June 4, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, Shelly. Okay, we will call the study session to order, and our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:27] City Clerk: Council member Clark is absent. All other council members are present.

[00:00:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. He will be here in a couple of minutes, but he said to go ahead and get started without him. So the study session tonight is on the soft story retrofit program update, and since this is a study session, we'll start with the staff presentation, then open it up for public comment, and then bring it back to the council for any questions we might have and then direction to staff. So we will start with the staff presentation. you can be sure to also introduce yourselves.

[00:01:04] Business Development Specialist Tiffany Chu: Good evening, counsel. I'm Tiffany Chu, Business Development Specialist, and with me is Shelley Woodworth, chief building official. Tonight, council, we are providing an update on the soft story retrofit program. As a reminder, council began discussions of a soft story retrofit program as part of your 2017, 19 major goals, but in September 2018, we held a study session to discuss program options for a soft story, retrofit program, which included voluntary and mandatory options. Council then directed staff to develop program options for mandatory program, including incentives, but council also discussed the soft story program in the context of the community stabilization and fair rent act, otherwise known as CSFRA. As a reminder, Mountain View's housing stock consists of approximately 17,000 buildings of that number, approximately 488 of those buildings are a story. And within that 488 buildings, approximately 5,100 there are 5,100 units. A soft story building is defined as 2 stories with at least 3 residential units and having a ground floor with a wood frame construction, which is typically an open parking garage. A typical soft story retrofit shown on the image before you consists of wood and steel frame elements. Also, in context of rent stemilization units is that most soft story structures are subject to CSFRA. As a reminder, CSFRA regulates rents rental properties built before 1995. And in the context of Sostoria, staff looked at other jurisdictions with rent stabilization and mandatory soft story programs. Staff found that 3 cities, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco provided streamlining capital improvement pass-throughs to recover seismic retrofit costs. Shown on the slide before you is an outline of the recommended mandatory soft story program, while there are 2 phases, the evaluation phase, which formally identifies all multi-family soft story rental buildings subject to a mandatory ordinance, and the 2nd part, which is the retrofit phase, which completes seismic retrofits. There are other components of the program, which includes incentives and assistance, outreach and compliance, and also staffing impacts to both the building, division, and CSO for wave. I'm going to walk you through the evaluation phase first. So the 1st component of the soft story program involves a formal identification of all soft story rental buildings in Mountain View over two-year time frame. Staff has laid out 2 options for you, which is the 1st option is a property owner initiated process where they are responsible for developing an evaluation report that is approved by a licensed architect or engineer. Staff would work in conjunction with the property owners to ensure that the report is valid and determines whether or not their building is a software building or not. Then the 2nd option, which is recommended by staff, is to hire a structural engineering firm to go and identify all the buildings. The approximate cost of this project, this part would cost about $150,000 and is currently included as part of next year's fiscal year budget. Part of that process would also include ferns, the ferns responsibility to reach out to all the property owners and to coordinate the evaluation report of all the structures. The 2nd part is this recommended retrofit phase, which would include rental units. And so what we have on the slide before you is a breakdown of the building size with 12 or more units, 5 to 11 units, 3 to 4 units, and then the total number of buildings. Staff recommends starting in a 3 tier process with the largest percentage of buildings in the 12 or more units. staff believes that we start this process because it reduces the vulnerability of buildings collapsing in the event and an earthquake and also provides staff with more time to evaluate all of these units. And then as we as they work through the process, then it's easier to complete the other units. A 2nd slide shows you a breakdown of actually the retrofit phase according to a timeline. Staff is proposing a six-year time frame period with tier number one, starting with a two-year process to obtain a permit and then a two-year process to complete their retrofits. Then we move into tier number two, which focus on a three-year process to obtain a permit and then a two-year process to complete the retrofits. And then in tier number three, we focus on the buildings with the smallest number of units and allows for a four-year process to obtain a permits. Staff also has included buildings owned by nonprofits, provide them with more time to prepare for the soft story retrofit. And so the 1st question we have tonight is for city council is, does city council agree with a recommendation to use city initiated evaluation phase and a 3 tiered retrofit phase? Staff also explored potential incentives and assistance to help property owners through the retrofit, the retrofits. First is permit streamlining with an expedited plan check process. The 2nd is modified fees for building permits to incentivize property owners to complete the process. There are also financial assistance available through federal grants and state loan programs. Staff did explore femur grant opportunities, but at the time, most female grants from California are focusing on wildfire recoveries. However, staff can continue to explore grand opportunities. And in addition, staff can also prepare a resource fare for property owners. The city of San Francisco provided a resource fare, which connected property owners with professional resources such as contractors and builders and also just structural and more structural engineering assistance to help them through the process. And so the 2nd question we have for council tonight is does city council support their recommendation to provide program incentives and assistance, including fee reductions. In addition to these program incentives, the staff also looked at outreach and compliance, because in order to implement a program and to facilitate program, compliance staff beliefs, education and information is important for property owners and staff has identified community meetings, putting information on the city's websites, and developing program, information for both property owners and tenants, but also to post information on the identified soft story buildings. In addition, after the, if outreach and education is not enough for the property, you know, and compliance cannot be obtained after the 3 tiers, the program would be enforced through the city's administrative compliance process. Staff also looked at this program from a staffing perspective and additional staffing is needed for the building division and CSF for A. Well, the building division has a little bit more defined impact in terms of how it would affect staff, and building would need consultants and staff to implement the program. CSFRA is still a little bit unclear at this time, but they have identified that potentially one or 2 full-time analysts wouldn't be needed to help with the petition process. But soft story in the context of a retrofit program is the purpose of the program is to facilitate a safe residential living environment to mitigate permanent displacement. So staff has outlined both a temporary displacement scenarios, but also permanent displacement. So, staff anticipates that there is minimal displacement on the temporary basin, if needed, would be a short duration of less than about 2 weeks, would displace the tenants, and then stuff also looked at. is there also risk for permanent displacement where the landlord would potentially exit their rental business and staff, contacted other Jewish dictions, to understand their experience, and they all concluded that this is likely to not to occur. However, in the context of occurrence CSF array options. There are options to create seismic retrofit passthroughs through developing regulations, considering a streamlined process, as an amendment, and then as your new council major goals. You've asked staff to study 2020 ballot initiative. And so the 3rd question for city council tonight is, does the city council support recommendation to undertake the evaluation phase and to return to city council with an ordinance at a later date? So tonight, staff is asking for city council to provide input on the following questions. Does city council agree with the 2 phases? Do you also support the recommendation of the program incentives and assistance, and last does the council support the recommendation to undertake the evaluation phase 1st. and then return to city council with an ordinance at a later date. The next steps depending on the input that city council provides is, if council agrees with the recommendations, staff will move forward with the evaluation phase. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[00:12:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. As I said, since this is a study session, we will open it up next for public input. Can I say a show of hands who folks who want to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, it's not very many. So, you can have 3 minutes, and if you could come up to the microphone. And if you could fill out a blue card, um, that is over by the wall and either turn it in before or after you speak. And if you haven't been here before, we do have the timer here and on the monitors, and at the end of the 3 minutes, you will also hear a chime, letting you know that the time is up. So, Come on up.

[00:12:52] Public Speaker: So, if I remember all these. I'm a member of a homeowner's association that has multiple soft story buildings. I think our primary concerns is on the evaluation of costs, when we went independently to look at what an earthquake retrofit would take one of our major costs, in fact, about 60% of our costs just for the design study. was a soil study to look at potential liquefaction for soils. And so it would be very helpful if the city council in its regulations could provide some guidance about what we had to do with regard to that, regard to soil studies, in addition to, uh, identifying uh, soft story buildings. And in particular, I'd like to advocate that the city council also actually hire a structural engineer to do the soft story evaluations for the city. This would provide a lot of consistency. It would give the city an experience base in when to evaluate retrofit plans in the actual retrofit phase. And it would give the homeowners potentially a lot of a lot more structure and certainty about what was required. That's all it makes.

[00:14:24] Unknown Speaker: I have a question for you. So you live in an HOA. So it's ownership units?

[00:14:28] Public Speaker: That's correct, yes.

[00:14:30] Unknown Speaker: And how did it come about that you decided to look at retrofitting the buildings?

[00:14:35] Public Speaker: One of our homeowners came to us and pointed out that we had what were obviously soft story units and expressed a concern based on the historical performance of these buildings and earthquakes, and that's how we got into it. I would say another thing is that because we have a number of rental units, it would be helpful to, for us to understand what the implications of this are for homeowners who rent out their units independently.

[00:15:07] Unknown Speaker: So they're not really in control of their own destiny, as far as, as far as the pace of doing an earthquake retrofit, right?

[00:15:16] Public Speaker: That's an HOA thing and the HOA, of course, represents all the homeowners.

[00:15:19] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And how many units does the HOA have?

[00:15:23] Public Speaker: We're 192 units, but we have four? We have 32 that are in soft story buildings.

[00:15:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:15:39] Michael Pierce: My name is Michael Pierce, I'm with Prodesso Property Group. We manage a number of apartment buildings here in Mountain View. I am actually an owner in a couple of buildings as well, smaller properties. Couple concerns. One is the interface with the measure V, and how that process would work, and hopefully you'd have some sort of streamlined process, because going through the whole process of proving out, the strain on the building would be very difficult and time consuming and complicated. I think that would help owners quite a bit with compliance. The other is, I have a fear that if with this compressed timeline that you're going to drive up the cost for all of us, because we're already in an environment where construction costs are escalating very, very quickly, because of all the building boom that's going on with commercial construction and everything that's happening. And if we've got all of us chasing in the city, these projects during a defined 3 or 4 year period, I think the costs are going to be driven up for all of us and getting these projects done. So you might want to think about a longer timeline so that that doesn't drive those costs up quite as quickly. Um, And then I think your proposal to potentially give some reduction in the fees would be very, very helpful. I would encourage further work on trying to find some sort of loan program because a lot of, a lot of owners, um, are, you know, own a small building that would be subject to this, and they don't have the funds available because it's being used for somebody's retirement. So it's going to be a difficult process for some people. Thank you.

[00:17:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you We have a question for you.

[00:17:07] Unknown Speaker: Quick question. Thank you for your comments. So just for my benefit, since I have little insight into this. What would a reasonable time frame for you look like?

[00:17:15] Michael Pierce: I mean, I think if you stretch this out, you know, where the, because you've got about a 3 to 4 year window it looks like, based on that slide of when the, when the building was actually being done, if it was, you know, six, 8 years of time that that were done, you could get people slotted out and not have everybody chasing the contractors, because not every contractor can do size and retrofit work, you've got, you typically, we've done a number of size retrofits on buildings. So you've got to find the proper engineers that understand how to do the gray beams for the stuff in the soil work as well as the moment frames that are going to provide the structural rigidity that you need to make it safe. So it isn't a huge pool of people. You've got to turn to. And not every contractor is really qualified to do that work as well. And you want to use the right people to get the job done correctly if you're going to spend the money. The other thing I would encourage you to do is as you fashion this, we were successful in the city of San Jose, when we did a retrofit on a large complex, to get the city to work with us, to make it an enhancement to the property by allowing us to enclose the carport spaces and create garages, which was an amenity then for the residents, to make it nicer to have a place they could park the car and close the door. So if you can find some ways to make something like that possible, it also puts a little bit of a silver lining on the cloud of this big cost and difficult process, you'd have to be going to. And then the residents have something to look forward to as a net benefit instead of just not being able to park their car while you're going through all this process. Thank you.

[00:18:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any questions? Next please.

[00:18:58] Robert Pollock: My name is Robert Pollock. I'm a retired mechanical engineer, and I'm a scientist, and as such I hate inconsistencies. The way, um, the ordinance is going to be written, that, uh, story buildings are those that have more than three units, is inconsistent with the rest of the Bay Area. The San Francisco, it's five or more units, Fremont, three or more units, and condominiums are exempt. The ABAG resilience program, five or more residential units, having two or more stories over a soft story. So, uh, there doesn't seem to be any scientific reason for making buildings of three, four, or five stories, soft story. I would like to see some engineering reasoning for making the buildings one story, two story, or five units. The second item, I have, is, um, you seem to be obsessed with, uh, making the tenants pay for the, somehow pay for the, uh, retrofits, and, at least, condominium owners out in the cold. How do you propose to do condominiums? Maybe you can exempt them, like Fremont, or have some other method for payment for those? I feel that if you feel if you're so interested in our well being, maybe you should pay for the retrofits. We've had major earthquakes in the area, and the buildings are still standing, presumably, are strong enough to withstand earthquakes of Loma Prieta strength or Northridge. And it seems that we're spending a lot of money to marginally improve buildings that have proven themselves, to be strong. And finally, the buildings where we live are approaching their useful life. We have a building that uses twice as much energy to heat as a new building of modern construction. We have aluminum wiring. We have a fire, water system that's falling apart. So is it worthwhile to retrofit and make it stronger, when it should be actually probably demolished, the new buildings built. Thank you.

[00:21:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:21:49] John MacDonald: John MacDonald, I have two different concerns. One has to do with tenants, and the pass through, and I would hope, and I realize this is, and probably too early for you to deal with, but I want to put it out there anyway. Since soft story, repair or remedy, will be amortized for a long period of time, because it really serves as long as the building stands. I would hope that the past through, if it is going to happen, will reflect a long period also so that rents won't go up sky high to take care of the entire cost of retrofitting immediately. but rather capped at a maximum percentage of increase of rent over a period of time, I think that would be fair for tenants, and it also would be fair for landlords. The other aspect that I want to be sure that staff and you explore, and that is the way that mid pen took care of soft story issues for the Marcy Freeland place. This was done years ago. It was done with no displacement. And for really relatively minor cost. And apparently, it is still a style or technique of taking care of soft stories that is still approved with steel beams in effect. Thank you.

[00:23:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:24:01] Brian Avery: I'm Brian Avery, I'm in my 42nd year of being in the apartment business in Mountain View. We have 3 properties and one or 2 of them would be impacted regarding several 100 units. In my 42 years, this is my least favorite time to be in this business because of the timing of rent control with the age of our properties reaching 50 years, which is like one hell of a lot of them up on that chart. So we are scraping asbestos. We're taking aluminum wiring out of walls and replacing with new wiring, valves, plumbing, floor tile, the things that are wearing out after 50 years, going into walls. going into roof structures, different things. So, This will just make the next couple years tougher. If you do it, I want you to be aware of something. I'm in my 12th month trying to get a permit for building storage rooms for bikes because we have a property near Google. There were turnover of 2 people in planning and building. So we went through that, and then we went through a person who was pretty new and didn't understand our 180 unit, which is 180 condominium parcels, but we operated as an apartment. We have it as a condom in case we want to get out of the apartment business on that. And, um, uh, Then there's been delays and I've had to go into city hall and they do one thing. They point to the Google plans in the corner. Since I'm in real estate, I know of 3 buildings that Google bought that you guys don't know about because it's within the last week. And there's about 7 others in the Ellis area. You know, it's that pointing to the plans in the corner is getting larger and larger and larger. So, boy, for you to put up there, 2 years for us to get our permit, you're just cramming everyone into the same contractor and I think this is going to be tough for your different departments to respond because I think planning may get involved, public works, they get involved, in case there's some type of work in. There's just different departments. So I'd really keep that in mind. I think I'm a big fan of Google, that the burden on the city's pretty tough. And I think those windows, if they could be extended, would be great, especially for those of us reaching 50 years in all of our complexes. Thank you.

[00:26:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:26:59] Joshua Howard: Good evening. Joshua Howard with the Apartment Association. I want to first thank you and your staff for looking at this issue. owners and managers of rental property want to provide safe, clean, and, most importantly, safe housing to their residents and want to work with you on developing a program that makes sure that these units are protected because if they're not, we'll see displacement, whether from an earthquake or from an owner who realizes that the cost of maintaining and doing these improvements is so great that they'll choose to get out of the rental business. And we've seen that happen already in this community, we would encourage you to do the evaluation first, understand the magnitude of the number of units that are impacted by this program or would be impacted. There are several owners, and I'm aware of, have already voluntarily done soft story improvements in Mountain View. So it'd be helpful to find out who's done it, who's exempt and really what number of buildings, and what's the inventory that truly needs to be upgraded. Second would be to explore incentives. I sent you a list today of a variety of incentives that you could consider ranging from low interest loans to grants to fee waivers and expedited processing. in addition to that. It's really important to look at how this interplays with the CSFRA. Um, When you're going to ask someone who's barely getting a 3% cost 3% revenue increase to take on a six-figure project with very little guarantee they can get the expense paid back over a relatively short period of time is rather burdensome, and would encourage you as you're looking at the inventory and doing the evaluation, looking at the financing incentives, also look at the CSFRA as part of your process that you're going through and figure out how to streamline capital improvement pass throughs, streamline something that's mandated by the city. This is different than an owner doing an elective value ad, capital improvement. They are being told by city hall. They have to get this done in a finite period of time. And as such, we would encourage that you look at perhaps allowing owners to recover their costs over a 36 month horizon so they can get those costs recovered, especially if the costs are going to continue to escalate as construction costs rise, as contractors become more in demand and we see more and more demand for seismic retrofits. So we'd encourage you to do all that evaluation before coming back with an ordinance. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:29:28] Unknown Speaker: We have a question for you. Sorry, mayor. Just a couple of quick questions. First, thank you for the letter that you sent earlier. I thought there were a lot of good recommendations in there. And I wanted to follow up specifically. It sounded like there were some grants that the city of Mountain View may not be taking advantage of or looking at, and I wanted some additional information based on your experience in other cities that have similar requirements.

[00:29:49] Joshua Howard: Sure, I couldn't tell you the name off the top of my head, but the city of San Jose. They are working on getting a federal grant to help them not only with the staff work, but also to do the evaluation, do the outreach and potentially offer some incentives to housing providers.

[00:30:04] Unknown Speaker: And then a last question, similar to the 1st question they ask, do you have a recommendation for an implementation? What is this too aggressive? What would make more sense, I guess, from the industry standpoint? I think you heard from 2 people who are in the in the trenches doing it? That a 6 year, whatever the horizon was that was on that slide? Could be very impacted, given the ability to get financing, also the ability to get qualified individuals to do the work as well as your own city process to be able to get things done, given all the other demands on your staff.

[00:30:39] Joshua Howard: I would say as part of the outreach process, that staff should look at work with stakeholders to evaluate that, but to make it a reasonable time frame, probably somewhere over a 7 to 10 year horizon, but using the inventory and the evaluation that you're going to receive to help prioritize what buildings should be retrofitted first.

[00:30:57] Unknown Speaker: Great, thank you.

[00:31:01] Councilmember John McAlister: I could have let you have walked a few more steps. We got a letter from a apartment owner, and they were concerned a lot of times that, um, The properties aren't allowed to take a 2nd loan, that the primary loan is, have, what knowledge do you have about that people can't take a secondary loan to, based on the current, the main loan won't allow them to do that.

[00:31:27] Joshua Howard: That's a good question that I would like to follow up with you on offline because I couldn't give you a good answer on.

[00:31:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. I'm sorry, where is Joshua, Mr. Howard's turn right now? Okay, no, if you can't, but if somebody else in the audience could help. The question I'm trying to understand is, if someone else can answer that question, I'd appreciate that. But we can wait. Will the mayor allow backup to come in?

[00:31:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure. Council member McAllister, uh...

[00:32:06] Joshua Howard: At that point, it's correct. With many of your 1st loans, when you get a loan for an apartment complex, the lender has a carve out, you cannot get a second loan. So you'd have to go back to the lender and renegotiate with them. And if you're on a fixed term loan, you might have to pay additional points or additional fees in order to get that or you'd have to refinance the property if you don't have that capital available at that immediate point. Because many of these loans, unlike residential loans, by law, you can't have prepayment penalties. On commercial loans, we have prepayment penalties that are written into the agreement. So, you know, if we get a loan from Chase, which is one of the large lenders, it may have a five-year fixed rate period and you have a prepayment penalty that steps down all 5 years. So it might be 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%. So they actually can control whether you can get a 2nd and then you'd have to pay those penalty fees in order to refinance to get the capital in order to do the retrofit program.

[00:32:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. That was helpful.

[00:32:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Josh. Anyone else? Machine to provide input on this topic? Okay, then we will close public input and bring it back to council. Are there any questions? Council member Hicks.

[00:33:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I do have one question to follow up on the item that we were just talking about. I'm wondering whether there's been some talk, I think, uh, it may have been from Mr. Howard's letter, or maybe the other gentleman who, I think, uh, landlord who, I think, emailed all of us about the, just what we were talking about, the, uh, trouble getting a second loan. There's also some talk about city helping renegotiate loans, and I'm wondering if there, if anyone knows if there's any history of cities negotiating through that particular difficulty, if not, I think that researching that should be a part of the evaluation phase. But if anyone does know, I'd appreciate knowing right now.

[00:34:14] Building Official: So that isn't something that the building department has been involved with, as far as renegotiating loan, I would probably defer to the city attorney, to see if there's been anything like that in the past that she's aware of.

[00:34:26] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I'm not aware of that, nor do I think we staff has expertise to negotiate private property loans.

[00:34:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[00:34:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. A couple of quick questions. So, um, following up, I think from where the question the mayor had asked about owner occupied soft story building. So is there a particular reason why, you know, I guess philosophically, we're already comfortable making this mandatory, but why we wouldn't apply the same requirement to owner-occupied buildings given that they're still as a safety issue in that context as well.

[00:35:12] Building Official: So the housing stock that we addressed was apartment rentals. One of the main reasons for that is tenants have no control over the safety mechanisms that are implemented in the structures that they reside. When you are part of a homeowner association, You do have some say, and what happens into that organization. You will end up having to pay those fees as part typically as part of your homeowner dues. But that isn't something that a tenant has, that vehicle to make their structure safer. That's why we have approach that.

[00:35:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Do owner, um, do owner occupied soft story buildings, uh, get retrofitted voluntarily? Does that happen?

[00:35:57] Building Official: Yes, it does happen. We have, I think, 27 permits out, both from owner occupied and from rental that people have implemented more recently because we did have a modification to the zoning ordinance, approximately 5 years ago, that the assistant community development director and one of the planners worked on to allow a structural modification to an existing nonconforming structure. So when that was passed, we had additional units come in. voluntarily.

[00:36:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. appreciate it. And the last question. I'd ask a question about whether somebody who owns a rental property were to sell to a prospective buyer, whether they'd be required to disclose that they would the building would need to be retrofitted under this new law. And it sounds like that wouldn't be the case. So what is there how are we planning to make sure that owners of rental properties know that this is a requirement? So, you know, if I sell my building, you know, 3 or 4 years down into this process, will the buyer have some other way of finding out that they are required to retrofit the building?

[00:37:13] Building Official: So that is something that I discussed earlier with the city attorney, and there isn't a requirement to notify a buyer that has 3 units or more. It's considered a commercial property. There is some due diligence that they're required to perform on their part. to contact the jurisdiction to see what requirements are enacted in that jurisdiction. There is some requirements to notify them for URMs, which is an unreinforced masonry building. There was a law passed in the '90s regarding those structures, but we have no more of those buildings. We actually adopt an ordinance, and the previous building official nature, all of those structures were reinforced appropriately. So that would be the only exception, and we don't have any of those structures in this jurisdiction.

[00:37:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister.

[00:38:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on this letter and a couple other questions. Can the CSFR, do they, it was mentioned in the letter that loan interest cannot be passed through as business expense? Is that a true statement?

[00:38:24] City Staff: That would be a question either for the city attorney or... Let me get the appropriate individual to respond.

[00:38:33] Unknown Speaker: So under the fair rate of return, a factor that isn't excluded is the cost of debt servicing for any debt that's obtained after October 2015, other than that incurred to finance the cost of improvements, so that it would be excluded if it's debt financed after October of 2015. Otherwise, it would be... The things that can be considered by the hearing officer would be unavoidable increases or decreases in maintenance and operating expenses, the cost of planned or completed capital improvements to the rental units. And I think that's it. So it could be a factor that it may be able to be a factor, but it would depend on the scenario.

[00:39:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, that's one cost. So, going back to the web person that said they could be required to get a loan, I would expect, if it's 25,000, most people probably get a loan. And have you guys thought about that certain, this is an added expense that doesn't go through? Was that a consideration, or will that be considered as you go through the evaluation process?

[00:39:51] City Staff: Well, the evaluation process is simply whether or not it needs a seismic retrofic, correct? And so then the fundamental question is whether or not the council, and I guess what staff's really recommending is, do we do the evaluation process 1st during the next 2 years to determine how many such structures we have and then come back with an ordinance at that time? that would focus potentially more on those cost factors and what the city would like to do, if anything, to incentivize property owners to make those retrofits.

[00:40:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Is the tenant relocation cost? Are they able to recover? I mean, if you're doing a retrofit, you have all these very expensive. Is tenant relocation costs able to be recovered over time?

[00:40:45] City Staff: I don't believe so.

[00:40:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you.

[00:41:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[00:41:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I guess just following up on Councilman McAllister's question, then, just to make sure I have it clear. So if debt is not under included or under CSFRA, then would the owner essentially have to fit the pill or pay out of his own, his or her own income or, you know, funds to be able to get reimbursed.

[00:41:30] City Staff: It is one of the things that we've talked about in the past. If the cost of the capital improvement is necessary to bring a property into compliance or maintain compliance with a local code affecting health and safety, then that is a factor that would be considered as part of a petition to increase the rent. So it would be in that way that it's potentially that the landlord could recover the cost.

[00:41:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Could you read the piece that you just read about debt not being included? Could that be a reason for it to not be reimbursed? If it clearly states debt is not allowed?

[00:42:06] City Staff: So what the CSFRA does is it identifies the particular factors when there's a petition for an upward adjustment of rent. And so 2 specific factors are excluded. The cost of debt service for any debt obtained after October 19th, 2015, other than debt incurred to finance the cost of improvements as defined in this lower section. Okay. And then the cost of capital improvements that aren't necessary. So one of the key questions for the council has always been whether or not you want to make a seismic retrofit program mandatory because that would allow them to at least include that in the petition.

[00:42:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. My next question has to do with fees. So, um, One, I I guess I'm not sure if I read this correctly and so if someone were to come in and want to do the retrofit before their time, why is that fee lower than if they come in during their phase time? wouldn't we want to incentivize folks to come in sooner than later? or not.

[00:43:22] Building Official: So I think that that was the intent. That's the methodology that we were trying to use so that we would provide a discount in fees if they came in before the required time in order to try and preserve those structures as soon as possible.

[00:43:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But isn't the feet, the 50%, it's bigger if you come in during your fate? And I guess that's what I didn't understand. If someone wanted to come sinner, then their time period, why shouldn't we incentivize it more? And this way we have a 25% decrease if they come in before and 50% during. And I decided to understand.

[00:44:03] Building Official: I think it's they would pay 25%, but there would get a 75% waiver if they come in before their time.

[00:44:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay.

[00:44:10] Building Official: And they would get a 50% waiver if they come in during their phase.

[00:44:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Got it. Okay. Not a waiver, but a fee reduction.

[00:44:17] Building Official: That is...

[00:44:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it just pays 25% of the fee. if they come in before.

[00:44:22] Building Official: That's correct.

[00:44:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Got it. Okay, is just reading this wrong then. And then, um, depending on the size of the development, um, I notice there's different fees, um, is there, is it a, is it a larger development would just take more staff time? And so, because there was a suggestion maybe we just do a flat feed, a simplify, and what would your answer to that?

[00:44:50] Building Official: Are you talking about table one's reference or...? I'm sorry, what page table one on page? page three? Those are just overall costs. Is that what you're referring to?

[00:45:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, overall.

[00:45:07] Building Official: So that's just overall cost. So if you have a larger structure. that you're retrofitting, it's going to cost more to address 200 units as opposed to 16. So that's really what that estimate was. And I'll be honest, I was hesitant to even put that in there because construction costs, as somebody already mentioned, are elevating at such a rate that we can't really keep track of them. It's not what we do so much. People provide us valuations with scope of work. And then we provide fees based on our fee schedule.

[00:45:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So on page 10, it says $20,000 retrofit would be an $860 permit fee, whereas $50,000 repair would be 1728. So is it because that is the value of the retrofit cost translate into fee?

[00:46:06] Building Official: So that is based on our valuation? table, which is part of our fee schedule that's adopted every year. And so they look at the amount, the dollar amount, because we have a valuation based fee table. So they look at the valuation amount, and then there's a calculation that's produced through our computer system. And so we did a quick just generalization of like what would this be and this fee and this fee cost. So that's without any of the discounts that we would provide. And council, of course, could could decide to provide a modified fee schedule for something like this. It doesn't necessarily have to be on what is currently adopted for general construction. That would be up to.

[00:46:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So our current formula, does like the amount of the retrofit or the improvement affect the amount of staff time that takes?

[00:47:00] Building Official: Well, yes. Yes and no, because larger projects clearly were going to several more visits than we would a simple project. Okay. So yes, it can be. directly reflective.

[00:47:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[00:47:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So since council member is in the queue, but not here. My questions. How did we determine that it would be 3 or more units? Why not to five, any other number?

[00:47:31] Building Official: Okay. So, um, 3 or more units was to stay consistent with the CSFRA and the multi-housing inspection program. Currently, one or 2 dwellings, a single-family home or a duplex, would reside under the California residential code. And it really is considered even a duplex is considered more of a single family sort of situation. But once you get to 3 or more, it's more of a commercial environment, and it was to stay in line with those 2 ordinances that we already have, including the trio, also addresses 3 or more units. And I do know that one of the speakers talked about 4 and 5 units, but we also have cities in the state that San Francisco is one of them that has a lot more complexes than we do. specifically go for 3 or more units. They note in their ordinance. So there are three, 4, and 5 that you find throughout the state, and there is only 6 that are mandatory. And we looked at mandatory because that was the only way that the CSFRA union had the potential of having that cost passed through.

[00:48:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And when it's the number of stories is two. I just want to make sure, is that including the soft story and then one living?

[00:48:48] Building Official: Okay. 2 or more.

[00:48:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And following up on the vice mayor's question, on fees, does our fee, like, what is the percent of the value? And does it vary or is it a consistent percent for all sized projects?

[00:49:09] Building Official: So as the fees go up, the the value goes up, the fee actually does go down a bit. It's based on valuation. So the 1st $100,000 and then the next $25,000. I can't remember it off the top of my head. I can pull it up for you if you'd like, but it is something that we've had in effect since, I believe, the late 80s.

[00:49:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, the same B schedule.

[00:49:33] Building Official: It hasn't modified. at all. We are looking at that as through a fee evaluation right now.

[00:49:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do we have anything where it's a flat fee?

[00:49:43] Building Official: Um, the only thing that would be close to a flat fee is like a water heater or a furnace, so you pay the minor or the minor permit fee and then the quantity of water heater. So it's like $36 plus $5.40, something like that. That's the closest we would have to a flat fee. We really don't have a flat fee, not to say that's not something council could not decide to do as part of their direction for an ordinance.

[00:50:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see. And would they inventory include buildings that have already been seismically retrofitted?

[00:50:26] Building Official: No, no.

[00:50:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Council member Hicks.

[00:50:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Uh, did council member Kumay wanted to go first?

[00:50:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: She's not in the queue anymore.

[00:50:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The mayor asked my question.

[00:50:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, thank you. So, I do support the, uh, the, um, the staff initiated evaluation that was in the staff recommended in the staff report, I would also like, um, to make sure that we're designing a process that's, um, that will, uh, not to lead to inadvertent displacement of tenants, which was mentioned in, I think, in the staff report itself, and also in Mr. Howard's letter, thank you, Mr. Howard, for your comprehensive and helpful letter. And one of the things that Mr. Howard's letter talked about was when you open up an apartment to do the retrofitting. You can start to see all sorts of other things like lead and asbestos. Um, so although some of the reading I did in the staff report indicated that people might be displaced for very short periods of time, maybe put up in a hotel for, maybe not at all, or maybe put up in a hotel for a week or two. It made me wonder whether opening up the apartment and looking at these other factors might lead to longer displacement. Now, my question is, can we design a process that tracks that in some way? I would just hate that it would, that we would be going down a slippery slope and leading to a process as some of the staff report, and the letter indicated that might relocate people for longer periods of time, so they didn't come back to the apartments. This may be more of a, you can tell me whether this is a question for now or for later, after the evaluation. But could building look at what they thought the amount of time for the retrofit and other possible repairs that would be triggered would take, and what the implication would be for the time of relocation, and then would there be some way of tracking that, to make sure that it actually happened, that we didn't go down the sort of slippery slope I was talking about.

[00:52:56] Building Official: So we can always look at that. We can always track just about anything, quite frankly. So we can definitely do look at that. We can look at how long displacement would be, I would say, that it is not typical to have displacement occur due to a seismic retrofit. Matter of fact, I think the examples I gave is if you have somebody that's disturbed by the noise, somebody that works from home, somebody that has a newborn, those are the sort of things that you're going to find happen more often than what typically would occur and it usually does take a couple weeks, 3 weeks, maybe. And people can typically reside in those dwellings during that time. You also have a situation where if there is displacement, because of the couple of scenarios I've outlined, that you do have apartments that are constantly being, you know, people are moving out and they're remodeling them where owners could potentially move them into those areas for the short term. so that they could complete the retrofit and then move them back into the area they were previously. Does that answer your question or am I missing a piece?

[00:54:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No, it does. I mean, I would since you say it's possible, I would prefer to have a process that just, you know, that's not too difficult for staff, but that tracks that just so that we have that information. So the length of displacement.

[00:54:23] Building Official: Yeah.

[00:54:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: During, okay. Thank you.

[00:54:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Clark, did you have questions or were you moving to?

[00:54:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: one question. Okay. So we have, I think, a number of complexes. There were, you know, built in the 50s, 60s that are a soft story, originally built as rentals converted to condos, and are still, you know, 50% rented out or whatever the HOA allows. So, um, I assume those would be exempt, but with the folks in the rental units, since it's generally a significant portion, would they receive some sort of disclosure that, you know, your, you know, this this unit is exempt from this this program and, you know, enjoy the risk of pancaking. What happens to the rental units? having lived in a complex like that in the past. I'm just curious what happens to the renters versus the homeowner or the owner occupied units.

[00:55:27] City Staff: So as we've outlined it, it would be something that would be exempt from this process. But that said, I do know council has been looking at apartment buildings being mapped for condomization at a later date. So I think in that case, I would say a couple of things. One is typically if something is newly constructed, it's not going to be a soft story condition. And two, that if you do have something that's older, the council can always look at a voluntary measure later or expanding the program once we've looked at the rentals, that's operating, I guess, the best way that are operating in whole as either an apartment building or as a condo, a complex with an HOA in place. see. Okay, if that makes sense.

[00:56:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah that makes sense. Okay, any other questions? Okay, if not, why don't we move into the questions that staff post? There's three. And I think we can just take them all at the same time. And I'll keep track and we'll summarize at the end. And if somebody has a proposal that's maybe a little bit different from the staff report, Be sure to comment on that, and we can always circle back and raise hands, take some straw votes. Vice mayor, Abby Koga.

[00:56:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, just going through the questions. Yes, I do agree with the staff recommendation that we have a city initiated evaluation phase, so that would be hiring the engineer to do that. And, um, I think the tiered process is good. I actually agree with some of the public comments made. When I saw the 6 years, I actually thought that was pretty quick in light of the fact that I think we've been talking about this issue at the council level for at least five, if I remember correctly. So, um, I would be open to extending it out to, I was actually thinking a straight 10 year one decade would be enough time, hopefully, to get these done in a reasonable time frame. And enough time for the owners to get it done. Number two, in terms of incentives, absolutely, incentives, assistance, um, it definitely would be open to looking at, um, I guess my, you know, my interest, overall, general interest is that, um, in light of the fact that this is important for, um, us to have property owners do, um, 2 that it's can be quite a costly process. And three, in looking at the buildings and who owns them and the majority, 70% is like 11 units or less. So we're not talking about big companies, big business here. We're really talking about mom and pops and, you know, folks who made investment maybe for their retirement. I want to make this as easy as possible for them to do it. So if there's ways we can, you know, incentivize by, you know, lowering the fee or making it more of a flat fee, just to simplify it. And, um, yeah, not make it so, so, so complex. That's my overall interest in this. So, yes, whatever we can do and assistance and incentives is great, including fee reductions and yeah, just maybe streamlining it as much as possible. And that goes with number 3 as well. I do think we should go ahead and do the evaluation process and then look at a number of other things that were mentioned, displacement is definitely an issue, if the need, if necessary for relocation. And quite frankly, from, again, in light of who we are talking about, the majority of folks are meeting the smaller, you know, smaller property owners, I would like to streamline this. And so, you know, I did bring up CSFRA reform or changes. And this was one, this was really the issue that came popped up last year and came to mind. And, you know, what I just want to make sure we can, as much as possible, guarantee that the property owners can get cost recovery. Um, and to. Yeah, it sounds like the hearing process from what I've heard is not really an easy and a fast one. And so whatever we can do that we need to do by, you know, making changes to CSFRA to make it more streamlined, since we're going to mandate this, I think is important. So part of this evaluation process, I'd like to use as time. And I know that I think it's in a week or 2 we'll be discussing CS Safari reform and how to move forward with that to get it on the ballot. This has been the item on my mind, at least, that I think we really need to work on. Thanks.

[01:00:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:00:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So question one. I agree with the vice mayor. So I support the city initiated evaluation phase, the 3 tiered approach. I don't have a number in mind for a time frame. I think the suggestion from Mr. Howard about conducting some stakeholder outreach is appropriate and getting the sense of what apartment owners may think is a reasonable time frame could help us discern what an appropriate number might be. For question two, yes, I support incentives, assistance and fee reductions. And there were a couple of things that came to mind. So I don't know if it would apply in this case, but I had heard from somebody who worked on the Marcy Freeland retrofitting, that there was an incentive allowing for a parking reduction. I'm not exactly sure precisely how that worked, but I guess it may have made the retrofitting cheaper or easier to accomplish. I'm not really sure, but to the extent that that can be a meaningful incentive, I'd be interested in exploring that. There was a suggestion to look at using the affordable housing funds to provide low or no interest loans. Again, I don't know if that's, you know, an appropriate idea in this context, but I think because there's a pretty strong nexus between preserving, you know, naturally affordable housing, CSFRA units, you know, and the affordable housing funds, I think it would be an appropriate use, at least exploring that, you know, to the extent that could be useful. And then for, it may not be as valuable if we have a longer time frame. But if there are property owners that have some kind of financial hardship and just can't provide the capital to retrofit their buildings, then maybe looking at some kind of process allowing for a delay or something, that would give them more time or you know, allow for some flexibility if they're really unable to achieve or to implement the retrofitting by the deadline. So those were just some ideas. I don't know if everyone on the council's on board, but I'd be interested in exploring those. And then question three, yes. So I also think it makes sense to do the evaluation 1st and then once we have that data, then coming back with an ordinance. I think that makes sense to me. Thank you.

[01:03:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Others? Cancel Iber Clark.

[01:03:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, I agree with all 3 recommendations. The only thing that I would, um, sort of suggest, um, would be, or I might differ slightly on would be just the timeline. I mean, if we want to push it, I was thinking more like 5 to 7 years, if we want to push it out to 10, um, I would say, provide some pretty significant incentives for folks to go sooner than that, or maybe it's 5 to 7, and you can petition for, with good reason, to go out to 10, but still have a hard cutoff at some point so that we, you know, we have a pretty defined program and we can say at the end, that we've, just as we do with the with the unreinforced masonry buildings, you know, at a certain point. Hopefully there's none out there. And I'd like to be able to, not disagreeing that we couldn't have a longer time frame, but if so, more incentives for folks to move sooner, or maybe a petition to delay based on certain factors. The I'm sure other jurisdictions have dealt with the 2nd loan issue. I'm sure we can look at that as part of this, but I would find it hard to believe that this issue hasn't come up in other cities that have dealt with that, and I'd be curious how those cities have dealt with that, or if they have. And then I think the 3rd would be, you know, I think, you know, we'll proceed with proposing CSFRAMMS, that would hopefully make this this process easier, but I would say at minimum, I would hope that we could partner with the renal housing committee and may perhaps staff could provide them with language where there's a streamline petition process where, you know, if they're going through this program, They've gotten the permits from the city. Um, you know, it's, it's a really, really simple petitioning process and it doesn't involve, um, your sort of your normal um, timeline for the whole thing. Basically, those petitions should be approved in most cases unless something falls outside of, you know, they don't have a permit or they're going outside the normal processes. But the rental housing committee can deal with that. But I would think that we would, you know, want to partner with them and say, you know, we're working on this. Here's a framework that you might want to think about a framework that works with planning and building, on streamlining that process, to save them all time and money and energy, frankly. And I think that's it. That's all I am.

[01:06:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:06:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I might bring generally with the direction the rest of council is going. So, for question number one, yes, I agree with the city initiated evaluation phase and 3 tiered retrofit phase, with a possibly extended time frame. Um, to, I support the recommendation to provide program incentives, especially, um, fee incentives for moving sooner, and also uh, streamlining, and especially a streamlined process with, so that people can start working immediately with the rental housing committee. Or immediately, as soon as possible, at least. Um, Three, um, is, do we support the recommendation to undertake an evaluation phase and come back to counsel at a later date? Yes, I do, um, I would like that to, uh, okay, so actually, staff, when I ask staff questions about displacement, staff answered that the best place to look at that would be, um, in our project, the council, uh, upcoming council project on displacement. So maybe we can look at that briefly there, but I would like some way of tracking how displacement is happening or relocation is happening. And I would like, as I would like to look at best practices, that other cities have undertaken in terms of the 2nd loan issue. I'm a little hesitant to use affordable housing funds because I think there may be a better use of those funds, especially if we would lose these units soon. A lot of many people have emailed us saying these units are at the end of their life. So I wouldn't be against exploring that, but I would not want to use those funds up and then find that we lose the units very soon afterwards. Thank you.

[01:08:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come in.

[01:08:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So, um, for question one, yes, I support the council conversation regarding trying to get stakeholder input and further outreach. I think that that information will dictate for me how I feel about the timeline. I feel like I need more information in terms of what you know, what may seem reasonable. Um, you know, I think one of the things that was mentioned was the cost of construction. Um, and so, you know, all of that will play a factor for me at least in terms of timeline. For question two, yes. Question three, yes. Um, you know, I was particularly interested in um, the comments um, related to condos because I live in a condo um, that uh, has a many, many rentals and is a soft story building. I thought the, I didn't ask this question, but I thought the idea of looking into kind of soil and other things and how that might relate to, you know, the retrofit was something that was interesting and maybe trying to maybe expand a little bit more, um, in the evaluation phase would be something I'm interested in. And I think what I've heard from my colleagues is kind of there are some natural nexus points. So whether it's making sure that this is connected when we talk about the displacement, um, issue, or when we talk about condo mapping in the future, I'd like to see synergy between what we do today. And the other projects that we're working on as a council. And I'm also interested in the comments about looking into best practices for 2nd loans and how we might be able to streamline the process. I think a lot we often get feedback on how things can be cumbersome. Um, and uh, how can how can we make sure that uh, we're, uh, getting the process going. Thank you.

[01:10:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member McAllister. Um... I don't see you in the queue, but I'm going to call on you anyway.

[01:11:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I figured I'd be I'm the last one next to you, Madam Mayor. So, uh, the recommendation to evaluate, I agree with the 3 tier, retro phase, um, I'm going back to the loan process, and I'd still like to see some information about that, that, you know, here we're putting some people in a position to build something, but if a loan is carried 10 years or something like that, maybe one group can do it in a faster manner, but I'd like to see the research to how it ties into if somebody gets a 10 year loan, but yet you were saying you got to do it in 5 years or 6 years. because it sounds like financing for this thing is going to be somewhat difficult and challenging. So I'd like to see those type of information come back to us so that we are tailoring this retrofit phasing to say, here's what realistically someone can do for a loan. And if there is the requirement from the CSFRA that there's some limitations, I like to make sure we follow through with those. It's sort of an oxymoron here on number 2 to say it's mandatory, but we're going to give you incentives. So I find that interesting to say, well, if it's mandatory, eventually they're going to get it done. But I'd like to follow up on what the vice mayor said in, and I was in the queue, but the question was, how much more does it cost? You're charging the fee just based on the cost. And you said the actual work involved may not be that much more, if it's $100,000 or, you know, $50,000 or $25,000, and I'd rather see something that there is a set fee to make it simple for everybody because, you know, I've done some home remodeling and I can you're charging us on a feed based on that, and I'd see an inspector twice, where it just didn't seem to be a nexus to say, well, just because it costs more, we're going to have more work. So I like to follow up on the fee structure. And if that goes, the incentives or assistance, that goes back to, let's look at how the loans are structured, and that would be sort of a way to tailor make this the phasing in based on what the market will allow them to do. And on the number three, I undertake, yes, take the evaluation, but I would not support an ordinance at this time until the CSFRA made a commitment to how they were going to deal with it. Because we could ask them and we could recommend it, but I rather I rather see them come up with what a better defined process that they would use. I do believe in the streamlining. I think that's one way to do it, because we are putting a lot of burdens on people, and we're seeing a lot of property owners looking at options to exit the rental fee, rental markets. So I would really like to see us, maybe write a letter to the housing rental committee and say, we would appreciate that you would do some clarity of this and define it better before we go on with an ordinance because then we could be just contradicting and it wouldn't be effective as it is. So that's what I would like to see.

[01:14:18] Unknown Speaker: And I might just point out that it may not be within the purview of the rental housing committee to make those adjustments, and I think that's why it's going to be one of the topics for consideration of modifications to the CSFRA to include a streamlined process.

[01:14:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, maybe they'll have a discussion on it. see what they can do. Right, I do think there's definitely should be some interaction between the RHC and the rental housing committee in the city council if there were about... I would definitely like to see that done before an ordinance who comes back to council. Thank you.

[01:14:49] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, on question one, yes, I think the city should go ahead with the evaluation phase. And I am open to the three tiers, but I'm also open to it potentially being tweaked if, after the evaluation, something comes out, in the information that says maybe the tiers should be different. So I'd want to revisit those. And I am open to a longer period of time to implement this. I think we should do outreach to the housing providers, to understand more the second loan issue, as well as just the challenges of doing this. And I appreciated the concern that if we try to do this too fast, we might be driving up the costs because there'd be so much demand for the folks who do this kind of work. And on question two, I am open to a flat fee. as the vice mayor said, and others agreed. I think we want to make this as simple as possible, and a flat fee is pretty simple. I agree with looking at the incentives, and we heard some that were mentioned tonight that weren't necessarily in the staff report. And so I'd want to continue to look and see if there's anything else we could do to help pay for the cost of these.

[01:16:22] Unknown Speaker: I am hesitant to use BMR fees. Um, as um, council member Hicks said. I'd hate to use those and then not have them available to build units. Um, I think we should go forward with the evaluation phase and I also have concerns about, um, the process that, um, an upward adjustment in rent process, if that could be streamlined. And so like council member or McAllister, I'd kind of like a better understanding of what's going to happen there in terms of can this be passed through? Is the process going to be streamlined before we actually adopt an ordinance? And I don't feel like we have to adopt an ordinance like tomorrow, because we still are doing the evaluation, and that's going to take a while. So hopefully we'll have that sorted out before we adopt an ordinance. I am concerned about displacement and any relocation assistance. that is provided during that time, although I don't expect much, but I don't want to forget about that.

[01:17:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I feel like we were pretty consistent in our input. So yes, we want to go ahead with the evaluation phase and there are certainly some issues that we want staff to look at, especially the 2nd loan issue, and get input from stakeholders on the period of time. We want to take a look at, is there a different fee structure that would help streamline and simplify this process, and let's see, yes, return with an ordinance, but we might want to sort out some other issues 1st before we adopt it. Any other comments from council members? Okay. We'll close this item. Thank you. So we are going to now go out to the flagpole, which is near the plaza area outside, and then our regular session will start back at 6:30. So we will meet you all out at the flagpole. Hey, we will call to order this special meeting at the city council, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. So if you will join me for that. Allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America. We just stands. One nation, under God, into the school, with liberty, justice for all. Our city clerk will announce attendance.

[01:19:34] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:19:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna start with a couple of proclamations or recognitions, and we'll start with the proclamation and recognition of Theater Works, Silicon Valley. And if Robert Kelly would join me at the lectern, to accept the proclamation.

[01:20:02] Unknown Speaker: Hello.

[01:20:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you so much. And... Whereas, Robert Kelly founded Theater Works, Silicon Valley, in 1970, and whereas Theater Works presented the very first performances at Mountain View Center for the performing arts in 1991 with their production of Go Down Garvey, and has performed full seasons of the highest caliber on the main stage every year since 1991, and is the only Mountain View home company to have held that honor throughout the center's entire history. And whereas Theater Works has concentrated on presenting new plays with many California, West Coast, and world premieres, marking the 70th world premiere in December of this year, put enormous resources into developing new plays, including their annual New Works Festival, which began on MVCPA's 2nd stage, and many of the plays originally workshopped in the New Works Festival have gone on to national. and international success. And whereas theater works, workshopped Memphis in their 1st year of the new works festival, and further developed it on the MVCPA main stage, before it went on to win a Tony Award, for the best new musical, and collaborated with DreamWorks to develop Prince of Egypt, which premiered on the MVCPA main stage, and is about to open in London's West End. And whereas Theater Works was a pioneer in multicultural casting, creating opportunities and conversations about diversity, and the celebration of the Bay Area's rich multicultural heritage. And whereas theater works has shown unwavering dedication to the development of young talent, so that many successful theater artists around the world consider themselves to be theater works alumni, and has devoted enormous resources to multiple education programs, including the young playwrights project, summer camps, 100s of performances for high school audiences, and 100s of classroom visits by artists providing 1000s of students with their very 1st experience of the arts. And whereas this year, the American Theater Wing is giving its Tony Award for Best Regional Theater to Theater Works, in recognition of their amazing contribution. I think that deserves a hand. Let's see, we'll start that over. Whereas, this year, the American Theater Wing is giving because it was so good, and we have to hear it again. is giving its Tony Award for best regional theater to theater works and recognition of their amazing contributions to theater in America in the last 50 years on June 9th at Radio City Music Call in New York City. And whereas, as artistic director, Robert Kelly has been the heart and soul of theater works through all of their artistic endeavors for an extraordinary 50 year tenure and will retire at the end of the 2019, 2020 season. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the city of Mountain View City Council, on behalf of its members, city staff, and the community, does hereby express appreciation and congratulations to Robert Kelly and Theater Works Silicon Valley for their extraordinary achievements that have given 50 years of exceptional theater to the Mountain View community. Thank you.

[01:24:03] Artistic Director Robert Kelly: Thank you so much, Mayor Manachek, and members of the city council, and thanks to all of you for being here tonight. I'm sure that's the only reason you came. Theater Works has been performing at the center for 28 years now, and it has been a remarkable and totally inspiring journey all the way. We want to thank the city. We especially want to thank Scott Whistler and the incredible staff at the center for all they've done to help us get this far. Hundreds of thousands of people. That's a big number, but 100s of 1000s of people have seen our shows at the center. Some of them have gone on to, when Tony Awards, some of them have gone on to performances all over the country and certainly in New York. We couldn't be more proud and thanks to all of you. We've now got this Tony Award for not just for theater works, but for the city of Mountain View and all of you. Thank you so very much. you.

[01:25:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And next, we have some of our, um, youth advisory committee members, who, unfortunately, are now outgoing youth advisory committee members, so if you would join me up here, so I can give you your certificates, we have Aburage, Greath Run, Amelia Row, Rhea, Saxana, Sean Patel, and William, Tina Harrow. Okay. Thank you, guys.

[01:26:27] Youth Advisory Committee Member: All right, the last time I was here was the pot shop meeting, so the scene's a little different. I think a lot of the times kids our age kind of say that there's no opportunities to say what we want. So I'd like to thank the city of Mountain View for having the youth advisory committee. Not all cities are blessed enough to have a youth advisory committee. So it lets us get kind of our head start into the political and governmental world and also get a chance to say what we want in our community. Thank you. Thank you. all.

[01:27:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It was really nice to be able to recognize folks who volunteer for the city, especially young folks in our community, so I want to thank them again for their service. Next on the calendar, I'm sorry, 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 items that council members want to pull? Council member McAllister?

[01:28:09] Councilmember John McAlister: I didn't want to pull anything, but on item 4.7. I will not, I will be voting in the negative. I was concerned about this project being not necessary and funds could have been used better and safety could have been addressed easily or so I will be voting no one 4.7.

[01:28:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:28:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And similarly, I'm not going to pull anything, but I did want to make a comment on 4.7. I don't know if I should do that now.

[01:28:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah go ahead.

[01:28:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, just very quickly. So I'll be supporting this project, but moving forward, I think there was a discussion about this some time ago. My preference is for community benefit funding to benefit the area that is impacted by the development that produced the funding in the 1st place. And I asked this question. It was hard for me to discern the nexus between the Merlo and Geyer project and these improvements. So maybe the reality was, I guess a previous council made that appropriation, and that's fine, but, you know, if we're having community benefit funding, it should benefit the community that is actually impacted by the development. That's all. Thank you.

[01:29:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor of Bikogo?

[01:29:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, as being consistent with my previous vote. I will also be registering a no vote on item 4.7. My concern was when the temporary nature of these improvements, and I think there were alternatives, and three, the data that I remember studying didn't, to me, didn't show a dire need to do these temporary improvements.

[01:29:43] Unknown Speaker: I also will be registering a no vote on 4.7, consistent with my previous thoughts on this topic. It's kind of it's temporary in nature. We had quite a bit of public input saying that they wanted the left lanes left open. And so I'll be voting. I want to register a no vote on 4.7.

[01:30:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other council members? Is there any member of the public who wishes to pull an item on the consent calendar? Okay, it looks like we have maybe 3 or four. Okay, why don't you guys get ready? Come on up.

[01:30:22] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, Santa Villa, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. Just wanted to talk about 4.9 and ask that when you do the contract for the off-ramp improvements, for the shoreline off-ramp, that you keep in mind of the traffic that would be directed right next to our park for both the new Microsoft campus and also all of the new housing projects that are going to be around there. And our park is considered in all the traffic studies and other improvement studies. Thanks.

[01:30:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[01:31:07] Public Speaker: Good evening, Major Matachek, Council members. I'd like to pull 4.7 4.9. I guess I'll start with 4.7 since that's what everybody's talking about. And yeah, I'm also opposed to this. Yeah, and why do we need to do this? If Castor Street's going to be closed maybe in 2 or 3 years. And something that was brought up by my friend Joel here was that if you look at the accident record for the different areas in Mountain View, this intersection here at Castro and Central is actually one of the smallest numbers. So you would be forcing cars to go away from this area and go to shoreline, which has a much higher accident rate. So it just doesn't seem to make much sense to, you know, go ahead with this project for that reason also. And that's all I have to say on that one. Should I?

[01:32:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You want to do 49 as well?

[01:32:02] Public Speaker: Yeah.

[01:32:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Start the clock or... Yeah, he can start have 3 minutes on this one.

[01:32:11] Public Speaker: Okay. Yeah, I was pretty interested in this project and I've always been concerned with traffic on shorelines. So I actually went out there again this morning and took a look and trying to figure out, you know, why is it always backed up like this, and this has to do with, and I understand this item on the consent calendar, just to approve funding for further study. But I think the stuff that we've gotten so far should really make you question, the quality, the work that we've gotten. Here's the plan. As you know, they want to divert the traffic onto Avenida instead of coming right into this five way intersection here. Sounds okay, but, um, in reality. And they, oh, they also have these claims that they're going to shorten the weight from 208 seconds down to 44, 44 is like D level. And that's almost nothing. And they think they can shorten the queue on the north off ramp from 2,000 feet, you know, almost half a mile down to 625. Now what makes them think they can do that? Because this is these are pictures I took this morning. This is the northbound off ramp, and there's a problem here because 101 traffic here has to merge here if they want to get off on the shoreline, but it's already full. So they've got to force their way in. And this is, you know, looking on Shoreline Boulevard towards Middlefield and then over to Per. This is pretty much normal every morning. So what I found out was the signal, well, I have an Eda and Shoreline, for the 101 off ramp, and for Shoreline, so all the incoming traffic, it's a signal, it's 83% of the time green. Okay? However, the signal up pair is green only from 57 to 69% of the time. There's just no way you're going to get all those cars through there. You know, it's like trying to fit, you know, 2 sock, 2 feet into one sock or something. Pairs the bottleneck. In addition, these 2 signals, in addition to the one at Plymouth are not well synchronized at all. The cycle times are different. There's no way to synchronize them. So sometimes they line up just right and traffic flows really well. But most of the time, like here, you get a green light and you can't go. And I said, what I think is going to happen is that you still got the same number of cars going here. A few cars, maybe 20%, we'll head over to the east. And that's the main purpose of this. But they have to, but at the same time, you're going to be strangling Avenita now. Right now, Avenid has a queer shot to the intersection every morning. It's a few cars that go by every cycle, and they make it through without much problem. Now, they're going to have to wait in this line here, which is going to be caused by all these people coming off a northbound 101 and wind up because it's still going to be clogged here. There's no doubt about that. And in addition, it might even spill further into this area. And I notice there are a lot of mail trucks that come through here. You know, they're not going to be able to get through anymore as well as VTA. So that's why I think you should really take a hard look at, you know, what kind of results we're getting from these traffic consultants. Thank you.

[01:35:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. X, please.

[01:35:15] Joel Dean: I'm Joel Dean, I live on Shoreline Boulevard. Last night. I send a communication to the council members expressing the feeling that the public notification process about Castro Street and the 101 interchange has been kind of opaque. And I received a communication from the public works directors that this meeting is not an appropriate time to be discussing technical details in depth. And I certainly agree with him on that, because you can't discuss anything in two or three minutes. Question is, what is a good time to communicate with public works on the progress of these projects. Public meetings don't really work, 'cause I'm teen, zillion people show up when everybody wants to get his two cents worth in, and so nobody can say anything that amounts to anything. So I would like to be able to open a channel of communication with the city staff, so that we can be notified on a regular basis, and there won't be any nasty surprises when the next version of the preferred plan comes out. And thank you.

[01:36:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide comments on the consent calendar?

[01:36:42] Unknown Speaker: I do have a question on this. I see, um, Director Fuller in the audience, you could just give us, um, a brief update on the process and next steps for this project.

[01:37:04] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Mike Fuller, Public Works Director, the, um, action tonight is to amend A.E. Com's contract to begin the final design process, and what we're on the process of doing now is completing the project study report, project report, through Caltrans, the, the, deliverable at the end of that, um, process will be an alternative that is recommended by Caltrans. And so we plan to bring that alternative back to council, um, after the summer break to review, you know, some technical information where we landed with our studies and with Caltrans. The reason we advanced tonight's item was we're behind schedule on this project. It's a very time sensitive project, and we'd like to get the contract amended, go through the paperwork process of amending the contract, and let e-com start some of the preliminary steps over the summer of the final design that can proceed regardless of which alternative is selected by Caltrans. So we will be coming to active council with more information.

[01:38:14] Unknown Speaker: And will that additional information include a traffic analysis on what the benefits of that alternative are?

[01:38:21] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yes, we can certainly, I mean, generally, we would review that at a high level in the staff report, but we will have all the technical data to back it up.

[01:38:28] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Certainly do some notification to Mr. Dean's comment. Okay. so that the public could review that ahead of time and come to the meeting and express their opinions. That be great. Council member and Callister has a question for you.

[01:38:43] Councilmember John McAlister: What's the process of involving VTA and purchasing the property?

[01:38:47] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: We're in discussions right now with VTA. We can't draw the final line on the right of way we need until we do get the approved alternative from Caltrans, but we are in preliminary discussions with VTA already. We have been for quite some time. I believe we're in we might be in the appraisal process right now, I'd have to talk to our real property program administration and find out exactly where we are, but we are talking to VTA about purchasing them right away. And they're willing to sell. Indications are, yes. There were there was some there was some hesitation on their part. They had been talking about developing the property and so on, and we had talked to them and convinced them that regardless of the redevelopment of the property. We'd like to move ahead with getting the right away for that and we also need it for a water and a sewer main. And so I think we shook that loose and we're actively working with them again.

[01:39:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So they could they just change their mind, though, and then Or do you have eminent domain or can we do that with another public agency or necessity or anything along the lines?

[01:39:52] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: I don't think, based on our conversations, I don't think it will get to eminent domain, if it starts to feel like that, I think I'd have to have a conversation with the city attorney about exercising that over another public agency. members of everything. But again, based on our, we've been talking to him about this for a long time and based on those discussions, I don't think it'll come to that.

[01:40:12] Councilmember John McAlister: And so also, in 2 years ago, we were talking about tying this into the Charleston East project. And so that ship has sailed where their occupational permits were based on getting this project built. So that was part of a community benefit package that we didn't accept.

[01:40:33] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No, no, they've, as part of the Charleston East Entitlement approvals, Google was required to maintain a certain headcount in North Bay Shore until this and the Plymouth realignment to space park are completed, and they are monitoring that headcount, and we'll continue to do so.

[01:40:51] Councilmember John McAlister: So the headcount was the only requirement that we put on them to get an occupational.

[01:40:55] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yes.

[01:40:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Also, the acquisition of the Plymouth, correct?

[01:41:00] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: The Plymouth right away. Yes.

[01:41:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez.

[01:41:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't have any questions. Should I just?

[01:41:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah.

[01:41:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. I will move to approve the consent calendar, including adopting a resolution approving the final map of Tract number, 10481, 257 to 279 Calderon Avenue, accepting dedications and making findings as required by the city code to be read in title only, further reading waived. I don't think the other, the 5 votes don't need to be read.

[01:41:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. You push the button. There's no button. Okay, so, um, our city clerk can probably fix that. So we have a motion by council member Ramirez.

[01:41:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Second.

[01:41:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And his second Vice Council member, Clark. Any further comment? Okay, we're ready to vote on that. The consent calendar passes unanimously. with, um, yeah, three, uh, no votes on 4.7 Vice Mayor Abi Koga, council member, McAllister, and me. Yes, thank you. Thanks. Okay, seems weird to say. Okay, so we are onto item five, which is oral communications, and 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 three minutes during this section, and state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. And so if you're here to talk on any item, not on the agenda. Now would be the time. Could you... We're recording this, please.

[01:43:13] Kristen Anderson: Hi. What I was saying is that I printed out what I was talking about for everyone.

[01:43:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could give it to our city clerk. And then be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak.

[01:43:24] Kristen Anderson: Oh, I completed a blue card.

[01:43:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks.

[01:43:28] Kristen Anderson: All right. So the Adam Zama, well, 1st off, my name is Kristen Anderson, and I've been a Mountain View resident for over 10 years. I live in the North Bay Shore over in the Santiago Villa park. So I wanted to talk about that area with a few things. I wanted to address entertainment. The entertainment has been taken away from us. We used to have a dance hall where we had dancing lessons and a place to dance. We also used to have shoreline billiards where people could go play pool and leagues could have their teams play there. There was also a laser tag that had, you know, an arcade and they had rooms for the kids to have their birthday parties in. So I really miss that area, and I feel with bringing in more residents, which is fine. We just need more of a community type of feeling and things for people to do. I also would like to see a light rail going from downtown Mountain View to North Bay Shore, starting at Moffat, going up Moffat, and then taking a left on West Middlefield, and then taking a ride on Shoreline, and going up Shoreline to the North Bay Shore. And I would like to see 3 stops there, one at on Middlefield, right at Shoreline. One at Pear, on Shoreline, and on Shoreline at Amplitheater. I feel that the light rail would provide a way for people, not only for the concerts for residents to get to and from and people that work there and won't get caught up. Right now, I know we have other transit, but they get caught up in the traffic just as easily. So I feel that a light rail would really help at that. And then the 3rd one is an access to North Bay Shore, a different one in addition to the shoreline and ring store. So on Moffat, from Moffat. And if you go, FEX at Moffatt, and you take a left on RT Jones, which is public, it's not in part of the NASA area, take a ride on RT Jones, very next, I'm sorry I left. Your very next left is Stevens Creek, is Stevens Way. If you look on the map that I provided, Stevens Way lines up with La Avenida from North Bay Shore. So if you were to easily connect Steven's way in law of Nita, just with a bridge, then that would allow a 3rd way to gain access for the into North Bay Shore. And I fill with all the additional, that dumps right into where the residential area is going to be built up. And I feel in case there is like a fire or emergency way, I feel more comfortable having an exit that way. Thank you.

[01:46:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda?

[01:46:30] Dave Arnoni: Hello. My name is Dave Arnoni, and I'm a long term resident of Mountain View. And I'm here tonight to talk about the proposed ban on oversized vehicles. And I think my message tonight is really pretty simple. First, I want to recognize that the people living in vehicles in Mountain View are residents, they're residents of my community. And if this band is enacted, we will be displacing 200 of those vehicle households out of Mountain View. And I don't want to see that happen. And I want to ask that as we go forward with enforcement, that we not go forward without clear and actionable plans for safe parking. And so I want to ask for a hold on enforcement until we can provide the parking spaces necessary to protect residents of Mountain View. Thank you.

[01:47:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on an item not on the agenda tonight? Okay, seeing none, we'll close this portion of the meeting. And next is item 6.1, downtown parking maintenance and operation assessment district for fiscal year 2019, 2020. And we will have a staff presentation, a brief one.

[01:47:58] Tiffany Chu: Good evening. My name's Tiffany Chu. And with me is Wayne Chen. We're from the community development department. Tonight, city council, we are hearing a public hearing regarding the annual assessment of the downtown parking maintenance operation district for Fiscal year, 1920. This is the 1st of, this is the 2nd of 2 meetings, and the 1st meeting was held on May 14th. As a reminder, the district provides support to the overall maintenance and operations of our parking district system. And the purpose of tonight's public hearing is to address any changes to the annual assessment of $158,606 and to take public comment on the proposed assessments. Tonight, we're asking counsel to adopt a motion, waiving the reading of the engineer's statement and to adopt a resolution approving the engineer's report. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[01:48:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member Clark?

[01:49:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: I move that we adopt a motion to waive the rating of the statement of the engineer of record. Give me a break.

[01:49:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can you push that? Um, okay, so... Does the city clerk have, uh...

[01:49:30] City Clerk: Um, actually, you'll go ahead and proceed with the with voting on the motion 1st and then I will make this statement following that.

[01:49:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then I read it after that.

[01:49:40] City Clerk: Correct. after.

[01:49:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you.

[01:49:44] Unknown Speaker: Madame Mayor, did you ask for public comment? I just wanted to clarify.

[01:49:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I did not. Um, so I was following the um, agenda and it says that um, we make the motion. It actually says then the city clerk reads a statement, then I read a statement, then public comment, but it doesn't really say when we vote. Sorry about that. And it doesn't say public comment. So, do we take public comment? Yeah, right. So, do you want to read, Tiffany, on when the public comment?

[01:50:21] Tiffany Chu: The public comment is, I understand it is taken after you read your statement. Okay. Yes.

[01:50:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so before we take a vote, I read this part, right? Okay, this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the adoption of the annual engineers' report for the Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District for fiscal years 2019, 2020. All written protests to be computed in the protest percentage should have been filed with the city clerk by 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4th, 2019. The council may consider all protests, including oral protests, presented at this hearing, and arriving at its determination, relating to this assessment district. Protests or endorsements may be made by any person interested, but only written protests filed by the owners of the property may be considered in determining the percentage of protests. It will now be in order for the hearing to be declared open. You are, this is where we have public comment, right? So you are asked to clearly identify yourself, your property, assessment number, assessors, parcel number, or property address, if you have comments on this topic. Okay, seeing no one rushing to the microphone. Uh, we close the public input portion of this, right? And now the city clerk.

[01:51:49] City Clerk: That statement? Notices have been posted, published, and mailed as required by the Mountain View City Code for this public hearing. Affidavits and certificates for posting, publishing, and mailing are on file in the city clerk's office, a copy of the engineers' report for the assessment district, which the public works director has caused to be prepared, was filed in my office on May 14, 2019, and has been available for public inspection. This report consists of the 201920 parking maintenance and operation assessment district budget, including an itemized listing of direct costs and expenses, the assessment role computed in accordance with benefits and a description of the assessment formula and the assessment roles.

[01:52:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments from council members? If not, we're just voting on the 1st part of this. So that passes unanimously and that is just the motion waiving the reading of the statement. So then on the 2nd part, Council member Clark?

[01:52:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Remove that we adopt a resolution, adopting the engineer's report for the downtown parking maintenance and operational operation assessment district for fiscal year 201920 and authorizing its delivery to Santa Clara County.

[01:53:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Second.

[01:53:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by council member McAllister. Do we open it again for public input? Okay. Any other questions, council comments or anything? Okay. We can vote on that. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is item 6.2. And this is 1720 Villa Street, Residential Project. We will start with a staff presentation, and then I believe the applicant has a presentation. Then we'll have council questions, and then we'll open it up for public input. Whenever you're ready.

[01:54:13] Senior Planner Matt Van Osten: All right. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. I'm senior planner, Matt Van Osten, joined by planning manager and zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams. Tonight, we'll be discussing 1720 Villa Street, Residential Project. It's for the project location. It's located just north of Villa Street, between Hignett Avenue and the Avalon Apartments, just north of Chiquita Avenue, and south of the Caltrain and Central Expressway Corridor. Along Hinton Avenue, there are two-storey, fourplex units, and Avalon Apartments is up to 3 stories, and the rest of the project has single family housing to the south and west and east. Just for some background, this project received a gatekeeper authorization in 2015 for 240 units, 5 stories in height, rezoning an amendment to the Villa Mariposa precise plan, and community benefits. It went to study sessions with EPC on March 1st, 2017, and council study sessions on March 21st, in December 12th of 2017. And these studies really, or these study sessions really provided direction on key elements such as project design, park dedication, affordable housing requirements, and community benefits. And then just a few weeks ago, on May 15th, 2019, the EPC recommended approval of the project 70, with an addition to condition of approval number 25 to replace the proposed redwood trees on the site with more suitable trees for the environment. And so for some project information, since the time of the gatekeeper authorization, the project is now 226 units, down from 240, which is approximately 69 units to the acre, includes 318 parking spaces and a 2 level underground garage, it's 65 feet max height with a 46 foot roof line height. The project includes a tree heritage tree removal of 26, replacing that with 174 trees on site, +6 street trees along Villa Street. The project also includes general plan amendment to high density residential or rezoning of the property to the P 17, Villa Mariposa precise plan, an amendment to the precise plan standards, as well as benefits such as a 0.4 acre public park, a public multi-use path through the site, and improvements along Villa Street. And here, just for reference is the original site plan that was submitted. And as you can see, since then, a future, the park was included along Villa Street, as well as the property was set back further, adjacent to the properties along Higden Avenue. A courtyard was now flipped from being interior to the site to being exterior, and a path was included along the western portion of the site. And for reference, this is the site plan in relation to heights, as you can see, closer to Villa Street, there's a step down to 2 and 3 stories, with the rest of the project being 4 stories and a portion in the very middle of the site being 5 stories in height. Here, again, is just the location of the multi-used path, which would be running along that western portion of the site and would eventually include tunneling under the Caltrain railroad and central Expressway corridor. You can see clearly here, how the trail would be ramping down until it's below grade to here, where there would then be a tunnel and a connection to Meridian Way, into future bike routes. So here's a project design. This is a project perspective taken from Villa Street, right at the where the public park would be. So this is a large part of the public facing part of the project. As you can see, some trees along that will be along the park are shaded out just for a better idea of what the architecture will look like. And here again, is the part of the project that's abutting the future multi-use path along that western edge of the project. And finally, here's a shot of what the project would look like from Higdon Avenue, which was a portion of the project that's that was very sensitive and called out by council and previous study sections to, you know, really make the project step down and work better for that transition to the 2 story residences. And as for BMR housing, it's a 15% BMR requirement for this project, which requires 33 units on site, the applicant is formally proposed a 10.88 million in Luffy as an alternative mitigation to providing BMR units on site. This would equate to a $51.98 per square foot fee, or a payment, and a 50, which is about 50% more than the rental base in Lou fee payment. The applicant also verbally proposed another alternative mitigation option at the Environmental Planning Commission on May 15th, 2019. This was in regards to rehabilitating 48 units. at 660 Mariposa Avenue near the project, and turning those into affordable BMR units with the help of affordable housing provider. So staff has only received a written proposal on Sunday, June 2nd, and there are still many questions that remain unanswered regarding this proposal. If staff is, or if counsel is interested in pursuing this option, staff recommends continuing the project until a full analysis is completed. and an agreement can be enacted. And the recommendation is adopt a resolution certifying the EIR, adopt a resolution, approving a general plan, map amendment for the properties located at 1696 to 1758 Villa Street, introduce an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment, adopt a resolution, approving an amendment to the P 17 Villa Mariposa precise plan, adopt a resolution, conditionally approving a planned community permit, and develop Permit, to construct a 226 unit apartment complex, dedicate a 0.4 acre public park, heritage shoe removal permit, to remove 26 heritage trees, and an alternative mitigation to allow payment of inloof fees instead of providing units on site, and adopt a resolution conditionally approving parcel map to create 2 lots. This concludes staff's recommendation and presentation. Thank you.

[02:01:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. The applicant have a presentation? Did we already arrange the time for this?

[02:01:31] Unknown Speaker: We did not.

[02:01:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: How much time do you need?

[02:01:34] Applicant: About an hour and a half would be good. No, just kidding, but... you know, hopefully 10 minutes or so, but it might be... 10 minutes.

[02:01:40] Applicant: longer? Okay? Shouldn't have mentioned that. Sorry. Um, so can we put that on there? Okay, so Villa Street. So 1st of all, just thank you very much for providing us an opportunity to come here this evening and share our plans with you. We're working with staff for a long time on this project. We really appreciate all their comments and we agree with almost everything that they had in the staff report. I was going to do a little bit of a different order of the presentation. I think I'm going to start 1st as far as the affordable housing issue that was brought up a little bit earlier. And then I also do want to remind counsel that the planning commission did recommend approval with, I think, a 70 vote, and I think it was 52 in favor of some form of offsite, or an in-loof fee, I should say. So I just want to go, and I'll come back to these other slides. I don't know if I can, there we go. So just as far as the affordable housing is concerned, it sounds like this may have created some consternation in the last few days, and we absolutely do not want to do that with the city. So we had proposed for this project to have the offsite mitigation measure at another property that we own Mariposa apartments, which is 48 apartments, to be studied over the next couple few months by the city, and should they be inclined to go with that proposal. We'd be more than happy to do that if the city determined in its sole discretion. They didn't want to do that, we'd be happy to have the 15% inclusionary units on site. So if that creates too much angst and too much complexity, we were more than happy tonight to just pull that proposal for the offsite units and we will just do the 15% on site, so more than happy to do that. With that said, I was just speaking with Mr. Alex Nunez, who's going to be up here in a minute, and I understand a lot of the folks in the audience tonight are our residents, our tenants over Mariposa, and I know Alex is working closely with them, and he has informed me that they very well may be actually in favor of this offsite mitigation because it does result in preserving that affordable health scene permanently without hopefully any displacement. whatsoever, and having those units fully renovated by our affordable housing partner bridge housing, which would only require one or 2 weeks of temporary relocation, then bringing back all of the existing residents. So, We're open and we'll do whatever council prefers to do as far as this is concerned. What we would ask of council is if they're in favor of the project and the housing issue is too complicated. We're more than happy just to have the inclusionary, which you very well may prefer to have. The one thing I will say is in our proposal in the 3rd, 4th bullet point. You know, we were having 80% in working with bridge and bridges here. They would be the owner of the property and the manager and Brad Whiblin, their executive vice president, can speak to this, but the plan was to be at 80% AMI maximum for the residents, and that's required by the state in order to get tax abatement. Just to let you know, I learned just even a few minutes ago. I mean, this is a new concept, guys. It's only come across in the next few weeks for us to come up with this idea. But a family of 4 would be at $118,000 is what I understand. And hopefully I'm not off on that, but I was given that data a few minutes ago. So anybody who's an existing resident making 118,000 or less would stay at the property and only the only rent increases would be pursuant to your rent control ordinance that's in place right now. My understanding is the vast majority, if not everybody who lives on the site, very well maybe, within those income limits. And if you so desire for us to explore this a little bit more, we can find out more precisely what those incomes are to see if 100% of the residents could stay there permanently or not. So I completely defer to counsel on this tonight. I would just, again, ask for us to not continue the meeting, but to, if you're so inclined to approve the project, to approve it, and provide staff and bridge, and the residents, tenants of our building and ourselves, to talk about being able to formulate a plan that could preserve affordable housing there indefinitely, and provide 48 units instead of 34 on site. So that's my only ask there. As you can see at the top here, you know, for what it's worth, a gatekeeper, BMR, and Loopy's, when we got approved a long time ago, were 4.8 million, your current ordinances at 15%. So it translates to 7200000 in loop fees. Our offer is 10.9 million, which is consistent with what we're paying on a per unit basis at Flower Mart. You can see the 320,000 per BMR unit. So that's a huge increase. You see the percentages from your current ordinance and from the original gatekeeper. More affordable housing, 48 units versus 34 that's a 41% increase in the affordable housing. And then that can be provided day one that the council or the city, if they deem that to be an acceptable solution, that affordable housing provided day one. And I do know the rents there are below market right now. In the future, there could potentially be some redevelopment on that site. And as a result, you know, there could be more displacement than would occur at this stage. Hopefully there'd be 0 displacement with this particular plan. And then I think there were grandfathered in. I may be mistaken, at 55-year limit for this project, since it's a gatekeeper, and this would not be the case with the bridge plan. And then we do think the displacement is far, far less, and hopefully it will be zero. That's the goal of us and it's the goal of bridge who can speak to that. They have a lot more experience in this than we do. And then there's a number of tailored services and programs that they offer that we don't. So, That's it on that. And I can come back and speak to this if you have questions later on. Real briefly, because I only have 3.5 minutes. I'll go through these. So just quick entitlement timeline. We got approved 60 with a gatekeeper back in December 2015. We've had 5 community outreach meetings. I think the staff reports that a totaled 15 people showed up at those meetings. The project had, you know, maybe a 3rd of those folks neutral, 3rd in favor, 3rd against, the ones that were against, seem to be worried about traffic, and we have mitigation measures for the traffic flow on villa that we'll talk about in a second. Went through some study sessions. We changed our drawings considerably. Then after 2 years of planning the project. We put in an underpass pursuant or planned for an underpass pursuant to council's direction, and then came back in February of this year to further discuss that subject. Environmental, you know, this was a JASCO site. This is a super fun site. It is clean. We're ready to go. They have prior owners work for 25 years with the authorities to get that done. We've worked with them for the last few years since we've owned the property. Some of the changes talked by staff, described by staff, just real quickly, park in No Park, .4 acre Park. And then we dropped the unit count because of the park from 240 to 226. And then after a couple years of studying this, we redesigned the entire project to accommodate the bike and had trail underpass. By doing that, we increased the setbacks off of Higden from 20 feet to 36 feet. We increase the setback from Villa Street from 20 feet to 80 feet because of the park, with the exception of that one corner that stayed at 20 feet, and that's still at 2 stories. And then we created a large courtyard facing Hignon that didn't exist before. So this is the before and after from Central Expressway, but the trees, the existing trees are ghosted on this particular slide. And then this is the reality of what it will look like with the existing trees, not new trees, existing, if you're looking at it from central, from Higdon. You know, no one liked the drawing on the left from before, including myself, it looked like a Kaiser Hospital, and we've changed that around erratically. And again, the trees are ghosted on the right, so you can see the architecture, the roof, designs have changed radically. brought down the heights, and then you can see a brake where the courtyard is, whereas before we had a tower element back there. The reality is this is what it will really look like because these are existing trees. Here we go through those trees on the right, on the after. And then here we've put in the existing trees. So we think we've made some pretty significant changes there. Community benefits. We're adding a bike path, coming down villa, and then you're not having to cross over a shoreline, but to be able to go under the overpass. We think that's significant, got a bigger park in there. We have TDM, eco passes going out. We've got electric vehicles, zip cars available to the public, and then traffic calming measures pursuant to our community meetings, and then include speed bumps, radar signs, and elevated or raised intersections as well. So total community benefits, if we were doing this in Luffy, would be 23.3 million. I won't go through all of this, but you can see the public park, you get the park, but also 5.900000 in fees. And then we're being required to do more than $3600000 in community benefits to plan for the bike path. Instead, it's more like almost $7 million, I think it is, or 6.5 , something like that. We went through that before. Here all the tailored services bridge housing would provide. And then this is the project summary of everything that I just talked about. And I think my time is done. Thank you. Any questions, we'd be more than happy to answer them. And one thing I would ask if it's all possible is Alex is going to speak at the end of this. I do think it would be helpful and he'd prefer to speak at the beginning and the end. And I'd love to defer a couple minutes or get a couple minutes for him to speak a little bit more to communicate a little bit more of the thoughts of maybe the larger group this year in addition to the larger group, if possible.

[02:12:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so at this point, um, are there any questions from council members? Council member Kame, either for the applicant or for staff?

[02:12:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I have a couple questions. Actually, I think that it would be great if we could hear from bridge housing. We have, well, my 6 years on planning commission and now as a council member, it would be great to hear a little bit more about your model since we, I don't, we haven't seen anything from you before. And if you could share with us kind of the services and different things that your organization does, I think that would be really helpful for the conversation.

[02:13:05] Brad, Bridge Housing: Sure. Thank you. Council Committee and members of the council and mayor. I'm very happy to be here tonight. We've been working on a scenario to preserve the housing at Mariposa for several months. But as was described earlier, just in the last few weeks, we've switched gears to talk about a possible offsite alternative. Our intent from the very beginning until this evening and in perpetuity is to preserve the housing, allowing these residents to remain in place. Bridge is a 35-year-old nonprofit. This is the business we're in. We own and manage 17,000 affordable apartments, primarily here in the Bay Area on the peninsula. were based in San Francisco. We have a nonprofit sister entity that is our property manager. We deliver services. Services are tailored to the community that we're in. So in this case, very family oriented building, presumably. That might include things like after school homework club. There might be some financial literacy. We do ESL classes. So often what we'll do is we'll establish a budget and we'll try to understand from the outside what those services might look like, but once we're on site and have a chance to meet the residents, we'll actually provide a small survey to validate the services that the residents would like to see. And so then those services get kind of fine-tuned at that point. Yeah, big commitment with an organization for these kinds of things. So, um, I think for our purposes, the main issue and the starting point and the ending point really is the preservation. So we don't actually know the incomes of the residents. So our initial proposal to make this kind of a moderate income building was the intent was to capture absolutely every single family. Imagine having two, 3 or 4 income earners, all of those incomes get added together to calculate household income. the intent was to make sure we capture everybody. We have other scenarios where this might be more of a tax credit finance project, and that would be slightly lower incomes, but until we know the actual tendency, it's hard for us to kind of fine tune that. So, did I answer most of your question?

[02:15:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I mean, I think that your answer sponsor another question. Um, which is, well, ask this question first. So when you go into a community, and you're working on the preservation aspect, one of the issues we've been talking about is a city is displacement. So one of the things, um, that we're interested in learning more about is, if you have to do rehabilitation of the building, you know, where are our tenants going to, residents going to go, and what is what are the maybe prior models that you've done in terms of, um, facing those challenges?

[02:16:13] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yeah, so, yeah, we have a couple going right now. And I know specifically that we will offer residents when we need to be in their unit to replace kitchen cabinets, countertops, flooring, et cetera. That can be one to 2 weeks. So typically it will offer either a financial stipend. Or, um, the one to 2 weeks stay and usually kind of an extended stay hotel nearby. And then it's the resident's choice, whether they want to go stay with family members, take the stipend or go down the street state and extend the state hotel. We would hire a relocation consultant that really are experts at managing this process, but we're doing something in Milpitas that's quite large. And that is the scenario that's playing out there right now.

[02:17:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So when you were talking about, um, not knowing the income levels of the existing residents and the discussion of moving more towards moderate. Um, you know, I think that that's one of the concerns, at least for that I can speak of for myself, um, in that my understanding is that the existing tenants are are low income. So if we're moving all the way to a maximum of 80% AMI, how does that affect your financial business model in terms of being able to have those existing residents have the 1st right of return to the project, which is something that Mr. Moss had mentioned to me?

[02:17:42] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yeah, well absolutely. So as I said from the beginning, the intent is to allow every single family to stay in this building. In terms of rental rates, We've underwritten a project at the current rents. And as John mentioned, those rents could rise over time theoretically, capped by your rent control ordinance. But in no event more than the income, I'm sorry, the rents that would be affordable to families at that 80% level. So that would take many years to get to that level. That was our intent. We had some brief conversations with staff about this. And we even have a term at bridge for this. this We call it slow affordability. The intent is not to raise the rents inordinately, but, as you can imagine, what the market would pay for this building is substantial. And in order for us as a nonprofit to try to compete with the market, which is how we got into this conversation with Prometheus, we have to make some modest assumptions on rent increases. So, That's, I think the question that you asked, is that clear? So the intent is to raise rents modestly, annually, until and unless we get to that 80% level. But the main intent at pegging incomes at 80% was to make sure we capture everybody and not have people that are over income and then have to have a conversation about displacement.

[02:19:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I'm sure my colleagues will have questions for you, but thank you. And then I have a question for Mr. Moss. Thank you. Hello. So, um, you know, one of the things, um, that was discussed both in the staff report, um, and today in our, in this staff presentation, it was kind of the last minute nature of this proposal. Can you share with us the thought process in terms of, um, its introduction into the mix?

[02:19:47] John Moss: Sure. Yeah, I think it's a great question. So a couple years ago, we were working with the city on putting together an agreement for prefunding, and that was looked at for the better part of a year. And it turned out that that was not going to be something that was acceptable and that was determined many, many months ago. With that said, we were still hoping and planning to work with Palo Alto housing on an indirect basis where we would provide similar funding or the same level of funding 10.9 to the city, and the city would be able to provide, hopefully, funding to Palo Alto housing for one of their Terabella properties. And it wasn't until a couple few months ago that in discussions with Palo Alta housing, they determined they weren't quite ready for being able to make a commitment for that property as it relates to the funding through the city. They're working on some other alternative strategies that they didn't share with me. So we decided, okay, what else can we do? We can do conclusionary zoning. Or all of a sudden occurred to us that we had this property down the street that happens to be similar number of units, but actually more, you know, 41% more. And it just seemed like a potential one for the city, for the community, for the residents that live there and for ourselves to be able to do that. So we proposed that. And as Brad said, Bridge has been working with the city since probably March or so this year. We didn't start that process until early May around the EPC meeting, and we went out and talked to 4 different nonprofits, and all 4 of them, with the exception of Bridge said it won't work. Financially. We just can't get it to meet our hurdles. But between that time around the middle or sorry, beginning of May. Until now, we went through that process with 4 affordable housing developers in order to see whether a deal could be done and we do apologize for the lateness of it, but that's sort of the history on it. And it's really only in the last couple of weeks, that Bridge and we have been able to figure out a lot of these moving parts and conclude, because the last thing I wanted to do is come to the city with a proposal and then find out that Bridge can't do it, and the other 3 have already backed out, and I'm wasting nobody's time. So as much as this is sort of a last minute, it has been worked on for quite some time. We've worked with staff since May 10th in terms of some discussions on it preliminarily, but we couldn't have been completely clear on exactly what we were doing then other than 48 units at this project. We would renovate them and use the 10.9 million. That's always been on the docket, whether it was 60% or 80% and a lot of that was based on what financially could be done with bridge, but the deal is kind of similar to that concept that we talked about before. And then the intent tonight was just to provide the council with optionality. Have it, the units on site with inclusionary, or should the council be open to studying this and working with our residents and then community and bridge and staff and ourselves, who are more than happy to do that. And if that time frame by the city is preferred to be a few weeks, or a few months, or several months, we're more than happy to do that, but I would certainly, again, strongly prefer that the council takes action on the project and should they want to study that and have us come back. And, you know, and I think as was discussed earlier, I'm fine with if there was an approval tonight with the units on site. And then we come back ourselves, with this alternative mitigation. I'm fine with that. If Alex and the tenants prefer residents prefer to make sure that that is in here, to be studied, because in at least preliminary discussions, it sounded like they really wanted that, then I'd defer to you on all of that. So it's up to you. We're offering some optionality here. And councils, prerogative to go in any direction they want as far as the mortgage. Sorry, if that was too long winded because I'm always...

[02:23:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We should have put the timer back on. I'm just kidding. So, you know, one of the things that was mentioned by Bridge was not having the opportunity to do any type of income analysis of the existing residents. And so I think, you know, and there's been discussion of the kind of last minute nature of this alternative. Was there any thought about bringing the item at another date when both staff and bridge would be able to get that additional information? So we could be looking at something more comprehensive?

[02:24:26] John Moss: Yes, definitely. In the context of the following. Again, in what we sent even on as late as Sunday, very specifically, what we stated was that issue can be studied on its own merits, and the council has sole discretion to have the units on site or offside, should they just prefer. If tonight the project wants to go forward with inclusionary zoning council, of course, can also do that, and we're fine with that. So coming back. Part of the reason for having to be studied is exactly what you're bringing up because we don't have all that information. With that said, Alex maybe can talk a little bit more about his understanding of income levels relative to the 118 that I mentioned earlier, but I absolutely agree. That would all need to be fleshed out. We bought the property 3.5 years ago, by the way. We've only owned it for a relatively short period of time. We did not have any income data at that time. We do not have any income data at this time. We have not asked our residents, but I think as Brad mentioned with Bridge, they would hire a consultant in the next month or 2 or whatever it would be, and go through that, should the council want to go through that process and determine if everybody's eligible for that. And that's a key issue, really critical issue. But absolutely fine with that. Again, I would just like to have the project be decided upon tonight, if at all possible, and have that one, the issue of onsider offsite, if your sole discretion, we discuss it at a later date, and I can even bring that back to the council, I think, was even suggested by staff earlier this evening. I'm fine with just getting it approve with inclusionary if you so inclined to improve it tonight. And then it's our option to bring it forward. I think some of the folks in the audience very well may not want that because they want to make sure that they have that optionality in place and aren't relying on me bringing it back. So I'm willing to commit to that too. We're flexible.

[02:26:23] Unknown Speaker: So last question. So prior to this meeting, was there outreach to the existing residents?

[02:26:31] Mr. Moss: No, not at all. And the idea was that we still needed to understand the issue as well, so we just wanted to see whether there was some merits to it, and that would be part of the exploratory process, but no, we haven't done that with the community and with our residents, and we're more than happy to do that. And I think that the proposed solution to that, or, you know, the proposed idea of taking a month or 2 to go through, that is a great idea, and we're more than happy to do that.

[02:27:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[02:27:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Brevity.

[02:27:08] John Moss: Um... Sorry.

[02:27:11] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no.

[02:27:13] John Moss: Trying to be comprehensive.

[02:27:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, you are.

[02:27:15] Councilmember John McAlister: This property is currently on the open market for sale, correct?

[02:27:19] Mr. Moss: No, it's not.

[02:27:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so there was a listing. Did you pull the listing?

[02:27:23] Mr. Moss: I don't... I'm not aware of any...

[02:27:27] Unknown Speaker: We did.

[02:27:27] John Moss: Okay, so our acquisitions, gentlemen, back there, we did, yeah. No, we're not actively selling the project at all. We've been talking with the Bridge, and I think Brad brought up earlier. He's actually been talking to your staff for months about trying to make it affordable, not linking it to Villa.

[02:27:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Brad, question for you.

[02:27:48] Brad (Bridge): I want to make clarification. We actually have the property with a letter of intent. So we have, in our mind, sort of from them. So in a very subtle way, we have it, quote, tied up, but okay. And the agreement is that we work our way through this process until we figure something out.

[02:28:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Mr. Moss, take a seat. Take a seat for a second, please. No, Brad, you stay, please. Okay, I'm trying to understand, you know, tax credits are 60% income type of a deal. You're doing tax embatements or something or what was this phrase?

[02:28:25] Brad (Bridge): Yeah, so in California. You can get a property tax waiver. Waiver.

[02:28:31] Brad (Bridge): with a regulatory agreement at 80% AMI, tenants that qualify.

[02:28:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So does that mean the max? So, I mean, yeah, so it says 80%. What does that actually mean to how the revenue that you generate from this project is or is there a qualification that no person with an income over 80% AMI can live in the project?

[02:28:53] Brad (Bridge): So, the hope is, since there's very little financial help for properties at that level, right, below 60 is a tax credit project above or below 80, you only have access to this tax exemption. So ideally, all the households would be below 80% income, and we would gain that property tax exemption, that's in our underwriting. And as I mentioned before, that doesn't necessarily mean the rents are at 80. They certainly aren't there today, and it would take quite some time to get there. That was our intent.

[02:29:29] Councilmember John McAlister: When you said everybody that is there now existing, they could be at the very, very low income, 30% or, and they're going to be, they're not going anywhere, they're staying there. The rents are going to be stable, and so it's just at the high end, but it can go all the way down to the very low end.

[02:29:45] Brad (Bridge): Absolutely correct.

[02:29:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. What is the, okay, so you're going to renovate these? And you're going to, you know, you're going to come and evaluate them, renovate them. How long will that process or you've, without looking at the income structure that you've seen, and I'm sure Prometheus has given you some revenue statements, some P and L's on that. So you feel comfortable that you can take over this project, renovate those projects and not ask the city for any more subsidy than the $10.9 a $1000000

[02:30:17] Brad (Bridge): That is our intent, yes. We have not been in the building and have done our due diligence. So within that letter of intent I mentioned, we have once we've come to some conceptual agreement, we have 90 days to do the physical needs assessment. We're carrying a pretty sizable number for rehab and we hope that covers it, but we just have not been in the building yet.

[02:30:37] Councilmember John McAlister: So you haven't started your 90 day due diligence yet? You're waiting for it tonight?

[02:30:42] Brad (Bridge): Yes.

[02:30:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then I have a question for staff. So yeah, you answered my questions there. So staff, we actually have a 3rd option on the table. Isn't there? So either that we can continue this and research it? I mean, I know the applicant is looking at trying to button it up tonight. So, It's sort of our discretion that either we could take the, take this under consideration as a condition of approving the project, Or continuing the project, or not approving the project. So there's actually three conditions, right?

[02:31:22] Unknown Speaker: That's ridiculous. That's correct.

[02:31:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Or do we accept the occlusionary unit? So there's 4 options.

[02:31:29] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:31:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. This is new ground force.

[02:31:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes, it is.

[02:31:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Has staff had any experience dealing with other cities that, you know, might have reached out and said, hey, this is a opportunity or this is pros and cons of doing something like this?

[02:31:47] Unknown Speaker: Um, I think RT is going to talk about that.

[02:31:51] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: Our T-shirt Vostovo, community development director. I think the proposal is, we don't have enough information on it. In fact, it was just Sunday. I think we received an email and there's a certain amount of research we would want to do in addition to bridge to figure out the actual cost to what extent the city needs a subsidy. What kind of parity does this have with the BMR that we would need to do before we could come back? And that's why we suggested fall, bringing bringing the, if the council is interested in this, we will do the research and come back. Are you asking if you're interested, what options?

[02:32:31] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, I'm just asking, okay. Oh, you know, Mr. Morse? I mean, lost, hang on a second. Does staff feel that they could get this done in 90 days or 120 days, if we made, if we went to the, say, let's approve it on condition of fully venting this project through at that point?

[02:32:51] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: We were suggesting delaying the decision until we come back to you to say, you know, yes, this is a possibility. so that we can you actually can, you know, weigh it as whether it's an appropriate alternative mitigation. Well, isn't so when you, you know, let's say 120 days, that's 4 months. It's going to give you some preliminary information. We won't have all the details, but I think with Bridge doing some initial assessment of how much it's going to cost for us to take a look at how does this compare with as an alternative BMR mitigation measure. I think in about 120 days, we will have a lot more information for you to weigh.

[02:33:35] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you consider it to the BMR, what are you looking for? I mean, we're getting units, we're getting units. So what?

[02:33:41] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: Right. So we're trying to figure out you're getting 33 new units versus 48 smaller, older units, and we're trying to figure out what kind of investment needs to go into it for it to get to a point where it's considered habitable. I'm not exactly sure what the condition of the units are. And so that's part of our bridge can maybe give us. We want to take a look at their performa to evaluate that, like we do with all proposals that come to the city for funding. And so that's some of the preliminary information we can review that we can do and get back to you.

[02:34:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Would these would this retrofit have to bring units up to code or do they just retrofit it to a little bit livability?

[02:34:30] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: I would imagine if there are any life safety issues, we would want those addressed, especially if the city funding going into it.

[02:34:37] Councilmember John McAlister: On the 34 units that are giving to us. Do you know the breakdown of units, the size of the units?

[02:34:44] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: I actually have that. I guess it's in a printout. I don't have the unit size, but there was a number of bedrooms, I think. There was a comparison table. Um, It said, on site, there were 11, 2 bedroom units and 23, one bedroom units in the Villa project. These are larger than the those at Mariposa. and the ones at Mariposa have 22, 2 bedroom, 21, one bedroom, and 5 studios, and the size is much smaller than the units.

[02:35:22] Councilmember John McAlister: So in square footage, you're probably getting a comparable, but in terms of condition and the amount of money to break it up to code. Well, you say bring it up to code, but we're not sure. We have to bring, is there any rule other than safety?

[02:35:36] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: I have to that's part of the research we can do. I can't tell you off the bat, but I know for sure if there are life safety issues, if the major code updates, and it's not a soft story, which is good news, but that's something that we do have to address, yes.

[02:35:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Isn't the trend in affordable houses subsidized housing to have more units at smaller sizes so that the cost stays low?

[02:36:01] Community Development Director Randy Tsuda: I would probably, well, we are seeing more just because of the cost. Uh, we are seeing smaller units now because it costs a lot more to buy land, but I don't know, to say enough to say trend.

[02:36:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um, That's it. Thank you.

[02:36:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be coca. I think Mr. Moss had a reply. Did you have a question for him?

[02:36:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I think he's responding to the question, I guess, so.

[02:36:28] Mr. Moss: Just wanted to clarify, in terms of the... If there was an approval tonight in terms of the continuance issue, getting back to continuance, I'm fine with the project. Should it be acceptable to the council knowing that they'd be fine with inclusionary zone, and I'm fine with that being the approval, and then we can, if we want to bring it back to study this, we can do that. But to have the whole project continue. I strongly prefer.

[02:36:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I heard that. Thank you, sir. Vice mayor.

[02:36:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Actually, if you can come back, Mr. Moss. So on that item, If we were to approve the project, understanding it would be the back, the fallback would be the 15% inclusionary. How long, how long would you, would we have or would you have before you need to have a decision on, including those, that 15% or...

[02:37:30] Mr. Moss: It's a great question. You know, we would be fine with the city taking as long as they feel comfortable to go through that process, whether they would want an accelerated 30, 60, 90 day, if they wanted 180. And the reason I bring it up is because we would go forward and construct the project anyway, we've got about 3 years before we could deliver those units. So the city would always have the fallback to say it's inclusionary, 15% on site, and we'd still be in a position to do that. Be honest at any time in the next year or so. So we're as comfortable as the city would like to have in terms of that time frame.

[02:38:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay great. Then I asked Mr. Brad from Bridge. Thank you for being here, and I had the pleasure of touring one of your sites in the East Bay when we were, I think you were looking at our Franklin Street property, many years ago. But as Mr. Moss mentioned, he had spoken with several affordable housing developers and it looked like it's a, I don't know if it's a unique situation, but I'm wondering why you, why is Bridge able to do this and maybe not the other developers?

[02:38:44] Brad (Bridge): To be honest, that was I just heard that today myself. So we were supplying our financial strategy and model and approach and schedule and all that to Prometheus, and they were evaluating, obviously, a variety of other ideas. I know everybody's really busy right now. And so I see people passing on projects, partly due to just capacity. So I don't know exactly what went on behind the scenes. You know, I mean, we're a very well capitalized company. We may have a little bit of a financial advantage over some organizations, but to be honest, I don't know.

[02:39:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, over the years, when we talked about affordable housing, Counselor McAllister, who's just stepped away as, you know, talked about as the city looking into purchasing existing apartments, but there's always been some hesitancy from even the affordable housing community and because, and I've been told it sometimes might be more expensive to rehab, an older building than building from new. But is this a a regular practice of bridges and what is your experience in that?

[02:40:02] Brad (Bridge): So just quickly on the last point, you know, it costs 650 to $750,000 to build an affordable unit.

[02:40:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: today on the peninsula or in San Francisco?

[02:40:13] Brad (Bridge): Sure, yes. Um, to acquire this building, even at an extremely high price is less than 500 a door. So the price of the building is less. There's less risk. There's less entitlement risk, that kind of thing we're having here this evening. So, and it is an active part of our work. Probably 80% of our work is new construction and 20% of the work is buying buildings. We like buying these market rebuildings and preserving them before someone comes and tears them down. So it's consistent with our mission to be doing some of this work.

[02:40:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I'm trying to understand, like, it sounds like what you have to still do research and then based on what the income levels are, is that when you would go out to find financing, um, that matches the, that AMI level? Is that...

[02:41:10] Brad (Bridge): So we've actually...

[02:41:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Or is it guaranteed?

[02:41:13] Brad (Bridge): some quotes on debt based on the rough economics that we have today, assuming a certain amount about, you know, who lives there and how much they make.

[02:41:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then the 10.9 million fund of funding that Prometheus would provide is that a 3rd or a half of the, do you have a sense of how much that would cover?

[02:41:38] Brad (Bridge): Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't I don't actually have my numbers in front of me, and I'm not sure I'd be prepared to share them just because they are preliminary. You know, carrying an allocation for the rehab costs, and this is not uncommon to say, oh, the building's in really bad shape, then you might carry $50,000 to $70,000 unit in rehab, if it's just a light rehab, you know, for tax credit purposes, a minimum of 20,000 year rehab. So we think this is closer to the higher end of those numbers.

[02:42:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then, from your perspective, how much time would you need to adequately do your evaluation?

[02:42:20] Brad (Bridge): Well, I think we can do a lot of that work that we've been talking about in that 90 to 120 day period, for sure.

[02:42:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. All right, thank you.

[02:42:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[02:42:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. A lot of good questions for my colleagues. Mine are I'll try and make this as coherent as I can. So maybe this question is for RT. I had heard somewhere that city building staff have actually been in this building and may have I've heard preliminary figures for a per door rehab cost and it was pretty high. Is this is this true?

[02:43:02] Unknown Speaker: I believe that was, again, just a visit to the site and a brief look at the interior, not the entire building. And it looked like there may be some more work that may be needed. So I think that pretty much told us that we need more time to evaluate. And I think I think with Bridge doing their due diligence and us coordinating with them will have a better idea. Because, yes, our estimate was you might have to do some more work on it. And it could go as high as 200,000 per unit.

[02:43:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so what we're hearing is maybe a one to 2 week rehabilitation, do you, is that realistic?

[02:43:51] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think the 50 to 70 was the minor work and maybe Brad can give you a better idea of what work that entailed. That might take one to 2 weeks, but if you're doing major work, that would be different. And so part of what we might be able to get back with is to actually find out what work is necessary and to look at a time frame for that.

[02:44:17] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. So maybe I should ask Brad some of these questions. just about the financing. So, um, you haven't you haven't been in the building. You haven't had a chance to do the physical needs assessment. Is there... So just to make sure I understand sort of this package, the city through the inlu fee will pay down partially, the cost of the acquisition, the 10 point, some odd 1000000 you or bridge will be providing the balance to acquire, bridge will be rehabilitating the building without a city subsidy. And then you will retain the rents as they are. and then increase them only by what is permitted under CSF array. Is that accurate? Okay. Cool, thank you. And then just to make sure I understand too. So will these be deed restricted units from the get go?

[02:45:13] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yeah, there would be a regulatory agreement recorded against the land, and that would be something we would negotiate with the city, and that would be something that would meet our test with the assessor relative to this property tax exemption.

[02:45:30] Brad, Bridge Housing: I want to make one comment. I heard you say a minute ago, you mentioned the 2 weeks. The rehab process obviously would be substantially longer. That's just an individual residence time frame that we need to be in their unit. Just want to make sure that was understood.

[02:45:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Well, I guess I guess what we need to discern is the level of rehabilitation that's necessary that could impact the time frame, I guess. So just so to make sure I understand deed restrictions. So could you have, if these were deed restricted, let's say, at 80%. Could you have folks live in those units that are well below that am I level? Because my understanding of deed restriction would be you could only that the people who occupy those units would have to fall within some income range relative to the deed restriction.

[02:46:26] Brad, Bridge Housing: As long as it's less than 80% than the very immediate income, then those residents can stay.

[02:46:32] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And then so in the meantime, will they still have to do the income qualification paperwork?

[02:46:39] Brad, Bridge Housing: Of course.

[02:46:39] Unknown Speaker: Okay. But as long as they're below 80%, even if they're closer to 30 or 40.

[02:46:43] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yeah, that was our intent in structuring it that way to make sure we capture every household so that we think all of those households will be below that number. That was the idea.

[02:46:52] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Is there... If the rehabilitation costs far exceed what you're anticipating what will happen with this agreement.

[02:47:07] Brad, Bridge Housing: So a good question. I can't imagine they'd be $200,000, a number I was mentioned earlier, that number in itself might change this whole conversation. Um, We have a couple of strategies that we've talked about. I don't want to go into affordable housing chapter and verse in terms of financing, you know, an in-arm rehab and a bigger rehab when this project can qualify for tax credits, for example, that's a strategy. And by doing that, the tax credits could really bring a lot of financial horsepower to a more substantial rehab if that were needed.

[02:47:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay, but to access the tax credits, you'd have to own the property for 10 years.

[02:47:48] Brad, Bridge Housing: Okay. So you could access them. It would just take a little bit of time to get there. We'd have to do an interim scenario somehow.

[02:47:55] Unknown Speaker: Okay. What would rents at 80% AMI look like?

[02:48:06] Brad, Bridge Housing: Okay. So, you heard earlier about maximum income for a family of four, um, at 80% of the median income, in this case, the maximum rents for, uh, 2 bedroom is $2,400, uh, 3 bedroom? Oh, yeah, 3 bedroom, $2,900. Sorry, ones and twos, 24 and 29. Studios, 2250. That's 80% rents in San Mateo County.

[02:48:58] Unknown Speaker: Oh, Santa Clara? So are those rents comparable to what you might see?

[02:49:03] Brad, Bridge Housing: Sorry about that. Wrong county. My mistake. Let me start over on that answer. 80% of the median income rents in Santa Clara County, 2050. A one bedroom, $2,196 and a 2 bedroom, $2,634. So those would be the rents that, the maximum that could be charged over time as the rents rise from today, where they're about 60. And then we've also talked about, as people move out, we may rerent those at 80.

[02:49:42] Unknown Speaker: Oh, on turn. So take it, it's vacancy decontrolled, but under... Okay. And then in the so my understanding of the CSF array is that BMR units are exempt. So would you be voluntarily agreeing to rent increases?

[02:49:58] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yes.

[02:49:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[02:49:59] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yes.

[02:49:59] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Got it. And then the last question. So it sounds like you were already planning to preserve these units before this agreement kind of started taking shape. So if we were to make a different decision and, you know, approve the project with some other kind of affordable housing requirement, would you continue to acquire this building and do essentially the same thing?

[02:50:27] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we spoke about that earlier this evening when, um, you know, this discussion looked like it might be pulled from the agenda, um, Prometheus and Bridge are both interested in trying to, um, go back really to the beginning of the conversation we began having with city staff. Again, the intent was to preserve the building and not let it sort of fall to the market.

[02:50:50] Unknown Speaker: Okay, those are all the questions. Thank you.

[02:50:53] City Staff: So if I could interject, I'd like to just also bring up the topic of one of the actions recommended for council tonight is adopting the EIR, which was prepared for the project, which did not evaluate the acquisition or rehabilitation of offsite units. It only included the on-site, BMR units or the fee. So, um, it's un, we would have to do some more research as to what kind of, um, additional environmental clearance could would be necessary for the offsite option.

[02:51:33] City Staff: Thank you. It would, we could follow the same time frame as would be necessary for the evaluation of the actual offsite, um, Mariposa proposal.

[02:51:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Council member Hicks.

[02:51:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Well, most of my questions are answered, but I have a few left. One is, I wanted to ask staff, and this might be related to what you just said. There was some talk that we could approve the inclusion units on site, and with also a study of, with also a study of whether to do the alternative mitigation, is that something that staff would be comfortable with, or it seems like you were preferring delaying the decision. So I'm wondering which you have a bigger comfort level with and maybe that's related to what you just said about the EIR.

[02:52:36] City Staff: I'll take that question. Okay. So, as Matt mentioned in his presentation, staff's recommendation initially is, if you're interested in this, our suggestion and recommendation would be to delay it. As Mr. Moss indicated earlier tonight, another option is to approve it with a clear condition of inclusionary units. Any property owner, any applicant always has the right to come back to council and request a change in a condition. So you could approve it with the 15% inclusionary, and either direct staff to explore this further, and see if something makes sense, or the applicant can come up with a more fully refined and detailed proposal, and bring it to us, and then that could be brought to council for a modification at a later date. So there are different alternative paths forward. But I think the discussion tonight makes very clear. There are many unanswered questions that remain, including one that, frankly, is brand new to all of us in terms of the EIR analysis.

[02:53:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then, I was just curious, for anyone who might know this, how old is the Mariposa Building? Do you know, Mr. Moss?

[02:53:59] Mr. Moss: Roughly. Yeah, I think I mentioned earlier, my estimate is a late '60s, early '70s, so I don't know the exact date, and we can certainly get that for you. I just don't know that off the top of my head.

[02:54:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. And then I was gonna ask, um, Brad from bridge housing. A couple of questions. One is, can you explain? I've never heard the term slow affordability before? And, um, was that the concept that you also mentioned later that, uh, as people move out, you could bring it up to 80% or is it something else?

[02:54:37] Brad, Bridge Housing: Oh, that was that? Sorry, that was a little term of art within bridge, coined by Carol Galante, and I just pulled it out tonight. Sorry, if it added any confusion. And unrelated to the notion that at move outs, we would move those rents to 80%. So 2 separate ideas.

[02:54:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, then can you explain to me the slow affordability?

[02:55:02] Brad, Bridge Housing: I apologize for using that term. What I really meant was the people that are living there today and the rents that are in place, that we would not raise those rents to 80%, that we would raise those rents gradually, voluntarily under the city's rent control program.

[02:55:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so I can forget the term slow affordability, you would just follow the city's rent control program. Okay, I can understand that. And then my other understanding from the conversation we're having is you haven't walked through the building enough to know whether you're going to be doing relatively small rehab to each unit where people could move out for a week or two, or whether it would be something on a larger scale, that's something that you still have to determine.

[02:55:45] Brad, Bridge Housing: Yeah, that's right.

[02:55:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Let's see if I had any more. And for I understand that you've done other projects like this, for ones of this age, do you at any point completely redo them? Is that something that you've had in your experience or redo them involving in a way that involves adding more units? Is that something that you've done in them?

[02:56:10] Brad, Bridge Housing: Wow, great question. We have a very large project in Seattle right now, and it is getting a total renovation, and we're adding an additional 160 units to a 335 unit project. The configuration is such that there's large parking lots we're able to build structured parking and create land. So yes, we are doing that.

[02:56:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, and do you have a, this is a very general question, but do you have a general, if project? Do you acquire to preserve is of a certain age that you think at a point in the future, you're going to rebuild it in a more substantial way or you take that on a case-by-case basis?

[02:56:50] Brad, Bridge Housing: So each of this does have some unique facts. It was brought up earlier, the sort of tenure rule around affordable housing, and if you want to put tax credits on it or re syndicate it, needs to have 10 year ownership. So the building in Seattle, we bought it and had to hold it for 4 years before we could actually get to the substantial rehab that we're doing now. So each project has a sort of unique set of facts and they have to match up with the various financing programs. The age of the building is not necessarily disqualifying in my mind. As long as we understand what the building needs.

[02:57:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I would guess you don't understand what this particular building needs.

[02:57:33] Brad, Bridge Housing: So we think we have a budget that would do rehab on the units, the common areas, you know, what we don't really understand are all the systems, heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, et cetera, roofing, siding, battle would all be clarified through the kind of destructive testing that you do during due diligence.

[02:57:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[02:57:56] City Staff: Thanks. Council member Hicks, to answer your question as well. I had to look through my notes, but the project at 660 Mariposa was built in 1964.

[02:58:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate my colleagues asking all of the questions I had. I'm down to one question. And that is on the architecture. The pictures here look kind of different than what's in the plans. And my specific question is the roofs, um, that are rather tall. to, is that, um, does it actually go down in the back, so it's a true roof and not just, like, a facade? If that's the right term.

[02:58:49] Unknown Speaker: Correct. The black roofs and the plans are sloped, they're gabled roofs, so they look like blocks in the plans, but looking at them straight ahead. So what you see here, for instance, in the picture with the roofs straight like that, if you go to an elevation. That's kind of unattractive. They look more blocky, but they are. They are?

[02:59:10] Unknown Speaker: Slope, too.

[02:59:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Great.

[02:59:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Hicks. Okay. Okay, so if there's no more questions from council members, we'll open this up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks wish to speak tonight? Okay, so we'll give you a minute and a half. And I do understand that there's at least one person who has arranged to speak on behalf of others. If there's other folks that are doing that, please coordinate with our city clerk, because you'll need a blue card for all of the people who are agreeing not to speak so that you can speak on their behalf. And just as a reminder, we have the timer here, and you'll hear a chime when the time is up. Okay, we have the 1st speaker, please.

[03:00:23] Eric Para: I kind of figure out everything I'm going through. Hello. My name is Eric Para. Um, No, no, I have a minute and a half . I'm not doing it really quick. I've been living in these apartments for 20 years. And 660 Mariposa. I spend my childhood there. My teenage years, not my adulthood. I'm living with my wife and my kids. I have some family members living in some apartments as well. My mom in there too. So it is very affordable to live there. I know most of my, my neighbors for over 10, 15 years, there's people that's been living there for more than 20 years. If I'm not mistaking, I know most of the people, most of the people don't make over $40,000 a year.

[03:01:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me, sir. If you could address us.

[03:01:41] Eric Para: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. So I know most of the people in here don't make over $40,000 a year. Like I mentioned, I know most of my neighbors. I grew up with them. So it would be really hard for us to move out. So, I think that's what I have to say. I made it short, I give the time to other members of the...

[03:02:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Next, please.

[03:02:26] Berenice Luna: Hi, good evening. My name is Berenice Luna. I've been a wrestling of Montame for over 32 years, and I have lived in 660 Mariposa for about 8 years. Pretty much I have all my kids attended at school. in Mountain View, Curtenden. Well, myself, Kernan, Graham, Los Altos, pretty soon another of my sons are going to graduate Los Altos. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. Um, We're just a bit concerned that my family might be split in to have if we are told we need to move out. Practically, I will only take my young ones, the ones that are in college will be staying behind. They won't be able. My youngest young kids won't be able to attend the great schools that you guys have provided here for our kids and ourselves. Sorry. And I hope that were we able to live here 4 more years to come and for them to enjoy the city. I lived here, like I said, for over 32 years. And it's a great area, to be honest. And we're already used to living here in the weather as well.

[03:03:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Before you leave, council member McAllister has a question for you.

[03:03:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep. I say a lot of people here. Could you explain, what were you told to bring everybody out here, what was your impression that we were going to do tonight?

[03:04:04] Public Speaker: To be honest, I didn't find out anything until, um, today, um, to for what I understood. We were not told, but for what I understood and heard from other tenants, that we were going to be asked to leave our apartment. A lot of, there was a lot of, I think, miscommunication between everybody, they were going to be tear down. We were going to be just kicked out with our families and our kids. That's what we've been hearing over the years. I guess this building was sold. We heard it was sold and now it's being sold again. So every day since it was sold a few years back is being stressful, scary. We don't know what's going to happen to our family. We got to look for we cannot afford to live here. to be honest. We're already, he's working literally from 4 a.m.

[03:04:55] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I guess everybody else had the same misconception that we were going to, you were going to be evicted from this property. And yet, tonight, you heard that we're trying to protect you. Yeah, trying to save it. Yeah. Okay, so there has been some communication. Okay, miscommunication. Okay. Who did that communication come from? Yeah, you know who's told you that?

[03:05:18] Public Speaker: No, yeah. Mainly from the manager at our apartment complex.

[03:05:23] Councilmember John McAlister: That you were going to be displaced?

[03:05:25] Public Speaker: That, yeah. Like I told every tenant, we all have a voice. A lot of people in our apartment complex, they're scared mainly because we're, I believe we're about 82, 90% Hispanic, and most of them are scared of immigration. You know, we don't make enough. you know. So I think it's mainly, they're being scared of like, they don't want, sometimes they don't want to say anything because for what we hear.

[03:05:55] Councilmember John McAlister: So you mean? So it's sort of scare tactics to from within.

[03:06:00] Public Speaker: Yes, from within. Thank you. Thank you. very welcome.

[03:06:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please. Anyone else wishing to provide input on this topic?

[03:06:19] Frank Wood: Good evening. My name is Frank Wood. I live at 1846 Villa Street, about block from this project. I just want to, again, voice my support for Prometheus and all their great work here. Um, This is the whole site is becoming an eyesore. It's if you live and walk by it. There's a lot of blight, a lot of garbage. I have small children. It's really not a safe area. The, some of the suggestions that they've implemented to my, from what I know is the community park, which would benefit my children, um, also bicycle safety, has been a big concern of, uh, myself and my immediate neighbor, some of them who couldn't make it tonight. I try and ride my bike to work. I work on middle field, and yet my own street villistry is just too unsafe. The rest of a ride is great. My five-year-old just learned how to ride a bike this week, and I'm terrified of him to ride on Villa Street. So I just wanted to voice my support and I hope that the council can work with Prometheus to get this develop sooner than later. dragging on and on, and I'm afraid that the market's going to crash before you make a decision. So thank you for your time.

[03:07:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:07:45] Claudia Castillo: Hola, una stardes, mi nombres, Claudia Castillo. Um, soy residente de el se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se, se...

[03:08:02] Interpreter: Hi, everyone. I'm gonna be translating, so good afternoon. My name is Claudia Castillo, and I have been a resident of 66 Maniposa Avenue for 16 years.

[03:08:18] Claudia Castillo: Um, Estay un poco, percupada, por loco pasarorita.

[03:08:25] Interpreter: I am worried about what is gonna happen today, the decision.

[03:08:30] Claudia Castillo: Um, Yo, tengo, dos trabajos, para poder, estar vibiendo, en eso apartamentos, um, yo sardo de de las. Cuatro me de la mañana, y regreso stala son se me de la noche.

[03:08:45] Interpreter: I have 2 jobs in order to be able to live in those apartments. I go to work at Ford in the morning. I go back to go home at 11, 1130. 1130.

[03:08:59] Claudia Castillo: E, aurita, um, estoy proxima, para entra, Escuela, es me procupación, como voyacer, para mantender mi, Escuela y mi trabajo, si estos departmentos des aparesen, no podria.

[03:09:17] Interpreter: I'm about to start school pretty soon and I'm worried that I will be without a home and I will not be able to go to school.

[03:09:28] Claudia Castillo: Um, You know, masquitos, solo por mesino, por, todos, peciamente, Jono, tengo, niños, por, una persona, cano, niños, estabien, perolos, de mas personas, un pocquito.

[03:09:47] Interpreter: I'm very worried about myself and about my neighbors who have children and so I'm very worried.

[03:09:56] Claudia Castillo: Um, yo, lonico, esque, esto, mejor, decision, pero, es, algo, pleo, compante, para nosotros, gracias.

[03:10:07] Interpreter: I'm only urging you guys to make the best decision. Thank you.

[03:10:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:10:24] Josh Levy: My name is Josh Levy. I might be in a somewhat unique position. I'm not sure if anyone else here is in the same experiences I have of actually being a resident of the Villa Street unit that's being redeveloped, and I just thought I would share a couple experiences in case it gives a little more context. Because actually just attending this out of my own curiosity, I, um, my heart goes out to a lot of the folks at Mariposa as well, who are probably in some ways having some of a similar experience to those who lived up at Villa Street. I've been a 10 year resident of Mountain View. I was happily resident of Villa Street. And I actually am in favor of further development of Mountain View and denser housing in the area. So in a lot of ways, I actually support this development, and I support that Prometheus is making that possible. I do just wanted to share a little bit more context on that because I think that sometimes in the shuffle of the process that these development plans occur and for the residents actually in caught in the middle of it, I'm not sure that's always as apparent to the council or to the other developers involved. But I would say that during the process of all of existing residents at the Villa Street, 1720 and 1734 Villa Street, there was a long process where Prometheus purchased this property, and it was clearly slated for development. And most of those residents knew that there was going to be development and they were unlikely to stay. And I would say it's borne out. If anyone wants to raise their hands if they've been part of that property, but most of those residents are all no longer in Mountain View. So I just want to emphasize the importance of affordability. and density in Mountain View and being transparent with the residents that are impacted. So I support development and density. Thank you.

[03:12:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks please.

[03:12:25] Erica Lopez: Hi, um, my name is Erica Lopez, and I'm a resident at 668 Mariposa Avenue, and if I were, if my family and I, if we were to get, um, if we were to have to move somewhere else, I would, um, really ruin kind of my personal life, because I would have to leave my friends, my school, and kind of the way I move every day, my routine, and my future. Um, ever, like, I've lived in Mountain View all my life. I was born here and I've lived in apartments all my life. And I've always kind of had, like, my future as in trying to get into St. Francis here and going to Foothill College and eventually graduating from there and going into university. And if I were to move somewhere else, because right now, like, um, I was hearing that the rent's getting, like, really pricey or really expensive now. And, um, if we were to have to move somewhere else farther away, I would, it wouldn't really be as easy for me to kind of adapt to another school or, like, socially, it would not really help a lot. And I would have to leave my friends, my teachers, the education I have here, and like I was saying my routine. And, um, I really hope that you guys like consider this. And um, yeah, thank you.

[03:13:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:56] Nicole: Hello. I would first like to take the time to say thank you for giving the time to listen to us. My name's Nicole, and I'm currently a resident of 660 Mariposa. So I would just like to say that you are sitting in front of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers who are positively contributing and worked in Mountain View for more than 10 years. The reason why I've had the privilege to obtain an education is because of the place I call home. Everyone here has worked very hard to continue surviving and striving to have a better life. Local businesses will not run without employees, will lose diversity, and will have less mixed income groups. You declare to ban RVs. But don't you think this will cause more people to forcefully live in the streets? Six Xer Mariposa apartments are not subsidized, but we still manage to pay rent every month. Thank you so much.

[03:14:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:15:04] Job Lopez: My name is Job Lopez, a 45 year resident of Mountain View. I am here in support of my brothers and sisters. They are afraid of getting the displacement fever that has been affected our city. More notice about beginning with Rocket Street and Montecito Avenue. I mean, I am in a way, I am happy uh, to hear that um, These officials from Prometheus are kind of flexible. to face the needs of brothers and sisters. And hopefully they, the developers and the owners will work together with you or members of the city council. to achieve not only what they want, but also what our brothers and sisters need. Once again, I remember each one of you and each one of you, that all of us have the moral obligation. to see the interest of our brothers and sisters. We have to look at the, no, at the face of the money, but at the face of humanity, at the face of our brothers and sisters who are brothers and members of the human family that we belong to. Thank you.

[03:16:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. You know, if you could please not show any signs of support or opposition. We just want to listen to everyone. We want to be able to hear them. And we just want everyone to be respectful.

[03:16:51] Veronice Garcia: Hi, good evening. My name is Veronice Garcia, and I live in 66 Sarah Marposa Avenue. And today, the recent day, we are here. we were very concerned about hearing everything about there in the building down. All of that will affect so much our kids. I have kids. I have sisters, I have nephews, nieces who born in here who have attend to schools in here. And mainly for them, it will be a very psychological impact because they have to move out and maybe disperse from another. And even though we hear and I hear and hear the, it will be a huge increase of the rent that we are paying right now. Most of us that we live in there, we have 2 jobs, so we work very long days to make it to pay rent every single month. So, our main thing here is, like, how we gonna be surviving with those high rents or displacing our, to another, maybe series. I don't know, it's it's very concerning to hear all of this. So I have 3 kids. They tend to have high school. And they've been raised here, and I've been here 22 years already. Thank you very much.

[03:18:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:18:31] Juan: Mi nomres, Juan.

[03:18:33] Interpreter: Good afternoon. My name is Juan and Guadalupe, and we have twins.

[03:18:43] Juan: I used born in high school. It's the Joficon Alex, y fimos a nun Sierra al Sabartamentos, de que un era possible, pero novere un hecho, que una de mule.

[03:18:55] Interpreter: My twins go to high school and I went with Alex to give out the announcements that was possible, that was going to be a decision on the bill and 660 manipulus apartments.

[03:19:12] Juan: Laberda, queso, spantoso, de imaginarse, que vapasarcon, sotros, porque somo bastantes.

[03:19:22] Interpreter: Knowing this is very scary for us, what's going to happen to all of us?

[03:19:29] Juan: Primerdia que supimo nosotros, porque... Si nos pusimos a pensar, y mi sigos estaban per cupados, yos jaban in high school and los saltos.

[03:19:42] Interpreter: The 1st day, we found out about this meeting about this proposal. We worry, and my twins who go to high school were also very worried as well.

[03:19:56] Juan: Y la verdad.

[03:19:59] Interpreter: And we would like you guys to urge you to take a good decision on the tenants' behalf.

[03:20:12] Juan: Uh, no, so, so, so, so, so, and el saisa, Santa Mariposa, que is el tiempocatenamos, vivienda, mountainvio.

[03:20:22] Interpreter: We have been living in Mountain View for 15 years, the same time we have been living at 660 Mariposa apartments 15 years. Uh, no, so, Joseph, we are volunteers at the St. Joseph Church, and we are also graduates of the Spanish leadership academy.

[03:20:52] Juan: Eh, puela verdas, estamos precupados, intristes de que... Eh...

[03:21:06] Interpreter: We are very worried. Yeah, although this is this project hasn't been approved, we are very worried, and we asked you guys to help us stay at home. Which is gracias. Thank you very much.

[03:21:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:21:31] Anito Mesh: Good evening, Anito Mesh, 1806 Phyllis Street, a block away from this proposed development site. I appreciate how far this project has come because the improvements that have been made and proposal are quite dramatic. However, I hope that the city will take into consideration that with the increase in the population density, that certain basic infrastructure needs are also considered. For example, is everybody going to have to require a car in order to, say, go grocery shopping or things like this. So with this increase in the density, I hope that everybody will not have to rely on a card to perform their day-to-day activities.

[03:22:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[03:22:28] Miriam Bandedas: Good afternoon. Mi nores miriamaneras.

[03:22:34] Interpreter: My name is Miriam. Bandedas, and I'm a resident of 660 Maniposa Avenue.

[03:22:42] Miriam Bandedas: Primero, Canada, que Sieradar, de Gracias, Salas Cidad, Mountain View, Portolo, of Resido, a Las Personas que bebimos, aqui.

[03:22:52] Interpreter: First of all, I would like to thank the city of Montville for giving us all the US have given us.

[03:23:00] Miriam Bandedas: Eh, quisiera, hablara cerca de todo las buenas cosas que tiene mounte mu paranosotros, como las escuelas, eh, como todo services que nos ofrese.

[03:23:12] Interpreter: I would like to talk about all the positive things that the city bond will offer us, like schools and services.

[03:23:21] Miriam Bandedas: Espores la razón, like, eh, mucho tamborga mi parte, the que podamoser...

[03:23:36] Interpreter: And this is the reason I'm very concerned, we will get kick out of the apartments where we live.

[03:23:48] Miriam Bandedas: Labiden, Mountain View, is Bastal de Tranquilla, yo consider, que, is... Para nosotros, mucho, te mor de tenel que mover, not fuera de la ciola.

[03:23:59] Interpreter: The life in Mountain View is very peaceful, and we're very concerned that we will have to move out of the city. And that's anti-inclusive. And taking into consideration the high cost of living in the city, it will be very hard to raise our children here in the Mountainville.

[03:24:33] Miriam Bandedas: Ademas, de stotolos, problemas, cicolo, cito, la perdia, de trabajo, que nostrustendriamo, manera, de trabajar, cerca.

[03:24:42] Interpreter: Besides the psychological problems, there wouldn't be a possibility for us to work here, we will have to commute. And if we move out of those privacy, it will be very hard for us to pay the market, right, rents?

[03:25:12] Miriam Bandedas: Por favor?

[03:25:26] Interpreter: Please take into consideration what we have done for the city. Thank you.

[03:25:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. If you can speak into the microphone, you can raise it.

[03:25:45] Susana Saldania: Susana, Saldania, and I'm a resident of Monte View since like 20 years ago. I live in 660 Mariposa Avenue, and I, um, I think this is a great, uh, great community. I love Monte View, I think, it's a home for me, for my kids. Sorry, for people that suffer anxiety. Sometimes this is not easy, but I'm here, a representation of all my neighbors myself as a single mom. I've been racing, um, as a single mom, 2 kids, uh, and try to teach them values and I choose Mountain View because like I say, it's like amazing community and I love that it's so safe to walk outside anytime and you'll be and people friendly. Currently, one of my daughter is attending Fulhill College, my son is being in Air Force for one year and I want him to come back. We're at the same place that he will grow up with, playing with the neighbors and, um, and continue to work hard, to do more and be good neighbors, you know, and, uh, I think that any decision you guys take about the building, um, that thing and have consideration and empathy and um, as a community. Thank you. take a decision that doesn't affect us. Thank you. You know? Thank you so much for your time.

[03:27:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. adelida Mendes?

[03:27:50] Adeleida Mendes: Good afternoon. My name is Adeleida Mendes. Sorry, the residente, the Santa Mariposa. I'm a resident of 66 in my apostle Avenue.

[03:28:03] Octavio Cruz: Buenas noches, me nombre Estado Cruz. Good evening, my name's Octavio Cruz.

[03:28:12] Adeleida Mendes: Estamos muy, precupados. Uh, lo estapasando, este toy muy procupada, porque mis nios vana, lescuela, gran, y los altos, y tengo mi otra niña chiquita. We are very worried because our children go to Grant in high school and have my smallest or my youngest daughter who's going to start school soon and I have the school. pretty close to my home. Yo tambien, mi esposo tenemos los trabajos cerca, y estoy pro cupada, si nos movemos, este, no mayamos, per de los trabajos, de nos cuadro niños, este estamos muy bien aí, si nos mueven, este, no se que vamos hacer. We are very worried because our jobs are pretty close home, and if we have to move out, We don't know what we're gonna do. Let me tell you. We have been living at 60 Maniposa for 16 years, almost half of our lives. I mean, squadron niños, naciero, naca. Just on Vienna, costumrado, saki. For children, all who were born here in Mountain View, we have to move out, I don't know what we'll do with our schools, and yeah, we don't know. I.E. les pido que por favor, tomen la... Por favor. We urge you all to please take the best decision that benefit the tenants. Es esto do mucho de gracias. That's everything. Thank you very much.

[03:30:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:30:56] Sergio Villa: Buenas tardes, me nombres, serjo villa. Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Sergio, and I choose my wife. Los Garcia. de, de, de, de, de, de, de, de, de... Semos, ortestamos viviento and say, say, Cerro Mariposo Avenue. We just found out about this, this proposal, and currently we're living at 660 Myposa Avenue. Paranosotros, algo, precupante, porque, tenemos, tres, niños, tenemos quinse, años, viviendo, ay, nesa, localidad, que llegara pasar esto, perderianos, tres, nuestro, trabajos, niños, las... Escuela, cerca, porque, tarbenos, canderianos, a, otra, cidad. We have, uh, 3 children, and we have living at 66 in my posture for 15 years. It will be very worrying for us because we will probably lose our jobs. Estamos aqui, para, pediles de favor, sua pollo, no solo paranzotros, no paratolos, besinos que residimos aí. Estamos, yacostombrados, este lo gart, tenemos, escuela, cerca, y... Es una, ciudad tranquila quid on the vimos. We are here to ask you to please help us. We really like the city of Montemio is very safe and we have the schools very close as well. All right, interesting to see. When I start this, with me that, um, ties precopante, lo esta pasando, este momento. Amiramente me plo cupa, mucho, porque, yuya tengo, quince años, trabajando, and solo trabajo. Entonces sarmo verme. Yeah, qui, um, perdidía, mitrabajo, seria, una vida, um, nuevo, trabajo, nuevas escuela, socia, adaptors, una, a nuevas, Yoke, sierra, que... I have had my job for 15 years, and if we had to move out of the city, I would lose my job and we don't know who we do. Which is gracias. Thank you very much.

[03:34:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:34:12] Unknown Speaker: Why do you want to know that?

[03:34:21] Martha Garcia: Uh... Good afternoon. My name is Martha Garcia, and I'm here to ask you to, um, to further study the decision. Uh, you think of... My family and I have been living at 660 Mariposa Avenue for 18 years, and I have to, daughters who go to middle school. Uh, it was... Yeah, tene una, si también, stan precupadas, medicine. My daughters are ages nine and seven, and sometimes they ask me, mommy, what are we gonna do if we have to move out? And is very concerning. I'm asking you a place to, please, uh, consider us, uh, in your decision, and thank you very much.

[03:36:13] Delia Garcia: Buenas tardes, mi nomres, delia Garcia, um, soy residente, del seisa. Good afternoon, uh, my name is Delia Garcia, and I'm a resident. I'm 660 my Poso Avenue. Uh, ABB, do I put, uh, quince años, E, E, porque, um, Por los niño, por mi niños, de cercas, de escuela, y, uh, parte la seguridad, que es, do, uh, que sesiente, uh, dormirem pas, caminar, en la noche unrato, y, um, seria precupante, uh, pensarque, perdeia, yo mi trabajo tambieni. I'm very concerned, mostly for my children. This is very safe and if we had to move out, I would lose my job. Thank you very much.

[03:37:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:37:22] Public Speaker: Good evening, everyone. I would like to thank you for listening to Valvas. Joso Residente de Las Seis, Santa Mariposa. I'm a resident at 660, my Pasa Avenue, and I'm very concerned. Y el se vacaminando, yo crevo, si... Non mueven, ten, yo. Cambiar me vida porque... I have a son who is 14 years old and he goes to Los Altos High School, and I'm very concerned because if we had to move, we will have to start from scratch. Me gustaria qui estedes tomaran la mejordes deción. I would like to encourage you all to take the best decision. Yes. Muchas gracias. And I would like to thank you all.

[03:38:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:38:49] Angela Sanchez: Sanchez, mi esposo, is the solamente queria de siles que don luardo de bibimos, es un luermo y seguro... My name is Angela Sanchez, and I'm here with my husband, and I would like to tell you the, this, uh, city is very very safe. We go, we take walks at the middle or at the middle of the night. Eh, in the hotel, somos persona, de la terceradan, somos el terceradan, estamos trabajando, pero. We are, um, we are, um, other people, uh, who, uh, if we have to move out, I mean, we don't know how we'll be able to pay rent. Espeedo, de favor. We would like you to take consideration that there are families living there who have children, and it will be a very drastic change if they had to adjust their lives to other places. Solamente, espido, de favor, pience, enento, estas familia, esto, las personas, estamos, vibiendo, es lugarique. We would like to ask you to please take in consideration all those families with children and please take the best decision.

[03:41:06] Isiro Arguil: I mean, nombre sicido arguin, me gustarias, de pediglis, que... Todo los... My name is Isiro Arguil, and I would like to, please, take in consideration, all those families that come to the night and play the game. Impact to emotional, que puedes, sufir, los niños, masquenada, porcane, chomas, de... Uh, please, uh, the emotional impact that this will have on all the cheater, and uh, thank you very much. And good evening. thank you for all your time

[03:42:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else?

[03:42:24] Manny Velasco: Good evening. My name is Manny Velasco. I've been a resident of Mountain View for 35 years. My family has been a resident for 60 years, and I work at the school district for 15 years now. And I wasn't going to speak, but I was a little bit concerned that at the beginning of the family speaking. Um, you know, their voice was framed as, you know, was their internal, uh, you know, issues going on. Was this a scare attack that brought people here? But I didn't hear that when the businesses were here. You know, is this a business tactic that you're using? So it's a little bit concerning to me that when families come out and speak, for whatever the reason might be, and I know it wasn't a scare tactic, that there is this, you know, I feel like a little bit of a double standard. I've lived across the street from 660 Mariposa my entire life. I've not only watched these kids grow, but I've helped them grow in their education. And, you know, I just want to point out that, you know, I know it was mentioned that there's going to be slow growth here, getting the rent up, but your guys', um, you know, rent control wasn't, this is the standard for rent control. It was just if you're going to raise the rents, don't raise it higher than this, but that shouldn't be the minimum standard for what you're going to raise the rents. And when you're talking about these families, a raise of one%, 2%, 3%, when they're struggling at the end of the month to buy a gallon of milk, a tank of gas is pretty extreme. So I do like what Prometheus is suggesting here, as far as giving the rental property. But, you know, let's make sure that we hold them accountable and not let Prometheus just keep taking over Mountain View the way they are with their little box houses all over Mountain View. No more view.

[03:44:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place. Excuse me. No, please, please.

[03:44:15] Fernando Romero: Hello, my name is Fernando Romero, and I've been living here in Montreal since 2002. I'm also arresting those 6 in Mariposa Avenue. I'm pretty involved in my community. I'm a part of the human relations commission. Today. I'm speaking solidly for myself. Um, I'm also a graduate of the Spanish leadership academy. And today I would like to urge you all to please study this further. I think we don't have enough information to make a decision. I'm pretty sure a lot of you guys have more questions from Prometheus, and I'm pretty sure they're willing to provide those answers to your questions. So please study these options farther. And I think for me and my family. So we haven't even think about moving. So it will be very hard. You know, I have 2 daughters. My wife is to stay at home currently and I'm the only provider, so it would be very hard for us. I have 2 daughters, 13 years old and another one is 7 months old. So it will be very hard. raising those others and somewhere else, you know, the city is very safe and I'm in here in support of my neighbors who probably are going to have a harder than me in terms of paying rent. So please, today, study this farther and don't make any decision until you guys have farther information. We have very incomplete information, I feel. Thank you very much.

[03:45:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:45:59] Megan: I have 6 speakers who would like to yield their time for me. Tango, sin called personos que va querre tempo, por favor parense, please stand six, John. as well. And I would request what's a minute.5 times seven? I don't do math really well.

[03:46:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry, actually, some of you have spoken. I'm sorry Didn't you speak?

[03:46:23] Public Speaker: Yeah. No, I haven't spoken.

[03:46:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, not you. Sorry. There's the folks who are behind you that said that you're yielding their time. Some of them have spoken. So it's folks who agree not to speak. Las tarjetas. por favor Okay. Okay. So we have 5 people. Excuse the confusion. figuring it out. So if it's those 5 right there, yeah. Okay. Plus one more. Oh, Megan. Hi. Yeah. So the cancel policy is if you have 5 people who agree not to speak, we would give you extra time. How much time did you want?

[03:47:02] Megan: I requested 10 minutes from the city clerk.

[03:47:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's quite a bit of time. What would be more?

[03:47:10] Megan: 5 minutes, times, six, four, five. Seven, 7.5 . Nine? 7.5 to 9 minutes.

[03:47:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so how about 7 minutes? How about 7.5? I'm not 7 minutes.

[03:47:25] Megan: Oh, no, not yet. I got to get my USB in here. Yeah, thank you. I'm gonna X out of this. Sorry about that. It's beautiful branding. Got, like, windows or something, Mac. Millennials don't all know. Technology really that well. Sweet. So, uh, seven minutes, perfect. So, I'm here to express my full support for Prometheus's 720 Villa Street and the 660 Mariposa alternative mitigation, and I will tell you in what shape, form, and why I'm supporting it as well. So, You know, in coming to this conclusion, I've really been thinking, you know, what is a good development, what, like, you know, we've seen some pretty contentious developments, and I think there's a lot that we've been able to, or at least I've definitely been able to take away from what that looks like. You know, when I think about a good development, I think that 1st and foremost, it should increase Mountain View's housing supply in the inverse, it shouldn't decrease it. I think that there have been some projects, you guys know which ones where we reduced our housing supply and, you know, that, yeah, for many reasons, that is not a positive. In addition to that, you know, it ought to provide increased affordable housing opportunities for our low income residents. You know, the ones that are actually kind of serving our coffee and serving our restaurants, bus boys making the city run. In addition to that, you know, there needs to be ample and accessible opportunities for community continuity. We need to make sure that we are taking care of our current residents, our current constituents, and making sure that we are extending every single possibility we possibly can for them to remain in their homes. So again, I totally support the 1720 villa residential property development. That site, that development, that property proposal is really good. It's just grass, it's dilapidated buildings, there's no one there. I love it. develop it. But, What about the affordable housing?

[03:50:51] Alex: I think that's kind of the crux of all of this. you know, discussion and why all the residents that you see or a lot of them are here. So those apartments, as you guys know, there's a picture of it. 48 units, total, not including the manager one, property, it needs a lot of rehab labor, a lot of investment. If you guys have had an opportunity to tour it. It just, I mean, you know, I don't want to trash anyone's home, but, you know, definitely looks like someone forgot to take care of it. It was acquired for $24.7 million, listed for sale 5 to 6 months ago. If any of that is wrong, please correct me. And bridge housing has been lined up as the potential rehab partner. So the residential profile. When I met, 1st of all, I'd like to disclose that I'm met with the applicant. And when I was meeting with them, they said something. They said, we don't really know who lives there in terms of income. I think there might have been some kind of law or something. It was just hard for them to do it, so I figured I'd help them out and go and check it out. So when I went over to development or the property. I knocked down 24 out of 48 doors. So, you know, almost or half, I guess, that's a pretty good statistical sample. 88% of all the residents there are in the very low and extremely low income am I, meaning 50% or 30% for the extremely low. So, yeah, a lot of residents, not at the 80% threshold, understood that it's up to 80%, which is great. And 97% of the people in those 24 units are Latino Hispanic residents. So, that's the population that came out, and that's the population that, you know, obviously for many reasons, having witnessed 2005 Rock Street, being under siege here in this political climate, you know, do you think they wouldn't be afraid? Unfortunately, there are some open questions with this alternative mitigation, and I think this is, yeah, this is going to be where, you know, at least from the community side, what we're proposing in terms of how we can make it work. We need to answer a few questions. In particular, I think one of the, all the lines of questionings that all the, at least that most of the council members were asking, and I think John and Mike would agree with this, could have been all avoided with a good written detailed plan, outlining a lot of these things here. Like, how would the residents be protected? Where would we move them? How long would they need to be there? Where would they go? For the temporary housing? Bridge is so gracefully saying, like, we're gonna do everything we can to make sure that they're able to remain in there. What about the temporary housing? You know, that's a lot of money. How will the rent increases be regulated? You know, I had a chance to speak with Brad from Bridge, and, you know, my understanding from that is that is an open question. You know, for example, I don't, everyone I've spoken to, I still don't have a clear answer on this, can you even convert assist for a rent controlled unit into a BMR? what does that look like? The 80% in my proposal. You know, increasing, I think, slow affordability, you know, that's a great term. I'll adopt it, and have to explain what it means. But, you know, that resonant population is 50% or below. So there's going to be some financial, you know, kind of hit there, I imagine. And again, speaking of financials, the feasibility of the project. You know, there's a couple costs here, the acquisition total, the rehabilitation costs, all of these mostly on bridge, as well as the allowable revenues per the rental rates that would align to the 50 30% MR. Also, you know, one question I had, I'm not gonna, you know, but what is the lost revenue that would accrue over the 55 years of a BMR lifetime compared to what the total sum was that got paid for Mariposa? Is it more than 24.7 million? I don't know, maybe you just give the building to Ridge, but I don't know, that's not my stuff. You guys can handle the contractuals. But here's the thing. Like this is a great opportunity to do something that has never been done before. Just because something never has been done before, it doesn't mean it's not good. And right now, that building is in dire straits. It needs someone, like Bridge, to come in and fix it and improve the quality of life of our residents who are living here right now. who are low income, minority, Hispanic people. We are residents of this city. We are voters, we are constituents, and this is a great opportunity for all of this to be done really well. So what do we need? This is our proposal. Conditionally approve the item with the delivery of a notarized full plan for the 660 Maripos alternative mitigation within either 60, 90, or 120 days. You guys can work that out. And or end in the event that a submitted, a plan is not submitted and approved, approved, within that window, then the BMR units will be enforced on site. And option 2 doesn't really need many explanations. So everyone who agrees with what I just said, will you please stand up? Thank you.

[03:56:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wish to provide us with input? Oh, counsel member McAllister has a question for you.

[03:56:08] Alex: What's up?

[03:56:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Everybody, sit down if they'd like. Thank you. Is there a law that says they can't stand? Alex. At what point were you made aware that some of us on the council wanted to make this permanent affordable housing?

[03:56:26] Alex: Probably not much long after you guys were made aware of the plan? I mean, you know, Bridge only found out a month ago, so it couldn't have been that long ago.

[03:56:36] Councilmember John McAlister: About a month that you had an inkling that we wanted to make?

[03:56:39] Alex: Just wasn't that long ago. Short notice.

[03:56:41] Councilmember John McAlister: So to Manny's point when I said scare attacks, it was we were trying to understand if people understood the true context of what we were trying to accomplish and that's that you were people were being scared unnecessarily because if the true content was to protect it. That's what I was saying.

[03:56:59] Alex: Are people being scared unnecessarily when 2005 Rock Street gets approved? Are people being scared necessarily when there's a maniac in our White House who keeps consistently talking stuff about us? I understand there are some issues. So then, no. No. We have a right to be scared because it's a difficult world for us. And the decisions that this council has taken have made it even harder.

[03:57:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Alex, I was just trying to understand people's understanding of this project.

[03:57:24] Alex: And so all you need to understand is that they're afraid. Okay, and they're concerned. They've been hearing whatever's about that building.

[03:57:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could let a council member ask the question.

[03:57:33] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm under trying to understand how the message was communicated, because I do not want to have, as you said, this problem. This property, if we had a written access or, you know, program or guideline, we could have saved a lot of concerns, and that's, I'm trying to understand the process to better communicate with your groups, and so, and that's all I'm trying to do.

[03:57:54] Alex: And all you need to know is that the families who live there came out and they spoke respectfully and they showed you who they were so that you knew about that.

[03:58:01] Councilmember John McAlister: I appreciate that.

[03:58:02] Alex: That's all you need to know.

[03:58:04] Councilmember John McAlister: No. Well, we had the right to ask questions. Yeah, yeah. And I have a right thing. Thank you very much.

[03:58:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide us with input on this topic? Uh, Sorry, you already spoke. I'm sorry, you already spoke. Is there anyone else? If not, we're gonna close the public input. No, excuse me, but we're going to close the public input. So we'll bring it back to council for discussion and action. Council member Ramirez.

[03:58:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So first, I'd like to disclose, I met with the applicant. I think it was Thursday, and we were both talking about how this would be an easy project. So I have a couple of questions. And then I assume others will have questions, so I won't get in comments quite yet, but just for my benefit, waiting moving back into sort of the technical nitty gritty. So I guess before we delve too far into this alternative mitigation, without the analysis in the EIR, could we actually make a decision related to 660 Mariposa? That wasn't really clear to me.

[03:59:21] Unknown Speaker: No, the options would be to continue the item until both the sequis and the BMR 660 Mariposa items were fully evaluated, and that could be brought back to council with the full evaluation, or the project could be approved as is or with modifications, not including the offsite BMR. the applicant could bring back a change to the proposed BMR plan for council consideration, which would also be an amendment to the sequa. Appropriate.

[04:00:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. so that that helps me. So if a straight decision related to the the acquisition of the property by bridge couldn't occur quite as proposed by the applicant, without without the, uh, supplemental, uh, analysis. That correct. Okay, thank you. I guess it kind of renders the next question boot, but just because it this may happen in the future, this potential conversion of CSFRA and it's into BMRs. So a question for staff, I guess, and I don't know if this is Wayne or RT, but whoever has expertise in BMRs. So, um, is there a mechanism that we have that's legally defensible that would allow us to require that if bridge were to acquire the units and deed restrict them, that the rents would not be able to increase beyond what the CSF array allows?

[04:01:05] Unknown Speaker: I would defer to the CSFRA part to the attorney, but I would say that the city can have an agreement with a developer on BMR units. So it's not a CSFRA unit, it'll be BMR units under the city under the agreement. And you may want to correct me.

[04:01:26] Unknown Speaker: And those would be exempt from CSFRA. So it's quite possible that the units would be exempt from the CSFRA, but we enter into rent regulatory agreements all the time for the BMR units and specify the amount of the rent increase that's permitted. So we could work with just to make sure that we don't run afoul of any of the financing mechanisms behind the BMR project we could see if we could insert in the agreement, a requirement that they comply with their rent increased provisions in the CSFRA.

[04:01:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, maybe I need to take this offline, because I'm just to make sure I absolutely understand this then. So if we were to deed restrict these at 80% AMI and right now the rents are far below the 30% level, we could have an agreement that would that is legally defensible and enforceable, that the rents would not be able to exceed a certain rate until we get it to 80% and that the current tenants would be able to stay in those deed restricted units at 80% EMI, even though they're much below that.

[04:02:35] Unknown Speaker: Those are all things that we could try and negotiate. and that we, but I just want to make sure that sometimes there's competing restrictions and regulations, right? So right now, when we have a BMR, BMR units, we enter into a rent regulatory agreement, and we specify in that agreement, you can only raise the rent 3%, is my understanding. So using that logic, we would be able to put a provision in a rent regulatory agreement, which we would do, if this is going to be deed restricted, and it's going to satisfy the BMR requirements. And we can make sure that that, depending on what kind of financing is going to be used. I don't know if there'd be any restrictions from the source of the financing, tax credits or anything like that that would impinge on our ability to require that. So we would look at that and make sure that it could all work out. But I think the answer is yes, we can probably get there, but I just want to make sure there isn't something that we haven't read or thought of, or we wouldn't create another problem by agreeing to that. It's part of the long list of questions we need to answer if we wanted to pursue this. Yes.

[04:03:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fair enough. Thank you.

[04:03:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[04:03:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is it all right if we go into comments? Okay, great. Well, 1st of all, I will disclose that I met with the applicant as well. And, um, for the project at 1720. Is that the right address? It's been a while since we've been just talking about Villa Street. I think it's a good project. I appreciate the many changes that have been made over the last few years. I remember the hospital well. And so in terms of design, I think there's been quite a lot of improvements. I appreciate the amenities, the parks, I think. We did have a lot of concerns about bicycle, pedestrian access, and those have been addressed as well. So I do support the project. I think it's a good one. And I'd also mentioned that I think it was originally approved through Gatekeeper because it is a, there is environmental cleanup that was needed there and that's been done. So many positives on those fronts. So, I am ready to support or approve the project this evening. I know this issue of the BMR requirement through a little curveball at us. Although I will say that I actually remember some discussion about this, maybe it was 2 years ago when we were talking about parks and Prometheus was suggesting that America's, I think, the parking lot there is a park. And at that time I had gone out and met with them and looked at Mariposa and there was some mention about perhaps dedicating that complex to the as their affordable housing contribution. So I know since then I hadn't heard it. It was quiet, so I, and I didn't really frankly inquire. So, I wasn't 100% surprised when it came back, to be honest. Um, I think that in light of, um, you know, everything that we've been talking about lately in terms of housing, affordable housing, um, you know, relocation, displacement, um, in the past when we've had projects where we've had to displace, um, folks, you know, we've, um, they felt that the city we didn't have, um, you know, that we didn't really have the legal grounds not to, uh, approve these projects. And, you know, I was one who voted for the moving forward with those projects because, you know, I wasn't going to just take a vote just for, you know, just to make a statement. And so in this situation, it's really, you know, I understand the timing and whatnot, but I do appreciate the possibility of a win-win situation. And, um, I know that it's maybe unconventional. Well, it is unconventional perhaps, but, you know, over the years, we've talked about this. We've talked council member McAllister has brought up, you know, why doesn't the city buy existing apartment complexes? And I know there's been trepidation and for the city to do that and our preference would be for an affordable housing developer, perhaps to take that role. And so, I guess I am intrigued by this concept. And to be frank, you know, when Mr. Moss brought it up to me, my 1st thought was, if we can avoid displacement, then I think it's worth looking at. And, um, that's where I am right now. So in light of the fact that if we weren't, if this hadn't come forward, we probably would have just taken the 15% inclusionary units. You know, I'm inclined to support that this evening, but then with the caveat that we further look into the possibility of preserving Mariposa, working with Bridge. And I've known a bridge for a long time, very, you know, one of the top affordable housing organizations in the Bay Area, quite large. I know, and as I mentioned, I toured one of their facilities before. So I guess I feel comfortable with the players that perhaps we can make something happen. And, you know, we've talked about housing and that's the, you know, big talk and I was even talking with our former mayor, Ronique Bryant the other day and, you know, she was saying, we just have to do something different. And so it's like here is an opportunity to make to try something different. And I really want to do it. I just want to try. And there's no guarantee, you know, I will be upfront. There's no guarantee right now, but it's worth a shot. So in that sense, yeah, I think if we could approve this project with inclusionary, but then have this brought back to us in, I don't know what either 90 days or maybe during the summer break and come back in the fall to see what is possible, I would really like to look at it. at that point. Thanks.

[04:09:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:09:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a couple of questions before I go into comments. I was a little concerned about the retrofit, and the community service director was talking about their standards or bridge standards of who, what the building was brought up to, you know, I already, there you are. I didn't think we had that kind of control where we'd said you had to do these kind of improvements. you clarify that?

[04:09:55] City Staff: I think this was just merely an estimate based on looking at it, it's very likely with discussions with bridge and staff will come to some kind of agreement on what needs to be done. So, um, we don't stand by those numbers. I think we need to study them.

[04:10:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so you don't know.

[04:10:20] City Staff: We don't know for sure.

[04:10:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. And the other question I had for Prometheus, this is rhetorical for you, so you can... A lot of time the phrase is once Bridge looks at the property and gets a better assessment of the retrofit, I would hope that Prometheus would... pencil it out so that it would work that they would not come back to us for a subsidy. Are you saying you're willing to?

[04:10:49] Applicant Mr. Moss: Zero plan to come back to the city for a subsidy on any element of this. So to us, we make it work with bridge, or we do the inclusionary, but we absolutely do not plan on coming back to the city.

[04:11:00] Councilmember John McAlister: So you're willing to work with Bridge on the, to make a pencil out?

[04:11:05] Applicant Mr. Moss: Within reason, of course.

[04:11:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay, that's what I. And then the other comment that I was sort of hoping to, well, I'd like to see you would do the clipper card because you're near the train station. I think that would be a more useful TMA TDM thing to help people. So I think a clipper card would be better than the VTA. be a little more. So. I know, but they keep changing the phrase on the thing, so this... One minute's a smart card, then it's an ankle card, then it's so far. But onto comments. Yeah. This is one project. Well, you know, I'm supporting anything that we actually been buying something. I've been talking about buying properties for over 6 years, so that we have complete control, that we have permanent housing, affordable housing, that we reduce displacement. So I'm all in favor of how we can work it out, if it means giving them a 90 day, you know, approval with a 90 day or 120 days. This is something new. Well, it's not new to me because I've been preaching this a long time. So I'm all in favor of whatever the number, the council determines, but I think we need to change the narrative as we were buying some other, putting money into some other property that there wasn't going to restrict displacement. It was just preventing people from moving. So I think this one by taking control of that property. And if we left it to the open market, it could potentially displace all those people. And this way, we have complete control over it. We can also have control over if we need rapid rehousing, any type of emergency service that we can offer to these individuals. I like the idea of having the services of bridge coming in and helping assist these people in any way that's necessary. So for it, now that I got Mr. Moss to say he'll make it work with Bridge, that is taped. And so I like to move forward with this. So thank you for bringing this project forward. It's sort of interesting, is that the city manager and I, because we were doing discussions about when I saw it on the market, I'm saying, we got to talk to these guys, because here's an opportunity to make some permanent housing. And I also remember when we were talking about the park. So I think this is a much better use of that property and move forward for it. So wherever the council goes, I'm supportive as long as we will look at buying this property and being the 1st to do something along these lines.

[04:13:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:13:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will, I'll also disclose that I met with the applicant, and I am also, I will also be supporting the project at 70, 1720 Villa Street, and I agree with what other council members have said that it's gone through a lot of improvements over the, over the years. I was going to ask, but as I see, Mr. Moss, you're nodding your head, maybe I don't even have to ask, if what you proposed to us was a little different than the way council members have been phrasing it, and the way staffsmen recommending it, that we approve it, with the inclusionary units, and then, um, that we give you the opportunity to come back in 90 days, but you're still, you will still pursue that. I just wanted to make sure that that's that direction is working out for you.

[04:14:34] Applicant Mr. Moss: Yes, absolutely. We would pursue that, and we would sit down and hold meetings with the residents here and make sure that everybody is on board if we were going to do that, including, of course, the city. So, no, we would do extensive outreach evaluation with staff and pursue it. So yeah, we were absolutely fine with if there was an approval with inclusionary zoning and then researching this at a later date and bringing it back to council. Absolutely fine with that.

[04:15:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so that's what I will be supporting. I just want to point out to people that we're not creating any new affordable housing units doing it this way. We're just preserving them, but just to point that out. But I will be supporting that. Thank you.

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

[04:15:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate all of you coming out to share your stories. 16 years ago, I was your neighbor on Mercy Street, not the 1600 block, and my brother and I would walk past your building on the way to what used to be blockbuster. And so I have fond memories of the neighborhood and I'm interested in a win-win solution where we can retain the current tenants and preserve the units or in perpetuity as affordable units. So I do support this project. It's a very strong project. It became a little bit more complicated, but I think we're settling on an outcome that I think is worth exploring. So the proposal that the vice mayor outlined is, I think I'm willing to support that. We probably would need to, I don't know, if staff would need some additional parameters on the negotiation to discern, you know, what an acceptable outcome would be, it's an alternative mitigation. So we have a definition for that. And it would need to be superior to the inclusionary requirement, as I understand it. So to the extent that parameters are necessary from the council, I think it would be helpful to help us define what those might be. But in the event that an agreement is not possible if Bridge decides, for instance, that the rehabilitation costs are too great or if the financing doesn't work, then I'm perfectly comfortable proving the project with inclusionary units. It is an interesting idea. You know, Council member McAllister, I've been supporting your idea tacitly in the back for a little while. And I think it's, I think, great to have an opportunity to test it out. But fundamentally, you know, I think, you know, we need to make sure that whatever negotiations occur, result in an outcome that is favorable to both, you know, to the applicant, to the city, and to the tenants. And I think that's all. Thank you.

[04:17:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[04:17:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So, uh, buenos noches, uh, quiero, agradacer, a la commentario. Yoseque a mucho miedo en la comunidari, turante esta tiempo, yo quiero que nosotros, um, estar juntos. Um, Gracias, portu fuerza, uh, yo tambiente, um, in relation to the project, um, 1720 villa, I appreciate the architecture changes, the bike path, the trail connection, the park, I think that it really has evolved. and it'll be a great way to have some connected networks in the city. For me, I feel torn because of the BMR requirement. And, um, It's about process. And the last minute nature of all of this, I think, put a strain on myself, my colleagues, staff, and as you heard tonight, the community. And for me, that's the most important constituency that's been affected. And I hope that in the future, we can work together so that you proactively reach out first. Because I think that that is the most important thing that we can do as a community is to give people the heads up so that no one has to be taken off guard and that we can work together to find a solution for that will lead to a positive outcome. So I'll be supporting the direction that council is going tonight, with the looking at the 15% as well as looking at the feasibility of the project. But with a lot of the questions, there was just a lack of information. And we, I feel, as council members need to make decisions with the best information available. And tonight, I didn't feel like I had the best information available. And I feel also that it put a strain on the community that's already feeling a lot of effects with what's going on. And I don't think that that was necessary. So I just wanted to put that out there. Um, but I will be supporting the project. Thank you.

[04:20:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:20:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, I, too, am supportive of the Villa Street project, I think that that is fine. With respect to a couple questions about conditions. So I notice in the recommendation in number five, it's currently written that we're adding an alternative mitigation to allow the payment of in Loofies. I assume we would strike that if we wanted to include the units. Do we need to save something different or just strike that? Would the units just be required if we don't read that phrase?

[04:20:48] City Staff: I just want to confirm with planning, but the project condition is the requirement of units.

[04:20:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was reading the In the Findings report?

[04:21:07] City Staff: Correct, yeah, the conditions currently have the requiring of units on site. So I think if this was just struck, it would...

[04:21:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well, we can just make that super clear. Or I think whoever makes the motion can just make that super clear. I think the other things that I would say would be one, you know, I think where I would be out on this tonight is, you know, requiring the units on site, stating that the applicant is welcome to come back, if they with a modified condition proposal, if they wish, but I would just say a couple of things that I would expect associated with that. One would be that the applicant understands that we may deem the alternative mitigation to not be as valuable as the inclusionary units on site, and so we may not accept the condition, we might say, well, the condition is, we'll take the alternative mitigation plus, you know, some additional BMR contribution, if we feel it in working with staff that it isn't equivalent. And then the other thing that, just given the last minute nature of this, I know, It's put staff in a tough place in the community, frankly, and I would just say that if we're going to explore the alternative mitigation, instead of putting a time clock on it, I would just say that if the applicant desires to engage staff in exploring an alternative mitigation, then they should enter into an agreement with the city and reimburse them for staff time and expenses related to that evaluation. So that would be, rather than saying, it has to be within 90 days, or it has to be within 60 days, just say, you know, I think we've done this with certain other companies or applicants in the area. So I don't think this would be something we'd have to come up with from scratch, but I think, I think what I'd like to do is just, you know, approve the project tonight, with the units included on site, state publicly that we're open to the applicant proposing an alternative mitigation condition in the future, as long as, you know, they're willing to reimburse us for the basic staff time and other expenses related to that evaluation and knowing that we may decide that it is insufficient at the time, that we review it. So I'm happy to make that motion or at some point, but I'll wait to hear. I see there are other colleagues in the queue. So just make sure I'm not the only one before I make that motion.

[04:24:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'll just close, and I met with the applicant to discuss this project. And the reason we were asking questions earlier, I want to reiterate what council member McAllister said, I personally am not happy that there was misinformation out there that caused such consternation. among the residents. We really could have avoided all that. And I'm sorry that happened because it's certainly not our intention to have something like that, like that happened. And I think, as council member McAllister said, we're trying to figure out how to not have displacement. So we're not asking for any other reason other than we want to understand how that happens so that we can correct that going forward because it shouldn't have happened. I'm okay with the project. I had, what? A couple more questions, actually. The bike path that goes along shoreline. Or like undershoreline. So I saw that in the applicant's presentation with a dollar amount attached to it, but I don't remember seeing that in the staff report saying that that was part of the community benefits. Is it?

[04:25:17] City Staff: Correct. That's not part of the conditions of approval on the project. I think it was something that was discussed at one time in the project, but given other council direction on where to focus the community benefits on the staff side, that was off taken off the table.

[04:25:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, where folks? I don't know if the other council members are clear with that, but yeah, it's not. So the gatekeeper and council can determine what the community benefits are. And I believe the applicant thinks it's in there, so perhaps they would be willing to add it back in.

[04:25:53] Applicant Mr. Moss: Yeah, I would like to keep that in.

[04:25:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, I also ask about the roofs because they still are, um, kind of, um, not even sure what the right word is, but they're very noticeable. How about that? Um, and, um, I was thinking maybe, you know, I was originally thinking they need to be um, less slope. to make them not so prominent, but maybe just a color change or something to make them not stand out so much. They look very detached from the rest of the building from my perspective. So I'd be interested in changing the color if other council members are out for that. But my biggest concern is, um, I, I want to make sure that 660 Mariposa is preserved. And I'm concerned that we lose our leverage, if we or at least some of our leverage, if we approve the project tonight, I don't want to just leave it to everyone saying, yes, we'll do this. You know, I heard someone say, well, yeah, you know, we'll allow Prometheus to come back. No, we need to require them to come back if this is the route we're going to go or we don't approve the project until we've investigated 660 Mariposa to make sure it is preserved for the folks who are living there. I feel like I don't want to just leave this to chance. which is what I'm fearing, is the direction that most council members are going. So, I can't support it unless it's required that Prometheus comes back. And I don't know if I, I mean, I feel like if we put a timeline on it, that helps with the sense of urgency. But I feel like I can't support just they have the option to come back. They have to come back. And I guess to counsel them over McAllister's point, I'd also hope they come back with something that works because I think it is going to be very disappointing, not only for me, but for the residents who are living there, if this is not preserved as places where they can live. Council member Ramirez.

[04:28:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Question for you, Mayor. So are you suggesting a continuance or some other?

[04:28:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I would prefer a continuance.

[04:28:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay.

[04:28:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, because then I feel like we still have the maximum amount of leverage to make this work. And that is my objective.

[04:28:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I appreciate the clarification. That was just for my benefit. I had so I also support the 2 other recommendations you had mentioned regarding the bicycle facility and the color change. But I wanted to ask the applicant something that I had forgot to mention in my earlier comments. So when we spoke, whatever happens with 660 Mariposa, you had said you'd be interested in helping provide a connection between Chiquita and Mariposa. So would you be comfortable committing to that in the event that 660 is included as some part of this project?

[04:29:25] Applicant Representative Moss: Yeah, subsequent to that conversation with you, I spoke with Bridge and they're mutable to doing that. So, yes, we can do that. create that connection.

[04:29:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, thank you. appreciate that. This might be a longer conversation because I very much appreciate what the mayor is saying. So, uh, maybe I need to hear some of my colleagues comments 1st before I weigh in on that.

[04:29:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[04:29:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I was trying to take notes to try to come up with the motion, but in response to the mayor's comments, I do agree that, rather than saying we will allow the applicant to return. I do have an expectation that they do return. My challenge with doing a continuance is that if the project had stood alone, we probably would be approving it, as is with the inclusionary units. And so I don't necessarily want to, you know, delay the project, I don't think it's fair, given that the applicant brought this other proposal. And true, it could have probably happened earlier. I understand that. But, yeah, I just don't think in just fairness and process is fair for us to delay the project because of this alternative mitigation proposal. But I did want to put a timeline in of 100, my suggestion would be 120 days, so that'd be about October, that staff, we would direct staff to work with the applicant and bridge housing to come back in 120 days with a status and possible agreement for an alternative medication, that includes 660 Mariposa.

[04:31:24] Unknown Speaker: I would say we condition it, not direct staff.

[04:31:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I think that's the challenge is because we don't know the status of Mariposa and whether this is really feasible enough. I just don't think we could condition it on something that still needs to be studied. And the project. So, yeah, I guess I'm trying to find a best of both worlds scenario, but, um, in light of the project standing alone. You know, I just feel that we should move forward with the project, but somehow we can try to bring it back. Bring the alternative medication back to us. And I see Artie. So...

[04:32:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt the flow, but we just wanted to remind the council that if there is any linkage of Mariposa, which we can do, we would just need to take a quick look at the EIR and prepare an addendum so that we have reviewed the inclusion of that. And so that would be tough to do today tonight. So we would have to come back if it were a condition. and we can So the mayor's suggestion of holding it off at that point would be more appropriate if they needed to be certainty in the condition.

[04:32:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So can I just clarify, so if there's any mention of Mariposa in the conditions, we can't do that because we don't have the EIR.

[04:33:03] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah, we don't believe it's a huge EIR study. It just has to be an addendum that acknowledges that Mariposa, there might be some linkage between that in Mariposa. And so my understanding is if the project includes Mariposa, which it would, if it were a condition. We would need to do that.

[04:33:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I mean, I'll let others speak. Councilman McAllister?

[04:33:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 2 things that the mayor mentioned. So one, a sense of urgency, and I think a sense of urgency would be better served if we give it a deadline or a dead, a certain amount of days, not necessarily a continuance, because then we would get the staff and the applicant moving along further along. But when you were talking to the AR, I thought the planning zoning administrator mentioned that it could be concurrent, that you could do the EIR as we move forward along with the project. So did I misunderstand your comments?

[04:34:14] Unknown Speaker: No, you do need to adopt whatever sequel clearance is required, and then this case in EIR with the project. And the project that was evaluated under the EIR did not include this offsite provision.

[04:34:27] Councilmember John McAlister: But could it be a condition? I mean, we can approve the project in condition, on condition that the EIR supports...

[04:34:38] Unknown Speaker: No, it cannot include the offsite provision. So we just have to bring it back with an addendum. Go ahead.

[04:34:46] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: If the council's interested in mentioning Mariposa in any condition, we would need to make sure that the EIR includes that as a potential alternative mitigation. So the process to do that would be tonight the council would certify the EIR, not necessarily take a decision on the project, we would come back with the information and you can at that point add it as a condition if there is a deal that we can bring back to you. And then we would do an addendum to your certified EIR.

[04:35:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So if we approve the project with the inclusionary, on a condition that we would review the Mariposa.

[04:35:34] Unknown Speaker: If the council wants to approve the project tonight with inclusionary, that's all you would have. You could additionally, apart from the project, ask staff to work with the applicant. And the applicant at his choice can choose to bring this back. It's a separate, it's a separate. There's no way we can link it together. Tonight?

[04:35:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: No, but yes, we can link it if we can you certify the AIR tonight and we can bring it back as an addendum, adding the Mariposa, then you can link it with the condition.

[04:36:10] Unknown Speaker: Two basic options. You continue the item. with direction to explore this alternative, including the EAR work, or you approve it with the inclusionary units, as is, and the applicant, as they always have the right to do, can request a modification of their condition, with this new alternative, and the EIR analysis would be done as part of that process.

[04:36:34] Councilmember John McAlister: You just can't physically talk about Mariposa as a condition of this project. Is that correct?

[04:36:42] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, and procedurally, it would be easier, um, if you certified the EIR tonight, and then, if even if you wanted to add the condition later, so that we could bring it back as an addendum, you don't have to make a decision on the project.

[04:37:00] Councilmember John McAlister: This, okay, I don't. For some good reason, I don't feel that makes sense, but you procedurally. Mr. Moss, did you have a thought on this?

[04:37:11] Applicant Representative Moss: Of course. Yeah, I would just like to say that, you know, in the event that the council was to approve the project with the inclusionary zoning, I can formally commit here in public that we will bring the project back with an alternative mitigation measure for the evaluation of council in whatever time frame that you prefer. So that's a formal commitment on applicants part to do that. I don't know if that makes any difference, but it sounds to me like sequid with inclusionary zoning is absolutely fine from what I just heard. And separately if you were conditioning us to have to come back on the other one. Maybe that's problematic, but I can guarantee we will come back. So for whatever that's worth.

[04:37:50] Councilmember John McAlister: And would you have a timeline on when you come back to us?

[04:37:53] Applicant Representative Moss: Whatever timeframe the city actually has it, we'll go ahead and accommodate that time.

[04:37:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[04:37:59] Unknown Speaker: No less than 60 days, but yes.

[04:38:02] Councilmember John McAlister: The other question is, is this for who covers the cost of this additional EIR review?

[04:38:08] Unknown Speaker: That would be the applicant.

[04:38:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Are you accepting that app?

[04:38:11] Applicant Representative Moss: Yes, absolutely.

[04:38:13] Councilmember John McAlister: And so we can't put in our conditions that we accept the thing, with the occlusionary, that the applicant is willing, is going to pay for the additional review of the EIR to include Mariposa. Why can't we do that as a condition?

[04:38:26] Unknown Speaker: Because you've defined because the project's been defined, and we're changing the description of what the project is. And so we haven't done the environmental review based on that project description. We've...

[04:38:40] Councilmember John McAlister: You're going a little. Okay, but still, didn't we talk about alternative mitigations in other processes where that could be considered? I mean, didn't with council come back on another, you know, looking at parklands and so forth, that we've already had this discussion, that could be come back as part of a process.

[04:39:04] Unknown Speaker: If I could interject, the alternative mitigation for the BMR processes with the other projects didn't include offsite. It didn't include another property in another buildings. It always included an alternative mitigation on that property, or including fees. So the alternative mitigations usually were fees. And so that's why it's cash payments are not sequel related.

[04:39:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So there's another item that we need to readdress somewhere down the road though.

[04:39:39] Unknown Speaker: don't think we can change that. No, not tonight. No, ever. We can't change sheets. No, not sequel. You need to go to Sacramento to change sequin.

[04:39:47] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, I'm not changing sequence, but the part of offsite to be included in our alternative.

[04:39:52] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that's a part of the sequa? If they had proposed that earlier...

[04:39:56] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, I understand, but okay, that's a side note for later on. Okay, I'm going to listen to some other... However, we can work this that we move it forward and that there's a commitment from the applicant to do and bridge to get this moving forward with the additional units. I'll see what can where the council goes.

[04:40:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[04:40:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and I apologize for keeping jumping back in the queue. So maybe a question for Bridge that may, depending on the answer, address the concerns that we have about the certainty for 660. So, Brad, if you wouldn't mind. So if I understood correctly, you said that you were already planning to purchase this property prior to the discussion about tying the Villa Street to 660 Mariposa. So if we decide to proceed to entitle Villa Street with inclusionary, are you still going to buy the property and will you still do substantially the same thing, but perhaps with a city subsidy as the difference?

[04:41:09] Brad (Bridge Housing): Yeah, we would proceed with our evaluation of the building, as we had planned, to, um, ideally, you know, find the results we need, the capital stack and proceed with the program that we've talked about tonight.

[04:41:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and you were pretty optimistic.

[04:41:26] Brad (Bridge Housing): I can't commit to buying the building because I haven't been in it and seen it, but yes, of course. And we're committed to come back in 60, 90 days, as the council would like.

[04:41:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I don't know if that helps, but it sounds like if they may already be planning to purchase the building regardless of the decision we make. So assuming the due diligence works out. So you don't need the 10.9 million.

[04:41:52] Brad (Bridge Housing): We absolutely need the 10-12.9 million.

[04:41:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So if we do 15% inclusionary, you don't get the 10.9 million.

[04:42:01] Brad (Bridge Housing): But that's the alternative scenario that we're trying to.

[04:42:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Were you planning on the 10.900000 in lieu fees when you were bidding on the property?

[04:42:13] Brad (Bridge Housing): The ideas that we brought to city staff were a, that the city would invest, something in it, and that we would, we were working through that strategy.

[04:42:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so you were similar sort of deal, but maybe counting on a different source of funds. Okay. That's fair. Thank you.

[04:42:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[04:42:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: If the EIR is certified tonight, the remainder of the item is continued to a time and date certain, does an amended EI, does an amendment to the AIR? Have to go to the planning commission, or can we just say it comes straight back to us?

[04:42:57] Unknown Speaker: via the continuance.

[04:43:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, I just want to make sure we... If we do continue, that we don't start the an EPC thing.

[04:43:07] Unknown Speaker: No, the addendum could come straight to council with the project.

[04:43:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:43:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, here's a interesting question. There's another word for it, but I'll go with interesting. If we do not approve the EIR tonight, or the sequel findings, then the project doesn't go forward. Or can we approve everything else but the sequa? So the sequence is the principle thing?

[04:43:37] Unknown Speaker: You always have to approve the sequel, which is why it's always first.

[04:43:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and that's what I was at. I just want it clear. Okay. And if we didn't and if we didn't approve it, then two, three, four, five, 6 don't happen.

[04:43:48] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[04:43:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[04:43:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions or comments from council members? Council member Kame.

[04:44:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I mean, I think this goes back to why I gave the comments I did when earlier, is now that it's become very complicated, because we don't have the information. And so, um, I think that the conversation direction that we're going makes... There's a lot of verbal, um, commitment, but, um, I feel like similar to what the mayor said, the continuance seems like that's the most sure way to have some type of control. And so I think that's where you're hearing... I see you're shaking your head. I think this is where you're seeing the conversation, is that's what we're struggling with right now. And so, um, you know, I think if it was just, as for the mice mayor said, if it was just Villa Street, it would be approved. Um, and so that, for me, is also the point that's hard. It's a gatekeeper. It's made all these changes. you know, I listed the things that I support in it. But because, you know, of the things that I mentioned when I 1st spoke, we're in this kind of, I feel a bit of a pickle. trying to figure out how we can make sure that our community is protected. while also making sure we, you know, we get the best outcome for residents. So I know that that's not necessarily pointing us towards emotion. But that's kind of where I am, and that's what I'm struggling with, and I don't know what type of changes we can make. to, um, to, to ensure that we can kind of move the project forward while also looking into, um, the viability of 660 Mariposa.

[04:45:58] Unknown Speaker: So I think, where I was heading is we do number one, which is adopt the resolution certifying the EIR, but not the other parts of the motion. So it's just that 1st one, right? And then we direct staff and the applicant to and bridge to work together to, and if folks want a timeline on it, I'm fine with that. 120 days, because basically we won't have meetings. Well, I mean, less than 120 days, we have a break. But to come back with the details and how this project could work. 4 660 Mariposa. That would be the motion that I could support. Is that everything that needs to go in it? Plus the additional conditions, but we could talk about that, because we're not approving the project, and just continue the project.

[04:47:05] Unknown Speaker: Right, so there wouldn't be a condition because you're not, you would be not taking an action on the actual project, just the EIR.

[04:47:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So actually, I'll make that motion. Except I can't, there's no button to push. Council member Hicks.

[04:47:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I could support it moving in that direction. This would be certifying the ERR and then a continuance. It's the only caveat, I believe the motion you made includes 120 days is...

[04:47:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Whatever number makes sense. I'm open to whatever.

[04:47:44] City Manager Dan Rich: I would just ask that you provide some flexibility. I think we understand the intent, but we don't know until we get all these answered questions answered, and the AR is done, and financial analysis, and deal points are discussed. So, you know, that will certainly be our goal, but as you know, we have many other things on our work plan. And we just don't know how long it will take, but certainly the intent would be to bring it back in a timely manner.

[04:48:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think I want the sort of sense of urgency to work this out, but I totally understand that it might be 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, something more. It just depends on how quickly we can get through this. Council member McAllister.

[04:48:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So the way I understand this, the only way to guarantee that Mariposa is reviewed or included as consideration is to continue it. Otherwise, if we approve the project, then things could change on the path of Prometheus, and they may not come back.

[04:48:49] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[04:48:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Mr. Moss?

[04:49:00] Mr. Moss (Prometheus): Just to summarize, had we Prometheus not come up with this other creative alternative mitigation measure, I believe, tonight, from what I'm hearing, we would have inclusionary zoning, and the property, from what I can tell, looks like it would probably get approved, now that we've come up with a creative solution here, which I'm happy to withdraw, and I'm committing, as a company who's been doing business and investing 100s and 100s and 100s of 1000000s of dollars, and you're in your city, over a 35 year period, that we will come back. Absolutely, after going through discussions with our residents, the community and staff. Um, I would just really like to ask if at all, um, if there's any reason to be holding back in light of that context in those circumstances where had I not come up, we, Prometheus, with a creative alternative, we would be approved tonight, which is all I'm asking for, with the inclusionary zoning. And I'm guarantee you on our word, after doing business, we will come back with this alternative mitigation. I just would really appreciate if that could be given some consideration.

[04:50:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, Mr. Moss, let's ask the next question then. If you're willing to conditional approve this project and come back in 120 days, What's the difference of then going continuing this project for 120 days?

[04:50:22] Mr. Moss (Prometheus): Still the project wouldn't go forward. Because it would be quite honest, anything in the 120 days, I will come back. And if it's only conditioned on me coming back, and that's it, and the project is absolutely approved, no matter what, as long as I come back with a reasonable plan, I would be fine with that, but as we all know, in the next 120 days, anything could happen in the world, and the council could go ahead and decide, no, we don't want this project for whatever reasons. And I've got a lot of investors putting a lot of money in, that are trying to make a decision as to whether they want to move forward with this project or not, and to wait another 4 months or what I'm hearing that could be even longer than that, when the whole economic world, everything can change. makes it very difficult to plan a project. And as I said at the beginning, we're 4 years into this. We had an underpass that delayed us for a year after 2 years of study. There's a lot of issues. We're making a commitment to you. We had a project that was approvable with a, you know, without the offsite mitigation, everybody seems to be enthralled by exploring that further, so are we. And we do have an incentive to do that. That's why we brought up that option. I really do, you know, I take our commitments seriously, and we've done business for as many years as we have and probably invested over a $1000000000 in the city. So I don't think that that is to be taken lightly, hopefully. So just as for your courtesy as it relates to that. The project could stop in the next 120 days, 180 days because the world could change right now. I've got... My project may stop. Well, my investors, not bridge. My investors may, I'm talking about the villa project. Things happen and I've been around long enough to know that, you know, recently, things happen economically and otherwise, it can change things. So I'd really like to get the project approved and have our project plans finished by our architects and engineers. Time kills all deals, and that's a long thing in real estate and time can very easily on this one.

[04:52:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Mr. Moss.

[04:52:15] Mr. Moss (Prometheus): Thank you.

[04:52:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[04:52:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I think this is a difficult decision. And what I do appreciate is I think this council's very strong commitment to preventing the displacement of the tenants at 660, regardless of the direction that we end up going, I think the clear intention here is to protect the existing tenants and to come up with an affordable housing package that is in the best interest of the city. So having said that, right now, I'm inclined to go with, I think what the city manager had described and what the vice mayor had echoed, where we conditionally entitle the project with the inclusionary units. We could come back and whatever amount of time makes sense, hopefully with a fleshed out deal, that, you know, incorporates all of the input that you've heard here. So anti-displacement, retaining the existing tenants. You know, I trust staff to identify whatever parameters make the most sense for the city. It may be deeper levels of affordability. I'm not really sure, but that's where I'm inclined to go right now. I don't, you know, I don't disagree with your intention. I think it's a really good one. And I think right now, you know, especially knowing that bridge is, I think, still intending to pursue the acquisition of the property, even if an agreement doesn't work out, I think I think we could direct staff also explore, continuing to work with bridge, and maybe identify other funding sources that would allow for the acquisition of the property and, you know, achieving the objectives that we've stated here. I'm perfectly comfortable exploring a city subsidy if it makes it work. And then, you know, the advantage too is if it does work, we get the 33 inclusion area plus the 48 units that 660 Mariposa in perpetuity with a reputable nonprofit. So that's I'm not sure I could support this motion. I appreciate the intent, and I think we're all trying to achieve the same thing, and we're just struggling to figure out what procedurally makes the most sense. How much money do we have in the BMR? Like, would we have 10.900000 without a contribution from this project?

[04:54:48] Unknown Speaker: I think Mr. Wayne Chen's going to come help with that.

[04:54:55] Wayne Chen: Evening, Wayne Chen, we have about $41 million in our affordable housing fund, we are estimating we'll have about 51 million by the end of the fiscal year. That's the current estimate that we have now.

[04:55:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And how much of that is committed to other projects?

[04:55:12] Wayne Chen: So those are uncommitted files currently.

[04:55:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice mayor, Abi Coco.

[04:55:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And I appreciate Council member Ramirez's comments. They're in line with my thoughts. I guess that's where we've been discussing this, the more and more I've been thinking. Um, Regardless, it sounds like regardless of this project. There is this potential to preserve 660 and that's why to me, I think it makes more sense to just separate the 2 out. And like you said, in a, you know, best case scenario, we could get the inclusionary units in Mariposa. So, um, I still feel comfortable, um, going ahead and approving the project, but then directing staff to work with the applicant on this alternative mitigation. I've just put a timeline there and we can do it 90 days just so that we have some kind of, you know, follow-up coming back to us and a decision point because I don't want this to, frankly, drag on. And so, you know, to me, that seems like the best case scenario. The applicant has had many projects in the city. I think they have a few more in the city. So reputation is important. And, you know, I'm going to hold them to it. They know I will. So, you know, I think, and then as I mentioned, I think Bridges, and a potentially a good partner and so, yeah, I think we should just move forward in that way. So I won't be supporting this motion.

[04:57:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Well, got remember Hicks.

[04:57:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Because I said I could support the mayor's motion, I want to say that I could also support the direction it's moving in now.

[04:57:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, since there's no second? I will withdraw the motion. Counsel member Clark?

[04:57:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um... Okay, so I will attempt this. I will move that we adopt a resolution certified in the 1696 dash 1758 Pilla Street residential project, final environmental impact report, sequel findings, and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program, to be read entitled only for the read and waived, 2 that we adopt a resolution approving a general map amendment for the properties located at 1696 1758. Villa Street, from medium density, residential, and low density residential to high density residential, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. 3 that we introduce an ordinance approving, a zoning map amendment, for the properties located at 1696 1758 Villa Street, from the R3-2 Multiple Family Residential, and R1 single-family residential districts to the P 17 Villa Mariposa precise plan, to be read in title only for the reading waived, instead the 2nd reading for June 11, 2019, for adopt a resolution approving. An amendment to the P17 Villa Mariposa precise plan for the properties located at 1696. Dash 1758 Villa Street, to be read entitled only further redeem waived, 5 this will differ slightly from what's in the slides, adopt a resolution conditionally approving a planning community permit and development review permit to construct a 2206 unit apartment complex with 2 levels of below grade parking dedicate up 0.40 acre public park. a heritage tree removal permit to remove 26 heritage trees, and just to make it very clear that there will be the 15% BMR units on site and not approving an alternative mitigation for the payment of in-luvies. Six that we adopt a resolution conditionally approving a parcel map to create 2 lots at 1696 1758 Villa Street, to be read entitled only further reading waived, that we include a condition that the mayor had talked about earlier about, I believe there's a bicycle amenity in the backside. I can't remember exactly what it was, but does anyone have that?

[04:59:55] Unknown Speaker: It's the bike path that goes Dan Villa along shoreline and undershoreline to the Vivlin.

[05:00:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: So just noting that that should be included, that we also include a, as we've noted tonight, we fully expect, and I have no doubt that the vice mayor and others will hold the applicant responsible for their commitment made here tonight to return to us with an alternative mitigation condition. And I just want to make it very clear that we, and that there should be, I'd also add a condition tonight, that if we're not going to delay, if we're not going to continue this item, that the applicant be conditioned to enter into an agreement with the city for reimbursement for staff time and any other expenses related to the evaluation of that alternative mitigation condition. And that, um... There was one other, do we want to, with the reimbursement for the staff time, do we, do we want to set a timeline, or do we want to leave it? we even put that in there? Because it's up to them to return.

[05:01:21] Unknown Speaker: And I do want to point that this is a cost recovery project. We're not trying to make money off of this. on a time basis.

[05:01:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, just like we do with other, I think we have in the past with Google and others.

[05:01:34] Unknown Speaker: But we can't put a condition in there that they will pay us time for investigating the alternative because the alternative is city Mariposa, and we can't refer to that. And they will automatically be billed for any staff time spent on the project and any.

[05:01:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, including an alternative or a sequel amendment or anything? Okay, well, and that's the case, then that's fine. As long as that's clear and that's standard practice for us, that's fine. And then I think I already added the condition for the bike. Well, I don't think I can make that condition, but I'll just restate that Mr. Moss or the applicant had sort of publicly stated that bridge would be open to committing to preserving a path, the path that council member Ramirez had spoken about earlier. So I think... And I had mentioned that taking a look at the color of the roofs, to make them less prominent. As we have with other items, can we just ask staff to work through the end of, you know, as you get toward the permitting phase, just work with the applicant to see if it's possible to reduce the visual, what is it, visual impacts of the roofs or something?

[05:03:00] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, exactly. Okay, that can be part of the condition and we'll work with them prior to building permit. We can add that to condition of approval number 10, which is building design modifications.

[05:03:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so it wouldn't be structural modification or anything like that. It would just be colors and...

[05:03:16] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[05:03:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member. Oh, sorry. Council member Ramirez.

[05:03:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The vice mayor beat beat to it, but I was going to second the motion. But so just to be clear when so when this comes back to us, staff will make some kind of determination about whether this is a suitable alternative mitigation based on the definition that we have, right? So there'll be some comparison with inclusionary and a determination about whether this is an acceptable alternative mitigation.

[05:03:47] Unknown Speaker: Well, actually under the alternative mitigation, the burden's on the developer to show that to you. And we would provide some analysis and bring that back to you.

[05:03:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, got it, thank you. And I just want to clarify while I have the microphone. Did you make that a condition or you're just directing staff independently of the project approval that the applicant?

[05:04:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Yeah, it was staff direction.

[05:04:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I just, just for the audience's benefit, if, you know, I think we're all in agreement that, you know, we want to, we're committed tonight to doing everything possible to preserving your property, your tencies, ensuring that you aren't evicted because of development here. And I think if any sort of redevelopment of your property were proposed, I have no doubt that all of you and many more would show up at every single one of these hearings over the course of a couple of years and make it exceedingly, um, um, not unpleasant to go through that process. So in addition to us sort of working to do our best to ensure that displacement is minimized. I appreciate you all coming out and forced tonight and making your voices heard.

[05:05:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[05:05:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. With the changes made, I'll support this motion. Um, and fully expect that this is coming back, um, and to the community, I am so grateful that you are here, um, sharing with us your stories and helping us make the best decision for our city. And I think that hopefully, I feel cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to achieve that.

[05:05:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:05:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm disappointed that we couldn't do more. This process has great potential, but that the uncertainty is not what I wanted. I wanted to make sure. I was hoping that we walked out of here, knowing that 48 homes were going to be protected and save in perpetuity tonight and that the, this, if the applicant chooses, he may not come back. I mean, as he said, a lot can happen in 120 days, and he said it themselves, so... Yeah, I'm just disappointed and we didn't get a better outcome for the residents that came. And I know someone mentioned we have other projects in the works and We have long memories around here that that hopefully this project comes back. You know, I'm sort of torn about saying, well, maybe she would, maybe we should look at the, uh, the inclusion area instead of 33 units, maybe we've come back and say, wait, maybe should we go more units and say, 48, give them incentive to come back for, say, hey, Mariposa might be a better deal. Let's just guarantee them. But that's or even decided. So I'm not going to go down that path, but it's something to think about. I am. What's the, I don't know, we'll just say, you know, I'll support the, I'll vote for it, but What's with prejudice, I guess, is the phrase, with prejudice. Are the 15% inclusionary units affordable for 55 years or in perpetuity?

[05:07:24] Unknown Speaker: 55 years. I believe the BMR changes that are going to be brought to you soon will recommend in perpetuity, but the current rule is 55 years.

[05:07:36] Councilmember John McAlister: But as you said, this is a gatekeeper. Can we ask for it in perpetuity?

[05:07:54] Unknown Speaker: I'm looking to planning, but the attorney and I believe, as a gatekeeper, you could request that.

[05:08:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So, as I often hear from developers, they always say they want certainty. Well, so do we. And I would feel much more comfortable if we had more certainty over being able to preserve 660 Mariposa. Um, but, um, as the vice mayor said. You know, we know where you are. And you'll have other projects. And I certainly, you know, certainly would feel more comfortable, but I guess I'll reluctantly support this or cautiously support it. if we can change it to in perpetuity.

[05:08:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Oh, accept that if the 2nd or the motion will. So just to make it exceedingly care. So that's just accepting the or requiring the units on site, but that they remain in BMR status and perpetuity instead of just for 55 years.

[05:09:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion from Council member Clark and a 2nd by the vice mayor. I'll call the question. That passes unanimously. Okay, we, if you guys don't mind. I'd love to take a quick break. Oh, shoot, it's after 10 o'clock, yes. I have to make a motion to continue. past 10 o'clock. All those in favor, if you could raise your hand. Okay, but if we could, um, take a quick break, come back at 10:30.

[05:10:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Turn on microphone. We will resume the meeting, and the next item on the agenda is item 7.one, the automated guideway transit phase 2 feasibility study, and... We'll start with the staff presentation. And if you could also introduce yourselves.

[05:10:21] Project Manager Jim Lightbody: Sure. Thank you. Jim Lightbody, uh, project manager and, uh, Don Cameron, Assistant Public Works director. I'm gonna give you a brief background and overview on this proposed project. As you probably remember, the AGT automated guideway transit study feasibility study was conducted at the request of the council in 2016, 2017, and a report was brought back to council and approved in February 2018. The focus of that study was to look at a variety of technology options in terms of automated transit systems that might work to help move people from the downtown Caltrain station to North Bay Shore as a representative alignment system that could potentially be developed in the future and expanded. At the February 2018, The council directed staff then to develop a work program for a phase 2 study that would build on the results of the 1st study and to seek funding partners for that study, and we're, we can report on those today. Just to review the feasibility study, look primarily, as I said, at technology options for automated transit systems, and use the estimate of ridership that was demand that was needed to serve people going from the train station to North Bay Shore, and develop some alternatives, alignments that could serve that. But the focus was really on the technology, options that would work. And was recommended from that to focus on what we're referring to as autonomous transit technology that would operate or could operate on a either an elevated guideway or a dedicated alignment in city streets, but in any case, it would be operated in an exclusive guide way. with automatic automated vehicle technology. Since then, in the last couple of years, we've followed the development of the technology, and what we've noted is that there continues to be development, in terms of autonomous transit, mostly pilot projects, smaller local shuttles that have developed around the country and are being tested, as the technology evolves. Some investment in larger vehicles, which is one thing we were looking at. Also, there's been advancement in terms of regulatory approval, but there still is a long way to go in getting final rakes and rules in place for autonomous vehicles. Autonomous transit does appear to have some advantages over broad scale autonomous vehicle deployment, though, in terms of the way the regulatory development is occurring. I also wanted to point out that most of these pilot projects are focusing on local circulation types of systems, but the city of Jacksonville is one location that is looking at dedicated guideways and converting an elevated guideway that they do already have to autonomous vehicles. So that we've kind of thought is they're kind of a model for what we might be talking about here. So we're following, what they're doing pretty closely. In terms of the scope of work. Since we've looked at the technology options fairly thoroughly in the 1st phase, the 2nd phase, we would intend to focus on the alignment options, whether it would be elevated or at grade, what routes it would take, how it would interact with the community and so forth. So we focus on the actual guideway alignment, and then what supporting infrastructure, other infrastructure needs that might be also required, such as a place to store vehicles or maintain the vehicles. In addition, we do additional community and stakeholder outreach, and look at the funding and cost of the different strategies. Again, this isn't intended to be the final answer, but it would advance our knowledge of the alignments and how it would affect or impact the community and what might be feasible in the area. We've identified in the staff report. We identified some representative alignment alternatives that we'd look at, basically, the main routes through North Bay Shore, the Moffat area, Moffat Boulevard, and Shoreline into downtown. There might be other alignments we'd look at, but we would intend to look at these and various segments and combinations to see what makes the most sense. And where stations might be. These are just kind of representative starting point for the study. But it would involve more detail of where this type of system might work best and how to fit into the environment that's there. In terms of the funding, We're estimating the project would cost about $850,000. We've been able to get some commitments, as you saw in the letters attached from the TMA and from Google, and the remaining funds would be programmed in the proposed CIP that you'll see in a couple of weeks. So these are recommendations would be to approve the scope of work and to authorize the funding agreements so that the project could go forward. That's it. Thank you.

[05:16:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[05:16:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I guess I'm trying to understand the technology better and looking at the alignment options. Um, you know, my my thought is in light of the, um, transit only, um, the path, what do we call it, the road that we're doing on shoreline, like over, yes, reversible bus lane. I couldn't we potentially just convert that in time to an AGT?

[05:17:20] Project Manager Jim Lightbody: Certainly that would be an option. We'd be looking at is where we could use at grade dedicated lanes, but in some cases, because of obstacles crossing freeways or expressways or other things that may need to be an elevated system. So that would be the study would explore those different ideas and see what made sense. If you do run at grade, you do have some issues with cross traffic and so forth. So, you know, the best, from a transit perspective, the best would be a completely separated guideway, obviously.

[05:17:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, okay. And then my, I guess my big concern, and I stated it before when we looked at the phase one study, is, frankly, the cost of this. And, um, I think I told the story about how several of us went to Washington, DC and spoke with staff from the DOT. They thought it was a $1000000000 project. And knowing how, you know, how much like the bus rapid transit project for VTA, that ran, I think 5 cities was originally $540000000 and I think I saw the price tag for this around that amount. And so I guess I'm just really, um, Questioning the feasibility in terms of just being able to fund this. So do you have ideas of how we could get this funded because honestly, I didn't get the sense that we were going to get federal dollars for this, at least not in the near future.

[05:19:04] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: We don't have any firm answers on how to raise what could easily be, as you're saying, 500 million to a billion dollars. But we do know that, and we've seen this historically, that when you define a need and define a project, you then start creating those opportunities to look for funding strategies. And we are proposing as part of the scope that we will highlight different implementation strategies and avenues that we would like to pursue. For instance, we know the federal government has been looking into possibly demonstration and pilot projects. Granted, they don't give very much money these days, but it's all a matter of combining different funding packages. There may be a phase implementation approach, where we initially start with more at grade options, where we're already building dedicated transit lanes, for instance, the shoreline reversible lane, but we hold out for over time, we could build more and more of the elevated or separated structures, but we can get something going in an incremental phase and just build on over time. So there are different possibilities out there that can take smaller chunks.

[05:20:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so, yeah, if we can make it smaller, I think there might be possibility, but just in all frankness with the conversations I've had. I'm just doubtful that a city could get a $1000000000 from anyone to build a system. So that was my question, do we need to partner with VTA and make it a regional project? Like, what are really the realistic possibilities of getting this funded? So, I guess a sense of being a commentary, but that's really my concern. Thanks.

[05:20:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[05:20:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I asked the 3rd question in the Q and A here and I just wanted to delve into that a little bit. So, you know, in my mind, So I can understand dedications of land from redevelopment for things like bike lanes, which are very clearly defined, but I'm struggling to understand how we can use that concept or that mechanism to acquire land for a speculative technology. So I'm hoping you could help me understand. So could we do something like, even for a project that is fully compliant with our zoning regulations, could we have a dedication for a transit system that we having defined and that is totally speculative?

[05:21:42] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Okay. You know, if if the council approves moving forward the phase 2 study and it results in a preferred alignment that then we start putting in our planning documents and so on that, this is where we'd like to see it go. And through these different mechanisms I've discussed here of community benefits, or, you know, it's, you know, 1st off, we're going to evaluate how much right away would we really need? How much of this could we fit in existing right away? If you're dealing with an elevated structure and you do need room in a median, you might need a little lane room, but, you know, what are we really going to need? So some of it could be, you know, slivers of land like we're doing with the reversible transit lane, and some of it could be more comprehensive. We don't know the answer to that yet. This is where maybe the city attorney may have to jump in, but if we do, you know, end up receiving this right away for transportation purposes. And even if the AGT system doesn't fully get built, there are other transportation options we always have for improving our roadway systems of more improvements for bikes, peds, or even a transit lane that's used by more traditional buses and so on. I don't think when we receive this right away, we're absolutely can only use it for this single purpose. We could choose to use it for a different transportation purpose.

[05:23:07] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I think that we would probably specify when we obtain it, that we're going to use it for transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, the AGT, so that we'd have a broad purpose.

[05:23:17] Unknown Speaker: Exactly.

[05:23:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So that's new information for me. So when we do land dedications or have these kinds of requirements imposed on development, we don't have to be explicit in why we are requiring that dedication of land.

[05:23:36] City Staff: I think we just have to be thoughtful in how we it's going to depend on how we acquire the property. right? So even in eminent domain, if you take it for a public purpose, but then years later, you use it for a different public purpose, you're still able to keep the land. So we'd have to really look at, before we're thinking about how we, um, is it related to a development impact, you know, that's one thing that we have to, that could be a bit trickier because we're going to have to make sure that that is, if we obtain the land that way through dedication, that might be a little harder to do. But I think, generally speaking, when we have easements, we talk about for utility purposes, and we aren't specific about whether it's a, you know, cable or telephone or those type of things. So it depends on the manner in which we acquire the property and the rationale for how we acquire it. If we buy it. That's it, we can do with it, whatever we want to do with it. So it'll depend on those factors.

[05:24:33] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. And then the last question. So, I know there's kind of a chicken and egg component to this, the right away and what the alignment will look like depends on the technology and to some extent we can't really pick a technology until we know the right away and those implications. So, um, Can you help me sort of understand how we proceed with this feasibility study in a way that is agnostic on the technology that we ultimately employ?

[05:25:10] City Staff: We're, you know, we did, the council did uh, give us direction to explore the autonomous vehicle option, which, you know, would be smaller vehicles, but operating on a dedicated, kind of like a small version of bus rapid transit, you might say, with but with the ability to operate very frequently. That technology is being developed and their examples of that starting to occur. What that does is that gives us a sense of what the size of the guideway that we need, or the dedicated lanes, and we could plan around that. Now, that could mean, you know, by the time something was actually built, there might be variations on that technology or other things that could use that same sort of space that we're talking about. So we're not with this study, we're not building anything, we're trying to identify what requirements we need for the guideway itself and for stations and things like that.

[05:26:15] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's helpful. But so just for my benefit, I'm trying to visualize this guide way. It sounds like what I'm what I'm visualizing is basically a roadway that may be at grade or sort of an overpass or something like that. It's like it's basically a road that we're constructing.

[05:26:33] City Staff: You could put in those terms, we're hoping that it can be designed as small as possible, so it's not as, you know, it doesn't have to have all the features that you'd have, say, in a freeway overpass or something. It could be more, and that's part of what the study would do would be to look at the structural requirements and all to see how it could be designed to fit in with the community.

[05:26:56] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[05:26:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:27:02] Councilmember John McAlister: So we go forward, we're going forward with this right away is always the probably the most important thing to try to determine. And then, as you said, we could usually go put whatever technology in that fits that right away.

[05:27:19] City Staff: Yes.

[05:27:20] Councilmember John McAlister: And most right away, what I've seen being developed and a lot of new technologies coming through the Europe and so forth, there's a single road. I mean, if you use the center of the road elevated, you don't really need to require that much right away because you already have the public space.

[05:27:39] City Staff: That is a possibility if you have a good median already in place. Many of our roads, we will find that we may not already have a median that's large enough. And you do need to have room for the columns for an elevated structure and so on. So, we still may, similar, again, to the reversible transit lane, where, yes, there was an existing median, but still needed additional right away to, you know, fully build out that lane, as well as, I think that right away was also, so we could make protected bike way improvements and so on. But you are correct. There may be opportunities to kind of make double use of the same right away.

[05:28:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Isn't, uh, I've been seeing that where technology is actually, so bringing down some of the costs, because you're not, if you don't go with fixed rail, you reduce the costs tremendously. That if you put the guideway, you could still use a rubberized vehicle that could come on and off and make it multidirectional. So, when we hear these big numbers, were those based on a fixed rail or

[05:28:46] City Staff: I don't recall this hearing a $1000000000, but so... No, it really was more, I think, in the earlier study, we looked at kind of a range on a per mile cost, which would vary between different types of structures, and whether it was a single line or a double line, you know, things like that. So I think, I forget the exact range, but I believe it was 7 or 8000000 per mile, and then it would depend on how many miles you want to build. So, yeah, in theory, you could get it up to a large number, but it may be that for a system here, we may only need 2 or 3 miles.

[05:29:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So it'd be nice. Well, how far yeah, well, how far are we going from here to North Bay Shores?

[05:29:29] City Staff: It's about 3 miles.

[05:29:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Three miles. Yeah. Okay. And aren't we also, we recently passed transportation measured so that we would get funding for transportation costs like that. I mean, revenue, the measure.

[05:29:43] City Staff: Are you referring to measure P that the city passed? Yes, that will bring in some funding, but and that funding could be advantageous as matching to try to bring in other sources of funding. But, um, as I recall, that was looking at about 6 million a year. So it's not enough to kind of fully build out a system like this.

[05:30:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Okay. Well, I know we have a couple of partners in the North Bay Shore that are, they're participating in the study right now. So, uh, And then there's the transportation from the county and the potential other resources. So $100000000 to go a mile seems, I know VTA light rail was 400000000 to go 2 miles, so that's 200000000 and that's with all the infrastructures. But if you put something that's not with aerial, so if it's on the tire or battery operator, which the new technology's coming, where it's, they can come up to a bus stop or took a stop and charge and so forth like that, Was that considered in our cost? So the biggest cost is just the aerial or the right of way then acquisition.

[05:30:57] City Staff: I think the assumption was the structure, because the structure, you know, even if you have a lightweight vehicle, still has to support itself. So there's a certain in California, they've got earthquake standards and things. So there's a certain base that you have, if you have an elevated structure, would obviously be less if you could do it at grade.

[05:31:17] Councilmember John McAlister: I agree.

[05:31:18] City Staff: So, yeah, but that's where we wanted to look at options.

[05:31:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So you will be looking at grade or elevated. Okay. Thank you.

[05:31:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[05:31:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So can anyone tell me how much you can bring in with the approximately 6000000 a year from measure P, how much you can bring in with bonding it? Does anyone know that?

[05:31:45] City Staff: I don't recall offhand. I know we talked about that at the time and I... For some reason, I feel like it was around 30 million was a number, but we would have to go back and check our records on that.

[05:32:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions? Okay, we will open this up for public comment. So be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And you can have 3 minutes.

[05:32:13] Public Speaker: It's too many minutes. Hey, I want to speak in strong support of this. I think that having good public trans options, especially North Bajore, is going to be great. Not just now, but especially when we have more people there. I do think that using the reversible bus lane as a right away for the new cars is optimistic. I don't think people aren't going to block it during concert traffic. I'm already very wary of that. You guys are building it out. I'd love to see, you know, elevated guideways, just to be able to get out of North Bay Shore or into it more regularly, not having to plan around the bus schedule or walk down to Castro, which is sometimes faster. Thanks.

[05:33:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back for to council for discussion. Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[05:33:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I was hoping someone else would start it off, but, um, so, um, I think, you know, folks can see where from my questions and comments, I really find the challenge to this is the cost. And, um, and there's a lot to be defined, which I can understand the study would help perhaps, but... I guess I'm just, um, I, I didn't come back feeling positive about our possibilities of funding a five. even if it's 3 to $500000000 projects. I just, you know, from my VTA days, you know, Bart to San Jose was a $2000000000 project and that took 25 years. Yeah, as I mentioned, BRT is $540000000 over 5 cities. And so I just, I guess I'm, you know, to be honest, very skeptical that one city, like 80,000 people can find a way to raise $500 million. And so, um, I, I'm trying to weigh this, um, in comparison to the many other projects we have, um, you know, I want to be mindful of staff and and I know that the, there are some questions asked about what would be other projects that we could do and where could the money be used and, you know, staff said and there really isn't anything. But, um, but then I also, you know, we've heard often that stuff has a lot going on and, um, I'm sure staff would appreciate a lighter load. And so it really becomes a question to me of, um, timing and, you know, the importance or the priority of doing this today as opposed to maybe a year's time or when the staff feels a little less overburdened. And I also am concerned about the cost of the study, and I know the mayor and I had mentioned our concern with a $1000000 study on something that I think we just have a lot of questions of about if this really is going to be, you know, feasible to build or not. And I appreciate that we've had a few willing partners. So I get my, I guess that, you know, I, I, because of those, these concerns, I'm inclined to say maybe we just wait a little longer. It's not the top priority for me, to be honest, at this time. Um, just to, you know, lighten Mike's load of it, of one less project to oversee this year. I mean, I'm, you know, I think we're at that point where we really have to look at it that way. And so, yeah, I'm not really inclined to move forward with this evening.

[05:36:34] Unknown Speaker: If we wanted to scope it smaller, and to be honest, like, I really want to know how we're gonna fund this. And if you can come, like looking at, you know, the list of who you've talked to. There's a lot of what ifs still, and I would like that to be more fleshed out further before we spend, frankly, more money on a project that if we can't find the funding for. It's gonna sit on the shelf for maybe past my lifetime. So, yeah, I'd be willing to scope it's smaller to answer those questions 1st before we move forward with alignment and right away and whatnot. Because, yeah, at the end of the day, I really just need to know how we're going to fund this project. And if we can't do that, then I think we can just maybe wait another year or 2 before we move forward. Thanks.

[05:37:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[05:37:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm going to make a motion on this one and in a comment. So I make you an emotion that we approve the scope of the word for the automated guideway transit, ATT phase 2 feasibility study, authorize the city manager, execute agreements with the Mount View Transportation Management Association, Google to provide funding for the AGT phase 2 feasibility study. The reason I'm making the motion, but next to housing, transportation is constantly brought up among the residents of the city, and we're tonsantly talking about the shuttles coming downtown and getting around. And here's an opportunity to tie 2 areas together of potential high growth and make the city a little more complete and provide a service that is constantly being requested. And we have to do the study. We're not committing ourselves to any technology, we are just trying to determine what routes would be feasible, where would they go, and then based on the route, then the technology would help us determine. Even if it's for stinton at grade, We still need to have that study and to say delay it for a year or so is does not make sense because there is a need. We have the funding. There is an urgency to try to determine what's the best way to move our people around. And potential funding will come down the way. And if we say no, let's not do something, we'll never have the answers, and we need to explore any possibility to take a system to try to integrate the cities. I am going to be in Jacksonville actually in July. for the APTA meeting, and it will be And the one reason I asked to go to that particular meeting is to see Jacksonville, and how are they taking a guideway that was rail and converting into bus and tires? And there are a lot of options that are going out. The VTA recently had a board meeting where we looked at new technology. And the technology is getting less expensive and still being very effective. And to just close our eyes is not being very progressive in this city that we're trying to make us one of the most innovative cities. And here's a great opportunity to take a study that's already started along with Google that's taken the light rail and going to the North Bay Shore. And we don't want the traffic, we want to have people have that option so they can get on something and move about the city without being stuck in the congestion. So we need to take this study. At the very least, just to get the route, the right away, and show people that we are serious about traffic.

[05:40:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[05:40:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I think, um, Well, I'll just be really, I think if I were doing this over again, um, I would probably start with the right away and alignment piece as opposed to having spent the money and start on the technology piece because the technology piece, You know, is the thing that's changing the fastest. is the thing that will continue to change. And I think I probably would have done it in a different order. I think at this stage. The reason why, you know, I'll support moving forward tonight is, I do think the right away in the alignment piece is the most important sort of piece of knowledge that we can have to make a decision about whether we put this on hold in the future or not. And I think, also, you know, I think, well, technologies may change that right of way need and those alignment options are still going to be important. The right of way needs might shrink a little bit based on technology, but I don't think they'll really change that much. And I think the vice mayor is absolutely right by finding, especially after, you know, some of the meetings in DC. I don't think have, you know, half a $1000000000 that can fall from the sky anytime soon. But on the alignment and the right of way piece, I would like to be in a position. the hopeful position that maybe one day for the 1st time in, you know, 10, 15 years, we'll have a federal government soon that will sort of start unlocking, you know, some sort of infrastructure bill, which it looks doesn't look like is going to happen in a couple within the next couple years. But if that does start to move, I would like to be in a position, maybe not to request half a $1000000000 to build out a system, but to at least be in a position where we could start getting matching grants from the feds and others and sort of know what direction we want to go in as opposed to, you know, waiting until 2021 and then, you know, maybe the stars align and we have infrastructure bills moving to the federal level and whatnot. So that's just a very long way of saying that I'm not unsympathetic to the thought of, you know, we've done some work, let's sort of put things on hold. Having looked through the council questions, if I thought it would free up a bunch of staff time and money, I would be more sympathetic to that. It didn't look like it really would have a huge impact. And so I think I'm okay moving forward with this phase because I think it will help inform sort of where we go in a year or so once we get all that information back. So, I'll support the staff recommendation, and I guess that's what John's motion was. So I'll 2nd that.

[05:43:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[05:43:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. So I share the vice mayor's pessimism about finding a funding source for this project. But having said that, I guess what could make this more compelling to me is 1st a definitive answer to the question about whether there's a toolkit that allows us to, you know, dedicate right away in future development that could make something like this work and to the extent that this feasibility study enables that. I think that would be helpful information for me. And I guess the only, the other question I would ask is, is there, is there an ancillary benefit to conducting this study, could we use the information that we obtain to implement other kinds of transportation improvements or to do other things that we wouldn't be able to do without this information? So even if we ultimately fail to secure a funding source to, you know, do the capital work, you know, the information that we get from this study may enable other things to occur. Do you have at least a preliminary sense of things we can get from this that may be unrelated to AGT?

[05:44:42] City Staff: I think one issue is, you know, how does some of these systems connect in North Bay Shore? And by looking at the study, we may be able to have a better sense of where there might be, you know, transfer points or hubs that could occur whether they're advanced technology or just, you know, buses on the street?

[05:45:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then to the vice mayor's point, what would a smaller scoped study look like? What could we do that? I mean, this the whole project is quite ambitious. You know, is there something we could do that's maybe smaller scale that could help us at least get information that we could use later on to determine whether this is something we ultimately want to pursue?

[05:45:35] City Staff: Well, um, We can look at bringing the scope to a narrower by a couple ways. One is reduce the area of alignment alternatives that we're going to look like. You can see that we were looking at possible spur to connect out to the light rail station in the West Bay Shore area or going up into the amphitheater, or, you know, we could curtail the number of a potential alignments we look at. The other possibility is we were trying for that middle ground of doing enough engineering research to be able to answer the question about right away to a better extent. We don't have to go to that level of engineering work. We can do a more, you know, more preliminary research into, you know, this is this, you know, we're looking at this alignment. It's along this road, this is the existing right away. These are possibilities. What would a structure look like? You know, we built in here, renderings and visual simulations, because we felt that if you're looking at elevated structures that are going to go past these existing developments, and some of them are residential, people are really going to want to know what could this thing look like if we want to gauge the level of community support. All of that cost a fair amount of money. So we originally thought a million dollars for this study, but we realized that we needed to scale it back a little bit, and that's how we ended up scaling it back to about 800, 850,000. So the less we do in terms of more the engineering side of things, the structural elements, the community outreach, and really producing materials that really help with the community outreach, the less definitive we're going to be able to be for you when you say you want to use this study to help preserve right away options.

[05:47:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I'm going to hear what my colleagues have to say before I weigh in further. Thank you.

[05:47:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come.

[05:47:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I kind of share the concerns about the cost. I think, um, one of the things that, um, Council member, um, McAllister was reminding me of was that we're be looking at our comprehensive modal plan and how this might fit into being able to ask the ETA, which we were discussing earlier, um, for funding or are there any other potential um, partners that we can study, um, who would contribute to this study, because when we're looking at the alignment options, I would think that BTA, who would hopefully because we are looking at places where their light rail stops, I don't know if that conversation has happened or gotten anywhere or any...

[05:48:19] City Staff: It informally. Yes, we've had some conversation with PTA. The biggest challenge for ETA right now is they're severely in retrenchment mode because of their structural deficit, and they're looking at cutting bus services, even in Mountain View, in order to balance their budget. And they're highly dependent upon for their capital program grants. And now the new measure B fund are looking towards also. So generally their response to us when we say, you know, can you provide funding toward this is we'll partner with you and support you in trying to go after grants.

[05:48:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. I mean, I think that that's at least an option that I'd be interested didn't. And I...

[05:49:06] City Staff: Yeah. But I think I will say a lot of these grant funding sources, SB one, and so on, they're less inclined to fund a feasibility study like this. They're much more inclined to fund something that is going into the next stage of really developing a project. So usually local jurisdictions and regional jurisdictions end up taking on these feasibility studies to find the project. you've created this idea that's out there that you can sell and they can say, we can see it, and feel it. So now we're more they're more willing to step up and help fund and we can compete better for grants.

[05:49:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think I hear a little bit of feedback that it could behoove the city if we do this kind of initial investment and look and see what potential projects could be out there then. Okay. Um, you know, I, For myself, despite the high price tag, I think I'm interested in kind of studying it, I think that that, you know, moving on and seeing what the, what we can do is worth exploring. I think for me, the thing that gives me a little pause is that the technology related to, um, you know, AGT autonomous vehicles seems to be kind of changing a lot. And so my concern would be, you know, how do we capture that in the study so that, you know, we're going to, we're exploring the creation of something that's still, you know, technologically relevant. Um, because as we know, transportation projects and infrastructure can take so long, I think that's kind of one of my bigger concerns is, you know, It doesn't matter if a project's a $1000000000 of the technology is obsolete by the time we, you know, are able to to do it. So, um, I'll support the study, but those are kind of the things that I hope that we can incorporate into the feasibility. Thank you.

[05:51:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think I share a lot of the same concerns that the vice mayor mentioned. I think this is a lot of city resources going into a project that I'm concerned that, you know, might not ever result in anything that really addresses transportation issues. And I think we all think that transportation is really important. But at some point, I think you need to be realistic about what really might be possible versus what are we, it feels like we're just looking at it. It's really not going to be possible. So, I feel like at this point I'm not willing to invest this much money in this project. But if there was a different scope that got us something, but I'm not really sure I see what a smaller scope project would really get us. So at this point, I don't feel like I can support this.

[05:52:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:52:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I agree with the vice mayor that the funding is definitely a difficulty. I don't think that the transportation in this area is so direly needed as public speakers remind us that almost every meeting. And given that we have funding contributed and it won't affect, according to the answers I've gotten here, it won't affect staff capacity and there are no unfunded capital improvement projects for this amount. I'm, and also that hopefully the administration we have in Washington won't be there forever, and maybe there'll be some turnarounds at some point. on transportation funding. I would I'm leaning towards supporting the motion.

[05:53:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[05:53:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so I'm not saying that, never do this. my, you know, my thought it was just that we postpone it until we have more certainty. But I guess I was thinking, you know, what are other projects we could work on? And whether it's the Stevens Creek Trail, and, you know, at least I have to talk to Sunnyvale, but if they said no, we could move forward to fund the, you know, 20% match on there. I mean, I think we have a lot of other projects that are more near term, that we could easily apply a half a $1000000 to, that could get it, you know, done faster or more certain. And so that's what I'm really looking at is just, you know, what's our biggest bang for our buck right now? And also, you know, I just want to reiterate that. I mean, we hear it every year, staff, staff is over, um, they have a lot of work. And so, you know, it's, it's, to me, it's just a, I don't know, how urgent is this question? And I just don't think it's that urgent. And maybe in a year's time if the administration changes, then that might make it more urgent, but we're just not there. And in light of everything else that we have going on. I just think that we could, I'm sure we could easily find another place to put our resources in our staff time. So that's the case that I'm making is just, you know, a timing thing and just being mindful of our staff overload. So.

[05:54:45] Unknown Speaker: Or the villa tunnel.

[05:54:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I mean, there are a lot of other projects that we could or you were talking about, you know, money in San Antonio neighborhood. I'm sure we can come up with projects that will give us instant results. And I guess that's what I'm looking for because this is, you know, a great idea. I mean, I'm not saying I'm not being I'm really not being pessimistic. but I am being realistic and this is just, you know, my experience over time having been on VTA and seeing how the BART project moved forward and, you know, Caltrain electrification, a lot of this just takes a lot of time. And so if we were to narrow the scope, you know, I mean, I would be comfortable saying, let's study, yeah, the reversible bus lane. And then I brought it up before, but let's talk to VTA. I don't know what the future of light rail is. Do we repurpose the light rail tracks. I mean, those are double tracked and whatnot, you know. I would like to look at those that to me seem more tangible and doable and more realistic. That's it.

[05:55:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:55:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, you know, we're developing, we're spent a lot of money on this North Bay Shore. And unless we come along, and you've heard me, he's talked about, we need to have a transit plan, where the hub, where they're going to put an end connections. We need to integrate our system now into how they develop North Bay Shore. So if they develop it and then all of a sudden we come down your road later on in the years and we say, well, here's where we want to be at the transportation system. It's going to cost us much more money. And so by doing a study, we actually get a better idea of how to develop North Bay, how to integrate it with the rest of the city. And the comment that, and that's, that's very important that we can, we need to do is beef looking forward. And how can we not, just like we did with the great separation? We were head of the program, we were head of it. We got the design and when the money came available, we were able to take advantage of what was there. And if we don't do a study to figure out how to do or where to go. And then when the opportunity does come, that we're ready to put in innovation or we're able to take advantage of that transportation system and move forward. The staff report mentioned that they have the money, they have the time. So that argument that it doesn't affect thing. I don't I don't hold because there's other projects. Yeah, we could look through all of our ideas and potential work programs that we could take money out of that aren't important. But we've talked about transportation. We've talked about moving forward. All we are is looking at the right of way and the potential of what's needed, and it gives us then the opportunity to see what is available. And when the SB one money comes available, if federal money comes along. We're kind of be looking at a new super funding in 2020. So all of these opportunities, if we don't have the game plan, then there's no opportunity to take advantage of being the 1st and ask for it. So I think this is a very reasonable thing. It costs money, but yeah, things that I like this scope will have a major, long term effect. Some of you don't think so, but in the long run, this will put us ahead of other cities and other opportunities to take advantage of whatever technology comes along.

[05:58:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[05:58:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. It sounds like they're 4 votes for this, and I'm comfortable with that. I'm, My preference would be to push it out a year and to find a more near term improvement that we can, that's ready to go. And I'm confident that there are, that there are something, that there's some, there's something out there that we can do with with the half a $1000000 in the, the staff capacity enabled. I, so the vice mirror is a realist. I am a pessimist, just for whatever that's worth. It's I think there's certainly something to be said for the trade-off between some immediate improvement and something longer term. And I think the needs are immediate and urgent. And so it's, you know, for something that may be beneficial 15, 20 years down the road, you know, I would like to do this at some point, but I think my vote will be for something more immediate in nature.

[05:59:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments? Council member command?

[05:59:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, I had a question. What is the, um, what is the timeline for the study?

[05:59:37] City Staff: I think we're estimating it to take about 12 months. to work our way through it. And, of course, the consultant selection process and so on takes another 3 to 4 months, get somebody under contract. So we, you know, maybe 18 months from now having a final study ready for council approval.

[05:59:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, Okay. I I appreciate where my colleagues are coming from with the high price tag in 18 months of staff time that we're talking about. Um, And, you know, one of the things that kind of intrigued me was the, if we could narrow the scope, it sounds like staff has made the efforts to narrow the scope. Um, I just feel like if we don't do phase 2 of the feasibility study, then we won't have all of the information. You know, and I think that that could be instructive about how we move forward. And so that's kind of the tipping point for my for myself. So, I agree with, you know, what Ramirez, the vice mayor of the mayor, saying, um, I just feel like it's hard for me to say no to something when I don't know what all the options could be. So that's just my thoughts.

[06:01:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Okay, so we have the motion from Councilman from McAllister, 2nd Vice Council member Clark. And I think we'll call the question. So that passes 43 with council members, Ramirez, vice mayor Alpikoga, and me dissenting. Thank you. Okay, we're on to item eight. which is council, staff, or committee reports. Are there any? I'll just go quickly through the ones I have between our last council meeting and this meeting. I attended the Santa Clara Santa Cruz County round table on airplane noise. The airport land use commission, the Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Area Council meeting, and the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority meeting. And for all of those, I feel like, um, Well, if it's for SVRIA, progress is being made on getting the communication towers in place. So it feels like that one's moving forward now, whereas it was kind of stalled for a while. And on the other ones, probably nothing or shaking to report. So no other Council members have anything? Council member McAllister?

[06:03:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, this is not on any particular committee, but it's just sort of a... a feeling how I had, when we did the marijuana last week, and how that vote went. And this is just, I said, I can't talk to the individual, the other brown act, but I felt, you know, normally when we have a item in front of us, and we discuss it, I thought the process was tainted and it didn't feel good. I accepted the compromise, but how we got there, I don't think we did a good process of governmenting, right, that, because at one point, when people saw the agenda, those people that were in favor of marijuana or a frat storefront, if they looked at the agenda, they said, oh, not taking that off the table was not a consideration. And then all of a sudden, we go, well, the council goes a little bit off the 3 items that were to be discussed, and now it's off the table, and I think we sort of blindsided, and I don't, and in a sense, those people were blindsided because the agenda wasn't a true of what took place. And the other aspect of the thing was that usually we make a decision, a new knowledge. And there was a 5 to vote, and nothing came out of this discussion that was not new knowledge. And the only thing I could see was that people were, I don't know why people changed their votes. Either they were bullied or they felt intimidated, but there was no new knowledge to come out and say, we need no storefronts. And so, Um, I thought democracy was just challenged a little bit because there was a large population out there and they were very adamant and they were very strong. They have every right to be there, but I think people were intimidated, and sometimes we got to stand and and even though you're bullied or intimidated or whatever, and you got to do what you feel is right and not be pushed over. And there's integrity that sometimes it goes with this job where I know this is right. I know the people in front of me isn't going to accept it. But I haven't any new knowledge to change my vote. And so as we move forward as a council, I still like to think that people will listen and then, and take in consideration that, yeah, there's new knowledge. When, uh, council member Committee said, hey, North San Antonio, there was a school going, that was new knowledge. That was pertinent. But nothing after that, I saw that came about. So, um, The way the vote ended up, that's why I think it somehow we have to look at how we come about making decisions and what's important.

[06:06:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, obviously, I have a different perspective on that than you, but... Um, any other comments? Okay, so, um, for the city attorney to, if you could make the closed session announcement. And then we could also take public comment in the council chambers if there is any.

[06:06:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The closed session announcement is for item 10.one. Conference with labor negotiators pursuant to government code, section 54957.6. The agency designated representatives are the city of Mountain View Assistant City Manager and chief operating officer, Audrey Seymour Mamberg, Human Resources Manager, Sue Rush, and Charles Sakai, from Sloan Sakai, Jung and Wong, LLP. The employee organizations include Service Employees International Union SEIU, local 521. The Eagles Association, the Police Officers Association, or POA, and the International Association of Firefighters, IAFF, local 1965, and for the benefit of the public, I do not anticipate that there will be any closed session announcement following the closed session other than to say that it took place.

[06:07:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to provide us with input on that topic? Okay, we'll close the public comment portion, and we, after a very brief recess, we have to go through the other room on your way into the next room. The city council will convene reconvene in the Plaza conference room for a closed session. Following the closed session, the city council will adjourn to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 11th, 2019, at 5:15 PM in the council chambers at 500 Castro Street. And tonight, the regular meeting is adjourned in memory of those who tragically lost their lives in Virginia Beach last week. week.

• ← Previous
• Next →