May 21, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Start with the pledge of allegiance, if you will join me for that. of the United States of America andation indvisibleber. Next, our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:30] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, and I'm sorry. Council member McAllister is absent. All other council members are present. Thank you.

[00:00:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Are there any council members who would like to pull an item? I'd like to pull item 4.3. Are there any members of the audience who wish to pull an item? Okay, seeing none. I would like to propose that on item 4.3. That, um, we go with one of the alternatives suggested by staff, and that is alternative 2, that we increase the public art allocation by 18,000 and select both of the, uh, the art sculpture that the, um, Visual Arts Committee recommended as well as the Mauritia Farnsworth artwork bench. Any comments by, oh, council member Ramirez? I think we can do this. We've already opened it up for public comment, right? No, we have to open up 4.3? Okay. Go ahead, if you had a question or comment. Did you have a question or comment? Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on item 4.3? Oh, ah. Come on up.

[00:02:30] Visual Arts Committee Chair Jesse Cupp: Hi, everyone. I'm Jesse Cupp, Chair the VAC, and I just wanted to go over a little bit of background for the, our selection of the Wyandotte Park artwork, and what we recommended. So originally, at the April 10th VAC meeting, we had voted for the sculptures presented by NA Asterus, which was 2 owls sculptures, and then we sent back some comments saying, hey, maybe we can get some different animals, maybe some chickens, and we got good feedback from the public about those. Chickens at the next meeting, and actually, it got bumped up from 2 L's to 3 chickens, because they take less. They take less bronze to cast because they're skinnier. They're a little bit smaller. And then Raid Rodriguez and Public Works offered to pour. He said, hey, what if we pour the concrete and you don't have to pay for that. Could you give us more art? And she said, yes. So we got 4 chickens. I think we're getting a pretty good deal. And we had positive feedback from the public on that. So that was the highest vote getter. And then at the next meeting, we heard that some council members had preferred benches as an option, some kind of artistic benches. So, um, The motion that ended up passing was 1st a recommendation to have those chickens at the park, um, And just for the public for some background. Wyandotte Park and they're Wyandotte chickens. It. a breed, which I didn't know myself until recently, but I think it's pretty exciting. Pretty fun. And then the 2nd option we presented to council was to go with the chicken sculptures and the 2nd place vote cutter, which was a nice artistic bench made of redwood and handmade from Oakland. So that's just the reasoning behind our recommendation, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

[00:04:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez?

[00:04:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I appreciate the VAC's bartering from two owls up to four chickens. Yeah, good work. I just wanted to support your suggestion, Mayor, to include both the artistic bench and the chicken sculptures.

[00:04:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[00:04:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I had the pleasure of visiting the visual arts committee when this selection was being made, so I support the move that you're making, I thought the process of the committee was really good for selecting art. It was very, it was very well thought out, and, frankly, when I was there, although I didn't get to vote, I was rooting for both the, well, they were owls at the time, but both the birds and the bench. So I'm really happy that it's moved in that direction. I thought they were both excellent choices. And I wanted to commend you on the work you're doing. I think that as we grow, visual arts is really important. Thank you.

[00:05:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments or questions from council members? Well, Council member Clark.

[00:05:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Have we identified the source of funds for...? I'm sure we can find the funds, but it isn't general fund money.

[00:05:41] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, normally we allocate one% of construction to art, which is for one installation. We do have contingencies in the budget, and I'm sure public works will manage this project so well that it'll come under budget and we will manage it. If not, we will come back to you with a budget amendment.

[00:05:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it says the Wyandotte Park project has sufficient funding to cover the additional.

[00:06:05] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yep. Page 4 of the staff report at the bottom.

[00:06:10] Visual Arts Committee Chair Jesse Cupp: And I would also just add, um, that if you are worried about funding, it might make sense to possibly get rid of one or two existing benches at the park, since we're adding in a new bench anyway. And, um, public work sold us those existing benches cost 1500 each. So you could save a little bit that way. you.

[00:06:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um... I'll move the... I think we have to vote on these separately before modifying them.

[00:06:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, can't we just do 4.3 with option 2 as part of the consent calendar?

[00:06:42] Unknown Speaker: You've taken public comment on all of them, so you could do them as one motion.

[00:06:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. So we have a motion by council member, Clark, do you want to?

[00:06:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: The motion is, the motion is to approve the consent calendar with the modification alternative 2 that you identified for 4.3.

[00:07:04] Unknown Speaker: So you have a motion by Council member Clark, and a second by Council member Hicks. So we're ready to vote on that.

[00:07:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And that passes unanimously with council member McAllister absent. Okay, and the next item is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council? Can I see a show of hands on non-agenda items? Okay, you can have 3 minutes. Be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. We do have a timer here. We also have, for those of you who haven't been here recently, at the end of the time, you'll hear a chime.

[00:08:10] Board Member Patrick Arrons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and council members. My name is Patrick Arrons, on the Foothill De Anza Community College Board, proudly representing Mountain View on that community college board. And, um, my short and sweet remark is, I just wanted to wish Vice Mayor Abikoga a happy birthday today. And uh... And as my, and also as one of my former bosses, I see how much dedication and time away from your family this takes, and I just wanted to say thank you for your public service. Happy birthday.

[00:08:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you and happy birthday. Anyone else wishing to address the council on item not on the agenda?

[00:08:59] Joan McDonald: Joan McDonald speaking for myself. But AAH would definitely support this, and so would League of Home voters. I just haven't had a chance to check. Today's weather is such that this particular item is extremely important. For years, I have wondered why shelters for women and children. Stop at April 1st. Because even though the temperature may not drop significantly, it's still not safe for women and children to be out, sleeping outdoors. This year, April 1st has come and gone and we have had an enormous amount of rain. I would suggest that one of the hardest jobs to survive is just surviving homelessness. And I would hope that the city and the county and whoever else might be involved, could take a good look at our shelter policies, and make them year round and safe. Thank you.

[00:10:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on an item not on the agenda? Okay, see...

[00:10:33] Joan Bradovski: Good evening. Can you hear me?

[00:10:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Good evening.

[00:10:36] Joan Bradovski: I'm Joan Bradovski. I live in Mountain View. I'm here to ask you to change direction on the, on banning RV parking in Mountain View. I ask you to be the Mountain View city council that finds solutions. We've built here really beautiful public buildings. We have an expanding trail network. We support the CSA and its services, and we're creating a whole new community in North Bay Shore. And these are real solutions to real problems. But banning RV parking will not be a solution, not for our vehicle dwellers, and not for the rest of us, either. A band says it's not our problem, goodbye. And we know that these vehicles, house families, who work and study in Mountain View. That's why they're here, and that's why they're not in Pescadero are up on Skyline. So how can we pretend that a ban will make them disappear. So should we establish rules? Yes. Find good locations, double yes, outlaw them. I hope not. Not in mountain view that I know. So, the mountain view, I know, solves problems, even if they're difficult, and I ask you not to support the ban when it comes up, if it does, on June 11th. Thank you.

[00:12:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes? You know what? Tonight, there might be different perspectives on the topics that we're discussing, and I ask you all to listen carefully to what others have to say. We do want to hear what everyone has to say, but there will be no clapping or booing or any other demonstrations of support or opposition to what people are saying. We just want to hear what people have to say. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on items not on the agenda? Okay, then we will.

[00:12:52] Taylor Williams: Thank you. My name is Taylor Williams, and I'm a certified law student with the Stanford Community Law Clinic, and I'm speaking out against the potential oversized vehicle ban on behalf of our client, the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition. I know that no draft language has been proposed yet for such a ban, but after reading the ACLU and found a law foundation of Silicon Valley letter, our office has done some independent research to look into potential constitutional issues with the ban. And we find that their most likely would be litigation after a ban of oversized vehicles was put into place via ordnance. There are a number of state and federal constitutional issues with a ban against large vehicles. For example, the ninth circuit has recently stated that cities cannot punish people for involuntary acts, including homelessness unless they're able to provide shelter indoors. And as we all know, the current shelter and safe parking situation in Mountain View is far from providing complete alternatives for our vehicle residents. So we ask the council to do both what is right and what is constitutional, and that is to oppose a ban on oversized vehicles. Thank you.

[00:14:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else? He wishes to address the council on an item not on the agenda tonight. Okay, I'll try again. Saying done. We will close this portion of the meeting. And we will move on to item 6.one, which is 777 West Middlefield Road, residential project. And we will start with a staff report, and or a staff presentation, and if you could introduce yourselves, that would be great.

[00:14:36] Unknown Speaker: Madam Mayor, could I just chime in first to let everyone know the reason that council member McAllister is not here is because he is recused from this matter, because of his financial interest in real property that's located in close proximity to Cooper Park, so that is why he's not participating in this item.

[00:14:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[00:14:59] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council. My name is Diana Pancholi, senior planner with the planning department, and I have with me tonight, our planning manager, Stephanie Williams. The item in front of you tonight is a multifamily residential development located at 777 West Middlefield Road. The approximately 9.84 acre project site is located to the west side of Middlefield Road between Shoreline Boulevard and Moffat Boulevard. It has a general plan land use designation of medium density residential, and a zoning designation of R3, which is multiple family residential. The surrounding uses include office use to the north, Mountain View, Buddhist temple site, to the south, multifamily residential development, and office to the east, and commercial developments to the west. The project site is currently developed with 2082 stories apartment units, which were built approximately in 1917. A little history of the project. In July 2015, the city council authorized a gatekeeper request for redevelopment of the site, with density up to 60 units per acre, allowing new residential units up to 563 units in total, and a 0.5 acre park. A revised project was reviewed by the planning commission and the city council in fall of 2016, which introduced increased density, total number of units went up to 716, and proposed to provide a portable housing instead of the public park, which was proposed in the original proposal. In 2018, a revised proposal was presented to the city council with revisions to the Affordable Housing Proposal of the Gatekeeper Project. The key feature of the project, revision included 144 Affordable Units, to be reserved for Mountain View Wisman school district teacher and employee housing. This also included the BMR requirements for 5% low income housing and 15% moderate income housing. In total, 120 units for to be reserved for school district, 20 units for city staff housing, and 20 units to be reserved for initial lease period for income qualified existing residents. This also included agreement with the school district for use of Cooper Park open space. The proposal tonight includes rezoning of the current R3 zoning district to a planned community, P district, which will allow development of 716 units in 3 new buildings. It also includes an underground parking garage and associated side improvements. The project includes 144 affordable units in a standalone building along Shoreline Boulevard, shown as building C in the site plan. Building A and building B will house the market rate units. And the project includes studios, one bedrooms, and 2 bedroom units with a total FAR of one. 85. As you can see in the side plan here, the project has 2 street frontages along Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard, and each one of them have a vehicular entrance to the underground parking garage, which will be located under the market rate units of building A and building B. The site also includes various on-site amenities, including open space areas, balconies, swimming pools, private courtyards for each of the buildings, bike storage, et cetera. It is important to know that a key feature of the project is a bike path connection between Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard, as can be seen, um, at the bottom of the side plan over here. The proposed building uses a traditional architectural style, mixing more contemporary expression of some common residential features, such as projecting bays and balconies, with more traditional residential materials and roof forms, building A, B, and C vary in height, between 3 to 5 stories, uses wearing roof forms, and use a range of strategies to fit in the area and reduce the overall appearance and mass of the building. The applicant team has made several modifications to the design of the project based on the direction from planning commission, city council, and the development review committee.

[00:19:43] Diana: One significant change to be noted is the location of 5 story elements of the project towards the center of the site, and transition of to lower heights as we move towards the periphery. The project uses model parking ratio for market rate units, and uses one space per unit parking ratio for affordable units. The project is proposing on bundle parking and has done a parking analysis to support the reduced parking ratio in the proposed project. The project also has a TDM plan proposed, which was included with the staff report. The project consists of around 187,000 square foot or one 4.3 acres of usable common open space. As mentioned earlier, this includes publicly accessible linear open space, 6 courtyards, one of the and one for even the affordable housing buildings separately. The project also includes rooftop deck, roof decks on top of building ANC, and all side amenities will be shared between market rate units and the affordable units. The project also includes around 127 heritage trees, which is proposed to be removed as part of the project due to their proximity to the project improvements. A minimum of 473 trees are proposed to be planted at a ratio higher than 2 is to one replacement ratio as required by city. And this does include a lot of native trees which have been proposed in the project based on the discussion at the EPC. Public benefits were required as part of the gatekeeper process, because the project includes requests for additional intensity through the proposed general plan and zoning modification. In October 2018, study session, the city council supported the idea of providing affordable housing for the school district employees as a satisfactory community benefit for the project. The project also includes the bikepack connection between Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard, which is seen as a community benefit. Additionally, the city will also have an agreement with the school district to use the district open space at Cooper Park. The preparation of the traffic study for the project, included traffic counts at 28 intersections around the project site for potential level of service impacts. These existing trips were then added to the project trips for approved but not yet built and not occupied developments in the area. The results of the traffic study found that the project would result in a net increase of 147 AM peak hour trips and 180 p.m. peak hour trips. As compared to the adopted significant thresholds for the city of Mountain View, the analysis showed that while traffic would increase on the nearby streets as a result of the project and other future developments, the impact of the project traffic would be less than significant. And in Vamala Impact Report, EAR was prepared for the project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. The draft EIR includes project mitigation measures that will reduce most of the potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval of the project, in addition to their incorporation into the mitigation monitoring program. As part of the project, the existing 208 units on site will be demolished. These units are covered under the city's community stabilization and Fair Rent Act, CSFRA, and Tenant Relocation Assistant Ordinance Trail. Till date, 123 of the 173 estimated eligible units have applied for the trail benefits. To date, 106 units have vacated, including 87 units with full trail benefits. The project has begun implementing the provisions as required by the city CSFRA and Trao, and will continue to do so through the process of the project development. The project has gone through various rounds of review, including early council and EPC review of the gatekeeper authorization and review of the revised project proposal. Project has also gone through various reviews by the Development Review Committee, which recommended approval in August 2018. The applicant has conducted several resident and neighborhood meetings as listed in the staff report. The airport land use commission also reviewed the project and recommended for approval in November 2018. The project was reviewed by the Informal Planning Commission in April 2019 and received a unanimous recommendation from the commission at that meeting. In conclusion, staff recommends that the city council certify the project EIR and approve the project applications subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed in the staff report and listed on the slide here. This can food staff presentation, I would like to note that we do have our environmental consulting team. ICF present here tonight, if you have any questions, and we also have the project applicant, Perry Herri representing Fort Bay. Um, if um, council has any questions for them and I and Day from the Mountain View Wisman school district for any questions for the school district. Thank you.

[00:25:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And I believe the applicant has a presentation.

[00:25:46] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Madam Mayor, I hate to interrupt again, but I had one more clarification that I wanted to add. You'll notice on page 24 of the staff report. It talks about the district recording a restriction on Cooper Park, and it agrees not to develop that site for any reason other than for public school purposes, and I just want to clarify that, that it's for any school or educational purposes, and since it's a very long term agreement, There's a possibility that there could be a private entity that would lease the land. But I want to make it very clear that, um, the Cooper site open, Cooper Park open space will be preserved. So the purpose of recording the restriction, even if it is, for example, a daycare that could be on the site or a private school, that won't impact the restriction, that it'll be, the open space will be preserved, but I don't want to have anybody have the misimpression that it's always going to be a public school. We just can't predict what will happen. Thank you.

[00:26:52] Perry Herrera: It's on now. Mayor Matachek, uh, Vice Mayor Avocoga, members of council, I'm Perry Herrera, I'm with Fort Bay. where the owners are 777 Middlefield, and tonight, we're very pleased to be here, in front of you, after working closely with staff for the past four years, and with several council compositions and EPCs. And I think we're very pleased and proud of the product that we've jointly produced. I think the community and the city will feel the same way after tonight. And I do want to thank Diana for working so closely with us for the last two years and the rest of the staff. I'm sure the council's already aware, but city manager, Dan Rich and Janie Quinn, have been tireless advocates on behalf of the city to secure 20 city staff housing units, uh, with the school district and us, and, uh, to secure uh, Cooper Park as uh, a park for the foreseeable future, for the benefit of the city. So, I think they deserve some recognition for doing that. Um, Tonight, I'm not going to discuss a lot of the details that Diana's, um, excellently talked about. I just want to address some of the community benefits and the questions that we've received from council and EPC, just at a high level. We believe this project produces the housing that this community critically needs and an ideal location in our opinion. We believe this location is a bridge between North Bay Shore, Terabella, and Caltrain. and downtown. It's conveniently located within a half a mile of Terabella in North Bay Shore, half mile of Caltrain. I've walked and biked this both directions in less than 10 minutes. More importantly, for the teacher housing portion, the 144 units, it's within a half a mile of 3 schools and within a mile of 5 schools. So it's really an excellent convenient location for district employees and teachers. I'm, you know, the we can talk about the project metrics as we go on. I really want to talk about the community benefit of the teacher housing first. This really evolved about a year and a half ago, and it wouldn't have been possible without the vision of leadership of Randy Suda, and also Dr. Rudolph and the school board. It really is an innovative project, 1st of its kind that I'm aware of in California. And it really is only possible because of a confluence of features of this project to make it happen. There's some scale here, there's an ability and will of the district and the city to make it happen. Um, because otherwise it's not possible to finance with tax credit financing, moderate income housing for teachers. I'm glad the city got to review the Palo Alto housing project a couple weeks ago, which required $23000000 of subsidy to make 70 units of affordable housing happen on El Camino Boulevard. We have similar economics here. And when we started this project, we committed to not asking for a subsidy from the city. And we believe the economics are the same here, and it allows us to provide an equivalent of $50 million of subsidy to get these 144 units built. Today, projects like this cost about $750,000 per unit. That was similar to the Palo Alto housing ones. Ours are slightly bigger, and the land is a little bit more expensive. The construction financing reaches about 400,000 per unit. That leaves a $350,000 funding gap, which we are subsidizing through all our efforts. subsidizing the land, the parking structure is being absorbed in the market rate, the amenities are being shared with the affordable, and we have been incurring all the holding costs and the design costs for the past 4 years. So that, to us, equates to a $50 million subsidy, which the city otherwise can use for other projects, Dr. Rudolph will talk afterward a few minutes about the benefits of this to the school district and the community. Let them discuss that. The other main feature on this project is our tenant relocation efforts. It was important to us to make sure we have a robust tenant relocation effort that's above and beyond the trail, and I believe we did that. We offered $10,000 to all the residents, regardless of income qualification. The trail only required three months of rent for residents below 80% AMI. We provided $12,500 to residents that were moderate income. We offered $15,000 to the residents that were below 80% AMI. We also offered $5000, an additional subsidy for special circumstances. The trail only offered 3000. Additional benefits we offered. As of March 8th, 2017, which was the date we offered the notice of intent to develop. We did not increase rents for the original residence. We also offered the low income residence, the right to return to the affordable housing units, and we're working with the district to make that happen. And we also offered other residents the right to come back at the same rent for the first year in the market rate units. We've had ongoing communications with the residents for the past 3 years, a lot of tenant meetings, individual meetings, small group meetings, and I believe we've done our best to go above and beyond anything that was required. When we offered the notice of intent, there were 173 eligible residents. 106 have vacated today, 67 remain. We've paid one.34000000 to date, one.2 was in relocation benefits. The rest were deposits. We expect to spend at least another half a $1000000 in relocation benefits. The other part I want to talk about before I run out of time is our request for a park credit for our linear park. And that's a 50% credit per the ordinance in the city, which provides 50% credit for certain parks that meet requirements per the ordinance. We are offering publicly accessible, linear park through the middle, for people to connect between middle field and shoreline. We're also offering a class one bike trail on the south side of the property, also available to the public. This park offers a green gathering area, a lot of, you know, you know, top-class landscaping and features and amenities. And the city staff considered this as adequate to qualify for the ordinance. This results in about a $6 million benefit to us, which we really need to make this project happen, we believe we can use that $6 million to provide a lot more services to the community than the city could provide and that wouldn't even be enough to buy an acre of land. This provides all the benefits of a park without any of the costs. The public can use it. We're gonna construct it. We're going to assume all the liability. We're going to do all the ongoing maintenance, and the public receives all the benefits. So, I think it's a good use of public funds to let us actually construct this on behalf of the city, and provide all the benefits to the city without the costs. The other topic that's come up a lot has been the number of trees. We are, there are 202 existing trees. By the time the project is done, there will be 504, 2.5 times as many trees. The canopy will be larger after 15 years. Currently, the site includes about a 3rd paving and this slide is pretty illustrative. The new project will only have 6% paving. It'll have 56% open space. The current site has 47 open space. And another feature that I think it's important is the native landscaping on the site. As you can see, currently very little native landscaping, a lot of turf, and there's some concrete ponds that we pump water into. It's mostly grass in these ponds. Very little native. On the new project. We will have predominantly native species of landscape, and all very, you know, all it's native, it's consistent with water conservation and promotion of native species and birds and habitat. So I'm out of time, but I will be available for questions. I'm going to yield some time to Dr. Rudolph. Thank you.

[00:36:55] Superintendent Rudolph: All right. Mayor, Mattachek, Honorable City Council members. I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. For those of you who don't know, I enable Rudolph Superintendent of Mountain View Westman School District. I once heard a quote that you can tell what a community values about how they spend their dollars. And in my travels across this country, in the states that I've lived in, I've seen community sell off libraries. I've seen them eliminate parks and succumb to the need to cater to industry. But not here in Mountain View. As a community, we have worked together to preserve the economic diversity that is a hallmark of our community. You have focused on the forgotten middle, our elderly, as well as our families. And though your decisions may not win favors with everyone here tonight. They have provided a clear message about what the community's priorities are. And I'm hoping that this trend continues tonight with this resolution. Dealing with a teacher's shortage is not a district issue. It is a community issue. It requires collaboration, it requires creativity, and most of all, it requires determination. It requires all elected officials in Mountain View to rally behind our most precious resource our children. More importantly, retaining the best talent for our children demands a vision, a vision to see past today's needs. We, Fort Bay, city staff, and the district have collectively come to an agreement to develop a creative solution to our toughest problem, teacher and staff housing. I need to commend the staff, Diana, Randy, who's no longer with us, Dan, Janey, and Wayne. Fort Bay Developers, Ellis, Kathy, Perry, as well as our trustees. We've worked on this for over a year and a half . And I'm glad to hopefully check this one off the box and move on to something else. But developing and creating a viable option for our teachers and really our service sector is a public good. It is an important aspect of our community. And on top of that, we have the ability to preserve green space also. So, I asked you to take the next step in this innovative practice, because I could go on and on about how you need teachers in our community. But I ask you to go ahead to help keep our teachers in Mountain View and to approve resolution 6.one, allow us to move forward with creating teacher housing. Thank you.

[00:39:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so before we open it up for public input, are there any questions from council members, for either staff, or the applicant, or the school district? Vice mayor Abekoga.

[00:40:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. My question has to do with parking in the unbundled parking. So my understanding is when parking space per unit, and then if anyone wants an additional parking space, they can rent it. So, well, those extra, the extra spaces being built in the development in case folks want a 2nd unit or how does that work?

[00:40:32] Diana: That is correct. It is being built, and as I mentioned in my presentation, their building is asked per the model parking standards for the market rate units, and one is to one ratio for affordable housing. So it will be built. It's just that, you know, as a TDM measure, they're proposing unbundled parking to reduce the use of just automobiles and cars.

[00:40:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So there's no issue of like being oversubscribed in case folks wanted to rent a 2nd space. All right. Thank you. And then I know one of the issues that have come has come up is that currently there is quite a bit of species, animal species on the site, and particularly birds, and there's been some interest from members of the community, and also from our Audubon society folks to try to maintain the wildlife there. And having a water feature to um, attract and maintain them. And yeah, thoughts on that. Is that being included in the design and.

[00:41:43] City Staff: So that aspect of ecological balance has been addressed in the EIR, assessed and reviewed as well. As far as the water feature remains. The applicant had an initial design, which had some water features involved in it, but as the project progressed and, you know, it went through so many design review committees. And looking at the past few years, uh, water usage, uh, regulations and stuff, the developer uh, progressed towards a design which did not include any water features. And that, you know, that has given space for more open spaces, which are usable for the community that is being proposed over there.

[00:42:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[00:42:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:42:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have some related questions. One is about the bundled parking. I have a little bit of a concern because this is an area that doesn't have a lot of transit, unlike the other examples of bundled parking in the report from other developments. And, um, but, to my relief, kind of, there's, I guess, uh, there's a report back after a certain amount of time, and I'm wondering, a follow up on the vice mayor's question whether if, if there was, if the report back indicated that, um, people were having trouble, you know, there wasn't enough transit, or the bike paths were not completed, and so forth, if that could be adjusted. Like, what's the purpose of the report? Is it for adjustment in a case like that?

[00:43:24] Applicant: Absolutely. We have our TDM consultant here from Nelson NyGAR. I think the intent is to evaluate the efficacy of the TDM measures, to make sure they're actually working, and if they're not to adjust them accordingly. And, um, yeah, that's the intent. And we do have 170 extra spaces in the unbundled pool to use. So that's, and the way the adjacent parking is set up, we have 2 very big arterial streets adjacent to the properties. So it's very inconvenient to park on, you can't park on the street to do so. You'd have to cross a couple major streets, traffic signals. It's just not the most convenient thing to do. I think you're better off paying a little more and getting another parking space if you really need one. But the whole point of the umbundle parking, it's been shown to be a very effective TDM measure to discourage automobile usage and incentivize people not to use it.

[00:44:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, thank you. I fully support unbundled parking. I just think this is an unusual case a little less near mass transit, and with somewhat higher income, possibly affordable housing. So, just the reassurance that you could adjust after the report back is important to me.

[00:44:48] Applicant: Absolutely, yes.

[00:44:49] City Staff: Now, I would just like to add that condition number 25 in the project conditions includes a standard condition, which says if we see any parking shortage in the future, the zoning administrator can actually bring the project back and review that aspect of it.

[00:45:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, good. And then a second, I did meet with a number of current residents, and they were, one of their concerns is that the open space currently is a very natural environment, and I understand that's, that's, um, also the plan is to have made actually more native species than currently. But I'm wondering what flexibility there is, they were hoping that maybe the plan is not complete, and you could consult with some of the people who've been consulting some of our local environmental groups that have been consulting in North Bay Shore, such as Audubon, Canopy, and the Sierra Club, they were hoping there was some way, they could find to fit in, like, a natural water feature, and some, just make sure that it's, that has some of the current ambiance was important to the current residents, and I was wondering if there was flexibility for that.

[00:46:08] Applicant: Yeah, I mean these aren't final plans. These are conceptual plans, so there's gonna be a course of a year where we're working on final building permits. So we'll certainly work with some experts to try to make this as native and natural as possible. I mean, one thing to note, I mean, the current pawns are not natural pawns. Those are concrete pawns, and people usually kind of abandon their pet turtles once in a while. And so, I mean, and the ducks aren't really native there either, but we'll definitely work with the experts in North Bay Shore and trying to make something that's a little more consistent with the native.

[00:46:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my very last ask is that, um, is that although you're, you're offering a lot of enhanced relocation assistance, um, some people, some residents told me that, that virtually no one was probably going to relocate there, in part because there was one year of rent at the same price. I'm wondering if you could extend that to 2 years. My guess is that you'll have almost no takers, but that's my question.

[00:47:26] Applicant: You know, the additional year we provided was really well above and beyond what the trail required, in addition to keeping the rents the same, for it's gonna be 3 years by the time they would have to vacate. So we have not increased rents on the original residents for the last 2 years. And we will not increase it for another year. Again, that's above the trail. That's not in the trail. The one year with the same rent is also above that. So, I mean, I think uh, I think it's going to be tough to do, to be honest with you. It's that we've really exhausted our resources on this with our, we believe benefits. So I think right now we're committing to one year. It's hard to know how many people will take us up on it. And also the people that do our low income, we have work with the district and the city to accommodate them in the teacher housing. So that is a whole separate arrangement. We've only found so far less than 10 that are low income. Everybody else is moderate or above.

[00:48:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel that for Clark.

[00:48:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I had 2 questions. One would be, if under the condition that you described, for the ZA to come back, I assume, one, that we would have the ability to do, if we wanted to do an independent parking study, you know, a few years in just to see what the utilization was and to verify whether or not, you know, complaints are valid, would we have the ability to access the property to do that without needing their permission or obviously you'd work with them, but I just wanted to make sure that we would have the ability to do that under the ZA under that condition.

[00:49:20] City Staff: Yes, and that was actually something that was done for the Madera project. There's a lot of consternation because that was one of the 1st projects to use the model parking. And so that was done with a good outcome. But that's certainly something that we could do. I think it would also be helpful for everyone and just understanding how these are working or continue to work.

[00:49:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, and I assume one of the easiest ways if we find that there are issues would simply be to, you know, work with the applicant or the owner at the time to reduce the cost of the unbundled parking so that folks might be more incentivized to utilize it as opposed to needing to construct other parking. But we, I assume we could provide input on the cost of that if there were issues.

[00:50:05] City Staff: Yeah, and there's other things that could be evaluated to increase the efficiency of the existing parking.

[00:50:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, and just to confirm, in the staff report, but I've heard a few different, the one-to-one ratio is just for the affordable units, every, all the market rate units are at the model parking stand.

[00:50:22] City Staff: That's correct.

[00:50:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thanks.

[00:50:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Commé.

[00:50:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I want to disclose that I met with the applicant, and actually, my 1st round of questions are for the applicant. Um, So one of the, um, things that you talked about was, uh, for existing tenants to have the option for 1st right of being able to return. I was wondering, um, I think as of right now, no one has applied to return. But could you share a little bit more with us about the efforts that you've made and the efforts that you'll continue to make to, um, if tenants want to come back, that they have that option.

[00:51:03] Applicant: Yeah, I mean, we've had ongoing meetings. Kathy Thibodeau is on our team is regularly meeting with the tenants. We're also working with RWS to address the relocation payments and qualifications. um Nobody's expressed it yet because we haven't issued the one-year notice to vacate. But our property management team is here, they're alliance residential, one of the largest in the country. And we've offered that assistance to help them look on throughout the properties that they manage, and they also have database of all the other properties in the community, that they can recommend. So they have all of that information available to them and they can come any time. Right now, they can they're welcome to vacate without any notice at any time. They would get a return of their deposit. So they don't have to provide a 30 day notice. They can receive their entire deposit pack in the 2nd half of their relocation payment. So, um, I think we're trying to be as accommodating as possible at a two-year lead up to now, another year. So hopefully they can, you know, take advantage of the resources, but we'll do whatever we can to help them find another space.

[00:52:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And then a follow-up question. So one of the questions that we put in council questions was talking about phasing. And I know that that was originally part of the 1st set, I don't know, the original original proposal. But my understanding is that it's not going to be happening this time, is that correct?

[00:52:41] Applicant: Correct, correct. Yeah, the 1st project was, you know, very different. They only offered 37 BMR units. We're now 4 times as many. And we were sharing one big parking garage and that parking garage is servicing the teacher housing because we're subsidizing all the parking in our garage. So it'd be, we can do 2 phases.

[00:53:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Okay, thank you. my next question is for Dr. Rudolph. Thank you. Um, so I was wondering, I know that, um, obviously it's gonna be for teacher housing, um, but one of the things we've been trying as a council to discuss is targeting the moderate income, can you just share with us a little bit of the breath of people that may be able to qualify, I'm assuming it might be administrators as well as teachers and others? If you could share.

[00:53:33] Dr. Rudolph: Yeah, so this, so we have 667 employees. Um, technically minus one, but I'd rather say six, seven, seven, 667. And of those, 237 in our initial initial request actually expressed interest. So for the 124 units. When we originally started this conversation, we, because we raised our salaries by 28%, we have actually priced out all of our teachers, which is why we requested the move to moderate, but it also means that our staff members are still eligible for it. So depending on the family size and their income level, they would be able to qualify based off of what the 30% AMI. But to give you an idea, a 1st year teacher in our district makes around $64,000, which puts them right at that range, but we have individuals who make 40,000. Uh, we have some individuals who make 50. And so the range is pretty much there. But essentially this will target, at least for the district. are probably, if you're looking at teachers, the most vulnerable individuals. These are the individuals who are new to the profession who are working on getting their tenure. Um, but it also could affect the single mother, um, who has, like, my mom has multiple kids and is working in a profession and at the same time, you know, meets the income requirements. So we expect it to fill up. And then we have, um, as part of our agreement and a couple other school districts have also reached out to us. Um, we do, we will plan on offering it if we can't fill it up um, to other um, public entities for their staff to join. Because at the end of the day, the numbers only work if it's completely full. And so we needed to be completely full.

[00:55:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. So other public school districts have reached out to you.

[00:55:26] Dr. Rudolph: Yeah, so Mountain View, Los Altos has reached out. Los Altos school district has reached out and Sunnyvale have reached out. And Sunnyvale and Los Altos have expressed interest in the possibility of creating a joint public agreement for all 3 of us. We just haven't had, if everything else is going on, we haven't had the opportunity to explore that just yet.

[00:55:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Got it. Thank you for sharing. Appreciate that. Thank you. Those are my questions.

[00:55:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you sit down... The vice mayor has a follow up question on that one.

[00:55:54] Dr. Rudolph: Sure, no problem.

[00:55:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So you mentioned the other school districts. Could you explain the waterfall, though, it's not maybe Wisman school district staff first.

[00:56:04] Dr. Rudolph: Correct.

[00:56:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Then do you go to the city 1st or do you go to other school districts outside of Mountain View?

[00:56:10] Dr. Rudolph: So the city has 1st right refusal for 20 units, which is part of the $2000000 that they are donating in order to get the 1st right of refusal.

[00:56:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[00:56:19] Dr. Rudolph: In the event that the 1st write of refusal doesn't fit, then we can rent those out on a year-to-year basis just because we have to make we got to make the final payment. But for our employees, it's all income based, and that's our agreement with the city that this will always be affordable housing. So we will 1st start with our employees, to try to fill out the additional 124 units. In the event that that doesn't happen, then we would open it up to the other public school districts, um, in order, our government agencies in order for them to go, but again, it would be on a year to year basis, because the premise here is that the only reason why it's not a gift of public funds is because we're filling up and we're not losing money on it. But they would be subject to the annual turnover, unlike our teachers. And I'm assuming city staff will probably want this too. Our teachers are expected to stay in there somewhere between 7 to 10 years because the idea here is that this is part of a larger strategy to help them afford purchase a house. And so the reason why we want to reduce rates for our teachers is so they can save income.

[00:57:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. So, anyway, maybe it's a conversation for us, but is there a, if our city employees, we had more than 20? Is there a way for us to become a part of that? you know, should you have extra units?

[00:57:39] School District Representative: As long as they fit the income requirements, that's what we're bound to.

[00:57:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But would you be having to, you know, my concern is this is, for me, you know, just be straight up. I want to make sure that we take care of our Mountain View employees, school, and city employees, since the Mountain View projects. So before you go out to other school districts, could we, the city, have 1st dips?

[00:58:06] School District Representative: Yes, so... In order to manage it. I know this is a couple steps down a road. Like, even our board has to divest their sort of interest and create a governing board to oversee the affordable housing, which would, so that group would actually be the, the, the recommendation. So we would need to find out from the city, how long they plan for people to be there, and then we'll create all the terms, but I don't see that as being a problem. Okay. The most important thing is that this deal only works. If we pay... the bill. If we can't pay the bill, then we have a larger issue on our hands. And we can pay the bill if we rent it out.

[00:58:43] Unknown Speaker: Right. Yes. So I just want to make sure that we, if we have more interest, because I've heard from our employees that they are very excited about this chance that we would have that opportunity to maybe provide more units. And I do want to point out the high school districts starting salaries closer to 90,000. So they wouldn't qualify.

[00:59:03] School District Representative: I mean, they're at the very top end of the bracket. So this is really, this would really be, I mean, 64,000 is sort of the ballpark we're looking at.

[00:59:11] Unknown Speaker: And we have our, you know, parks employees are around that too. So great. Thank you.

[00:59:17] Unknown Speaker: And I would just add that we talked about what we call the waterfall and that ultimately the goal is to make sure that all the units aren't occupied, so it would even go out to the public if all of these avenues weren't if they couldn't fill the unit. So the city would be somewhere in that city employees would be if they needed to fill the units.

[00:59:37] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and my interest is that we're at, you know, first, on a priority. Thanks.

[00:59:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[00:59:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just two questions. The 1st one for the applicant. regarding the 1st rite of return. So if there are tenants, for instance, occupying a 2 bedroom unit and they have 2 parking spaces, if they were to exercise their 1st right to return, would they be granted to parking spaces even with the unbundled sort of setup?

[01:00:12] Applicant: Yeah, I mean, this offer was, you know, initial lease up concession for the residents there as kind of an additional trail, and if they happen to have a car for that 1st year, I think we can offer that for them. We can make a way to do it without the additional fee. Um, you know, after that, but I have to see based on availability on how many people actually want to use them on old spaces.

[01:00:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so for at least one year, 1st year, have the 2nd space without the additional fee.

[01:00:48] Applicant: Yep.

[01:00:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then a question for staff. Just following up on one of the written questions. It's not clear to me why the voluntarily provided enhanced tenant relocation assistance is not included in the conditions of approval. And just for my benefit, I'd like to understand why.

[01:01:15] City Staff: Usually it is like a project proposal. Like, if they are proposing more community benefits, we understand there might be a lot of details of it, but we just cover it, you know, the higher level details of it only. We don't go into the depths of it. And because the notice of intent, which was sent by the applicant to all the existing resident, it is an administrative record, which is on our, on the city department records as well, and that's why it was not necessary to make it as a condition of approval. Plus, based on a lot of projects that we have seen, lately, there are a lot of conditions that actually get created and modified at the diets. So there's a lot of opportunity to, you know, to work with that. And hence that's not being included yet.

[01:02:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[01:02:06] City Staff: And I would just point out that it the requirements that truly apply are the existing tenant relocation assistance ordinance. So they're complying with that and compliance with that ordinance is a project condition.

[01:02:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, if if a voluntarily provided enhanced relocation assistance benefit does not appear in the conditions of approval, and then after entitlement, they are not provided, how do we ensure enforcement? How do we say, well, you promised this when it's not included in the conditions of approval?

[01:02:45] City Staff: There are some avenues when they, um, based on what they, there's avenues for the tenants based on the letters and the promises that the developer makes to the tenants.

[01:02:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[01:03:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I want to disclose that I met with the applicant as well, and I just have a couple questions. I want to get back to parking. So, was this at one point, completely unbundled parking, and that's why the staff report says that, and that's the impression that a lot of people had up until this evening or a couple days ago. Has there been a change in that overtime?

[01:03:26] City Staff: No, I think from the beginning, the understanding has been, and the applicant's proposal has been that, you know, they're going to give one space, which is going to be a base parking available for all the units, and if anyone needs further parking spaces they can rent it. The reason it has been noted as 100% on bundle is because if you rent a unit and you decide not to have a parking space, you don't need in a parking space that actually goes to the pool of the available parking spaces, which will be available for others to rent it out. So at that point of time, it's basically becomes unbundled because those spaces will be available to someone else. Although the applicant is offering a base parking space. It is not necessary for the resident to use that parking space.

[01:04:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so in the TDM plan, it talks about unbundled parking is one of the elements of their plan, and is that is the assumption that it's 100% unbundled parking or the combination, kind of like we're talking about here, or like how dependent are they on unbundled parking in the TDM plan to hit the goal?

[01:04:43] City Staff: I think the idea is based on what the proposal is for the applicant, but I think the applicant's transportation consultant is here, if we have further, if you want to know further details of the TDM plan.

[01:04:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm wondering if it needs to be modified based upon, I think, the understanding we now have of what's really happening with the parking.

[01:05:10] Consultant Magnus Barber: Hi, I'm Magnus Barber, with Nelson Nigard, transportation planner. So the literature on unbundled parking shows that the range of effectiveness can be between about 2.5% and 15% reduction in trips. So if it's 100% unbundled, it can be extremely effective at reducing vehicle trips. In the TDM plan, we've only accounted for about 3% reduction associated with unbundling because it's not quite a conventional, 100% unbundled program. And in the IR, and sorry, our total TDM reduction is 6%, and I believe the EIR used 5% reduction. So we've been very, very conservative about the reductions associated with all the programs in the TDM plan.

[01:05:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. And there's, um, I sort of hesitate to ask this question, but, um, does that need to be in the conditions that it is? One space is included, unless you don't want it. I feel like we've never had that before, without... Or is that just an understanding?

[01:06:20] City Staff: Um, so it's part of their project proposal, so things that are part of the project proposal, we don't necessarily need to condition. Usually a condition is something, it's a change from what the project parameters are. And this, the umbrella of unbundling has a lot of different options underneath it. We could call this kind of unbundled light, and it actually is utilized by some of, um, most of our major apartment renters in Mountain View and has been found to be very effective.

[01:06:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I appreciate that the it should be part of the proposal, but given how much confusion, I guess I would say, among lots of different people are about it to me. It feels like everything I've seen says it's 100% unbundled.

[01:07:17] City Staff: We can certainly add a clarification condition that would make it clear for everybody in the future exactly what the expectation is.

[01:07:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, that would be great. Um, and then the question about, um, the traffic analysis and the EIR. Maybe I should start with, when will we be moving to vehicle miles traveled? So we get away from level of service.

[01:07:44] City Staff: 2020.

[01:07:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: 2020. And we won't be doing both, right? We'll just completely switch, or will we be doing both, going in 2020 and on?

[01:07:54] City Staff: We will be doing both. It's just the metric of what's considered an impact under sequel. We'll switch to VMT, but we still will be doing LOS for, um, operational impacts for the city.

[01:08:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, as I read the sections in the EIR, as well as there was an appendix to that, I guess I was surprised, although I shouldn't be, because it seems like every EIR we see says there's no impact on traffic. But I just, you know, this is the intersection of Terabella and Shoreline is one that I go through a lot. And in the morning, cars are at an absolute standstill for well more than one signal. And I guess I just find it hard to believe that that level of service is B or B minus. B in the morning, B minus in the afternoon. I would say it's F. So how do I reconcile that with, you know, what I see pretty much every day versus what the EIR says.

[01:09:07] City Staff: So I think the biggest misconception is that it takes into account all the turning movements of the intersection and not just the northbound, which is obviously the most impacted, and it averages out all of those. So when you average out the southbound with the northbound, that's how you get to the B. There's also Nobody is trying to make the assertion that there will not be additional cars as part of projects. What is really being measured is do they exceed a threshold of significance for what constitutes an impact? So it is understood that there will be additional cars added to that intersection, but it doesn't trigger the threshold of saying that that is a significant impact under Sequa.

[01:09:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So there are also a lot of cars going south, and they are making U-turns, that intersection. So to me, it feels like both south and north on shoreline. And actually, frankly, on Middlefield too. Um, because people try to avoid shoreline. So I guess I feel like all directions, although I agree, shoreline going north is the worst. Um, Are these based on actual counts versus theoretical?

[01:10:28] City Staff: They are based on actual counts as well as visual observations.

[01:10:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. But it's theoretical when it comes to the trips from the new project, right?

[01:10:39] City Staff: That's correct.

[01:10:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. See, and we ask. Okay, I think that's all the questions I have for now. Any other questions from council members? Okay, then we will open this up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on this? Um, okay. Um, we'll give you 2 minutes. Be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And again, um, the time is shown several different places, then you'll hear a chime at the end.

[01:11:26] Nancy Wade: Tell me when I should go. Should I go? Hi, I'm Nancy Wade. here to discuss traffic. The approval of 777 West Middlefield and all other projects in the area. Should be postponed until there is a credible traffic study. The existing one used both incorrect methodology and peak commute time. As a result, the intersection at Terrebellan Shoreline was given a level of service of B, indicating it could stand added traffic when it is probably an F and cannot. The study was invalid for two reasons. First, the study incorrectly assume the peak traffic hours from 745 to 845, which makes me laugh when anyone who takes this route knows it tends to be an hour later. Second, according to the highway capacity manual 2000, the methodology used is only correct if there is no backup in front of the intersection that impedes traffic from getting through it. This is not the case from 9 to 10 a.m. at Shoreline and Terabella, where the number of cars that can get through any particular light is reduced by those backed up at intersections in front of it. Approving this project, or even the rest of them, without a credible traffic study won't just affect neighborhood residents. It affects all Mountain View residents who take Shoreline to 101, 85, Google, etc. Mountain View's commuting residents will not thank you for approving this project, particularly without a valid study, since it will add significant traffic to the existing backup, thereby further increasing their commute times. For this reason, I really think you should postpone any decision. I've read through how to do the traffic stuff. It was done incorrectly. And, yes, they counted the cars that went through. But they take the total estimated number of cars that could go through ideally. And they subtract from the amount that did go through and call that the what could be added. But the amount... Thank you.

[01:13:35] Nancy Wade: It does go through. Okay, I won't explain it. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:13:42] Trustee Laura Blakely: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. I'm Laura Blakely. I am a trustee in the Mountain View Wispen School Board, and I want to say, I hope it's not premature. Thank you. This is a really innovative project. We're really excited. We've got other members of the district here this evening. Talk to a lot of teachers. They're really excited about the possibility of this housing. And just to the point about traffic. This project is walking distance, not biking distance, but for the affordable units, it's walking distance to 3 of our schools, Crittenden, Stevenson, and Therakoff.

[01:14:16] Public Speaker: And it's just a short bike ride to Vargas and even down over to Graham. I mean, most of our most of our schools are within in the district office as well as walking distance. Most of our schools are within an easy bike ride. And a lot of our teachers bike. So I'm hopeful that that may help mitigate the traffic impacts. So thank you.

[01:14:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:14:41] Mitch Madkin: Hi. Thank you, Mary Madachek, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, and customer mercy opportunity to speak tonight. Oh, and happy birthday. My name is Mitch Madkin. I here on behalf of Silicon Valley at home. We're here to endorse this development because these 716 new homes, 15% of the moderate income at 5% low income represent a great addition to Mountain View. We're excited by the innovative partnership with the school district. And we're excited that there will be 144 low and moderate income homes for teachers, school staff, and city employees. As the council knows, teachers and other public servants typically make too much money to qualify for traditional affordable housing, but also too little to afford market rate prices. Housing affordable moderate income households is very difficult to finance because there aren't sources of funding for developments that are targeted towards the population. I would also like to bring up that in this dark contrast, to say, Rock Street or 1950 Montecito, that Fort Bay has shown its commitment to fair treatment of current residents by providing relocation assistance above and beyond what the city requires. Since tenants were 1st notified of the intent to redevelop the property in March 2017. They provide important benefits like freezing rents for current residents, and also developing relocation package that offers $10,000 to all residents as of March 2017, regardless of income. And then additional city requirements for low and moderate income tenants, or those who have lived at the site for 5 years previous to that date. But in conclusion, I really want to focus on the teacher housing aspect of this. We believe that as an affordable housing advocacy organization, we believe that retaining mountain views diversity in great schools really depends on our ability to house all members of the community. We would urge the council to embrace this innovative proposal to provide new and affordable and market rate homes in the city. Thank you very much.

[01:16:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:16:37] Adnan: Uh, Mia Matichik, Weismeal, Rabbi, Council members. My name is Adnan. I'm a resident of Philade Lake Apartments, current resident. As a resident, I loved living in this place and I'm really sad to see it go, but at the same time, I understand that we have a housing crisis and I see that there's a lot of good things in this project. It's adding a lot more housing affordable housing for the teachers and for the city staff. So I would like to acknowledge all the great work that city staff, all the council members and the team has done in this project. One of the main things I was concerned about is the trees and the loss of green space, and I've seen a lot of improvements in this project over the last few weeks, in fact, from when this project was presented at the EPC. And I would again like to thank Fort Bay and the landscape designer. I communicated with them directly and they have been receptive of the ideas. But at the same time, I see there's there's still room for a lot of improvement, specifically, I mean, get local ecologists, a lot of local people here who are experts in this, get them to comment on the project and take more of those considerations. Water fountain. I think what a feature, very essential. Let's acknowledge that this place used to have a lot of wetlands and streams and we have encroached on it, right? So I'm not talking about the pawn that currently exists, but it's important, not just for the ducks, but for the phoebes and for the junkos, for the small birds, they all need water, right? So even a few water fountains would be really essential. Lastly, when I signed the lease and moved in August 27, I was not informed by the property manager and the leasing office about it, I only found it later through city notices. So I'm being displaced without any relocation. And there are a lot of other residents who are in the same place. So they also need to be offered the relocation benefits. Thank you.

[01:18:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Okay, no one else wants to speak on this topic. If folks could line up if they want to speak on this topic, I'd appreciate it.

[01:18:52] Kathleen Wortham: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Madam Weissmayer, and honorable council members. My name is Kathleen Wortham, and I work for the Sicondology Leadership Group, Health and Housing Policy. And I'm really excited to express our support for this development. We've seen it come through a really long way and are excited to see where it's at now. We do believe, although there have been some issues with the relocation benefits, that it is a model for what relocation should look like in this city and across our Bay Area, as we know that we're in a housing crisis. Um, and as we know that we really do need to build more housing at all income levels. And on a personal note, my mother is very excited for this project. She's a former teacher. And so she's really excited to see a really great model for teacher and school district staff housing. And that is also shared by the leadership group. I just wanted to share my personal note first. Thank you very much for your consideration for your service tonight.

[01:19:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:19:46] Ken Sukahara: Hello, my name is Ken Sukahara from Saratoga. I'm representing the Mountain View Buddhist temple, which shares the southern boundary here and part of the eastern boundary. I wanted to just acknowledge that being the property, adjacent property owner, I want to make sure that I acknowledge that Portpe and staff has been very helpful in working out this shared ingress egress easement on the middlefield side. But one of the things that I wanted to make sure I went on record with in representation of the temples that we have this aubon festival, the annual one festival in July. It's every year, it's been going on for over 50 years. With the new development here. I just want to make sure that at least Fort B, people allow their new residents to know that this is an ongoing festival that we don't anticipate ever closing down. There's noise, there's smells, there's foods, but there's a lot of festivities, that we want to make sure that the people know it's only 2 days a year. in July, every year, second, 3rd week in July, I think it is. Just want to make sure that all the residents are going to be made aware of it. And, you know, we were here first. So hopefully you understand that. Secondarily, the bike pedestrian path, I think that's wrong, the southern boundary, we like that idea. It's kind of a buffer. It's going to provide access, but we also are concerned that at the shoreline Boulevard exit, it just truncates there at the, and I don't know if there's an access across shoreline, in the past, the reverend's wife was actually killed crossing the street, although albeit illegally. And we would like to make sure that there's some kind of consideration made there to get across shoreline.

[01:21:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:21:54] Unknown Speaker: There you go, man.

[01:22:58] Joel Dean: Hey, I'm Joel Dean. I live on Shoreline Boulevard, across the street from Village Lake. And I forgot to bring my prepared spontaneous remarks. And a previous speaker has made my points more coherently than I could anyway, but I thought, Counsel would like to see what Hexagon Cole's level of service be on shoreline at Terobella. Federates and I have been trying to convince the EPC and council the last few weeks that the TIA part of the AIR is grievously flawed... I think council should postpone, I also think council should postpone voting on approval, the EIR, until the TIA is corrected. It would give hexagon a chance to redeem itself. He would give for it by a firmer footing to move forward on. I also wonder how city staff managed to overlook the actual severe congestion on... parts of Shoreline. Because if the council continues to, okay, flood ERRs, you're going to leave us with a fluid mountain view. And the people that are forced to relocate, due to redevelopment, are gonna be the lucky ones. Long term, the losers will be, the people are left behind in an unlivable neighborhood. All right, thank you.

[01:25:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:25:27] John Keane: Yeah, well, good evening, members of Mountain View City Council. I'm John Keane. I'm a current resident of 777 West Middlefield Road. Live there for over 20 years. It's a really terrific place. Um, want to be expressed my appreciation to Perry and Fort Bay and the team. They've been very good and how they've treated us for the past several years. Keeping us in the loop, you know, informing us what's going on, giving us the timeline, the relocation assistance, flexibility for moving. You know, it's been really good and you've set a good example, but I hope other developers will try to follow whenever this happens. And there are a lot of really good things with this plan. You know, we're getting a lot more housing. We really need it here in Mountain View. You know, we're gonna get 508 more units, which is really gonna help. It's going to help having housing for teachers, for city staff, you know, BMR units. So it's good, but there's still some significant downsides, and I really hope that we can do a little bit more go farther to try to overcome some of those downsides. You know, we're going to be losing 208 units of affordable housing. And, you know, more housing will come 2 years or 3 years from now, but before it's available, We're going to be short 208 units. We've got hundreds of people who are going to be displaced. And unfortunately, our local housing market, that supply of affordable housing. It's shrinking rather than growing. We've got more housing at the high end. It's being constructed, but for many of the current residents, they wouldn't be able to afford to live at some of those new places. So displacement and the changing demographics in the market is definitely a real challenge. We've also heard about traffic. It's already very bad on shoreline. For anybody who commutes regularly on Shoreline, they know how often the traffic gets backed up to Terabella, but beyond. You know, down the middle field, down to Safeway, and you can spend just a lot of times, just sitting there in traffic waiting for it to move. I'm concerned about parking as well. You know, we've had the discussion about bundled and numb bundled, but I think there'll be a lot of households that are, like, two income, two car families, and they're gonna need parking, and we may not have enough there on site, and so people will are on streets. Okay, all right, thank you.

[01:27:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:27:38] Craig Noah: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. I'm Craig Noah from Sterling Estates. We are a neighborhood that doesn't have bundled or unbundled parking, right across the street from the 777 Middlefield property, looking at the reduction in the amount of parking that has transpired through the development of the project. We have concerns about overflow parking into our neighborhood. And there have been people that have spoken very well about the impact of traffic in the Terrabella, shoreline, uh, shoreline intersections, and looking at a 4% reduction in traffic seems to be absurd in the face of reality. I think that I've also heard discussions about the occupancy of the BMR housing, needing to meet some kind of criteria so that it's going to be workable, and it doesn't seem clear to me that that plan has been developed to the point of certainty. Additionally, looking at the scale of the development. There is nothing remotely close to the scale of the development that is being proposed. We have talked about transitions in the context of the Terabella project, and transitions of stories across a street. And if you look at what is on the other side of Middlefield, to the 777 property or the waters, you will see that there is a dramatic transition. The density is also going to be impactful. And so I would recommend waiting until there is a better plan to approve this project. Thank you.

[01:29:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:29:50] Alex Nuñez: Hi, counsel. My name is Alex Nunez. I am here to support the 777 project for a couple reasons. Firstly, narrowing my scope to the treatment of the tenants and residents who are currently there, as we've heard, Fort Bay has definitely gone above and beyond what is currently required legally for relocation assistance as well as other, you know, engagement that they've been giving to the residents. I think that, when compared to previous projects, This one really stands out for how they've managed their relationships with the tenants. And as they noted, there are 67 remaining households there. My understanding is that about 10 of them are in that really low income or low income threshold. Amongst them are also some senior citizens who are currently living there. I think that it would definitely be good for the developer to engage these residents in a bit more of a white glove approach and help them do things like change their address, find a new place, not just give them like a Craigslist, you know, listing, not saying that that's what they're doing, but, you know, that's something that can be conditionally stipulated, and I think would be very beneficial for the very, you know, vulnerable communities who are going to go under the displacement. And to be honest, I'm hearing a lot about the parking and those are very, very valid concerns. But I don't think it's fair to single out this project for that issue. And primarily, you know, this issue of parking is way beyond the scope of this one project. I think, as municipalities and state governments, counties. We've all, in the past, made a collective decision that free parking and abundant parking is something that's good. But, you know, transitions are painful if we want to be more environmentally sustainable. We need to increase our density, reduce our reliance on driving, and start to get people out of cars. And I'm saying that coming from LA, which I love to drive. So...

[01:31:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:31:56] Joan McDonald: Joe McDonald. For League of Women voters and AAH. Madam Chick, Mayor, Ice Mayor, council, staff. There's a lot to like about this project, and it's particularly wonderful that the city and school district has worked together to get where we are right now. I would like to suggest that as you determine how you're going to act tonight, or in the future, about this project, that you look at the cumulative of going from 28 naturally affordable units to 144. Or even 164 if you're looking at that metric. This is a net loss of affordable housing while creating a surplus, wonderful, for market rate housing, we need to have no net loss, for affordable housing, if we are ever, ever going to make a different in the way Our city is going. you

[01:33:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:33:34] Cliff Chambers: Cliff Chambers, Resident of Mountain View, and I'm representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We sent a detailed letter, and I'll just cover some of the high points. Fort Bay came to us 4 years ago and presented at one of our monthly meetings. And we've met with them several times, and I have to say they've been incredibly responsive to the community, and have developed a wonderful project, and we would fully support the overall project. And there's several key components that I think were particularly important when I spend my time talking about. I think the partnership with the school district is very creative and innovative. And on a personal note, I have a 9 year old son that attends Mona Loma school. The principal of the school, Gloria Higgins, is in the audience. The idea for Andrew to have teachers that can live in this community really sends chills up my spot. So I fully support this, because I really believe we have to keep our teachers in the community. The increase density that this allows, really addresses, you know, partially, our job's housing imbalance. It's never gonna solve it, but we need to kind of work towards it. And past councils have approved a lot more jobs without the housing, and really, that has a lot to do with the traffic that we're all talking about. NVCS supports the light unbundled parking. We think it has an excellent TDM program, and I fully agree with council member Clark and Hicks in the ability to monitor the parking and be able to adjust accordingly. But I think we need to fully implement the TDM plan and give it a fighting chance. Thank you very much.

[01:35:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chambers, there's a question for you.

[01:35:31] Unknown Speaker: Quick question, wearing your transportation planner hat. Does is the value of this unbundled parking light concept as a TDM measure the same as if the project were to be 100% unbundled? Are they equivalent for TDM or is one better than the other? Do you have a sense of that?

[01:35:54] Transportation Planner Chambers: Well, I think the person from Nelson Nygar really addressed that in terms of the range of effectiveness. And I think the literature is such that at the higher range of effectiveness and auto trips would be the true, truly unbundled parking for everyone. But I think, particularly because what council member Hicks raised, because of the location, I think the light project type of unbundled parking here is more appropriate, and they've, accordingly, had the range of effectiveness that, I think, is doable, and the 6% reduction, that assumed in the TDM plan, is definitely reasonable. Thank you.

[01:36:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:36:44] Public Speaker: Hi, I'm Siamadasisnados with the Bay Area Council, a public policy advocacy organization for the Nine County Bay Area, working to solve the most challenging regional issues, proactively advocating for a strong economy, vital business environment, and better quality of life for everyone who's here. And, um, you know, when you are looking to move into a community. One of the 1st things you think about is a school. And, how are you going to have a school with no teachers? And that's a sad thing about this housing crisis, because soon we're going to have hospitals with no nurses. We going to have police stations with no police officers and so and so forth. Um, how the shortage has just been getting worse and worse when we're supposed to deliver 180,000 units a year. We just delivered 77,000. So that's an F. But that doesn't mean we just give in to fatalism. So, um, we are very excited about the affordable housing component. We are very excited about the teacher housing component. And I do share those concerns about just making sure that the developer follows through with those relocation benefits, but we are in support of this project. Thank you.

[01:37:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:37:55] Bruce Nagel: Yes, Bruce Nagel, longtime Mountain View resident and member of Carbon Free Mountain View. One thing I haven't heard mentioned at all this time, and maybe it's included in the plan, and I just missed it, is what are we doing to make sure that this is environmentally the right kind of building, you know, 20 years from now? And what that means is we need to make sure that the buildings are fully electrified and that we have the provisions for electric cars in here. If not, the meters and everyone, at least the conduit put in there. So I think whatever happens, if it's in the plan, great, if it's not, then I think we need to think about that, because this is a plan that's going to be around for a while, and we need to have provisions for electric vehicles, and for fully electric heating and support for the apartments. Thank you.

[01:38:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item?

[01:38:50] Unknown Speaker: There was a lot of concern about parking, so I wondered if I could just make some remarks about that. If I explained the thinking behind it, Maybe it would help assuage some of those concerns. Can I get this screen back up? Get a chart here somewhere. Apologies, it may not be very legible at this font size, but we looked at a lot of equivalent developments around the Bay Area in similar locations. So at the very top, for example, is Madera apartments, which you may know is across from Caltrain. Um, They only have 3% affordable housing, um, affordable housing tends to own fewer vehicles and generate fewer trips. And yet, according to the parking study that was done, they only occupy .71 parking spaces per unit, which is granted something to do with being just across the street from Caltrain. But we also looked at a range of other properties in suburban locations in the Bay Area, some of them with 0% affordable housing and some of them almost 2 miles from transit. They are still down around 0.7 spaces per unit. So, you know, in actual fact, people don't actually need as much parking as people often think. And this is really tied in with the affordable component because constructing structured parking, whether it's above or below grade can often cost 50 to $70,000 or even more in the Bay Area, which makes it harder to build affordable units. So making sure that we have the right balance of parking, not too little, but also not too much, helps make it possible to do a large affordable housing component in the project.

[01:40:36] Unknown Speaker: When were these, what year were these done? Stuff do you know?

[01:40:44] Unknown Speaker: Afraid I don't recall. It varies, actually.

[01:40:48] Unknown Speaker: So I know at Madeira, a large portion of that complex is corporate housing, and they don't have cars because a bus comes and picks them up. So on the Madera one, I kind of feel like that's not a great comparison. On the Park Place one. Did we look at the streets around Park Place to see how congested they were with cars?

[01:41:12] Unknown Speaker: Well, who was this study done by?

[01:41:14] Unknown Speaker: The Prometheus parking occupancy was provided by Prometheus.

[01:41:19] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. But the city does have an ordinance for residential permit parking. So if it were to be an issue. Not that I think it would be, because, as Perry explained, it's not very convenient to park on street near 77 middlefield. But if it were an issue, the permit program is available to put in place. Thank you.

[01:41:42] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, there was actually an additional public speaker. I don't know if you would...

[01:41:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, yeah. Thank you. Please come up.

[01:41:51] Public Speaker: Thank you, Mayor, Mayor, Abikoga, and council members. I, uh, was picked these up downstairs here. You have an exhibit on water, and one of the brochures that are being given up is one on gardening for wildlife with native plants. This project will take out a lot of habitat, the way to compensate for it, and the densification is to provide good habitat with what is left. I understand from residents, that the developer has worked with them on native plants. But if you look at this brochure, almost every page has a white meadow or a water feature. Without water, there is no life, and there is no habitat. So, Mr. Raja. earlier, talked about at least have some water features, and I would like to advocate for that. And in general, as we see densification, we need to provide a little better habitat, because it's shrinking, so it has to be a little better. So, just something to think about. And you can put this back if you don't want to keep them. Thank you.

[01:43:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else? It's hard to tell who's in line. for this project versus any other topic. Is there anyone else who wanted to provide us input on this topic? Okay, then we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any additional questions and discussion. Council member Ramirez.

[01:43:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a quick question for the applicant, if that's okay. So, there was one current tenant who testified that he had been maybe inadequately informed about the redevelopment proposal. That's not the first time I've heard that. And I was wondering if you would be able to provide some level of enhanced assistance for those folks who may have made a different decision if they maybe had known about the redevelopment proposal. So accommodations maybe in finding another place to live or some other kind of of enhanced assistance.

[01:44:08] Applicant Representative Perry: Sure, yes, absolutely. I mean, we believe we have. I mean, we have two big signs and everybody signs a disclosure, but for some reason, we haven't done that. Every new resident has signed a disclosure when they move in, this is subject to development, there's 2 big development signs on both sides. And all the leasing agents have been trained to provide that, that's very important, for obvious reasons, but yeah, I would be happy to do that for residents that, for some reason, didn't get notified.

[01:44:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I appreciate it.

[01:44:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:44:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, one of the public commentators, this is for the developer, as well. One of the public comments was on whether you had electric charging stations, which maybe was in my staff report, but I don't remember.

[01:45:03] Applicant Representative Perry: We do. We have, I believe we have 10, at least how many do we have, Edward, at least 10.

[01:45:11] Edward: Yep. And it's also required by the building code.

[01:45:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, thank you. And are the units all electric? Is the entire building all electric?

[01:45:29] Applicant Representative Perry: Electric charging stations, I think, they were talking about?

[01:45:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No. No, I was talking about the rest of the building, so for heating, cooling, cooking, is it all electric?

[01:45:39] Applicant Representative Perry: Um, I don't believe they are, are they?

[01:45:42] Unknown Speaker: No, they're not. They'll be gas. Gas for... Working? Cooking. Is that it? You want it?

[01:45:51] Applicant Representative Perry: I know, feel free. We have our architect here. She knows better than I.

[01:46:00] Architect Jessica Music: Hi, good evening, counsel. My name is Jessica Music. I'm with KTGY. We are the architects on the project. So, we're still very much in design development of the project, working with mechanical engineers as well as plumbing and electrical. But right now we're anticipating there being some gas appliances in the units, which would be probably cooking. Um, I don't know that we've determined if washer or excuse me, dryers would be electric or gas yet. But the rest of the utilities would be electric.

[01:46:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: What would it take to have everything electric?

[01:46:32] Architect Jessica Music: It's just a decision that would need PD to be made by the client. And then, of course, we would have to work with the electrical engineer to make sure that the project is adequately served with those electric distributions.

[01:46:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I guess I'm wondering, is that still a possibility? I don't know.

[01:46:51] Applicant Representative Perry: No, I think we would like to still have gas a part of the project. Did you have a question?

[01:46:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, I understand, um, but as you may be aware, we are in the process of creating reach codes and trying to go to all electric buildings. And so I don't, I guess I don't know, is it, I mean, I'm being told that it's not a cost issue? frankly. You just don't put down the pipes. So, yeah, why would you not convert to all electric at this point?

[01:47:29] Applicant Representative Perry: Flexibility moving forward to have both gas and electric a part of the project. Most competitive projects, almost every other new project offers gas, and I think that's somewhat of a kind of preference for cooking at least.

[01:47:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But we're gonna be switching shortly with our building codes, reach codes. So we're gonna, I think the expectation is actually that we're gonna go all electric. So in light of that. And I know, you know, timing wise, you're just sort of falling right into this, but if you haven't made those decisions, can you look at all electric?

[01:48:03] Applicant Representative Perry: Well, look at all the options. Yeah. You can't finance it. I mean, we'll have to look at it and see if it's viable. I mean, there's some basic standards, I think, that tenants expect. So I don't know what the conditions are in the competitive marketplace, but we'll have to see.

[01:48:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks. Catch some ever, Kamei.

[01:48:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, I'm sorry, Mr. Very, for to have you sit. He's not a... Perry, sorry. Thank you. So... more questions. Um, so, um, your adjacent neighbor, the Mountain View Budist temple brought up some concerns and I was just hoping that maybe you could answer, speak to, uh, speak to some of the concerns that were brought up.

[01:48:58] Applicant Representative Perry: I would definitely provide the disclosures to residents that there will be a festival a couple times a year. They'll sign the disclosures with their leases and make sure they're aware of that, so there's no complaints.

[01:49:11] Unknown Speaker: I didn't realize the Buddhist temple partied so hard.

[01:49:15] Applicant Representative Perry: It's just once a year. It's just once a year. So I'm gonna make sure I attend. Yeah. And then, um...

[01:49:25] Unknown Speaker: It's been going off for 60 years, though.

[01:49:27] Applicant Representative Perry: Oh, yeah. I'm gonna go next year. Or this year. And then as far as the crosswalk, I don't know what, um, I don't know if Renee's here, but what they, what they, um, suggest for the walk, the crosswalk, I think right now they're recommending flashing signs and striping, um, that's what's recommended.

[01:49:54] Unknown Speaker: We do have Renee Gunn from our pokeworks department, she's a project engineer on this. Thank you.

[01:50:02] Senior Civil Engineer Renee Gunn: I'm Renne Gunn. senior civil engineer. There is a CIP project that is in design right now that is designing bike improvements on Sterling all the way up to Middlefield. And within that design is a lighted crosswalk, somewhere close to where this would happen, and then there's a future CIP for construction of those improvements. Thank you.

[01:50:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you. That's my question. Thank you.

[01:50:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, Council member Hicks.

[01:50:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Just very quick, I wanted to, um, emphasize what previous council members and the mayor has said about, uh, converting to electric, I know that induction, stovetops are becoming popular, and even something that kind of higher end apartments and homes have. So I'm hoping that you can at least consider that, because it is extremely important to fighting climate change, to making that conversion.

[01:50:56] Applicant Representative Perry: I'm definitely concerned. Absolutely.

[01:51:04] Unknown Speaker: Um, I have one more question about, uh, traffic, and I don't know if it's possible to answer this, but, um, is there any way to estimate that if we had switched to a VMT analysis versus the LOS analysis, uh, what it might say and versus what we're seeing with the LOS? or what we're experiencing day in and day out as we go through those intersections?

[01:51:46] Consulting Planner John Schwarz: Evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council. I'm John Schwarz, consulting planner to the city. I'll start off and maybe Diana or Aaron from ICF will finish this. Just wanted to acknowledge some of the comments regarding LOS. Level of service analyses are often very unsatisfying for lots of folks. They're done from a very big picture. They're done to the threshold set by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the city. Oftentimes traffic, as you saw in the video, looks bad for some minutes, but over the hour, all the movements, the calculations may come out a bit differently. That's part of the case here, and that's part of the frustration, and I certainly understand that. In terms of your question about VMT. It's really apples and oranges, unfortunately. Vehicle miles travel is a measurement of how many trips and how far people have to drive and that's really the focus. Going forward, as you acknowledged a little earlier, that the state is trying to reduce trips overall, to meet some of our greenhouse gas and planning land use planning goals. So it's hard to say whether if we had made the switch already, if we would have, we would have different results, but they wouldn't be real apples and apples to levels of service calx. If that answer.

[01:52:58] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I get that there are different measurements, and you would have different results, but, um, with a VMT analysis, do you get a reading of, like, this is, uh, an A plus project or something because it really reduces VMT or, you know, it's a so-so project, so it gets a C, or something like that. Like, what's the result of that?

[01:53:18] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, right. The way it's going and feel free to jump in here, Diana. It's a comparison of the average VMT for the region, for the neighborhood, for the city, the Bay Area as a whole, and how your project or your site stacks up in that average. Are you encouraging people to drive more or less than what's going on around you? And I think you're absolutely correct, since we have not done the analysis from that perspective yet, so we're not able to provide that kind of a assessment to you. The other factor is that, you know, as the city progresses towards adopting VMT thresholds, we might have a better idea, but since we don't, we don't have any thresholds adopted right now, we will not be able to assess whether it meets or it doesn't meet the city thresholds.

[01:54:04] Unknown Speaker: Well, all jurisdictions use the same methodology for VMT.

[01:54:12] Unknown Speaker: I think the methodology might be the same, but the how you, um, what kind of thresholds that you might adopt might be different. So I think we might be able to answer that better as we move forward and see some of the paths that other jurisdiction, including our own city, is gonna take.

[01:54:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[01:54:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions or comments? Discussion. Council member Clark.

[01:54:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, Do you want me to make the motion? Okay. So, I think overall, you know, this project in one incarnation or another has been going on for 4 or 5 years now, I think even before, during or before my time as mayor, was the 1st incarnation of it. I think where it's landed is overall, you know, it's not perfect, but I think overall, um, it's, uh, it's, it's, you know, I think it sets a precedent in terms of what we're doing with, you know, both affordable housing and partnering with the school district and with the city to provide units for folks who live and who want to live and work in Mountain View, who I think will not have, you know, tremendous impacts, the tremendous impacts on traffic and other things that I think folks are worried about. I know others have approached, have approached me with parking concerns. If this were, if there were, if there was all sorts of street parking, you know, adjacent to this, then I'd be a little bit more worried. I think people running across Shoreline and Middlefield to avoid having to pay for a 2nd spot for a 2nd car is probably not going to be as common as folks think. With all due respect, you know, the spots in front of your homes aren't yours. The cities, they're the taxpayers. Any resident of Mountain View should be able to park in any place. They all park on the street in front of me. And I know that's a little bit of a change for the neighborhood, but I would have much more. I would have much more sympathy if these were just office workers coming and going and parking on your streets. That's what the parking permit program is for. I'm not worried about a teacher parking in front of my house, and you shouldn't be either. So, those are public spaces, they belong to all taxpayers and residents in Mountain View. And I know it's uncomfortable to have folks parking your neighborhood, maybe you don't live there, but that's the reality through much of the rest of the city. And that's, and things change over time. And, If they were changing so dramatically for the worst, folks, as home values wouldn't be going up, double digit percentage points a year over time. And, you know, with the traffic impacts, I'd be much more worried if this were developing as a commercial development, frankly, because those are, I think, most of the traffic that you're that we're seeing and that we experience and that I experience when I go through there, I just sort of avoid that area at the peak hours. But most of those folks are going, are, you know, trying to get to work in the area as opposed to, I think, get out of, get out of there. I think most folks are leaving for work or leaving a little bit earlier, and I think the folks who are primarily causing the traffic are the folks who are arriving in Mountain View, trying to get to those offices. And then the final point that I'll make is, it may be farther away from the key transit stop, but we have, we're building a cycle track, we're building along shoreline, hopefully up through Sterling, which is a nice walk in and of itself. The cycle track will go across 101 and connect out to North Bay Shore. Reversible bus lanes. We'll start construction, I think, in the very near future. And you have a lot of amenities just across shoreline for folks to, you know, get groceries and other things without having to get in their car and go elsewhere for that. So, for all those reasons, I think this is overall a good project. I'll go ahead and make the motion, and then I have a couple of requests of the developer as part of that that have been discussed earlier, but I'll move the staff recommendation, which includes that we adopt a resolution certify in the 777 West Middlefield Road, Residential Project Environmental Report, EIR, and adopting sequel findings, including mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring, or reporting program, to be read entitled only further reading waived, that we adopt a resolution approving a general plan land use Amendment for a property located at 777 West Middlefield Road, from the medium density, residential, to higher density, residential land use designation, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Then we introduce an ordinance, amending the zoning map for the property located at 777 West Middlefield Road, from the R3 2 Multiple Family Zoning District, to the P Plan Community Zoning District, to be read entitled only, and set a 2nd reading for June 11, 2019, that we adopt a resolution approving a planning community permit, development review permit, to demolish the 208 existing units on the site, and to construct a 715 unit apartment complex with a low grade parking and a heritage tree removal permit, to remove 127 heritage trees on the 9.84 acre site at 777 West Middlefield Road to be read entitled only for the reading waived. We adopt a resolution approving a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing lot located at 777 West Middlefield Road to create 2 lots to be read entitled only for the reading wave, and that we adopt a resolution, a private, uh, adopt a resolution approving a private open space credit for 50% of the value of the 66,662 square feet of land within the development at 777 West Middlefield. And the staff recommendations part 7 and 8. I don't believe I have to read, but part 8 does require 5 votes, and then I would respectfully request of the developer that they strongly consider and look into providing doing an all electric project. We are pretty close to looking at our reach codes, and I think it's reasonable to assume that's one of the things that will come out of it. I know that in the marketplace, folks may think that gas is better for for whatever reason, but I think that we need to, it's our job to lead and to change that conversation. And so, um, I think, um, I think that's something that we would strongly recommend that you consider doing. And then the other thing that I would ask is to look at. And you can do this through the permit process after today is look at the ways in which you can build in certain water features there. Others may disagree with me. I personally, having been mayor during the drought year, am not eager to pump water in there, but I think creating some, creating some sort of basins or other things that can collect water in the winter, and create sort of a natural habitat during the wetter months, I think, would be a real benefit. I'm really not interested in year round water features. But I think if you can construct it or lay out the green space and other things in a way to where in the wetter months, you have a sort of a natural habitat during the wetter months. I think that would be a strong addition there. So, it's my motion, my comments.

[02:01:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:01:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and I appreciate council member Clark making the motion, so I don't have to read all of that. Um, but I, too, um, I've met with the applicant for disclosure, and, um, I, too, support this project. I think overall, it's a well thought out project of 4 years in the making. And I do appreciate the changes, I think, that have been for the better. Most importantly, for me, has been that the working with the school district in providing housing opportunities for our teachers and educational staff. And I, um, it's been, I know it's been somewhat mentioned out in the public and, um, but I don't know, I don't think people really understand what a big deal this is, but 144 units is a lot. And to be able to offer that for, you know, school staff is really quite an accomplishment. I want to thank our staff. I know our city manager, city attorney, our staff who work closely with the school district, staff, and thank you for your hard work to making this happen. Um, I, you know, we have neighbors from the Cooper Park area and save Cooper Park and it really was, I think, a great, um, you know, a great collaboration where we were able to respond to many concerns and satisfy most of them. You know, I've heard folks say, well, these should be BMR units for low income folks. Frankly, they are because our educational staff fall into those categories. Even our city staff do. You know, our planning staff are here and thank you to both of you for your hard work, but, you know, their colleagues have left because of the high cost of living here as well. And so these are shortages that we are seeing in our work here and we need to respond to that. There's an article in the voice or the op-ed about how, you know, we're doing a lot of talking and we're not actually taking action. We're taking action here tonight, folks. So, you know, I hope people will recognize that. I want to thank the developer. Thank you, Perry, for working with us and coming up with this creative solution. I appreciate your going above the trail. I know the concerns about parking and traffic are real. I would say in terms of the parking. It sounds like it's really, the parking spots are there. It's just a way of trying to discourage them from being used and encouraging folks to not get another car, but use alternative modes of transportation. So, um, And frankly, you know, we really have to move that way and be serious about it if we want to reduce, you know, vehicle trips, then we really have to discourage folks from getting cars. They're getting into their cars. And I actually think this is the right place for this because it is within walking distance. You have Safeway across the street. You know, the train station is maybe a 10 minute walk. We go to the temple and we walk there sometimes. It's really walkable. And with the teachers and the education staff, yeah, literally, you're just, I don't know, quarter mile, if that from Stevenson. And I really do expect folks to walk with the crossflock. adding the transit lane, um, you know, the cycle track, walking bike. And if that's not happening, then we have, you know, other issues that we would really need to deal with. But it is. It's a mindset change. And so, you know, if you have to pay for that extra parking space, maybe you will think twice about getting another car. And so this is our, you know, we really are, I think, taking action to try to move forward that way. I would say in terms of traffic too, yeah, I know it is pretty bad at certain times of the morning. I see it in the morning usually. But again, with all of the improvements that we're making, and I mean, these are the improvements that are coming online 1st is along the Shoreline Boulevard area. So, you know, we'll see. I think this will be a good test as to whether these transportation improvements are going to help or not. And then finally, the issue with parking going back to parking. So, um, I don't have a problem with the bundled parking and so forth. My problem is, and I see this in Alison and I see it in my neighborhood. And it may be more, it's because it's a commercial building, the office folks. There is a parking garage under the Serrano building, and for whatever reason, the folks are not parking in that garage, they're parking in our neighborhoods. And yes, I understand that it's public, so anyone can park there. But it's really, it's not a parking issue. It's a safety issue for me. The more cars that are parked there and we have the roundabouts and whatnot. So I want to, you know, I really want to address this. Like, you're building these expensive parking garages. How are you going to ensure that they park in that garage? Like, that's my fundamental question and issue with this. So I'm okay with all this as long as the people park in that garage, right? So, um, yeah, I don't know if they're sat, that's something we could monitor and measure, but that's what I would like to do. Thanks.

[02:07:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member come in.

[02:07:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. I know there's been a lot of discussion, but I'm just happy that we're not talking about another gas station. I think the last thing we need is a fourth gas station at Middlefield and Shoreline. Um, So, you know, I think that, um, there's been a lot of discussion and what I always try to evaluate is the effect on the existing neighbors. Um, on a project. Um, you know, including residents, including the Buddhist temple. And I think that the applicant has made a lot of effort over these last 4 years to try to incorporate all the different feedback. I'll be supporting the motion and the amendments to the motion that council member Clark put in. There's a couple other things that I'd like to see if people would want to include, but I'll save that towards the end. Um, When we're talking about, um, this project, for me, um, it is a bit of a trade-off, one of the things that's been discussed a lot is housing, the housing crisis we're in, you know, and transportation, and to me, the housing is more important than transportation. I think there are things that the city can do and is doing to help address the transportation issues. Some of the things mentioned by my colleagues were a number of capital improvement projects that we're doing. One of the other things that I'd be interested to seeing if my colleagues would support is, would this be an additional shuttle stop that we should incorporate and how do we, um, make, you know, help mitigate that? Um, in terms of the amounts of benefits. I want to thank Dr. Rudolph for painting the picture of the residents that will be able to live there. I think one of the things we talk about with a lot of the projects and developments is people being able to live near where they work, but also being able to walk or cycle safely. I think that this project, from what I thought, the bike path connection, the ability to cross along the back of the property, by the Buddhist church, I think that that helps achieve that. Um, the um, water feature that was um, mentioned, um, by council member Clark is part of his motion is something that I support. I think partnering with the Audubon Society in that would be very helpful. Um, and I think the relocation benefits has been, um, has been discussed. It is above and beyond. I also appreciate the right of return. I know that there is skepticism for the person's ability to be able to return, but I think that that is really important and I want to highlight to the applicant to try to do everything that they can to make sure that that happens. Um, one of the most difficult things are options for those in the moderate and missing middle because there isn't a lot of funding that you can leverage. Um, but the applicant has been able to work creatively with the school district to make that happen. Um, not only will teachers, um, be able to live there, um, city staff will be able to as well. So, um, I think that to address the parking, what I'd like to see, um, is what was discussed, um, by stuff related to, um, what was done at Madeira. I think that would be an important element. I also know that there's been discussion about the residential parking permit program. I think that whatever we can do to put that in place, that's maybe, um, should we need to go down that route, um, that that would be an avenue that would be able to happen. I don't know, efficiently, with the, you know, idea that parking may be an issue. So those are the shuttle stop and, um, you know, having the provision there in terms of being able to do what we did at Madeira with the zoning administrator, um, would be something that I'd be interested in. I'm not sure if my colleagues are. Thank you.

[02:12:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have a comment? Council member Ramirez?

[02:12:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I remember observing the council when the original gatekeeper was being discussed, and I was very skeptical of this project. And I think if memory serves the staff recommendation was to actually deny it because of the displacement impact. And I have to say, I've been very impressed with how this applicant, and it was, you know, changed over time, but how responsive you've been to the council, to the community, and to the tenants. I'll speak very narrowly to that because I think this is where this project excels in how you are addressing the impacts to the tenants who will be displaced. I completely agree with the phenomenal work you're doing with the school district. And, you know, I wholeheartedly support that concept. But I would like your project to serve as a model for future development, where there are displacement impacts. Because it's, I haven't seen anything quite like it, and it's certainly not in Mountain View. And I'm very grateful for that. And even just, you know, in the context of this hearing, your receptiveness to providing some additional accommodations for folks who maybe should have known, but for whatever reason, didn't feel adequately informed about the redevelopment proposal. I think it shows how responsive you are. And I just want to commend you for that. So I'll be supporting the motion. I agree with all of the nice things that have been said about the other aspects of this project and really look forward to seeing it constructed.

[02:13:54] Unknown Speaker: So just a couple of comments. I think what I appreciate most about this project is the partnership with the school district and the city to provide housing for folks that we would like them to have the ability to live in the city. And so I think that's, um, pretty much the best thing about this. I appreciate council member Ramirez's comments about the tenants who are being displaced and how they, how they're working with the applicant. I would say if you don't have that signed piece of paper, somebody acknowledging that they knew, then maybe those are the folks that you do something for. But if somebody signed that paper, they knew. Um, I, you know, obviously, you can tell I have concerns about traffic and parking, and as long as we have a backup plan for parking. Um, I'm good. Um, in terms of the traffic. I agree. You know, we do need folks to not be driving cars. But, um, yes, they can walk and bike, but we don't really give them a great option in terms of public transportation. And that's a frustration, that I don't think that's easy to overcome because if you're going any distance, You're not going to walk and maybe you don't feel comfortable riding a bike. Um, if you're going to say Milpitis, you're going to drive a car because light rail is going to take you forever to get there. So if we had better public transportation, I'd feel more comfortable with the parking and the traffic situation. Um, and I guess that will come over time. Um, I definitely would encourage, and I'm actually wondering if um, we want to make it um, required to be 100% electric, given how close we are. I don't know if that's possible that we can do that or if council members, Clark and the vice mayor would go for that with their motion, but I certainly would support that. And I agree with the Audubon Society or other groups, about the plants that are there. It sounds like some changes have been made over time, which are great, but if there was an opportunity to provide a natural water feature, that would be good. I live in a complex where we have a water feature that is not natural. And while we do get ducks. It's also a lot of upkeep, and it's not, I would say, as environmentally friendly as you might imagine. So I would say they should be natural rather than man-made. But I will, let's see, the other, Oh, yeah, the one other thing is the credit for the private open space. And I guess, um, question for the city attorney, is, is that like an automatic or does the council have discretion on that?

[02:17:03] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The code sets forth the primary criteria, and then the, um, it can be denied, if it's not in the public interest. And so you just need to make findings that it wouldn't be in the public interest.

[02:17:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay. The part I sort of have concerns about is the part that really isn't publicly accessible. Um, Well, a large portion is, I think it's about 50,000 square feet is not. that's the part where I kind of have concerns. And I think it is a little bit confusing since we just amended the city code because the credit in the North Bay Shore is for publicly accessible private open space, and the credit that this developer seeking is under the private open space credit. However, they are making it publicly accessible. So it's a little It can be a little confusing. Yeah, and maybe we want to talk about, do we want to revisit that when we get to the next topic as part of one of those projects.

[02:18:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:18:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll keep it short and sweet, as my colleagues have said, much of what I want to say. I will be supporting this project, and I wanted to thank, again, the city, the school board, Dr. Rudolph, and everybody who made this, who worked so hard on this model project. Um, I also want to thank the council for kind of the robust discussion of some of the, the more thornier issues involved with this project. And other than that, I'll be supporting all the modifications that council recommended as well. I'm not sure about the shuttle stop, whether that's something or a Google bus stop, whether that's something that comes in later discussions, maybe, but, you know, one or or another, I do think that's important. Thank you.

[02:19:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have comment?

[02:19:02] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just on the shuttle issue. I mean, we always look at the route and adjust it accordingly. I would suggest, you know, since there won't be tenants there for a number of years, and we're in the middle of a shuttle study right now, and possible merging and reorganization of the whole shuttle and the comprehensive modal plan. I think that's something that could be dealt with at a later date.

[02:19:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Coca?

[02:19:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Could staff comment on whether we're, yeah, we can require all electric at this point.

[02:19:37] City Staff: Um, I'll take an initial pass at that, uh, question and, um, community development director, assistant city manager, RT, Shravastava, might also want to comment. We have received draft model codes developed by through a 2 county collaborative effort with Silicon Valley clean energy and peninsula clean energy that looks at incentivizing all electric, the calculations done to meet the requirements for it to be a mandatory. It's not going to be satisfied. So the structure that we're looking at now is to incentivize all electric, so that if it is not all electric, higher levels of efficiency would be required in the other fuel appliances.

[02:20:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So can that can that be applied to this project? If there's incentives that maybe the developer could take...

[02:20:46] City Staff: We don't have in place yet the specific pathway that would determine what the efficiency levels would be for mixed fuel. We expect that we would bring that to council after the final language is released at the end of May. Right now, we just have draft language from the 2 county effort. And then we do outreach to our own stakeholders and bring it to council we expect in the fall, likely not until October and just in time for adoption with the rest of the building code in January. So I wouldn't know what to say those levels were now, but certainly would agree with the comments about strongly encouraging all electric and keeping an eye out towards those reach codes as they develop for what the incentives are and what higher levels of efficiency would be required if it is not all electric.

[02:21:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Did you have further?

[02:21:55] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Not really. I just wanted to say the reach codes are expected to go into effect January 1st of 2020, so they likely would have tried to a building permit that submitted then.

[02:22:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. But it does give some options. Okay. All right. Thank you. So I'm fine with emotion asses then.

[02:22:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by a council member Clark and a 2nd by vice mayor of a Koga.

[02:22:19] City Staff: I just wanted one small clarification to be noted. I think the resolutions presented to you, recommendation number four. It mentioned 715 units. That's a minor error there. The total number of units proposes 716.

[02:22:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so I'll just, uh, just note that correction, um, for, um, number 4 in what I read should be, um, 716 unit department complex. And then I was just going to comment. I think one thing that would help, and I think I think I mentioned this, the applicant at some point, maybe, a while back. I think one thing that would really help with the 1st ride of return, if you do have folks who take you up on that is just to, you know, appreciate the one year to begin with. But I think if you're able to provide some certainty as to what the maximum rent increases would be for the year or 2 after that, whether it's 5%, 10%, I don't, but some assurance that they wouldn't jump to market all at once and basically be forced to leave after a year. That might be one significant disincentive. So I, we talked about that before. But I think I would just, I would just encourage the applicant to think about that as, that as a way to sort of soften the blow of, instead of requiring you to do 2 or 3 years, to, you know, provide some upfront, some upfront idea of what a maximum increase per year would be. So, I'm not I'm not making that a condition, but I think I just wanted to make throw out that suggestion that I think that would be really helpful, and I think it's just frankly the right thing to do. If you want to have a stable tenant. Thank you. Are there any other comments, Council member Hicks?

[02:24:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I just wanted to second that, that sentiment, um, even though it's not a condition, when I talk to residents, I don't think it'll be that many people, and I just, who will return. I think it will be really, really a handful of people. And I just think it would be much better publicity for your project to say, three people came back, and they stayed, you know, they stayed on instead of, they came back, and they left after a year. I would like some really successful return.

[02:24:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, if there's no further comments. We are ready to vote. So that passes, um, 6, yes, and one recuse. Thank you. And I think we are going to take, um, Can we take a 10 minute break to come back at 9:05?

[02:26:10] City Staff: of projects that are recommended on the lists before you this evening. We are at the third council study session in our biannual process to establish major council goals and the two-year work plan, and, as you'll recall, at your last meeting on April 23rd, council made revisions and consolidated and added to the project list from their your 1st study session. And that resulted in a list of 77 projects, of which 22 did not require any votes at that April 23rd session, because there had been prior council action or the projects were already underway. For the other 55 new projects, council had a set number of votes for each goal category. And they used those votes to identify priorities, they, meaning you. And that resulted in 24 projects that received a majority support of 4 votes or more staff then spent the next 3 weeks preparing for tonight's meeting at which we return to you with our recommendations of what we believe is feasible to undertake in the upcoming 2 fiscal years. So the action before you this evening is to adopt the goal statements, and to review, modify, um, add, change, approve, as, um, is your desire, uh, the projects for the work plan. So in the work we've been doing over the past 3 weeks as staff, we took all the tallies. You'll remember that Melvin was there and we were all actively working to capture the votes that you provided. We sorted the projects in order of votes received, and then for each project with majority support. The department that leads the project, and those that support it were identified, and staff and those departments analyzed what staffing would be required, and what other resources would be needed to undertake the projects, and then they compared that with existing staff capacity. then that was work done by individual departments. The department head team met 3 times to talk about the coordination needs and also to talk through the scope of the projects in an effort to understand the scope and interpret the scope, and did this by what was submitted originally by council members, when you were suggesting potential projects in the 1st study session, and also by the comments that were made by council in the subsequent study session. We do acknowledge that we may have underscoped or overscoped, and you have may have different thoughts about the scope of projects, so you have the opportunity tonight to ask questions about that and make sure that the scope is everybody's on the same page about what that is. So staff's assessment resulted in the recommended projects that are identified for you this evening. You have 2 attachments. One is the 1st one, which is a comprehensive project list, including not only those recommended, but those not recommended and providing a fair amount of notes and detail around those recommendations or those projects, rather. And then the 2nd attachment is just the recommended projects reordered in terms of a very draft timeline. And I'll speak a little bit more about timing considerations in a minute. But first, I want to talk about the staff capacity constraints that we considered and putting together the recommended project list. And I'm going to start with community development. That department was the big winner, if you will, with 17 potential new projects that it leads or co-leads coming out of the April 23rd session. And those are of those projects with 4 or more votes. So 17 of those kind of land squarely in community development. Seven of them are significant undertakings in advanced planning, and that has a relatively small number of dedicated staff, less than two, if I understand correctly. In addition, community development has, you know, obviously a very pivotal land use role, and therefore has 10 projects in the areas of not only housing, but also transportation and sustainability that are carrying forward from the current to your work plan. So above and beyond those projects, community development, made a conscious effort to try and conserve some capacity for applications, Both that are compliant and subject to permit streamlining, not project streamlining, as it says on the slide. And also gatekeepers, which while not major projects within the work plan are still significant in terms of the staff capacity required. And then finally, I'd say that advanced planning requires focused staff, but it also requires consultant assistance for things like community outreach and environmental review. And so additional resources were identified for those advanced planning projects that are being recommended. And the unfortunate thing, even though council did a really great job in narrowing down from 55 projects that it was asked to vote on to 24 with majority support, staff did not find that we were able to recommend all 24 of those projects. Other areas of capacity, consideration. Actually, before I get to that, I want to say a little bit more about our not being able to recommend everything and we can get into it a little bit more around each of the goals and where these projects reside. But the capacity constraints in community development have affected how some projects were timed and also how they were scoped so that we could make a course set of recommendations of what is feasible with an existing staff. And the core recommendations that we are making to you, well, they do include one time funding for consultant services. Our core recommendation does not include the addition of any staff. And even within those core recommendations. There's one choice. There's the things we recommend with 2 projects that you'd have to choose between. And I'll explain that more closely when we get to that goal area. There's also the possibility of adding additional staffing capacity and planning, advanced planning in particular, which would allow for the addition of 2 extra projects, one of the larger land use planning projects, and then one of the smaller ones that wasn't chosen, whichever one wasn't chosen under the base recommendation that staff is making. And so this is going to affect the way that we approach the recommendations this evening, where I'm going to ask you to consider 1st your interest in either living within the constraints of existing staff and only being able to take on one of the advanced planning projects or your comfort level with increasing the staff capacity and advanced planning so that more of the projects can be undertaken. I'll also note now that we're going to need to segment out. A couple projects where there are potential conflicts of interest, and those are the downtown precise plan and the Shenandoah precise plan and I'll kind of highlight that process for you as we go forward. So there are lots of moving pieces and some if then statements that make it a little bit more complicated, but I'll do my best to walk us through and please do ask questions if I'm not being clear. So now I will identify the other areas where there are some capacity constraint. Um, it turns out that the city manager's office touches a pretty large number of the projects, leading, um, quite a few of them, uh, leading or co-leading for uh, 15 and then touching quite a few others. Um, and, uh, that is also true in the city attorney's office where it's an even bigger consideration for capacity because that office is, um, is, um, quite small, uh, and, um, with 3 or um, projects that were prioritized by council, that the city's attorney's office would either lead or have a major um, contribution to. And then another 16 projects besides that that they'd support. Um, and that's all kind of at the same time as there is, um, a leadership transition in the office with the city attorney's retirement in August. So all of those things were taken into consideration. So, before moving on to the projects themselves, I did want to say a bit more about timing, as I mentioned, attachment A is a timeline, and this is staff's best effort at this point to show the estimated timing for the projects. These estimates are based on a variety of things, 1st looking at the duration of the new project. It turns out that, you know, given our estimate of how long things would take nearly 2 thirds of these projects would go longer than a year, 8 of them would span the full 2 years. Um, we, um, also are looking at things that are already on the plate and when we anticipate those would be completed. And then there are some things that are kind of waiting in the wings, especially in community development, um, and those and just the ongoing kinds of projects and middles that, um, uh, we need to anticipate. And then different projects require different staffing expertise and there are staffing transitions, as I've mentioned, that need to be considered. And just as we're not able to get to every one of the projects that received 4 or more votes, those that we do recommend, it's not possible to start everything right away. We need to kind of spread them out over the two-year period. And we had a couple different passes at that where we realized things were bunched towards the beginning of the time frame with, you know, the vast majority of projects, um, initially, um, uh, looking at a start at the beginning of of July. And I think that is, you know, our eagerness as well as anticipating counsel's eagerness to get going on these things, but recognizing, um, in reality that that wouldn't uh, work out that well. And so, um, we did try to spread the projects out over the two-year time frame. Now, and not everything will be completed within 2 years. either. So we can answer questions that you may have about timing, but I did want to acknowledge that we're not seeking approval of a timeline at this point. We're adopting the work plan is adopting the projects and the work plan. If council has interest in different timing, it would be helpful for staff to hear that in a general way, if there are any particular projects that council would like to see come sooner or others you're comfortable seeing come later, it'd be good for us to know that, and then we do our best to take that and put into consideration as we develop more detailed work plans for those projects and the staff people that would be involved in those projects. So moving on to the 1st goal. So this is the goal statement as revised with council's input on April 23rd to protect vulnerable populations, all four, I'm sorry, all 5 of the projects that received more 4 or more votes are being recommended, um, and in addition to 7 projects that had prior direction and 2 continuing projects. And this includes a number of issues that council has been talking about over the past couple of study sessions, if not well beyond that. such as displacement and wage theft and homelessness services, after school programs, the census, safe parking, and so on. I'm not going to go through a review of each of the projects. You've got your 2 attachments for that. So, but do feel free to ask and I do have slides I can pull up on all of the projects if needed. Moving on to the 2nd goal of quantity diversity and affordability of housing. There are 3 projects recommended new ones that have 5 or more votes. There are 3 or 4, depending on whether or not Project 2.19, which is updating city documents related to various housing laws, is selected instead of 3.18, which is a citywide traffic demand management ordinance. So that would be an additional 3 or 4 projects. There is one project that in housing that could be added with additional staffing, but that would still require a choice between 2 different advanced planning projects within housing. That would be the Shenandoah precise plan, and actually the R3 zone is not a precise plan, but an advanced planning project that is accomplishing the goal of housing. In addition to that, there are 4 continuing projects. So the ones that will require specific direction this evening are 2.5, the R3 zone, or 2.15, the Shenandoah precise plan, which would only be possible with additional staffing. And then within existing staffing, it's the choice between 2.19 or 3.18. So, in terms of the things that are within the recommendations, kind of the baseline before we get to these additional direction items, that includes middle income housing strategies, mobile home rent control, the gateway master plan, Evelyn Lot Affordable Housing, Lot 12 development, and CSFRA modification. Moving on to the 3rd goal of transportation. There are 3 or 4 new projects with 4 or more votes. This is the flip side of the choice that I just explained to you between 3.18, which is the citywide transportation demand management, and 2.19, which is updating city documents regarding new housing law. There are also 4 projects who had received prior direction that are within your recommendation, and then 12 projects that are continuing forward from the current two-year plan, and just this one project that requires specific direction. The other projects included under transportation, are the traffic operations center, and a plan for making Mountain View a transportation smart city, parking spillover, and residential permit parking program review, neighborhood traffic calming program review, scooter regulations, the Castro Pedestrian Mall, Stevens Creek Trail Expansion, and the Shuttle Study. The 4th goal on sustainability and quality of life recommends all two projects that received 4 or more votes. There were also 6 projects that had prior direction that are part of the recommendation and then 3 projects carrying forward, continuing from the current work plan. As noted in the staff report. We expect that with the next sustainability action plan in the fall. There will be revisions to these and or new projects considered by council. So what the recommended projects include our community tree master plan, a wildlife and habitat management plan, EV charging, continuing to implement ASAP, or environmental sustainability action plan tasks, carbon offsets, downtown precise plan, yearly greenhouse gas, targets, and then specific items with regard to public service studies, which are police staffing, level study and the fire community risk assessment. Then the final area is not under a goal. These are miscellaneous, unrelated projects that were suggested by council during the 1st study session of those. We staff is recommending 3 projects that received 5 or more votes. There are 2 continuing projects, and one potential additional new projects. If additional staffing is approved, and depending, which is, that's the historic preservation ordinance 5.1. And that is also contingent upon whether the 2 other advanced planning projects are selected. I will note that there was one project that received 4 votes that was not recommended, and that is 5.17, their periodic review of the general plan. So the projects under other that are being recommended are, um, the, uh, Sorry, let me find that. Small business strategy, updating the Parkland dedication ordinance, and holding a study session, to look at, uh, objectives and resources needed for a more proactive role in um, legislative advocacy at the state and federal level. So I'd like to summarize now what the recommended projects are across each goal area. You'll see here the number of continuing projects by goal, which is 23 in total, the number of recommended new projects. This is a slightly different number. I think it was 39 in your staff report. But there was a, um, there were a couple of typos in that. And I also wanted to acknowledge that trade-off between 2 projects that I've already mentioned in between goals 2 and three. And this is what's recommended as achievable within our existing staff resources. And if we council wishes to go above and beyond what is recommended with the addition of advanced planning staff, then it would be possible to take on, whichever of those 2 small projects wasn't selected between 218 and 318, and also one of the following, the R3 zone standards, the Shenandoah precise plan, or historic presation. Before I frame for you how the recommendations will work. I wanted to go through the resource needs. This is for the baseline recommendation of what staff, fields can be accomplished within existing staff resources. The following 6 projects require general fund or the ones on your screen require general fund, limited period funding in the amount of just over $2000000 dollars. That's not a small number, but advanced planning projects come with a pretty big price tag, in addition to a smaller appropriation needed for the Evelyn site, affordable housing project. If council were to want to do more in advanced planning, at what we believe would be the appropriate staffing level, that would be an additional cost of around $220,000 of ongoing general fund expenditure. I'm not sure if any of that could be development services. We didn't actually talk about that. And then the Shenandoah precise plan would have consulting assistance as well, as would the R3 zone standard revisions, and then smaller amounts that would be needed for updating the city documents or for historic preservation. So for the recommendations, what would be the 1st thing and hopefully the easiest to do is just to formally adopt the goal statements as written for your 1920, 2021 major goals. Um, then I'm, uh, I've structured this so that you would consider your willingness to expand staff capacity and advanced planning. Um, and then 1st breaking out all of the recommended projects, um, uh, and we council would need to segment out and consider the downtown precise plan by itself, and then, um, with the full council could uh, look at the rest of the, um, recommended project list with specific direction as to those 2 pro project trade-offs. If the additional resources were not decided in that 1st bullet. If they were, then both of those projects would be recommended. Then finally, if the additional resources are approved, then there's a decision between those 3 advanced planning projects. And then finally, we would seek your direction to have us come back with a request for appropriation as part of the 1920 budget process. It would not be built into the document, as that is already pretty far along, but we would include it in the narrative of the staff report and then would later build it into the adopted budget, which happens in September. The alternatives to those recommendations, obviously, are to modify the goal statements to make changes to the projects as they are put before you or provide other direction. After this evening, we will work on those appropriations, and also departments will begin work planning and establishing more timelines and milestones for implementing the adopted projects. So with that, I'm available for questions. Thank you.

[02:50:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, at this point, we can ask questions, but we have to be careful about asking questions about the projects that council members might have to recuse themselves on. So how about all questions except for on Shenandoah and the downtown precise plan? No questions? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:50:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So in regards to the increasing staff capacity. If we were to do that, Is there a possibility of moving up certain projects as well?

[02:51:04] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: In timing? Yes. Um, certainly those that are, um, the one selected under number 4 would be able to start with the addition of that capacity. Did you have something more specific in mind that is currently timed later?

[02:51:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, Well, I know there's some interest from the public with wage theft and community workforce agreements. moving that sooner than...

[02:51:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: It's helpful to have that specific project because the capacity constraint there is more in our attorney's office than in our community development department.

[02:51:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Um, okay. And then the other question I had, last night I was watching the news about e-scooters. And there's apparently state legislation being that's been introduced and may move forward and pass. Um, so in light of that, um, were we thinking of something different or, Are we looking at just following in line with what the state's planning to do?

[02:52:15] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I'll invite public works director Mike Fuller to the podium.

[02:52:23] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Like Fuller public works director, honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the proposal to answer your question.

[02:52:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I was just watching the news and they mentioned Mountain Views. It was hot. It was last night, and they said we approved something last night, but the states canceled transportation committee yesterday?

[02:52:42] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No.

[02:52:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, they said yesterday. But then, um, the state is coming up with just, um, a pretty strict, um, regulations.

[02:52:53] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, I'm not familiar with something that would knock us off our current course.

[02:52:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Let's see. I think that is it for now. Thanks.

[02:53:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:53:11] Councilmember John McAlister: When you were looking at your consideration of projects and going forward. Did you look at if a project had existing remedies to solve it? Or that could, as you looked at it for a valuation of working on a project or goal?

[02:53:30] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have an example?

[02:53:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, say we have, there's a project going out there. One of our goals is to do something. And that if there's already a legal recourse that can be resolved, how was that considered in any of our decisions from recommending projects going forward?

[02:53:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Um... With the council suggested projects that came forward, staff did review each of them and make our best efforts to try to come up with what we thought would be most effective and most feasible as a way to address what we understood to be the intention of the project. I don't know if that answers your question. I feel like There might be something particular that you're...

[02:54:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then the other question I had, sort of going on with the mayor, the vice mayor said that SB 50 is, even though it's delayed for a year or so, there are considerations, and I don't know if this is going affecting downtown, but they may have requirements that could supersede what the city is working on. And, you know, like districts, or building, and so forth, and that if we're not proactive in declaring certain areas of the city, and, let's say, example, historical, or whatever that the state law would preempt us. And so time of the essence could be a considering factor in reviewing those, like, is that something that are you aware of or that we should bring up or talk about? If you're speaking directly around kind of housing, transportation, core, what so forth, you know, what's exempt? What could's not exempt? Does a city have to designate a certain area, a particular way that would exempt it from the potential of SB 50 overriding it and allowing a development to happen where we don't want it to happen? without us? That's one of the concerns. I mean, there is a lot of legislation going out there versus housing and transportation. And if we're not, oh, okay, we got someone walking up now.

[02:55:56] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Our T-shirt, Rostov, community development director. I know that we're connecting with Cities Association and Vice Mayor. I'll be Koga on this, as well as talking to staff, and our Scapo group, which is kind of the planning officials group to try to figure out what kinds of amendments we would want to recommend to our local legislators, and also to look at, say, we're going into the downtown precise plan, focusing on certain areas to see, do we have any options? So we, within the goals, we can certainly do that. Um, it may or may not meet the timeline if it's a long term goal. And so we might have a short-term time frame. My point is, it's while it's not in your current goals, staff routinely works on projects like this to try to shepherd it. If it turns out to be a larger goal, we might come back to you and say, we need to make this change, which means one of our goals might have to shift a bit. So I think we have the ability to flex a little bit if the council's ready to give us a little leeway. So we don't know. It's an emerging issue. We don't know all the ramifications yet. But I know one of the goals is to work with our city attorney's office and the legal team, also to try to figure out what options we have as a city.

[02:57:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, because I know marijuana came along and we did an immediate ordinance to make sure that we were covered, and we had to do certain things, even though we didn't do a lot of thought. I mean, until we had more thought into it. So that's why I was saying SB 50, we don't want to be sitting there, and all of a sudden something's passed, and then we're going, oh, you can't retroactively read, zone something, and all of a sudden new development would come along that we're not anticipating.

[02:57:44] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Yeah, sometimes it comes on pretty fast. And some of this legislation. So I think we're going to track it as fast as we can and bring some options. But sometimes what happens is goals that are on the work plan might have to shift a bit.

[02:57:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yeah, vice mayor.

[02:58:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. just wanted to respond to that. I think the one specific item in SV 50. Um, there's a clause that historic districts. But there is a time, a 2010 time, like I don't know, I can't remember the wording, but it may have to have been designated by 2010. So, yeah, that would be the issue. But, you know, certainly, I think since we have historic preservation as one of our items, you may want to take that into consideration that there's, you know, states moving on things that we may just want to move on sooner than later.

[02:58:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, that's the whole that's why I'm rigging up now. Because there are certain items. a lot of other things like that that could happen.

[02:58:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I see our city attorney would like to speak.

[02:58:50] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, I would just like to point out that there is one specific project that involved us monitoring state and federal legislation, but I think as we would get into each one of these projects and do the deep dive on them, that we would be monitoring state and federal legislation and also do that independently of the projects and bring them to your attention.

[02:59:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[02:59:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a couple of questions, but in terms of the historic preservation, It was cited that way in the proposed SB 50 legislation, but my understand, that, of course, is no longer functions, but will probably come back. And I don't know exactly how it will be addressed, but, you know, it does speak to the need to probably clarify and beef up our historic preservation. But that wasn't my question. My question is on the small business strategy. I wanted to clarify whether staff was looking at that for the entire city or just portions of it, um, and, uh, for example, uh, downtown El Camino village centers, um, and while I'm asking that question, I wanted to make a pitch to give it a broader scope, because I'm getting feedback from residents, that they want to make sure that Because a small business strategy is key to walkability, which is key to getting people out of their cars and also, frankly, to happiness and mental health. Um, So I would like it to be to be a little more broad, if possible, but I wanted to clarify how staff was talking about it.

[03:00:42] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: So, I confirmed with our economic development staff that the item that's currently on our goals was the implementation of the downtown vitality program that was adopted last February. So, the scope didn't include a citywide business strategy. And some of the implementation items included taking a look at the ULI, tap panel to see what recommendations they had. A good part of it actually was going into, um, helping create cleaner sidewalks in the downtown as a response to small business requests. So there were more implementation. The downtown parking strategy, which is more of a study will fit into that. But it, you know, depending on how broad the council wants this to to be, we might have to come back with some kind of consultant costs or any something else. At this point, we're not necessarily recommending staffing. I think just getting staffed up, um, will be a challenge. And so we will have to take a look at how quickly we can begin implementation.

[03:01:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kamein?

[03:02:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So I just had a question about the additional resources. So, um, these are the costs for fiscal year 1920 resources. With the idea that goals are 2 years, would staff come back, um, as part of next year's budget to, yeah, I see Nottinghead.

[03:02:23] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, those projects that wouldn't be slated to start until the next fiscal year that had resource need would result in a budget request next year.

[03:02:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So for some of these items, how would, obviously, these costs are estimates. So, um, would we see a big shift in the cost for these additional resources or are we pretty sure that this will stay the same as as time goes on?

[03:02:55] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, these would be the amounts that we would request an appropriation, so it would be our intention to stay within those amounts.

[03:03:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, but they are, in fact, estimates.

[03:03:08] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: There are also estimates for the following fiscal year included in attachment ones.

[03:03:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. So I had a couple of questions. How far along are we? I'm not sure who to ask, on Lot 12.

[03:03:29] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: The RFP was just issued, I think, in the last week or two. And I believe they're due September, somewhere around there. RT, I don't know if you have any more information. And I apologize. I can't talk anymore. So good for you, I won't talk anymore.

[03:03:47] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: I think you're right, and you were expecting to bring this back to council in the fall.

[03:03:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks. And then on the NTMP, 3.10, I want to make sure we're on the same page in terms of that scope. And what I was thinking is that that is a review of the program to see if there is any process improvements, or changes that need to be made to the survey, or how we do the survey, or the options we offer, and to like the timeline for doing an NTMP. And is that what staff was thinking? It just says review it.

[03:04:41] Unknown Speaker: Oh. Yes, that's what we were thinking. We were not planning to start over and completely reinvent the program, but there are a lot of parameters, both in terms of process, in terms of thresholds for different things. Um, uh, and actually there are new um, traffic calming improvements that we've added that aren't really in the program, so we can kind of review those with you.

[03:05:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So it sounds like we're on the, we're on the same page. Great. Thank you. Then I did send in a question, and I sent it in today. So perhaps staff didn't have a chance to look at it. But that was the one about the historic preservation, and I attached, um, sort of a scoping from 2013. And I was wondering if we were going to leverage that, or were we looking at a completely different scope? for the project.

[03:05:49] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I know I talked to Stephanie about this. I don't think we move forward with that project. So the idea would be, um, we weren't quite sure where the council was going with that, but it was our understanding that those were the pieces that would be analyzed. And there was some interest in taking a look at, I guess, the downtown a little bit more. So, um, those were the pieces we thought you'd be updating.

[03:06:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch. We can start with that scoping and see if we want to tweak it at all and then go forward.

[03:06:27] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That was our understanding.

[03:06:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. That was mine too. Um And then, I think Council member Kmei was referencing this, but unfortunately, I was looking at my notes, and so I'm not sure I heard the entire answer, but, um, in terms of additional resources. And I think the answer was, this is what staff is recommending, but if we wanted to, for example, increase even more the advanced planning resources. Is that something we can consider tonight?

[03:07:07] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, and we would be mindful of the general operating fund balance and the projections in terms of ongoing costs.

[03:07:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, council member Ramirez.

[03:07:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I wanted to follow up from a question the mayor just asked about the historic preservation ordinance. So assuming we are using that scope from 2013, does that diminish the resource or time impact that staff is that staff is included in the report?

[03:07:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: No. We had assumed that when we put in the...

[03:08:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. you.

[03:08:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[03:08:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I had one last question. The item that was is not being recommended, a periodic review of the general plan update to explain the thought processes to not moving that forward.

[03:08:22] Unknown Speaker: So here again, we were trying to look at the intent behind that. From time to time, our experience has been when the council has wanted to do major shifts, beat in the North Bay Shore, East Wizman. We have updated the general plan at the same time. Also, we do an annual implementation. review of the general plan that's sent to the council. And so we felt that there were enough checks and balances between general plans that we didn't have to take on an actual update, because we review implementation and when major courses have to be changed. We work on those projects.

[03:09:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, in my mind, the way I thought was looking at it, was not updating it necessarily, but, um, you know, I've heard over the years, like we always look forward and not backwards. So, there's, there's some interest from, and from community folks, um, on, you know, some of the project, let's say San Antonio, and looking at it and just saying, looking at what worked and what didn't work, and then using those, you know, the lessons learn as we move forward with other projects, that we really don't have that review of what we've built already. And that's what I was looking for. So is that what you were intending or?

[03:09:49] Unknown Speaker: No, we kind of saw this more as an actual update to the general plan. So if the intent is to say, you know, we've done some changes and here are some lessons learned. I think we try to apply it to the next project. And so maybe that's part of what we can do wherever it applies to another project. We can come in and say, here are some lessons and here's why we're applying. I think each precise plan or each update gets just that much better. Yes. Because it's taking the lessons from the previous one. So we've kind of got that inbuilt, but if the council's thinking of something different. We're happy to.

[03:10:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think it just, you know, was an interest in maybe formalizing it more. I, you know, my thought was maybe that's something that APC could be in charge of, but yeah, I mean, I guess we can discuss that.

[03:10:39] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, sure, we can let us know what you want it to go.

[03:10:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, any other questions from council members? I don't see any. So, at this point, we will open it up for public comment. Can I say a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on this topic? Okay, it looks like there's going to be quite a few. Um, So if, uh, be sure to fill out a blue card and turn it in with our city clerk either before or after you speak, and we will give you a minute and a half . It will be asking me a 1000 again.

[03:11:29] David: Good evening, Mayor Mattachek, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga and council members. I'm here before you tonight to express the gratitude of the Building Trades Council and our affiliate unions for the choice to prioritize an ordinance, to address wage theft and responsible construction, and to develop and consider a community workforce agreement. Many others came with me tonight. Some had to leave. Construction workers often get up at 4 a.m., but for those that are still here, I'll ask that they rise. Thank you. And I do this because we're going to respect the council's time and keep our comments just to a couple of speakers. I'm proud that a community that some of our members call home are represented by council members who care about protecting citizens from exploitive work practices. But every week that goes by is a lost opportunity to protect our communities. Every city project that goes to bid without a community workforce agreement is a missed opportunity to place local residents in lifetime careers. We ask tonight that along with your decision to prioritize these items that you also ask staff to begin to work on them sooner rather than later. Thank you and happy birthday, vice mayor. Thank you.

[03:12:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:12:48] Jose Garcia: Good thing you may already check in the council members. My name is Jose Garcia, and I'm representing the Santa Clara County residence for responsible development. And I also want to thank you for putting the project labor agreement and the responsible construction ordinance wedge step on the list. And of course, we would like to see it as soon as possible. Keep in mind that we are talking about people being abused, not being paid. And that's very important for all of us. And as David mentioned, a lot of members had to go home, and many, they were telling me, we have to get up at 4 in the morning, which is 6 hours from now, and by the time they get home, but I want to thank you, and we have some people standing up, but I don't think anybody that is sitting down. Nobody supports the wedge. Nobody supports waste. So if you support us, Please stand up as well. And thank you so much. We are available to give you more data, to talk to staff, city attorney, city manager, to whomever we need to. And this is a dream come true. My dad was a victim of wage theft. I was a victim of wage theft, and I'm glad we are trying to end it because what's going to happen if we don't do anything. Now my son is going to be a victim of which stuff. And then my grandkids, my great grandkids, and just because we don't want to do something about it. So I'm very thankful. Thank you so much.

[03:14:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Mr. Garcia. We have a question for you. My apologies. Any questions?

[03:14:21] Unknown Speaker: So, quick question for either you, Josue or David. I know other jurisdictions have implemented wage theft protections and CWAs. Can you share with us roughly how long it took for those jurisdictions to develop those policies?

[03:14:36] Jose Garcia: Yes, um, it gets, um, Difficult. But it goes from 6 months to about a year. It can be done sooner, but it depends on the wheel of the city council and stuff.

[03:14:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[03:14:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:15:00] Catius Capimentele: Hello, my name is Catius Capimentele, and I'm a community organizing with Siren Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network. So I want to thank the console for item one.11. And I also want to see if it will be possible that the city calls Soku add a sanctuary investment ordinance as part of this item. Um, it is important that the city, defense immigrant rights, and builds this strong trust, what the immigrant community, and the city of Montevu should not contract with businesses that benefit from the oppression and persecution of immigrants on the border or in our communities. The city of Montevu should also pour corporations that benefit from the detention and deportation of immigrants. Um, and we really believe that this is a really great way that the city, can act to address the constant fear that our community is experiencing. So we really want to ask you to pass an ordinance to create a stronger sanctuary policies and prohibit the city from entering into contracts with corporations that contract with ice. And we are also standing in support of, um, supportive policies that address displacement, um, and which death and other issues that are really important for the community. And I do wanna, I have a copy of the ordinance. I share this with you with some of the council members, and we're gonna be looking into meetings with some of you also. Thank you so much.

[03:16:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:16:41] Maria Morales: Good evening, everyone. Hello, my name is Maria Morales, and I'm a resident of Martin View. I would like to thank you for the item 111. I would also like to add the sanctuary investment ordinance to this item. It's a way to protect immigrants, communities. I work at a hospital in Mountain View, and people are really afraid to use our service. The city shouldn't contract with corporations that contract with ice. The city shouldn't invest money in the detention and deportation of our community. I also support rent control for mobile homes and support affords to stop displacements, and thank you very much.

[03:17:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. you. Next, please.

[03:17:53] Rosalia: Hola, mi nombre, Rosalía. Uh, Joseph Residente de Mountain View, gracias, por la prioridad, uno, punto unse. Oy dia, quiero pedile, a los consejales de la ciudad... confianza con los residentes immigrantes de montebu, no debe contratar, oi invertire en impresas que se beneficiend de las oppressiones de las persecutiones. de los immigrantes en la frottera, en nuestra communidad, la ciudad de montenbu, no deve de a pollara las corporaciones que se beneficiend de los detensiones deportaciones de las communidad de immigrantes, si refugiados. Necessitamos aprobar una ordenanza para crear politicas de Santuario mas fuerte y prohibirque la ciudad entre encontratos con corporaciones que tienen contratos con ais. Tambienna pollo politicas de vivienda justa y control de renta. Gracias.

[03:19:20] Interpreter: So I'm just gonna quickly interpret, um, since we don't have interpretation. Um, hello, my name is Rosalia, and I'm a resident of Monteview today. I want to thank the consul for item 111, and I also want to express the fear in the community and believe that it's important for the city, to defend immigrant rights, and to build a strong trust with our community, by passing a sanctuary investment ordinance. Um, the city um, should not, should not contract with businesses that benefit from the oppression and persecution of immigrants in the border, in our communities, and it should not uh, support corporations that benefit from the detention and deportation of our people. And the city should do everything they can to address the constant fear in our communities. And we need to pass pass stronger policies, sanctuary policies, and pass the sanctuary investment ordinance to prohibit the city from entering into contracts with corporations that contract with dice. I also support display policies to address displacement and rent control. Thank you.

[03:20:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:20:35] Forrest Peterson: Hello, council members. My name is Forrest Peterson, I'm a graduate student at Stanford University, and I research wage theft, specifically in construction, but as a side project, it's also expanded to include all industries. Earlier today, my advisor, Professor Fisher from the Center of Integrated Facilities Engineering, spoke at the San Jose City Council, with the Santa Clara County Wage Chef Coalichin, which I participate with. And he said a lot of things, but one of the things that he said that really stuck with me is he said, we shouldn't build on the backs of the workers. And so that was something somewhat profound for me to hear from my advisor that I've never heard him take that position before because as researchers, we always have to be very neutral and have data to back up everything that we say. So he feels comfortable that he has the data to make that statement. And I think it's somewhat true with the rest of the industry that we shouldn't build our communities on the back of the workers. So, I have a data set here that's compiled from Department of Labor standards, uh, and uh, wage and hour division, which shows that in the city of Mountain View, there's over a 1000 employees that have been part of wage theft or, you know, wage and hour violations, and that represents uh, nearly $5 million. So I think that's important to show that there is a need to address wage theft here.

[03:22:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, wait, hang on. We have a question for you.

[03:22:09] Unknown Speaker: So how was this 1000 people data found?

[03:22:14] Forrest Peterson: So the DLSE, uh, DLC? Department of Labor standards enforcement from the state of California. That came from a freedom of information request. I think, hold on. Because I know it's a federal that I'm not a lawyer, so you get the idea. It was a request for data, which came from the state, and the wage and hour division provides their data openly on the website, along with the OSHA and other, I think the EPA data is available as well.

[03:22:44] Unknown Speaker: And what was the time frame?

[03:22:46] Forrest Peterson: So the time frame is difficult to address because there's huge gaps in the data. The, especially with the freedom of information request, I think there's only one year that's a complete year of data. So that's, uh, I think it's safe for me to say that at 1000 it's most likely a very large understatement, but I think a 1000 is sufficient to show that it's quite a bit.

[03:23:07] Unknown Speaker: But is there current information or you say this is five, 10 years of a span or?

[03:23:12] Forrest Peterson: I think it goes up to, let me see in my notes here. Two, 2000, it's either 16 or... It looks like 2016, 2017 is where it trails off. I mean, actually, because I did have to dig through the data. It looks like whoever was given the job of actually transferring the data from their system into Excel, the quality of the data trailed off pretty quickly. And I think it's just because maybe the cases weren't complete. And so it had incomplete information.

[03:23:47] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[03:23:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:23:54] Megan Fraley: Hi, my name's Megan Fraley, and it's exciting to be here. This was not on purpose, but I grabbed my clipboard from many years. We've been working on being leaders in workers' rights, and it's actually very beautiful to see the city council here today who's been working for many years, whether they were on council or not on council to advance workers' rights in our cities, and it's made us a leader. So I'm here speaking with the Wage Theft Coalition in support of them and in support of labor. And want to say thank you for prioritizing, protecting vulnerable populations and continuing in our kind of trajectory of being a city that's based in workers' rights. of the quick. I have so much to say. Thank you to staff for this incredible timeline that I'm sure was in a, it required a lot of detail oriented thought. So the, what I noticed, we noticed was that, right now, the city attorney's time in the next year is going to be very, very cramped and the request would be to consider moving back the vehicle, the oversized vehicle ordinance work to the next city attorney, because city attorney Quinn should have fun and be able to finish up all of the workers' right stuff by putting wage theft in place before city attorney Quinn leaves. And since the vehicle ordinance ban, does not need, whatever it's called, doesn't need to go into place for two years, if we could free up her time so that we could finish this off, right? That would be great. Thank you guys so much.

[03:25:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:25:35] Robert Cox: Hello, I'm Robert Cox, and I'm speaking here for the steering committee of Livable Mountain View, all of which are here tonight about inclusion of item 4.7 revised aspects of the downtown precise plan, and in particular, for a focused and targeted effort to provide solid and explicit protections, for the historic core of our downtown area in ages, areas H and A. This is the reason livable mountain view was founded, and we have listed in support of 1000s of residents of Mountain View and in the greater Bay Area. So there's 3 reasons why. We want to focus and targeted approach. Number one is, as Mr. McAllister just noted, SB 50 is coming. January 2020, it will come back for a vote. It's morphing around, and so whether 2010's in there or not. That's maybe not the main point, but we want to have this thing settled about what we want before that hits the van. number two. Money? Uh, the whole shebang would cost one.750000 take 2 years. If we shrink it down a little bit, you could fit in that 150,000 for the historic ordinance 5.one. And then I understand there are other things we want to do with the downtown precise plant, but they could be done after that. And number three, there anytime you turn around, there's new talk about new stuff being proposed in the historic area. Approve it all right now, and there's nothing to talk about. So pause plan and do it right. Thank you very much. Bye now.

[03:27:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:27:06] Mary Hodter: Good evening. I'm Mary Hodter. I'm not gonna speak as quickly as Robert, but I'm also here from Livable Mountain View, and I wanted to share a little bit of definition around our concerns about state zoning. So we use SP 50 as kind of a placeholder for any state level zoning that would remove our local control and allow developers or landowners downtown in particular in the historic district to override the kinds of decisions that we would like to see you all making. So my concern is, is that if a landowner downtown who had a historic resource, wanted to get around our local rules, they could put in loft housing, which are very analogous to office uses, and then convert to offices, because our downtown zoning allows for both. So step one would be to put in the loft housing, step 2 would be to convert and come back and negotiate with you about how they would do that. But in the process, we would lose our lovely 3 blocks that are so important, I think, to residents in mountain view. So the paper that I handed out kind of describes in more detail that process, but, It is because of that, that we really believe that we should put the historic ordinance and area H in the downtown precise plan 1st and then look at the other issues. Second. Thank you.

[03:28:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:28:37] Rich Mannequin: Hi. Rich Mannequin, for SV at home. Just wanted to thank you for all of your work on housing solutions. Mountain Bee's been a leader in this for many years, and the priorities reflect that. I do want to highlight a couple 3 of the priorities that we think have the largest effect on overall housing, creating and preserving opportunities in the community. Those would be 1st project one. on displacement. You've heard from people around this room that it's a real point of pain for people, and it's very important to address as quickly as possible. 2.5, which is the revisions to R3 zoning. That's something that's going to create a lot of, um, a lot of opportunities for denser missing middle type housing that integrates well into existing neighborhoods. The 3rd that we highlight is that Project 2.2. which is ownership opportunities for middle income families, because we know that that's really out of reach for most people now. I just wanted to thank you for all of your work on this, and thank you also to staff for all the work they've done.

[03:29:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you leave, I think council member McAllister has a question for you.

[03:29:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. Thank you for coming tonight and advocating for all those important issues. Among you have many corporations that you represent, the finance or give money to Silicon Valley at home. They're sort of contributing and sponsors of your organization.

[03:29:59] Rich Mannequin: Sure, we have a wide range members, foundation, city governments, corporations.

[03:30:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. So when we talk about displacements, it's usually a lot of corporations, indirectly because of all the jobs that they're providing and high wages, it sort of causes unnatural displacement. When you advocate to your group of corporate sponsors or corporate advisors, do you ask them to participate in building these affordable housing units on their sites or do you ask them to contribute to their to buy existing affordable housing so that when they come into a city or they build a office that they are contributing to the displacement and so it's like a net effect. So if they present 500 jobs or whatever in a city that they provide 500 units of housing.

[03:30:52] Rich Mannequin: Yeah, so we definitely encourage all of our members, especially lots of corporations in Silicon Valley. I think have an opport- responsibility to do something at the housing crisis. So we definitely encourage them to build housing as part of their plans for various sorts of expansion. Not a big part of our advocacy is looking at the job's housing imbalance. I'm trying to get more housing to be built, so you can lessen that imbalance that's making our communities, um, you know, increasing traffic. making it just harder for you to live here.

[03:31:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I understand. That's a great deal, but are your people that sponsor actually building their own housing.

[03:31:27] Rich Mannequin: They're building their workforce housing. Right. I'm not aware of every proposal going on in Silicon Valley, but I know there's various proposals, for example, North Bay Shore, lots of Google own land where they want to build. The idea in the plan is 9850 units. 20% affordable.

[03:31:43] Councilmember John McAlister: How about Santa Clara, San Jose? Do you know of anybody other than Google and potentially Facebook?

[03:31:48] Rich Mannequin: I don't off the top of my head, but I can get back to you and see...

[03:31:51] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd appreciate that. That would be great to be able to encourage, you know, since we have Google doing it, that your a lot of your members are going to be building workforce housing, that would be a great message for everybody. Thank you for coming out and advocating. Thank you.

[03:32:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:32:08] Philip Cosby: Good evening. My name's Philip Cosby. I'm a member of the Capacito. It's Zane Alphanacious Church. I want to compliment the council for getting goal one. with such broad support, which is to hold a study session on displacement and net loss, and develop a work plan for any desired follow up actions. I also want to commend the council for giving this goal a very high priority. It'll start in July and extend through March of next year. Now, the question that I have is that, is there anything else that council could do to prevent proposals for development, that would require tearing down existing apartments, to to be put off until the council has studied what needs to be done with regard to the displacement and no limb loss. Could it be in the form of simply not allowing such proposals? Or could it be, you know, telling the developers up front? that by the, that they're submitting it with the understanding that their proposal will be acted on, using the policies that council will decide. And so rather than leaving this open for another year, of apartment demolitions, which could be further disastrous. I'm asking you to do something in the interim. Thank you.

[03:33:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:33:46] Louise Howard Hahn: Thank you. Good evening. Louise Howard Hahn, with working partnerships USA, and I want to thank the council members for prioritizing many of these important issues that you have selected. In particular, the know your rights workshops, continuing to support our immigrants community, the anti displacement, and other affordable housing issues that you'll be working on, and workers' rights, wage theft, and the committee workforce agreement. And when I thought about it, these 3 categories of issues, although they're very disparate in Impact, really all trying to do the same thing. We're trying to keep our communities here, we're trying to keep our families in their homes. And so I really commit this council for thinking about creative, forward looking ways to do that and to address these multiple issues that for our communities and our people who live here, those aren't separate issues. Those all impact people all at the same time. And so it's great to see. the city trying to take them all on as well. I do agree with my sisters and brothers at the building trades that like, there is a lot of urgency around the workers' rights issues. The community workforce agreement and wage theft, and we would love to see those start a little faster, even if the timeline may take a while. You know, the sooner you start, the sooner it's finished. And so if there is any room to change some of the timelines and order, reorder some of the issues to get those started sooner than July of next year, that is a priority, especially among many of the folks I work with, who I see are being pushed out of this region because of wage theft. Thank you.

[03:35:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:35:27] Cliff Chambers: Cliff Chambers, speaking on behalf of Mountain View coalition for sustainable planning, I think staff has done a wonderful job of synthesizing your direction. I really like the wording on the 4 goals, and I particularly like the adding the promotion of the community for all goal, and really do, we really do support all the specific projects under that goal. I'd like to spend most of my time talking about I, um, Deb Henningson and I met with Randy Suda 2 years ago talking about the backlog of advanced planning projects. It was bad then, and things were not moving forward to get the kind of exciting projects that you get to eventually approve. And we really would like to see you move forward with the potential recommendation for adding a principal planner to staff, to allow and enable some of these more exciting projects to move forward into current planning. And I think, um, it will allow us to do things like or make a big difference in reviewing and revising the R3 zone standards, some of the precise plans. They're really important, their long range, but they ultimately result in really good smart planning that is related to a lot of the transportation issues that we're facing. Thank you.

[03:36:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:37:01] Alex Nuñez: Hi, Alex Nunez. Um, really want to say thanks for, uh, the, uh, unanimous support last time for, uh, I think it was at a one. for the whole anti- displacement stuff. Really appreciate that, and I really hope that advances. I also really just want to give a lot of support to the wage theft and community workforce items. I think that, as has been said, those are very valuable for, you know, increasing equity and protections for working people here in the city, and maybe prioritizing how we implement those can get a lot of benefit for people sooner rather than later. So I definitely support that. Also, as far as a lot of the staff time. Thank you, staff, you guys are awesome. I really appreciate all the work that you guys do. Um, and I'm thinking that there could be ways to kind of manage some of like this here. Um, you know, I would definitely like to see the uh, downtown precise plan. Any discussions of that being limited to the historic core? I'd like to hear the voices of my elected officials be represented during that process, who, you know, might be able to engage in that discussion, so I'd definitely like to see that. And also for the R3 zoning. I would definitely, you know, support looking at how we might revise that in order to increase some of the density, uh, and, you know, have a different variety of housing stock. And, uh, yeah, so John, I would love for uh, Google to build a high for all the workers, but since the 1960s municipalities around the area have not been approving the permits. So there's that too. We could have done that. Decades ago. Thank you.

[03:38:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:38:38] Heather Phipps: Hello, good evening. I'm Heather Phipps, uh, with the Mountain View, Ten Coalition, and also a tenant here in Mountain View. So I want to also thank you all for unanimously, unanimously supporting Project one. 99. And we urge you to continue your support of the project tonight. We have sent you a list via email of short-term and long-term goals that we hope you will use to direct staff to go deeper into exploring antidisplacement and no net loss policies, which they would then include in that toolkit of options that they're going to be bringing back to you for a potential work plan. This is a small thing, but I do think words matter. And I just want to point out that currently Project 1... reads, hold a study session on displacement and net loss, and that wording could be changed to hold a study session on anti-displacement and no net loss, which would, I think, better reflect the intent of that project, I'm hoping, and be more in alignment with the overall goal of protecting vulnerable populations than preserving mountain views diversity. So if those simple changes to the wording could be made tonight, I mean, we would appreciate that. Also, we're asking that you do not approve Project 2.one, since the CSFRA is already in alignment with goal 2 and providing an improving and portable, affordability of housing in Mountain View. And instead, we urge you to focus on approving Project 2.3 and giving it a higher priority, since it's clear that Mountain View mobile home park owners who are dealing with astronomical rent space, they could really use an ordinance for rent control. Thank you.

[03:40:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:40:18] Shannee Klein House: Good evening again. Shannee Klein House of Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society. I wanted to thank you for moving forward with the wildlife plan for Shoreline Park. I think that's really important and I really appreciate that. Thank you. I also was hoping that there might be still a way to move forward the bird safe design. Three of you voted for it last time, so maybe we can still find a way to do something about safety. Today, the city of San Jose adopted bird safe design guidelines and standards for their downtown, which is wonderful. And I think that there is many ways to do that. Some cities do it through design guidelines. Here in Mountain View. There is a specific plan for North Bay, or in Palo Alto, the building codes, have direct building codes to the San Francisco ordinance. So there are other ways rather than a standalone ordinance, and maybe there's a way you can find to do that. The other thing is maybe through rich codes, because rich codes look at energy, and there's a lot of synergy between bird safe design and saving energy in buildings, because glass is so wasteful in terms of energy. The more glass, the more heat exchange with the outside, the more need for cooling and heating. And maybe that's the way to do it, to look at the rich code and add something about how to deal with glass and safety for birds. Thank you.

[03:41:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:41:58] Sandra Sparza: Good evening, city council members. First, I want you to thank you, everyone, for stopping this place by displacement as a high priority. My name is Sandra Sparza, and I am a member of the Cafecito Social Justice Group at San Joseph Church and San Antonacio here in Mountain View. Please. Do everything you can to stop displacement right away. So that we don't lose even more members anymore in our community. Please work with the staff to create a temple add a monitorium on demolition. Also, Please make it clear to developers that if a new proposal is coming submitting tomorrow, it will be subject to the new anti-displacement policies that will create in the coming months. Thank you.

[03:42:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:43:06] Alex Brown: Alright. Hi. Alec Brown, Santega Villa, North Bajore, Mountain View. I'm just very excited to see 213 going forward. It makes me happier than you can imagine. Uh, I'm glad. Anyway, thank you. Thank you all. Yay. Also, John, yes, municipal broadband, I know it's not in there. I want it. Other people want it. It's great. 22nd century. Yay. Thanks.

[03:43:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who...

[03:43:44] Public Speaker: Madam, Madam Mayor, city council members, I want to thank all of you for getting the displacement policy as a high priority and also the 2.9 in regards to the home, um, mobile homes parks. I want, that's all I wanted to say. I also want a ditto, uh, what everybody said in regard, uh, especially because I am part of cafesito and St. Joseph and Cerantanesia Church, and I really, really appreciate you guys getting those 2 things as a priority. Thank you.

[03:44:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for discussion.

[03:44:31] Unknown Speaker: Um Is this like on these recommendations? Are we doing this by a formal vote for these or a show of hands or? Have you want us to do those?

[03:44:49] Unknown Speaker: Motion and a 2nd and a vote.

[03:44:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so should we take them separately? and start with number one? Then we're going to start with number one. So, um, The 4 goals and the exact wording of those goals are we all good with that? Council member? Yeah, what the 4 goals are and the wording of those 4 goals. So council member Kumay.

[03:45:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:45:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, but it looks like you make emotions. you want to make a motion?

[03:45:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I thought we had to do individual motions for each one. Is that not how we're doing it? Should I raise my hand in motion?

[03:45:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You're being asked if you'd like to make a motion on recommendation one.

[03:45:38] Unknown Speaker: Right. Right. So they did that, right? So then we can vote. Oh, I thought you were going to say it as opposed to just hit the button. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Um, I'm ready to get through all of these. So, um, I move that we adopt recommendation one, which is to adopt city council goals for fiscal years 2019 to 20 and 2020 to 21.

[03:46:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member, and a 2nd by council member Ramirez. Any other discussion on that? Okay, we can vote. Except for council member McAllister.

[03:46:19] Councilmember John McAlister: I forgot, I haven't been here in a while.

[03:46:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Wait, you just unvoted?

[03:46:31] Unknown Speaker: I can register about Castor McAllister, if you want to tell me what it is.

[03:46:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: He just pushed it again. Did it show up? Oh, there we go. Thank you. Okay, that's unanimous. Then on question two. And we talked about this before that we thought it might be useful to talk about, Are we open to increasing staffing? Um, because that will certainly direct the conversation about other items. Any comments on that? Council member McAllister.

[03:47:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a question. So even no individual works alone. So, even though we were bringing on a principal planner that's going to incorporate other existing staff members that are, I would assume, are doing current other projects. So how would one person make a difference, whereas there are a lot of the support staff that's also, they would be taking that resources from somebody else or from other projects.

[03:47:32] Unknown Speaker: In putting our recommendations together, we did look at all of the projects we're working on, as well as to get some sense of how the projects and the timing layout, and we feel pretty comfortable that, if a principal planner were to be added, we could take on one additional large project. Keeping in mind that staff works together as a team. So,

[03:47:56] Unknown Speaker: And the timeline of finding a principal planner.

[03:48:01] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Yes. I would say typically that I have to say, it takes probably about 4 to 5 months once we have a yes, go ahead. So, yes, so we'll probably have to wait until we get somebody on board.

[03:48:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Vice mayor, I'll be Coca. I guess this is going to start comments.

[03:48:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that on the side of? So I am supportive of expanding staff capacity, looking at all the projects. I just trying to figure out, you know, what we can we, what we can, um, change the timeline on. And there's not a whole lot. Um, and I feel that, um, you know, this is frankly the opportunity right now that we have a little bit of extra resources that we could maybe add some limited staff to get through some of these projects. But I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up. And I'm hoping this might help. But in addition to maybe adding planning staff, I've been really thinking about the gatekeepers and how we talked about pushing those off into the fall. Um, but I feel like we have such backlog that I would like to, um, hold on gate, seeing gatekeepers until at least 2020 and hoping that maybe that would help with help planning staff to get through some of these projects.

[03:49:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[03:49:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, that's an interesting idea I might support. I could say supporting. I was just gonna support the expanding staff capacity for advanced planning. I felt like when we were initially talking about projects and goals that it was this area. It was advanced planning that I felt like I wanted, it was particularly in the housing goals, I wanted to vote for more than I could. And I kind of felt like that was maybe other people in the dais also felt that that was an area where we really wanted to do more than we could. So I support that move.

[03:50:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[03:50:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and similarly, I would support increasing staff capacity. I tend to think the goals that we set should inform our decision with the budget. I mean, ideally, we would provide the resources that we would need to achieve the goals that we set for ourselves. So I think this is reasonable. I support the vice mayor's proposal to put off gatekeepers. I've never been enthusiastic about them personally, and they do take an enormous amount of staff timing.

[03:50:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The one we approved earlier for 4 years, right? So I would be interested in looking at that. So I do support expanding staff capacity. And I think I'm thinking even more than what might be in the recommendations because there are so many projects that I feel like I would like us to work on so that we have plans that then hopefully, um, we cannot have gatekeepers, um, because we'd have the plans in place. So I am very willing to expand staff capacity, and I think I could support pushing out gatekeepers to 2020 as well, if even then.

[03:51:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:51:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, adding staff's capacity is a great idea. We have the money now. But I'm cautious about stopping gatekeepers because we need people are complaining about that there's a backlog for housing. And if we stop bringing gatekeepers and people getting projects going down the road, that all of a sudden we're going to find a stagmentation of development, and we need to have those projects available up and ready to go, even though you look at a gatekeeper, you don't necessarily have to prove it that year, you could, like we've done in the past where we said, okay, We're at capacity, you will be in line a year from now. And so if we say no, we are pushing back the availability of allowing those projects to go forward, and if we want housing and, you know, subsidized housing in any of those projects, we should have a pipeline ready to go, and the gatekeeper is one way of having that pipeline of housing available to go. And again, we can segment it when we want to do it. So I would, I don't think I want to support the limiting gatekeepers.

[03:52:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abi Coca?

[03:52:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So in response to that, and it's already been mentioned, the whole point of us having worked on our general plan update and these precise plans was to facilitate and expediate development of commercial and housing. And these gatekeepers are projects that come from, you know, the parcels picked from areas that are not in any of our precise plans, and, you know, based on developer interest or opportunity. And they frankly take a lot more staff time because they're not a part of a precise plan. And we have worked many years on these precise plans, and we've facilitated the, you know, allowing North Bay Shore, the 98, 50 units, East Wisman, 5000 units. So there should be no shortage of opportunity to build housing. And frankly, if the developers follow the plans, it would go much more quickly. When I hear, you know, I, we have a backlog of 6000 units in the pipeline or whatnot, you know, and I, I'm, we're getting, you know, all the state legis, I mean, I brought, I'm really, you know, been on this, that state legislation is coming down on cities, and, you know, we can only permit, approve, and permit projects, but we have no control about when and how they're being built. And And so when I pose that to developers, they say they come back and say, well, it's because city staff is too busy and they're not getting back to us in time. So that's why I'm saying, well, then in that case, let's cut out gatekeepers for another year. Let the developers find projects in the precise plan areas that should streamline the process, and then, you know, and we can work on these other areas, as the mayor said, so that we can streamline those areas too. So housing, development, and the process isn't bogged down. So that's why I think it's important to just put a hold on gatekeepers. And frankly, you know, for the issue of displacement, a lot of these gatekeeper projects are the ones that are displacing folks. So in a sense, that does also respond to that concern. So for the many reasons, I think, you know, it's a time for us to just wait. Just, I'm not saying never, but at least like, let's build some space right now, so we can work on these projects and, you know, allow the developers to find land in the precise plan areas that we've already finished.

[03:55:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And I think the city attorney...

[03:55:44] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And the city manager were trying to interject, that our suggestion would be if you want to have a discussion about gatekeepers, that would be more appropriate an item A to suggest agendizing a discussion as opposed to discussing it in the context of the goal setting.

[03:56:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Council member McCaff.

[03:56:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so we have a motion by the vice mayor. Yeah. But as to as to be determined capacity, right?

[03:56:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, to figure out how much, yeah, so we're open to increasing capacity. Okay. So we have a motion by the vice mayor in a second by council member Ramirez. Any further discussion?

[03:56:36] Unknown Speaker: With the idea that the gatekeepers, we could discuss it as an item eight. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[03:56:43] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: That you could discuss agendizing it for a future agenda.

[03:56:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, yes. Exactly what the city attorney said. Okay, any further comment on that?

[03:56:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just want to say, I asked staff when to bring it up, and my recollection was during goal settings. So that's why I brought it up now.

[03:57:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um... So I think we're ready to vote. So it's to increase staff capacity for advanced increased staff capacity, but as to how much is to be determined based on what else are we outside? on. We're not specifying the level yet. Right. Okay. I think we're ready to vote. That passes unanimously. Great. Okay, so then, um, the third item, and this is, um, regarding the downtown precise plan, right?

[03:57:45] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So, yes, the recommended projects include 4.7, which relates to downtown precise plan. So any discussion about the scope or questions about that or the council's vote on that should be segmented out. And there's an opportunity now for council members to recuse themselves.

[03:58:08] Unknown Speaker: So I will be recusing myself due to real property owned in the downtown area.

[03:58:15] Unknown Speaker: And I will be doing that as well.

[03:58:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Before we get into the discussion, are there any questions on the downtown precise plan? Item 4.7 Council member McAllister?

[03:58:32] Councilmember John McAlister: I gather staff will tell us what parts are segmented. Or is there something written on this?

[03:58:38] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Um, downtown precise plan is segmented. So when you say which parts do you mean which parts of downtown precise plan or?

[03:58:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, you said segment. I remember we had a prior vote on this last month or so where we voted to the holistic approach and for everybody. So how was...

[03:58:56] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: This meant segmentation in terms of who can talk about it.

[03:58:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so we're not voting on anything. So now we can talk about, yeah, do we want to segment the actual precise plan, even though we already voted on it?

[03:59:07] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: We could revisit it. But we had that. So the prior council direction was to be all inclusive, more or less, which means those 2 council members have to recuse themselves. So that's what's on the table now. Do you want to prioritize that project? Or do you want to, sorry, for my voice? Do you want to... This doesn't sound like you. Do you want to do rescope the project, which might enable them to participate as some of the members of the public have talked about? So anything related to the downtown, you need to discuss without them and determine what your end result is, and then, depending on the end result, they may or may not be able to participate in future discussion.

[03:59:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have more, John? Council member Ramirez?

[03:59:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I do have a question. So, um, it's unfortunate you didn't have the opportunity prior to this meeting to explore this, but if we were to limit the scope to areas, what is it, H, A, and G, I think, of the historic core. So limit the revisions to those areas and have a much more limited scope than what we were thinking. How much more staff capacity would we have for other planning projects and do you have a sense of how much we might save with an early scoped revision?

[04:00:33] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And I, and before the community development director speaks, I think one of the things that the planning staff would need to know is what the scope is, because even if you restrict it to that area, we need to do an assessment of whether that implicates the rest of the downtown precise plan. And then once you define the scope, that's when we can assist in an analysis about whether or not it's possible to segment and which council members could participate, but it's the scope that's gonna drive all of that.

[04:01:07] Community Development Director: Just to sort of echo Janey's statement, it would depend on how detailed we would want to get. I remember when I worked here before I sort of came in at the tail end of the downtown precise plan, and it was mostly focused around the areas we talked about, with some additions at the edges. And it did take an awful lot of time, because these are areas that are probably the most loved and the most intensive, you know, in terms of the architectural look, the feel, the opportunity to transit. So there's a lot that's going on in those areas. So I would say, yes, there's some scope to reduce staff time. But a lot of this is because we will be holding outreach and study sessions and those don't go away just because the areas are reduced. And so when we look at the time taken, you know, we kind of map out a general sense of how a project might, you know, proceed. So I can't give you an exact time, but if, I mean, FTE, but I don't know, .one.15, something like that, maybe, if it was limited in scope, because I think there'll still be enough interest that will have multiple study sessions with the EPC with the downtown committee, that, you know, so we don't see a lot of that effort going away completely.

[04:02:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Clark?

[04:02:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: So what I was, we talked a little bit about this last time, but what I was hoping was, I mean, we talked about, There are a number of things that we want to address that are likely precise plan, wide, whether that's, you know, parking, for example, or perhaps restrictions on, um, or promote office or promoting ground floor retail, requiring it. My hope was that there might be certain elements like, um, like the historic preservation aspect that could be limited to a couple of blocks, and perhaps, like that discussion in and of itself, could be segmented, and those votes could be segmented out, and then we could, um, and then, you know, separate discussions might occur on the more sort of precise plan, wide topics that we talked about. So, do we see it? Last time we talked about this, there didn't seem to be a lot of hope for that. It seemed like it was, you know, one or all or nothing, and so that's why, um, I think tonight we're talking about the downtown precise plant as a whole, but has, has staff's opinion of that changed in any way, or are we still, do we think there's any way to segment some of those discussions, or do we think that they're all so integrated that we just can't?

[04:03:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is the city attorney able to respond?

[04:03:59] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It's just a very difficult kind of question to answer unless we really understand the scope, and then I want to work with the planning department to figure out how that all works together, and whether or not we can segment it, whether or not it impacts more than one area, and for the historic preservation ordinance or, you know, that... I haven't looked at that in a long time, but that isn't that more the residential, too. And just, I think we have to have clear direction on the scope.

[04:04:29] Unknown Speaker: I think, there could be two ways. Like, you could look at just the 10200 blocks and look at, you know, protections that we might put in place there, or you could address historic preservation at a citywide level that might include, you know, certain areas of downtown. I don't, I don't know what the best way to do this is, but.

[04:04:49] Unknown Speaker: If I heard you right, it was to look at parking more downtown area wide. And I think we're doing that as part of a separate project. And so I'm assuming the entire council can take part in that. In terms of area A, G, and H, we weren't thinking so much historic preservation, but more about updating the precise plans. So it was a little bit clearer in terms of how new development or additions or renovations might proceed to sort of protect the character. So, we already have done a survey and we know which buildings are historic and we have a historic ordinance, but we'll be looking at updating the downtown precise plan to say, you know, when you're looking at renovating adjacent to or within this area, we want you to consider some of these features. So it's more of updating the guidelines and the standards for development to respond to the historic nature of the buildings in that area.

[04:05:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see. So you could segment that out, but I think the parking is addressed in a separate project, the downtown parking strategy. What about sort of restrictions on, you know, ground, you know, requirements for ground for retail or conversions or things like that?

[04:06:12] Unknown Speaker: Right. If there was a district, I mean, there's a downtown wide discussion on that, um, I don't know how you could segment that because one affects the other.

[04:06:23] Unknown Speaker: Right. You know, I guess you could look at one area and then look at another area separately, but both together to segment out, I would think, would be tough. But the parking we are looking at separately.

[04:06:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member McAllister?

[04:06:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So, this sounds like the exact same our discussion we had last time this came up, and the city manager always likes these continuing discussions of the same item. So, um, I thought the city attorney was pretty succinct, saying that you really can't segment a lot of this apart, so, that there's overlapping parts. So how do you interpret it now that you could segment some where you, before we could, huh?

[04:07:09] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I really don't know what the scope is. I mean, I'd have to really sit down and look at the scope and figure out whether or not it's possible for the council to consider taking, you could consider them as discrete projects that don't impact each other. So it's, this is just really exemplifies the difficulty in giving political reform act or conflict of interest advice, without really being able to look at it. And then, it's not something that I can do in isolation, without having facts, and really need to work with the planning department to understand, because my recollection of the previous discussion was that even though the council was interested in, or the council that was able to decide, the members of the council that were able to decide, that some of the things that you wanted to study in that historic area would impact the other areas of the precise plan. And so that creates a quandary for me. But without actually having a scope of work and looking at what the work plan is, being able to do an analysis of whether or not these decisions could be independent of one another is really challenging. And I think that what we had talked about before is, you know, what staff typically does when the council wants to move forward with a precise plan is kind of develop a work plan and work on the scope. And that really raises one of the challenges when you're looking at 70 projects tonight, and this one in particular is trying to define it in the context of all these other conversations. And so I don't know how, um, how possible that is unless the 5 of you could be very specific about what you want staff to work on in the context of that downtown precise plan, what the issues are. And then I don't know if, um, if RT and I can come up with a response that would at least help you address that. 'Cause it's just a challenge.

[04:09:09] Councilmember John McAlister: So are you recommending that the city attorneys and the community development, get together, review it, and then come back to the 5 members here to have a better idea of what can and can't be done, instead of voting on something that we don't know we're sure of.

[04:09:29] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: What I'm asking for is clear direction from these 5 members of the council as to what are the issues that you want to study.

[04:09:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Why are we, why is amending the downtown precise plan on this list of projects?

[04:09:44] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Because we need information to be able to do the analysis.

[04:09:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So just simply saying these areas or historic preservation, I mean, kind of have to have more direction. I think the city attorney, I mean, city manager.

[04:09:57] City Manager Dan Rich: So based on the last conversation, which was very similar to this one, the scope was such that it was determined that they could not be separated. Tonight, if you so choose, you can limit the scope, to just eight, or just areas bet, you would not be doing the same scope that you talked about when you talked about it a month ago. So that's what we just need to know, based on your current direction, the two council members cannot participate. If you want to change that scope, it might be possible. There's no guarantees, but it might be possible to limit it. But you also need to know, you obviously would not be looking at the same breadth of issues, and that's fine. You have to know that going in.

[04:10:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So, If we, you keep asking us what specifically we want to look at. I'm not comfortable with the knowledge I have right now to say, these are the specific issues. Is it possible that you could come back with, these are specific issues that could be considered, that could we would segment out?

[04:11:08] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, we would come back to you with a work plan. based on the current direction, which is fairly broad, and we would say, This is what we think it entails, and then you could look at it, and a budget, and a timeline, and all those good things, I'm looking at our tea. Then when the five of you look at that, you can say, No, we don't want to do all that, we want to do less, or we want to do more, or whatever.

[04:11:34] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And then I would just say that the segmentation comes after, right, after all of that is defined. And in the past, I've come to you and said, okay, if the council's interested in segmenting this, so other council members can participate, here's how you can structure the decisions. But I think we'd have to get to that work plan confirmation stage. And if we brought that to you, there's going to be a public, here, you know, it would be a public meeting, so you'd hear from members of the community about the issues that they would like to be included, and then you'd provide direction to us, and we might need at that point to go back and look at it and be at that point be able to tell you if it's possible for all 7 of you to participate or possible to structure the decision making process in a way that they can participate in some. But it's a little too amorphous at this point for me to provide that guidance. And then we might want the FPPC's guidance as well.

[04:12:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So for me, um, coming up with a work plan, sounds like, um, a good option, and I think that the 1st 3 blocks of Castro are what are very, what's very concerning to me, because I do want to make sure we preserve the character of it. Um, and the historic nature of it. And I feel pressured to do that maybe sooner rather than later than like maybe the rest of the precise plan, given what might happen at the state level. And so I feel a greater sense of urgency to address the 1st 3 blocks than the rest of the plan. And if there was a way to structure it. And I think the 1st 3 bucks have some things that are unique versus the whole area. So I'm hoping we can find a way to segment it and do those 1st and then maybe the whole area. And I just want to, when you say segment, are you talking about, for me, segmentation is a conflict of interest term, but are you talking about phasing it or phasing it?

[04:13:44] City Manager Dan Rich: It would probably be that I'm understanding. Okay. Yeah, yeah. I'll look to RT again, but I think it's entirely possible for the council tonight or upon seeing a work plan to say, we only want to focus on the one to 300 blocks, and it will only be about that, and it will only be about design or whatever. You just need to know that's not what told us before, which was to look at parking and things that are district wide, and that's fine.

[04:14:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, I, um, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just talking about the phasing of it, and feeling a greater sense of urgency to address the first three blocks, because I don't want state laws too, although they might still do that. But if there's anything we can do to address that sooner rather than later, that's what I'd be interested in. Okay, um...

[04:14:35] Unknown Speaker: Oh, yes. Just real quick. Off the cuff, I think the one thing, if you focus just on design guidelines, something like that, I feel reasonably confident that it wouldn't spill over into the other districts, but if we're talking about intensities, land uses, parking, that have the ability to impact outside the district, then I think we start getting a little more complex and just to remind us the last time the council talked about district area wide, historic preservation, parking, designs review, heights, intensities, and land uses. So we were going off of that.

[04:15:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[04:15:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. Okay, I'm going to take a stab. So I think that, um, for me, I feel torn. I think that one of the things that we talked about last time in relation to a downtown precise plan was kind of seeing all these things come forward in the downtown in a maybe lack of a better word, kind of ad hoc process, and wanting to address that by looking at the downtown precise plan with all the things listed in attachment one under 4.7 that, um, our team mentioned. Um, you know, I think what I feel torn about is, I think that that is definitely necessary and relevant, but I think, do we want to narrow the scope and say, you know, we want to revise the downtime precise plan, but perhaps the goal should really be revising it for areas A, G, and 8, or H-A-N-G? Um, so that we can better align with the state legislation that's coming. So I would say it's a shift from being holistic and broad to narrowing down the conversation. That's kind of what I'm hearing from staff is that it would be really difficult to say we want to do a holistic precise plan and segment out certain parts of the discussion. I mean, I don't know if that's possible. Um, I would be interested in that if that is a possibility, but I think the feedback that I hear is, if you want to move forward with the 1st couple blocks on Castro, it would be a shift in, the wording of the item to be more focused in the historic core of a downtime precise plan revision, that's my understanding. Maybe I'm interpreting that incorrectly, but that's what I what I am hearing so that more members of the council could be able to participate. That's what I'm hearing. Am I wrong? Am I right?

[04:17:34] Unknown Speaker: I think, um, if the goal is just to look at state legislation, we're not entirely sure if if this project will do that. So I think if the goal is to focus on the 1st 3 blocks because those are the most important in the downtown and focus on preserving the character, through design guidelines, that can be done. Because I think the state law has some requirements of, um, you know, having had a district there since 2010. And I think we've done a review and I'm not quite sure we can create a district, we've got historic buildings in the area. So.

[04:18:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, so I think I don't know if the goal has shifted for us in looking at the downtown precise plan. But my understanding when we originally talked about it was trying to find a holistic approach as we're seeing different projects come up through the downtown kind of greater area. That was my understanding. So, I mean, I'm open to amending so that more colleagues can participate with a shift in the focus. I'm also think it's important to review the various aspects in the downtown precise plan, though, we discussed at length last time. So, I'm not sure how people feel, but

[04:18:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:18:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[04:18:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think I'm tracking with you. I'm interested in in a narrowly scoped revision that would address some of the concerns from the community that we've heard. And so I was I'm looking up the downtown precise plan because I had remembered a narrowly scoped revision some years ago and it was November 2015 to modify round floor office use in Area J. And I think that was to make it from a permitted use to a provisional use of memory serves, something along those lines. So if there are very targeted things that we can do in the historic core, related to preservation of historic resources, and to the extent we're able to, um, preempting the potential impact of state legislation, you know, and we focus on that. And then once we conclude that work, we can decide, do we want to proceed with a comprehensive update to address the concerns about parking and intensities, land uses?

[04:20:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I feel like that's I could support that. And I think we could sort of postpone some of the more challenging and some of the bigger picture items, you know, if we're just focusing on preserving the character of the historic core. I don't know if I articulated that well, but that's kind of what I'm thinking. I feel like we never know what state legislation is going to be. And if we have the opportunity to influence it, based upon what we do, I think we should do that. Council member Clark.

[04:20:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Suggestion. So what if we, what if we adopt the recommended project, and one of the work plan items is, what are to articulate, which is looking at state legislation, and, or, you know, protections that we might put in place for specific blocks as related as might be related to state legislation, so that's one of the things that they're looking at. When the work plan comes back, we may have to knock a few other things off to make it all work. I don't know, but that at least allows staff to develop the work plan that they were planning to develop, and we've specified one of the items. in that work plan that we'd like them to sort of focus on in the near term. My only caution would be, um, 1st 2 box, 1st 3 box, I think when you get to 3 box, you start to, you may or may not lose the others. I don't know. But I'm open to whatever sort of configuration of that allows them to participate for that particular workplan item. But I don't know if staff is okay with that. But it would be, basically, moving forward with the work plan as recommended, but just specifying that one of the work plan items in the near term would be to sort of track state legislation and look at in the one, two, 300 block, whatever allows the others to participate in that area H, you know, looking at protections that we might put in place to ensure that they aren't preempted by state legislation. in that specifics or a core. Does that work or is that?

[04:22:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, for me that works. I guess I would just, though, flip it and say, let's look at as one of the items in the work plan. It's, let's look at the first 3 blogs and what we can do to protect it, just in case there is state legislation, as opposed to saying, here's what it, the state legislation might be. Let's look at what we want to do there.

[04:22:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, that's fine too. Okay. I just don't know. I would divert us out. I mean, 1st 3 box are fine. I don't know if that precludes the, if we have to limit it to 2 or a specific, like, area H or whatever, but all staff can figure that out.

[04:22:42] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah. Because it's not the whether or not the council could segment the decisions is not going to depend entirely on the distance. It's also gonna depend on what's included in the scope. So, um, and maybe our T has a suggestion, because it's about what we would bring back in the work plan, because it also sounded like you were interested in the character of that core, and maybe it is a phase, maybe we bring back a phased approach, that we could, this is how we could, um, phase the project so that we could focus on the downtown core, those first 300 blocks initially.

[04:23:19] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I was gonna suggest that. I think the, it seems to me the overarching goal is to try to get as much participation and to focus on the character of the core. We're not entirely sure if we can, you know, save it from state legislation, but that will be one of the things we will review as we're going through it. So maybe we could revise the language a little bit to focus on the 1st 3 blocks. Is that H, A and G or just H, just to give us a sense?

[04:23:53] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think H is the middle and A and G or to the side. To the edges of it. Yeah, yeah. So, correctly.

[04:24:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Maybe you can give us a general sense and we can come back. I think for me, area age is the most is the most important. Uh, there's less people in the queue here. Um, Councilman from McAllister. Did you have

[04:24:17] Councilmember John McAlister: I just not been pushing? That okay. No, I would also like to point out there seems to be multiple site comments or discussions going on. And one discussion is, do we want to have participation from all the members? Or is it more important that we protect a downtown precise plan? Are we to protect it? So it would be great to have their participation. But if our goal is to protect the city in the downtown, those 3 districts, let the cars fall where they fall? Because if that's our goal, there may be a conflict, if they're allowed to go both ways, that's fine. But if our real goal is to make sure that we have a definitive program or a discussion on those 3 segments, let's go forward with that. I mean, it does take care of everything. I, you know, that's what I brought up SB 50 during the questions about, let's be proactive on the life thing. But if our goal is to protect it, then it would be great to have the other two, but I think the 5 of us could protect it and let that decision lead us where we're trying to go.

[04:25:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come in.

[04:25:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So I think I'm just need a point of clarification maybe from staff. I'm struggling to understand how if we talk about a downtown precise plan, and they have to be recused, how we can bring back a downtown precise plan in a way that they can participate, if it's still noticed as a downtown precise plan. So would the wording be different? So, I mean, that's why my question was, do we narrow the scope in terms of downtown precise plan areas, H-A-N-G, as opposed to downtown precise plan all of downtown? That was where I was going with my line of questioning. And I just, if you could clarify that, I think that'd be really helpful.

[04:26:13] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah, and as frustrating as it's going to be, I can't give you a definitive answer. Because I think that, so the way I envision it happening is we're going to bring back a work plan and we're going to have what we're calling phased, because segmentation is a word that deals with conflict of conflict of interest. So we bring back, here's how we could address the historic core 1st and what we see. I guess staff would identify the issues. And during the, when during the consideration of the work plan, members of the community would also weigh in on what they think the issues are. And it's at that point, because I don't, you know, I can, it's easy to do the legwork to figure out the distance. But I think the definitive factor is going to be whether or not what the work plan wants to address in that initial core is going to implicate other areas of the precise plan. And at that juncture, we can talk about segmentation. So I don't think there's anything you can do tonight to guarantee that we can segment it. I think it's loud and clear that, um, that is something that staff should bear in mind and be able to address. And I think it's really going to require that the scope be defined well enough that we can do the analysis.

[04:27:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, I do see Councilor Ramirez in the cue, but I that answer makes me feel more comfortable and I don't know how this goes forward in terms of if you need a stra vote from the 5 of us. Um, but I'm, I'll be supporting it given that information from the city attorney.

[04:27:51] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think actually what I'm speaking for Audrey now. I think what we're looking for is really redefining, you know, we've put forward our best effort to define what we thought we heard as part of the goal setting and the downtown precise plan in particular seems like, you know, may need some tweaking based on what's in there. So I think that's really the key, is providing staff the direction tonight, that we can do what you like us to do. So specifically what's written in the staff comments area. in terms of the description of the project. I think that the project as a whole has stayed broad, but there's a phased approach that would look 1st at the character preserving the character of the historic core with an effort to prevent the preemption by state legislation. And that would be, you know, brought back in a full work plan that also looked at other issues, but that would be phased to be the 1st priority. Did that, did that capture what? That's, can I capture what? I think I heard.

[04:29:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So if somebody were to make a motion on that, then we could see if it has the support of the 5 council members who are able to vote. Council member Ramirez?

[04:29:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Yeah, so not to complicate things further, but one of the things I want to be careful of is there's an economy of scale in looking at the whole precise plan comprehensively, because I don't want to spend a bunch of time and money on outreach for a very nearly scoped revision and then spend additional time and money on, you know, looking at the whole precise plan comprehensively. So what I'm comfortable with is, I think what the direction it sounds like we're going in is something that's fairly targeted. So like the 2015 revision for Area J related to office space. So if we could identify things that are that are quite narrowly scoped, quite targeted, that we can do relatively quickly to address the urgent concerns that we're hearing about. And then maybe after we've done that, we could do a check-in on, okay, Do we want to go and do a comprehensive update, appreciating that we're going to have to do all of that outreach again. It has to go back to planning commission. You know, there's a resource impact that we would be hit with twice if we do 2 different revisions.

[04:30:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Those sound like 2 different motions. So, um, was that emotion?

[04:30:41] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay.

[04:30:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah um... Do you want to make that motion?

[04:30:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think I'm most comfortable with the approach that Padre described, so I'll move that formally.

[04:30:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'll second it.

[04:31:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Retain the scope that's in attachment one, but add the an approach that is phasing the work plan such that the 1st item to be looked at is preservation of the downtown, or rather the historic core, in an effort to preempt to the extent possible, or prevent preemption by the state legislation to the extent possible.

[04:31:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so we have motion and I'll 2nd it. So...

[04:31:45] Unknown Speaker: No. Just to clarify, so that... So it's still comprehensive, full, precise plan.

[04:31:54] Unknown Speaker: Right. It still comprehensive. Got it. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes, yes. Because there are some things that I think are naturally comprehensive, like parking. Yeah.

[04:32:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments on that? Okay, we're ready to vote.

[04:32:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so that's, uh, pes is, uh, with five, yes, and two recues. Phew. Okay, so, um, now we can get them. Welcome back. Hopefully, the rest of us go a little bit faster. Okay. Audrey,

[04:33:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: so this next one might be pretty straightforward. It's everything but the downtown precise plan that was recommended, and you, having approved the additional staff capacity for advanced planning, do not need to choose between 2.19 and 3.18. Three bullet 42.

[04:33:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, question.

[04:33:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, are they coca?

[04:33:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But, um, so I understand those 2 the 2 but what about with the items under four?

[04:33:44] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We'll do that next.

[04:33:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But can we interchange some of these if we or do we need to?

[04:33:51] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We hadn't identified trade-offs with other advanced planning projects. But if you had specific ideas about that in mind, this would be a time you could raise that.

[04:34:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so yeah, so, um, you know, I, I, this is kind of more, more scent item four, but, um, and, well, if you don't mind, I'll just say what I was thinking. On 2.15 with Shhenandoah precise plan. Um, when, um, I wanted to,

[04:34:26] Unknown Speaker: we need a, we have a need for recusal if we're going to talk about Shenandoah.

[04:34:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, sorry. Okay. So I guess that was my question is if... So I'll just say, I'm not, that is, um, I don't think 3.18 is as urgent as some of the items in I 4. So can we interchange that is my question.

[04:34:48] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: My understanding is that 3.18 is a much smaller capacity project than the others that are in number four.

[04:34:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, so, you know, we can't talk about 2.15 yet, but if we talk about that, that may change. Plus, we also talked about, um, we don't know yet the additional capacity that's required. And so we might be supportive of capacity to do more. Even more than staff recommended.

[04:35:24] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, so council does have that option to say come back to us and tell us what staffing you'd need because we want all 3 of these.

[04:35:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So should we, um, Would you like to flip and do for, I think we should. And then... Oh. Sorry, we do have emotion. forgot what it's for. Okay, could you restate your motion?

[04:35:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Include 2.19 update city documents. And 3.18 develop citywide CDM.

[04:36:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you want both?

[04:36:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, she just said we can do both. Yeah. Yeah.

[04:36:09] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah, so this is actually everything that's recommended, um, when we go back to this slide. It's everything in this column. All 37 of those projects is what that number 3 recommendation was about. And because there's additional capacity, you don't have to choose between which one, you know, 2.18 or 3.18.

[04:36:35] Unknown Speaker: Wow, that's a lot different than that little line there, isn't it? You mean 2.19. 2.2.19 and 3.18. Thank you. Yes.

[04:36:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by Council member McAllister and a 2nd by Council member Kameh. Any other comments on that? Council member Hicks.

[04:37:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my only comment is that I thought we were just saying that that the decision on this would be impacted by the next decision. So I'm thinking of not supporting this until we talk about the next decision.

[04:37:18] Unknown Speaker: That's what I was thinking, too. I thought you said number two, then dictated how we didn't have it.

[04:37:26] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That's true, but what your colleagues are saying is that number 4 could, certain things could be taken treated differently in what's recommended in order to be able to do more of the projects that are currently not recommended.

[04:37:45] Unknown Speaker: I think it would be best for council member committee to recuse yourself, talk about that item, and whether or not it gets rescope, which may impact the total capacity available.

[04:37:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I am going to recuse myself from a real property that I lease near Shenandoah. So just, um, process question here, but we had a motion on the floor. So did you...

[04:38:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You would draw your second?

[04:38:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: At least it can... At least it took it out. I can.

[04:38:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so council member McAllister made a motion. Nobody seconded.

[04:38:35] Unknown Speaker: No. no. Yeah, so Unless somebody else seconds it. I'm working on canceling it, so we would consider it withdrawn.

[04:38:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, so if there's no second, that dies. Okay, so now we can talk about... Four. And did you want to make a comment? Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[04:39:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. So, I wanted to make a comment about 2.15. So I think most if everyone saw the letter from Superintendent Rudolph, expressing the school district's interest in the Shenandoah properties. And, um, in light of that, um, I wanted to, I thought it might be better to change the scope of this instead of a precise plan. That may be premature at this point, but change it to, say, something like, you know, work with the school district, Mountain View, Bisman school district, um, to facilitate the acquisition of the Shenandoah site. And, um, explorer of joint use opportunities. So in light of that, I'm I was thinking, um, it might not take as much resources, since we're not going to engage in a precise plan right off. Um, just want to, you know, continue to have staff involved and engaged with the with the parcel. There's a lot of coordination that's going to be needed with the federal government, with Congresswoman issues office. You know, I know I have an interest in seeing what kind of affordable housing opportunities might be possible there. So, if we can just, you know, just be on top of it, see how things transpire, and then maybe we can then decide if we need to move forward with the precise plan. But I do want to have staff resources on this project.

[04:40:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:40:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, maybe you don't know the answer, but I'm wondering how much smaller that would make this in the eyes of anyone who might have been thinking about it.

[04:40:58] City Manager Dan Rich: So based on the vice mayor's concept, basically, this, I think the precise plan would go away, or at least be put on hold for the foreseeable future, and community developments, participation would be minimal. It would really move over to the city manager's office. And frankly, would most impact me. Therefore, we don't recommend it now. No, I mean, in reality, it would be mostly me and Christina Gilmore, who works on intergovernmental issues. It would be most involved. We would need some support and help from community development, but it would not be a massive undertaking, like a precise plan. So we would probably have to juggle some priorities in our office, but it would free up capacity and community development if they're not doing a precise point, which is very labor intensive.

[04:41:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is that it? Council member McAllister?

[04:41:58] Councilmember John McAlister: If the vice mayor is saying, do not continue with the show and don't precise plan. I agree, because there's too many unknowns out there, and until all the working forces have come together, I know, in 2015, they start talking about this, so we don't know how much longer it's going to take for them to figure what organizations are going to do it. So if your ideas, not to continue with the precise plan, I would support that idea.

[04:42:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez.

[04:42:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I'm comfortable with this proposal, and it feels, so when we come back to item three, There is Project 5.3 related to potentially identifying resources to help us monitor state and federal matters and maybe there's some interplay there, so we may be able to supplement, you know, the people power involved in this with that project. But, um, I also appreciate that this frees up capacity for other projects too. So I'm comfortable with this.

[04:43:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm comfortable with this change of scope. So do you want us to, do we vote on, well, let's see, if we, do we need to vote on that separately?

[04:43:25] City Manager Dan Rich: While Council member Kame is recused, yes. Okay. to change the scope of that project, which staff now feels can be recommended, so that you would both change the scope and approve it as a vote now separate from the other items before she comes back.

[04:43:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have... Recommended with a big ass directive resource implications for the city managers. So... That's long here tonight. So we have a motion by the vice mayor in a second bye, Council member Ramirez. And that was for revising the scope and changing the resources.

[04:44:05] City Manager Dan Rich: With a bidding asterisk.

[04:44:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so that passes 6, 01 with council member, Kamei, recused.

[04:44:17] City Manager Dan Rich: Would it be okay if I just echoed back what I thought I heard from the vice mayor around that changed scope to make sure we're on the same page, which would be to work with the school district, to facilitate acquisition of the Shenandoah site and explore joint use opportunities and affordable housing.

[04:44:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I would suggest a little broader to explore the possibilities because there's a lot of unknowns and things outside of our control, but the intent is to work with the school to see what opportunities are possible.

[04:44:54] City Manager Dan Rich: Acceptable. Thank you.

[04:44:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, so now they can come back, right? Ellen can come back.

[04:45:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'm here.

[04:45:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, so now we can go back to... Do you want to stay with the rest of four?

[04:45:18] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Yeah, I was gonna say, why don't we just stay with Vesta four? So, as scoped and understood by staff, the additional capacity of one principal planner would get you one of those two remaining projects, but not both of them. So, this is an opportunity to... Increased effort.

[04:45:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:45:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: So my initial inclination based on what we decided on downtown, um, and covering some of the aspects in 5.one. Hopefully, are we the most critical ones that we should move forward with 2.5 if we can't have both. But I'm open to what others think too.

[04:46:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga?

[04:46:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So this is where we bring, or I bring back the, uh, item 3.18. And I looked at the chart and it said hi, and that's why I was, I guess, comparing it with the other 2 items 2.5 or 5.one. In my mind, of the three, 2.5 and 5.one are more urgent than 3.18. Council member.

[04:46:46] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: I want to, um, kind of fess up that our scale rating system is not entirely precise. And we had a threshold around the kind of portion of an FTE, over what duration that would make something high. And while both may qualify for high. If you look at the staff report. I believe it had FTEs, at least 4 historic preservation at point. Um... .75. 0.75 for 18 to 24 months. And did we have the same 43.18 is a .2 FTE for a shorter period of time. So both of those are considered high, but not equivalent and exchangeable in staff's opinion.

[04:47:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[04:47:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Next to housing, transportation is in traffic congestion is, the complaint that we get a lot of, and I've always talked about making sure we get a structural foundation and infrastructure, and to me, transportation, demand, management is one way that that's infrastructure, and that's one way to decrease congestion and improved mobility. So I think that is very high on my list to make sure that we get that before we add more housing. And as the housing comes along, then we have those development projects can tie into our county, citywide transportation demand. So, I would think that, to me, is very high and would not want to change its priority.

[04:48:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:48:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was going to make a pitch for updating the historic preservation ordinance. I'm not completely clear from reading the staff comments exactly when I've dealt with exactly what's included in this, even though there are a number of sentences on what's included. Usually when I've dealt with historic preservation in the past, there's kind of a bundle of things that come together. There's the ordinance, there's the list of which properties, the ordinance applies to. And then there's usually, um, various incentives that are really important, and those only apply, of course, to the buildings that would be that would be listed. There may also be a district. There may also be some sort of related facade improvement. So I don't know which of the many possible things that could be a part of that project are considered part of that one.

[04:49:39] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: I think we looked at taking a look at the list of properties. I know we've done a couple of surveys. I feel reasonably comfortable, but do a final sweep, and then updating the ordinance to see if there are, um, you know, we had we had this opt out feature, um, and one of the things we looked at was to realize that you can't really opt out, but if you opt out, you don't get some of the benefits of the incentives. So amending the ordinance to be a little more standardized. And all of that involves individual property owners. And we do hear from them. And it is intensive, involves several study sessions. And so our FTE resource was based on our past 2 experiences. And I feel reasonably comfortable that it's going to take about that long. We weren't quite going into the TDR approach, but if you wanted to add that, that would add some element of research to it, but I feel like we could probably absorb it within the .75 incentive tools.

[04:50:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I don't think that would be the most time consuming. No, I would add. And then the other, it sounds like any facade improvement associated with it might be it's part of another project or would it be part of this?

[04:51:02] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: It's usually an implementation item and we used to have it when we had redevelopment funds. So it's more a factor of assigning money and having a program and some resources to implement it.

[04:51:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and where I've worked before, it's also a matter of exactly how that's designed. It's usually somebody with some experience in historic preservation, not just, you know, let everybody go out and buy a bucket of paint kind of thing.

[04:51:30] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Yeah, it sometimes involves having a historic architect as a resource to review the facade improvement.

[04:51:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Right, exactly.

[04:51:40] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: But that would be an implementation item and not part of the historic ordinance preparation or amendment.

[04:51:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I didn't understand what you just said.

[04:51:50] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: So say you put in a historic ordinance to say, here are some tools available. The actual implementation of that would be outside of the ordinance. It would be post-ordinance, and we would then figure out how might one go about creating a program.

[04:52:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so maybe that's what I was saying. I don't quite understand how much is ordinance and how much is post-ordinance.

[04:52:12] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: That would be a separate project. That's post ordinance implementation. And, you know, it would be referenced as these are some of the tools that would be available. And then the city can decide how much money and resources it wants to put behind one tool or the other tool. Like I said, we used to have a fairly simple facade improvement program at one point. So we used to have it. But I think as redevelopment funds went away, the program went away. So it wouldn't be part of the ordinance creating the program. It'd be after that. It could be part of a work plan, like many of these projects, we would come back to you with a work plan, saying, these are the elements we think it would include, and you can tell us if that's right or not. And if facade improvement was something you were interested in, that would be something we would build in as a follow-up item. This project does have a, sort of a predetermined, preliminary work plan or scope based on a report from 2013, which was never carried out, so we would start with that and get, you know, your input on whether you wanted to adjust that.

[04:53:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and I guess part of what I'm saying is, for example, the facade improvement element could be part of the small business plan, or it could be part of this, I'm not exactly sure when we're voting, how it's packaged.

[04:53:30] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Yes, and it could be made available to all kinds of properties, but you may want to focus on historic properties as an incentive.

[04:53:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So when we talked about resources earlier, I guess I was asking, you know, could we say we supported even more resources, um, because I was having a very difficult time? deciding which ones of these I don't want to do. Um, and so I would like to do 2.5, 5.one, and we're not going to talk about 2.15 as well as 3.18 and 2.19. Is that not a possibility with additional resources?

[04:54:22] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: It's, uh, staff's assessment that with the one senior planner, you could have the three point, um, uh, 18 and 2.19 and either 2.5 or 5.1. So with additional beyond that, then, I mean, if the council says we really want both of those, then we'd have to come back to you and tell you what resources we'd need to be able to do that. I would just add that it would need a little bit of discussion. I think we do want to be very thoughtful and we did think about that. There's also the management of the person who is reviewing that and right now, I would say this, spread fairly thin, and we want to do a good job with some of these projects. So I'm not entirely sure that adding, say, 2 people is going to get you everything on an immediate time frame. And we're always trying to figure out where to put people. So. So there's a few pieces we have to just figure out, but we feel reasonably comfortable that. If 2.5 has scoped the way it is, we can certainly start on, say, 2.15. We can start on 2.5 and then once some big project's done, we can pick up 5.one or vice versa. So, um, if the council wants to do both at the same time, we're going to have to do a little bit of thinking about it, that's possible.

[04:55:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I think they're both very important projects, and, um, I don't know, I guess I'd have to go back and look at the timeline to see, um, when any of those go beyond 2 years. Likely one of them would go beyond 2 years to start it, or yeah, I guess that they're...

[04:56:15] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Our thought was R3 is probably going to take all the time it needs, which is 18 to 24 months, but let's say one of the projects gets done earlier on the downtown precise plan, then we can pick up the next project. But it all depends on whether it gets done.

[04:56:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I guess what I'm saying is doing the downtown and the R3 and the historic at one time is going to be challenging.

[04:56:42] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Yeah, that would be challenging.

[04:56:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Ramirez.

[04:56:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So this is the most challenging part, I think, of this discussion. And if I were to express a preference for one of these two, my preference would be for 2.5, the R3 zoning standards, because I think that's that will be essential to achieving our objective of getting more entry-level ownership housing. But I'm interested in advancing both projects to the extent we're able to. So whether that means exploring additional resources, or if we can do, I think, the phasing that you are proposing RT, where we could get through some amount of R3 and because it's a multi, there are multiple projects kind of built into that. So maybe maybe maybe the elegant solution is to do it sort of in a phased way. Or if in the end, we can't really talk about 4.7, but that kind of feeds into this depending on that scope. you know, there may be an opportunity to sort of phase in all of these projects so we can achieve, um, we can achieve them, just, you know, kind of in a staggered way.

[04:58:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:58:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I think, um, given what we did earlier tonight, um, in looking pretty, I think, closely at Area H-ish. If you look at sort of the current story preservation ordinance, most of the issues that we have associated with that that come up are sort of in that downtown area, and there's a handful of single family homes, I think, in old Mountain View and elsewhere, but those rarely come up, and when we do start looking at this, people do come out of the woodwork. So, which is not a bad thing. I think it's just going to take a lot of time. And then when you look at, if 5.one is already, sort of in the staff report, is already sort of, you know, looking at an estimated project start date of next summer, summer of 2020. I think maybe the best approach is to prioritize 2.5, get it started because it's going to take probably the longest of these, not completely throw 5.one, you know, out, but just say that, you know, as RT mentioned, you know, as other projects roll off, sort of keep it on the list of, you know, starting next summer or whenever makes the most sense. So, that way we just sort of state that, you know, it's something that is important to us and we'd like to get to it if at all possible, but we'd prefer to at least get 2.5 kicked off because I think those standards are so old and I think those will have the greatest impact in terms of the overall reducing overall long-term staff and council. workload once they're done. That's just my preference.

[04:59:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Coco.

[04:59:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I I could go with that, um, but I guess I was gonna make one last pitch for the items under three. with the TDM. I understand council member of Kellisher's concern, but I asked the question in our questions. Um, like, we already have TDMs, uh, requirements in our precise plans, and whenever we have a gatekeeper project, We usually require it. So I guess to me, it wasn't as urgent. And so if we're talking about phasing these projects or, you know, delaying some, I would be more comfortable delaying that. and then starting our 3 in historic preservation. And then in terms of the city documents, If it's about the housing laws, again, that's sort of time with legislation, nothing at this point, well, maybe something will pass in the next couple weeks, but some of these major bills are going to take some time to get through the legislature and some right now to your bills. So we may not have, you know, we may not have to work on it like right away either. So I think the items in 3 are much easier to hold off. And so could we do the 5.one and 2.5 get those going with whatever added resources we need? And then, you know, look at the items in 3 later down the road.

[05:01:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[05:01:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I'm comfortable with that approach. If that helps, if that helps with the phasing and achieving both of these larger scale objectives, I agree with the vice mayor's assessment that 2.19 and 3.18 are good and desirable, but I'm willing to, I would support holding off on those to expedite the other 2 projects to the extent that could facilitate the phasing.

[05:01:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:02:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I'm agreeable with the Vice Mayor's approach as well. So I was going through ones that were not on within these questions, and I was wondering, I did see maybe an opportunity, although I'm not sure it helps with staffing, but maybe it does. Um, item. 2.2. And my thought process was, we've got a lot of things that we're looking at to increase the supply of housing that might be more affordable, and so that coming up with, like, financial plans for folks to afford them, to me, is less important than having the supply of the home. So if that was taken off the list, would that help?

[05:03:01] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: No, that project is primarily by the housing, while the larger ticket items, you guys are trying to position around are more impacted by the planning staff, so it's two different divisions within CDD.

[05:03:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. I have some others that I could recommend.

[05:03:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, cancel member Hicks. No? Council member, Kamet.

[05:03:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So, I just have a clarifying question. So, um, it sounds like there's traction gaining for moving forward with all the items under number four being prioritized over the... 2.19 and item three. Am I understanding that correctly? I see a nodding head. Okay. So, obviously, I can't vote on one of them. So, you know, I agree with the conversation related to 2.5 and being terms of aligning with a lot of our housing goals that we've been discussing. I think for 5.one. I think that has been something that the city's talked about for years and years. And I would like to see that. be tackled. But I do think 3.18 and the TDM is really important. So I'm not sure how we prioritize, um, you know, I don't, I'm assuming that if this is a motion that goes forward, then it would be, for number four, 2.5, 5.1. That would be the motion, and then we would segment out 3, and then discuss that later. I'm just trying to understand the process of how we pick and choose the shifting and prioritization of these projects.

[05:05:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think what I'm hearing is a desire to do both 2.5 and 5.1 and a lower priority for both 2.19 and 3.18, although not unanimity on that. But, and I would ask Audrey or RT to comment on this, because I think, in the current timelines, both 5.1, 3.18 and 2.19 are delayed implementations anyway, so you're not, you're not picking up an earlier start.

[05:05:50] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: Something would have to, number one, it would still be a delayed implementation, no matter what. And number two, something would have to be pushed out considerably further, whether it's 3.18 or 2.19. You can't physically do both of those are all those ones you want on the earliest possible timeline. I think it's gonna be a challenge, regardless of staffing, to do the downtime precise plan, the R3 zone, and the historic preservation ordinance, all at the same time. But what we can do with the addition of that one resource is to work on a differently scope precise plan. Obviously, Shenandoah won't have as much impact on our staffing, and then work on the R3. And then as some of these larger projects phase off, we pick up the historic preservation ordinance because it's the same managers and the same review bodies that are going to be seeing these and it's going to be hard to do them all at one time. So we could do downtown and R3 maybe. And then as one tapers off, pick up the historic preservation ordinance.

[05:07:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: I move that.

[05:07:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark, and a 2nd by Vice Mayor Abi Koca. Council member McAllister, did you have a comment?

[05:07:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, yeah, I had a question. So you were, where is 3.18 fall into your timeline?

[05:07:33] Community Development Director Randal Tsuda: We could do 3.18. Our thought was as things flow and ebb, and we thought we could maybe fold the downtown precise plan, and one of the 2, say, 3.18 at one time. But if the idea is to drop everything and pick up the historic preservation ordinance, then, you know, I guess we can always keep it on the list and see if there is space at the tail end of the 2 year process or something to pick it back up, but, I think If the council prioritizes the projects and the order that they want seen, that can help us say, okay, we're done with this. We'll pick up the next one, but we might get into beyond the two-year time frame.

[05:08:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. My understanding of the motion on the table basically puts 3.18 and 2.19 after 5.one, which still comes after downtown in R3. So there's sort of 3 potential trunches. And if the motion doesn't pass, where would 3.18 come back to?

[05:08:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Whatever the next motion says.

[05:08:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Ah. My understanding of the motion that I was thought I made, so we've already voted to include 2.19 and 3.18. We did that earlier under as part of three, because remember when you told us we could do both?

[05:09:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, we only did the downtown precise plan. You ended up moving straight to four and you have to go back to three. You went straight down. So now you're combining three and four in a way.

[05:09:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: I lied. That was the one she... Got it. Okay. I mean, the way that I would do it would be, I'd give, you know, sort of, I'd prioritize the R3 zoning for just starting that because it's the longer project. I do, um, 3.18 and 2.19 and then, um, and then I'd have the historic preservation ordinance, you know, starting in as soon as, as soon as, you know, possible. And I don't know if there's overlapping resources between 2.19 or 3.18 and the N5.one, um, But that's what I was thinking was I was giving priority to 219 and 318, sort of R3 first, 2.5, then 219 and 318 and then 51. That's what I was thinking. I'm open to.

[05:10:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you changing your motion?

[05:10:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Sounds like it. So it's downtown precise plan, 3.18 and 2.19, and then historic preservation. And the addition of one person.

[05:10:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, except we aren't voting on the downtown for size plant, so... We not leave that out. Five. I think you meant R3.

[05:10:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh huh. Oh, sorry. Arthur R3.

[05:10:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I will be withdrawing my second on that one, because I don't want to flip it. If you make that motion, I'll second it.

[05:10:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, sorry, let me make sure I've got this right. So it's R3. 3.18 plus 2.19 and then historic preservation.

[05:10:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, however you do it, I think you need to look at three chunks, three timelines. So what Chris is saying is R3, number one, then 3.8 and 2.18. 3.18 and 2.19 would be the second chunk, and then the third chunk would be 5.one.

[05:11:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's right. And I would, I'm only, I'm only doing that order because of, because I feel confident the most urgent aspect of 5.one will be addressed through what we discussed earlier tonight. That's my logic, whether it's right or not. I don't know.

[05:11:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is that emotion?

[05:11:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:11:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by council member, Clark, but I believe... is not correct, right?

[05:11:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I'm withdrawing my 2nd drawing the 2nd and...

[05:11:46] Councilmember John McAlister: And I'm seconding it.

[05:11:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So 2nd by council member McAllister. Let's see.

[05:12:01] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, you can push it.

[05:12:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. There you go. Okay. Any other comments on that? We can vote. So that passes four to three. Sorry, do I need to say? So, it was approved by a vote of 4 to 3, and the nose were council members Hick, Hicks, Abby Koga, and Metachek. Thank you. Okay, so now we have the rest of item three. Which is everything else recommended, with you already having acted on 4.7, 2.19 and 3.18.

[05:13:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh. So moved.

[05:13:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Safe emotion by cancel member Clark, a 2nd by council member McAllister. Any further discussion on that? So that passes unanimously. Okay. Do we get everything? I mean, number 5 seems to be understood.

[05:14:00] City Staff: But I would note that with the pickup of additional projects, these other resources will come with that. So we'll come back to you with that as part of the budget adoption process.

[05:14:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Great. Anything else? Okay, we will close this item.

[05:14:34] Unknown Speaker: I move that we continue past 10 p.m.

[05:14:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm so glad you remember that.

[05:14:40] Unknown Speaker: Can I vote on that? I'll second.

[05:14:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, the vice mayor already seconded.

[05:14:45] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that was left over?

[05:14:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Raise your hands if you want to start a new item past 10 o'clock. Okay. Hang on one sec, here. Work.

[05:15:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, the next item on the agenda is 7.2, which is approved the acquisition of real property at 996 West Dana Street, APN 158 dash 13 dash 029. We'll start with the staff presentation and introductions.

[05:15:42] City Staff: I think it's still a good evening, Honorable Mayor, member of the council.

[05:15:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, we're still there.

[05:15:49] City Staff: I'm here tonight to seek approval from the council for the acquisition of a multifamily property at the corner of Dana Street and Franklin Street, address 996 West Dana. This property is located at the south end of Lot 11. Lot 11 is a 1.3 acre property. It has been assembled over the years for future development. It's temporary parking lot. It's not in the parking district. And this property came listed for sale. We recently became aware of it, uh, for almost $2.9 million, um, filing council direction. We have negotiated a price of $2,925,000 for the property. Again, we're seeking council approval for this acquisition, asking for an appropriation of $3.4 million to cover relocation cost, administrative fees, title fees, and so on. The appropriation we're recommending is out of the strategic property acquisition reserve. The property is a three unit residential property built in 1914. It is a historical resource. There are some deferred maintenance, and, as you might expect, from 100 year old building. There are some challenges ahead. We're not asking counsel for any direction on how we're going to use this property. We really need to go in and do an assessment of the property, and consider various alternatives, and then we'll come back to council at a later date for direction on that. So, with that, that's Counselor, our staff presentation, and open questions.

[05:17:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Okay, seeing none. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public input, and bring it back to council, council member McAllister.

[05:18:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment that this is... we're moving forward on this. And we used strategic... Property. property acquisition, which... And so this is a perfect example of we were talking earlier this year about decreasing that particular fund or using it for something else, but that's why this is important that we maintain this fund, so that when opportunity comes, we can jump on it and get it. So I just wanted to bring that full circle for the council when we had that earlier discussion about reducing that or taking money out of that fund and putting it to something else. And so that's why we need to continue that fund, especially with the way the critical, the real estate market is so volatile and you got to, he who has gets it. So I'm glad we did it. I'm glad we had that money to do it, and we should continue to fund that particular fund.

[05:18:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel number Clark.

[05:18:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: I move the staff recommendation. I think Council member McAllister did that. Was that leftover?

[05:19:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No. No. No? No. That was even better. So there's a motion by council member, McAllister, for the staff recommendation, a 2nd by council member, Komei. Any other discussion? Okay, we can vote. That passes unanimously. Thank you. And... one more?

[05:19:37] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we have one more. Item 7.3, which is an ordinance amending chapter 15, article 2 of the Mountain View city code related to mobile vendors. And we will start with a staff presentation.

[05:20:11] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Hi. Good evening, counsel. This is Nicole Wright, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, proposing amendments to our mobile vending code provisions. Effective January one of this year. There's a new state law that restricts local agency authority to regulate sidewalk vendors. Cities are still unable to enact time, place, manner, regulations, as long as they are, sorry, directly related to health safety or welfare concerns. The new state law also limits enforcement to administrative penalties and specifies maximum amounts for sidewalk vending violations. The city has already amended its administrative penalty schedule to comply with those maximum amounts, and we've made it applicable uniformly to all mobile vendors and not just sidewalk vendors for ease of enforcement. The state law also requires ability to pay determinations, that those be made for anyone who is low income or on public benefits, and the fine would be reduced to about 25% of the fine amount. And the city has also already implemented this process to comply with state law. The proposed ordinances to conform to the state law requirements, many of the city code provisions addressing mobile vending did not need to be revised as they already conform. We did make some minor revisions to application requirements, also revocation of a permit, under the proposed ordinance requires 4 or more violations. The current code requires 3 or more, but as applied to sidewalk vendors, it would require for under the new state law, and we've also made that applicable to all mobile vendors for ease of enforcement. The proposed ordinance removes authority to suspend sidewalk, to suspend a sidewalk vending permit, consistent with state law, and revocation would only apply to the remainder of the permit term, the current city code authorizes an ineligibility period for an additional year. That's still applicable to non-sidewalk vendors. Hours of sidewalk operation have also been revised for nonresidential areas. They'd have the same hours as other businesses on the same street in conformance with the state law. Residential areas would remain 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., which is current with our code requirements. The biggest revisions would probably be applicable to our parks under state law, we are required to allow sidewalk vendors in city parks right now under our code. They're generally disallowed with a very limited exception. So they would be allowed in city parks, hours limited to park hours, prohibited in reserve, city sponsored event, or special event areas, as well as a 50 foot buffer. However, sidewalk mending could still occur on public sidewalks within that buffer area. They be prohibited within 50 feet of an entry or exit to a public facility, such as a community center, library, swimming pool, and, again, allowed on public sidewalks. prohibited from vending from park benches and tables, must also stay on a sidewalk or path unless on foot, and cannot impede access to the sidewalk, including ADA accessibility. And finally, must comply with all other operational requirements, including sizing requirements, proper trash disposal, and being vending, at least 100 feet from a playground. That concludes staff presentation, happy to address any questions that you may have.

[05:23:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[05:24:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Any of this requires, I know the county has a health inspection of carts. and that they are required to come down and get a... Is this including any of this county requirements, or are they exempt under this law?

[05:24:22] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So, yes, for food vendors, they are required to obtain a county health permit, that's already required in our city code. There's been no changes to that requirement, and there weren't any changes under the state law that would affect that.

[05:24:35] Councilmember John McAlister: And where it says prohibited in reserve, city sponsored events, are special events, areas. Now, that says parks, but, I mean, we have downtown Thursday night live, and we have the events, the parade, we have the events, and the plaza, or whatever. So would those... But they're not in a park, so then those would not be prohibited, then?

[05:24:59] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I believe vending would be, but under existing city code provisions. So this is just addressing parks, because now we're required to allow them within the parks.

[05:25:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and that's pretty much all mobile vendors.

[05:25:13] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: I'm sorry, say again.

[05:25:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Pretty much all mobile vendors, huh? In parks?

[05:25:18] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Yeah. Sidewalk vendors. Sidewalk vendors.

[05:25:22] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: Correct.

[05:25:23] Councilmember John McAlister: So on a sidewalk, so not vending from a food truck or... Okay. So the sidewalks, as long as they're on the sidewalk, they can sell their wares.

[05:25:34] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: And as long as they, assuming that council introduces and adopts this ordinance, assuming that they comply with these proposed requirements.

[05:25:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. Is the reason you're asking these questions? She didn't stop me.

[05:25:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, we'll open this up to public comment.

[05:26:05] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, San Diego Villa, North Bay Shore Mountain View. Oh, three minutes. I don't know what to do all the time. Shoreline Amphitheater is opening up this week, I think, for the 1st major event. And I just want to say I love the hot dogs, the big wrapped hot dogs in the area, and I want to see them continue on. They usually cook like right outside the park and then move themselves over when the concerts let out and it smells great and I love it.

[05:26:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else wishing to address the council on this topic? Okay, we'll close the public input portion, and it looks like council member Ramirez.

[05:26:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So I moved to introduce an ordinance amending chapter 15, article 2 of the Mountain View City code related to mobile vendors to be read entitled only, further reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for June 11, 2019.

[05:27:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Ramirez and a second by the birthday. Oh, wait. Your birthday's over. By the vice mayor. Any other discussion? Monday, yes. Counselor McAllister, just waiting.

[05:27:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. I'm catching up for the last time.

[05:27:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, onto item eight. Council member Ramirez.

[05:27:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I just wanted to check to see if the Cal... So I was interested in learning more about the homeless shelter comment from yesterday. Even if it's just a memo on what it would take to expand the, what is it, a 4 month shelter, I think, that we have in downtown, what it was.

[05:28:14] Unknown Speaker: Earlier in this meeting.

[05:28:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, Jones commentary related to increasing the amount of time the shelter is opened. Is that a county decision?

[05:28:25] Unknown Speaker: The city's not directly involved in that. It's a county program. We can certainly ask that question of the county.

[05:28:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Just, if that's all it takes. Somehow, everyone got cleared.

[05:28:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, Council member Clark.

[05:28:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just wanted to report, um, from the A Bag meeting. So thank you for all the work that you put into that. It was actually very clear that they actually listened because we had, yeah, we had this really, really thick packet with all the comments and consolidated recommendations from the various stakeholders. It was quite impressive, actually. And what ABAG ended up doing largely mirrored what the city's association had recommended, except for one except for a handful. The key difference being the key difference being that we had a few more categories to choose from that I think the cities association did. So, for example, in some places where I think there were one or 2 where if folks voted, if the city's association said, do not support, I think there were most instances we chose Sikh amendments. So it wasn't a support or not. It was just go seek amendments and see what comes back and then we'll make a decision later. So, almost all those cases, there were a few places where I think we broke with the Z association, but on most of the things, we largely aligned.

[05:29:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister tries the question about that.

[05:29:58] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I hope you guys were working, but one of the things that was missing on the, and we're talking about casa, right?

[05:30:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Casa? Yeah.

[05:30:05] Councilmember John McAlister: So the perspective of employers actually participating in building housing. Was that included in the further discussions? Chris, or do you say there are questions?

[05:30:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: All we did that night was look at state legislative bills and take positions on them.

[05:30:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay.

[05:30:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: It wasn't like the some of that legislation related to the cost of framework, but we didn't discuss sort of the broader issues around the framework. It was really just, you know, here's the state bill. Here's what everyone says on both sides of it. What position does AVIG want to take at this time?

[05:30:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so Casa didn't really, it's not the overall framework. Okay.

[05:30:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: We just looked at specific state bills.

[05:30:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[05:30:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Kooka?

[05:30:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and thank you, council member clerk, for all of your work on ABag. I, um, regarding SB 50, um, I participated this morning with, um, Tim Wong from staff on a conference call, um, in light of SB 50 being, um, pushed to a two-year bill. There are our legislators, our representatives, mainly on the Senate side, Senator Hill, has reached out asking for input on ways that we might be able to provide amendments to the bill. And so we had a phone call with several of the cities in his district to discuss potential amendments. I think in all frankness, the bill has a lot of amendments that it needs to be palatable. So, um, you know, I think there was some skeptism, um, but it was at least worth the conversation. And so, if not amendments, at least providing input to Senator Hill on our perspective, we thought was worthwhile. So, um, yeah, we'll see how it comes about with that. The other item I brought up earlier, I guess now is the time to bring it up is regarding gatekeepers and the possibility of delaying them until at least 2020, and I suppose, do I need to ask for council support to bring that back as an agenda item? Is that...

[05:32:32] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah, make it be a very simple one pager just so you have a brown act item to discuss it.

[05:32:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So would there be support for that?

[05:32:42] Unknown Speaker: Great. Can I, can I ask that in the memo that we, I think one of the things that will may impact my decision would be whether you address the, um, the staff impact of having the gatekeeper meeting versus and then deciding just to defer all of them versus just not having that at all. Like how much time does that or resources does that or doesn't that save?

[05:33:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: The staff analysis of everything? Or maybe you can just address that now. I don't really know.

[05:33:21] Unknown Speaker: Well, we can discuss it when it's agenda is one question to be, well, those are all, those are pending. So you're talking about just not having a new process for some amount of time, essentially, right?

[05:33:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. So, originally, it was June, and then Katsumara Rivera was just at the fall, and in light of everything going on, I think we just should wait until at least 2020 to look at that.

[05:33:46] Unknown Speaker: Would it be possible in the memo just to have a list of the a high-level list of the ones that we're pending for the fall if we even know.

[05:33:57] Unknown Speaker: No, actually, there wasn't. Yeah. We can. Usually they don't submit until like right out the deadline, but there may be one or two officially in, and then there may be others that we're aware of.

[05:34:07] Unknown Speaker: That 19, or I think it was 17 number, was actually the number of gatekeeper projects that we're currently working on, as opposed to in the queue, right?

[05:34:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It'll just help me make a more informed decision if I know roughly what's out there and what's not.

[05:34:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I said, uh, two things. Um, I completely forgot when we were talking about, um, council goals and projects, uh, that I sent in the question about whether or not we could get, um, bird safe design included, 'cause I'll change my vote to make it four, um, from looking at drones. And I completely forgot to bring it up while we were discussing it. So, I'd sent in the questions, staff came back and said if it was part of the building code, they thought they could do it. Is that something we need to vote on or how do we do this? Since I completely forgot.

[05:35:02] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: One thought we had is that you could frame it as a motion for reconsideration for the bulk of the items, since you're on the prevailing side, and it's the same meaning.

[05:35:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I move that we can reconsider it. Just that one item or that one?

[05:35:20] Unknown Speaker: That one item where all of that included the majority of the projects that didn't need to be segmented?

[05:35:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. So, um, I would like us to reconsider, so I move that we reconsider all the items that are in the plan, um, and add this one to it, which is item. Mmm, mmm, mmm.

[05:35:47] Unknown Speaker: I think I would suggest you bring up reconsideration, so you can at least have a brief conversation, so the context of what it is or isn't is clear, and then you can vote on whether or not to add it in. Or our alternatively, I guess, in looking at what the staff response is, is it at that level of a project, or is it something that... Or is it provide direction to staff that, as part of the building, building code modifications, to consider whether or not that can be included? Because that would be a staff direction to find it. Which might be easier.

[05:36:36] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it is. That's 4.6. So, the very last question on page 10, before item 7.2 was the council question submitted about this.

[05:36:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So everyone... Right, so it's item 4.6. Part of, um, sustainability and livability. And... that was the question I sent in, and staff responded saying that, um, if it was part of the building code, like, an update or changes to the building code, they could, um, work on it, it didn't require additional staff resources. So I guess, does anybody have any question about that? Or comments about that?

[05:37:26] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Just a procedural question, suggest you vote to reconsider first so that you can then have it on the table.

[05:37:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, I move that we reconsider this topic. A bird safe design. Um, so we have emotion and by me. and a second by the vice mayor. Um, can we do show hands, or do we do this?

[05:37:54] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, you want to take public comment, right?

[05:37:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Did that take public? Yeah, let's take public comment and make an emotion. Okay, is there any public comment on this? Okay, with seeing gun. public input portion. And um... I think we're set to, um, reconsider it, or to vote on reconsidering it. Wow.. Okay, so that's unanimous that we can reconsider it. Now?

[05:38:32] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I just want to clarify the answer in the Q and A. Staff believes, well, 1st of all, it had 3 votes, so a majority of the council would need to add it to the list and prioritize it, but staff believes it can be done with existing resources in the building division, if it is narrowly scoped, where it's simply basically kind of just cutting and pasting and adjusting some things in the building code, it would not be a really any community output or outreach or significant effort because this is the same staff that to do the reach code, has to do the update of the building code on a very tight timeline. So I just want to be real clear. We can do it if it's very narrowly scoped.

[05:39:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: As we heard from, um... I think that was Shawnee Kleinhouse, who said that one of the key elements of bird safe design is around windows, and that is part of reach codes. I'm sorry, glass.

[05:39:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I think what she was saying is, it's related to energy conservation, but, again, there's a difference between coming up with a lot of different new standards and research and outreach on stuff versus fine tuning or tweaking some standards and inserting them into the code. So we're just, you know,

[05:39:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Clark?

[05:40:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I could support the narrowly scoped version, especially even if you wanted to narrowly focus it on, you know, the, I think the, the most impactful would be the commercial buildings with all the glass. But you can figure out how to narrowly focus it. But I'm supportive of the NOA focus version as part of the zoning code.

[05:40:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member McAllister.

[05:40:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Wasn't there a comment made that follow the ordinance of San Francisco that they already have something? Did I remember hearing someone mention that it was already available out there, and we could...

[05:40:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think she mentioned San Jose just did something for downtown buildings.

[05:40:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, it could be... We dont have to reinvent the wheels.

[05:40:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, thank you. Okay. Okay, any other comments? Okay, so we have a motion by... Well, are these leftover from before?

[05:40:57] Unknown Speaker: Well, it's been going on all night.

[05:40:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think it wasn't happy with that one motion that we tried to cancel, and it looks fine on my side, but it was still displaying old information, so I apologize.

[05:41:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, Chris wants to make it. Can't get rid of it.

[05:41:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: So we have emotion by me. and a second by the vice mayor.

[05:41:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And would you just mind clarifying so that we can provide the department that's not here with direction on what their assignment is?

[05:41:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes. So, it is to include item 4.6 in the list of projects, in support of the council goals. And it's narrowly scoped to be just what can be done within the building code. And we can leverage San Francisco and San Jose. Is that good?

[05:41:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, no, I'm just trying to help you get it. Okay. That passes unanimously. Thank you so much, and I apologize for forgetting that. Okay, um.

[05:42:13] Unknown Speaker: You're getting old.

[05:42:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments for item eight? Okay, so then we are on nine and, uh, let's, the city attorney, if we have any close session report.

[05:42:29] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The council did, in fact, hold a closed session as stated on the agenda this evening, and direction was given, but no one. action was taken.

[05:42:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will adjourn the meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Thursday, May 23rd, 2019, at 5.30 p.m. in the council chambers. Oh, sorry. So before I adjourn the meeting, one more thing. Didn't quite adjourn the meeting. There is a Memorial Day celebration in the in Eagle Park. On Monday, May 27th, from 11 a.m. to noon.

[05:43:19] Unknown Speaker: Who's our guest speakers?

[05:43:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: One of the guest speakers is our own Dennis Drenan, who is a Vietnam veteran. So it's great that he will be speaking at that.

[05:43:30] Unknown Speaker: Is there a woman speaking at this event?

[05:43:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, oh, sorry. Yes, the mayor will be speaking. Oh. Sorry, I was very focused on Dennis speaking. So I think it's really exciting that Dennis is going to be a part of this... And there is a lot of ceremony speaking, too. There is.

[05:43:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so now we will adjourn the meeting. To the next city council meeting to be held on Thursday, May 23rd, 2019, at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street. Man.

• ← Previous
• Next →