Council member Clark.

[04:50:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have to report since, I think, cities and funds were spent on it. I attended the city's association dinner on Friday. I was the only one from Mountain View. It was very lonely, but it was a really good... They actually had a lot of students there that we got to make some angle with and we had a panel on autonomous cars. So it was an interesting, good event.

[04:50:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anything else?

[04:50:28] Unknown Speaker: So I have a couple things. I had attended the VTA policy advisory committee meeting, and we talked about the budget among other things. And we had a council transportation committee meeting last night. And we talked about a lot of topics. Um, the Willowgate neighborhood, um, a block on Villa, right villa? Yeah. And view, view. I thought it didn't sound right. as well as a scooter share pilot program, as well as the El Camino Real streetscape. And it seems like there was one more. I know, it was a long meeting. Okay. And then, um, I also attended a meeting that was, um, convened by Assembly member Berman and the Silicon Valley community foundation, um, on, as well as, um, Kimberly Thomas was there. And it was about homelessness and RVs. And I don't know that we came to any conclusions or actions at the end of it, but it was the start of a discussion about, is there something that all the cities could do to address this issue? Council member McAllister.

[04:52:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to give it. So, an update. BTA has been in negotiation with its unions, and you may have heard last Friday. We gave them a best and last offer, so they have gone through preliminary steps to strike, and so we're just waiting for them to pull the trigger, or... accept what BTA has offered. So just be prepared for VTA. Being very well reduced. Well, they will have, if they go on strike, the VTA does have independent contractors to come and run a very limited route. routes.

[04:52:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Anything else? Okay, then, uh, for the city attorney, is there a closed session report?

[04:52:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: This evening, the council had a closed session, and there is nothing to report on either of the two items on the agenda.

[04:53:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. On that note, we will adjourn the meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 21st, 2019, at 6:15 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →