June 18, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community and Capital Improvements Financing Authority

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we will call the meeting to order, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. If you would stand and join me. of the United States of America, and to the Republic, from which it stands, one nation, a job, a divisible, for liberty, and justice. Next is roll call of our city clerk. Actually, we have to do a roll call attendance because we have council member Clark calling in. Council member Clark?

[00:00:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:00:37] City Clerk: Council member Hicks. Council member Kameh?

[00:00:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[00:00:40] City Clerk: council member McAllister. Counselor member Ramirez, Vice Mirabe Koka, Mayor Matachek.

[00:00:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Here, thank you. Thank you. Next is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for a discussion. Are there any council members who wish to remove an item for discussion? Council member Clark? Is there anything you wish to remove? I think I heard a no. No,

[00:01:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: there you go. Thank you. Are there any members of the audience who wish to pull an item? Sure, not. Thank you. How about any members of the audience here in the council chamber? Okay, seeing none. We have emotion from the vice mayor.

[00:01:44] City Clerk: The vice mayor moves the consent calendar with a second by council member, McAllister. We'll do a roll call vote. Council member Clark.

[00:01:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[00:01:54] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:01:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:01:56] City Clerk: Council member Kamee.

[00:01:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:01:57] City Clerk: Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez. Vice Mayor Abikoga.

[00:02:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[00:02:02] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[00:02:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is Oral Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. So, if you could be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and come up to the microphone, we're ready for the 1st person.

[00:02:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: There's no one here, by the way.

[00:02:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Chris.

[00:02:52] Public Speaker: Okay, I'll go. Good evening, Mr. Matachek. Council members, I would like to show us something, share something with you that I discovered in preparing for tomorrow's EPC meeting. As you may know, the draft EIR for East Westman was released last week, and so I eagerly looked at the traffic part. The report itself is like 300 pages. The traffic report is 1800 pages long. because it includes all the raw data. But in that report, in chapter 9, there's a very interesting analysis of the one of the gateway intersections, which you can see here, which is at Ellis and 101. It's a very complex intersection because the light rail line goes through there. and it's actually, you know, under the, as a result of analysis, it was shown that it would become, you know, almost, um, non-operational level F with the new, uh, development East Westbun. Anyways, my point was, what I wanted to share with you was that the traffic people, the company, fair and peers, they actually did a micro simulation of this intersection. And that means they use this package called VSIM, I didn't know about before, which was then calibrated. It's feta data, calibrated with the existing conditions, so it actually produced the correct current conditions. Then they added the project, you know, conditions to see what would happen. And what is Visa actually? What is micro simulation? And I found this on YouTube. So, actually, companies, you know, promotional video. Oh It's gonna play. Okay, great. So what this package actually does is, it simulates every single car. I mean, I assume they have some way to feed cars in from the edges, and they just let them run. You know, they have certain rules, the cars have to obey, they can vary those rules. They can easily handle things like queue overflows, like you see up here at the top. where it's a long queue of cars. This is actually, you know, a complicated intersection somewhere in Germany, where the company is based, and they can handle pedestrians. Maybe they can even handle jaywalkers and things like that that tend to destruct traffic. But what we need is applied this kind of analysis to the Shoreline gateway to North Bay Shore. Because as you know, the hexagon report didn't do anything like this. They just did the standard LOS calculation and they got level B out of a lot of the intersections, which is totally unrealistic. Fair and piers applied this, and they actually check the results with actual observations for the current conditions. And then they ran the conditions with, you know, adding the project and all those other things that, you know, the future 2030. So I hope that somehow we can get the staff to ask hexagon, which is working on the draft EIR for 1001 North Shoreline to do the same kind of analysis for Shoreline Boulevard. Thank you.

[00:06:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:06:17] Gary Wesley: Gary Wesley of Mountain View. So I've appeared before you previously concerning state legislation. So last year we had Senate Bill 827 that did not proceed, but was superseded this year by SB 50. And SP 50 has been set aside for a time, but the author, Senator Wiener, said it could be brought back on a moment's notice. And in fact, there is a bill that has arisen on a moment's notice or less. And that is SB 592, which is taken mostly from a bill from State Senator Skinner of Berkeley, SB 330. I haven't seen yet a good analysis of SB 592. And city councils are about to leave for summer. And so by the time you come back, 592, maybe California law. We're headed for it come January the 1st. And so it might be good, maybe with a new city attorney or whoever you have, to work on some analysis that could be spread to other cities and counties. before you go on a break. So you're able under the Brown Act, you requested staff, provide such a report back to the council, and the sooner it gets done, the sooner I can spread it around the state so that people can figure out whether they should be taking a position against SB 592. One of the things I noticed about it, even though Senator Wiener said, nothing there to see, don't bother to look, just some little procedural matter, it looks like It provides it insofar as local legislative bodies, planning commissions or city councils have discretion to approve a project, you must approve the project, even without the conditions. that might give rise to your exercise of discretion to approve it. And as I glanced at the code here, It looked like there was a lot of discretion. And so there might be none. With regard to projects that include any housing that are brought before you. Were this to become law. So as we often say about these bills, the devil is in the details, somebody's got to read those details and don't let your staff leave for summer without doing it. Thanks so much.

[00:08:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So while the council takes a break from meetings, I would say work continues on during the summer. Next, please.

[00:09:09] Mary K. Marinovich: Hi, I'm Mary K. Marinovich, I'm on the board of the Mountain View Qantas Club and also the Mountain View Historic Association. Good evening, Mayor, Mattachek and Council. Thank you for all your hard work. I'm here asking for your support. in a project that can become an important asset to the city as we grow. The project is called visit Mountain View. It will be a phone-based historic and cultural tour of the city. I'm modeling it on successful phone-based historic walking tours in Monterey County and Denver. You may know that as mountain views has become the heart of Silicon Valley, we've become a tourist destination, yet people who come here don't know where to go. We have important sites telling the story of our transformation from the heart, from the valley of heart's delight to the heart of Silicon Valley. Visitors and residents alike don't know that story. I'm applying for major funding from the Santa Clara County Historic Grant program. I initiated, and the city completed a successful application for this funding in the past, and believe we can be successful again. Most county funding will go for translating the tour narrative into several languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, and Japanese. I also want to provide different tour versions for adults, school children, and youth. I'll start with historic sites because that's the funding available now, but we can add visual arts, performing arts, wildlife, and other sites to the tour over time. Also, partners, including the Mountain View Historic Association, the Qantas Club, the Chamber of Conness, Commerce, key members of the business community, and the city itself, and more. I welcome your questions and your input, and ultimately your support. Thank you.

[00:11:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. That sounds great. I'm really glad you're doing that. Any questions? Sure, what is your, what is your timeline?

[00:11:32] Mary K. Marinovich: The grant is for 3 years. to its completion, but the 1st the next thing that I need to do is send a description of the project, and by the end of the month, and then the grant proposal itself has to be in by the end of July.

[00:11:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Council member, May has a question.

[00:12:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So I was just curious if you've reached out to our local county supervisor as well to alert them that you're applying for the grant. Okay. I think that that would be a really great thing to do as well, to let the, uh, sewers of Media know that you're applying for the grant, um, as well as obviously us, but I think that that could be helpful. Thank you. Bye. Bye.

[00:12:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?

[00:12:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, seeing none, we'll close this portion of the meeting and move on to item 6.one, which is the below market rate or BMR housing program, phase 2 modifications. And we will start with a staff presentation.

[00:12:53] Wayne Chan: Good evening. Thank you very much, mayor and council. I'm Wayne Chan. With me is Artis Shavastovo. We also have Darren Smith from EPS in the audience. If there are any questions that might come up. Uh, brief background. There was council direction to modify the BMR program. This was and has been done in 2 phases. The 1st phase was completed and went to effect last year. Uh, phase 2 that has been in process, uh, has had the um, following uh, public process that you see there on the screen with a community meeting. EPC and council study sessions and an EPC public hearing. At the May 14th, city council study session, council provided input on 7 questions. That input was used to finalize the BMR ordinance amendments in the administrative guidelines that are contained in this report. And it was also presented to the EPC at its May 30th public hearing. At that public hearing, the EPC recommended that the council adopt the modifications and had additional input on certain questions that will cover below. These are the 7 questions that the council provided input on. The 1st one was regarding Rowhouse BMR requirements, potentially up to 25%. The council did support the 15% BMR requirement at the 100% AMI weighted average with the 80 to 120 range. That would apply to all ownership projects. But the council also talked about a 2nd option of a 20% BMR requirement with higher weighted average at 120% and a higher range, 80 to 150% AMI, and ask staff to explore whether that is something that jurisdictions can do. Um, the staff's determination is that that's possible. Units above 120% AMI are allowed, but with a note that those units would not count towards affordable housing for arena purposes. And staff also does recommend stipulating that any BMR in Loop fees are received as part of the program would not be used to fund units that are higher than 120% AMI. EPC's input on this issue was some concern about units over 120% because of the arena consideration and wanted to ask counsel if it specifically still wishes to have that higher BMR requirement and the higher range. They also had the input that because households over 120%, although they may not be able to afford a home, has more opportunities in the rental market to obtain housing. And as a result, did not necessarily feel that then a ownership opportunities needed to be provided for a household over 120% AMI. EPC also had the opportunity to review the rent table that is provided in the report and wanted the council to also see that report based on that input, additional data was added to that table, and we'll talk about that in a moment. The 2nd question was, does the council support the overall recommendations for BMR rental and for sale projects, including units and perpetuity, and the input was yes? Does the council support the recommendations regarding alternative mitigations, and that was yes as well. EPC did have some input on alternative mitigations. Primarily, it was noting that the BMR offsite has a 33% higher requirement. So the offsite requirement is a 20% requirement versus the 15% on site, so the 33% additional, and I thought it would be good to incorporate a principle, that is somehow consistent with that 33% increase, but didn't go as far as wanting to stipulate it as a fixed percentage. And staff feels that makes sense to have that as a reference point, but allow us to have some flexibility as we implement the program. The 4th question was regarding inlu fees and the council supported the $96.5450 for rental and ownership respectively. Because of the input and direction about the 20% optional requirement for row houses. We also did conduct some additional analysis to see what a potential fee equivalency level for that would be, and that is at $92 and if the 20% BMR component is an option in the BMR program, we would recommend encoding that $92 level as well. Question 5 was related to exemptions. Council supported staff's recommendations regarding non-gatekeeper projects. For gatekeeper projects, the direction was that for such projects that are currently in the pipeline, that by the end of this calendar year 2019, those projects need to be able to be deemed ready for a public hearing, for project approval. And that could occur after 2019, but there needs to be a determination that says it is ready to be heard. Those projects would then be exempt from phase 2 modifications. It's recommended that December 20th be that last day to make that determination that is the last business day of the year for the city. Question 6 was regarding the two-tiered approach for ongoing tenant eligibility. The 1st tier was allowing households in BMR units to be able to go over income by a certain amount. And then the 2nd tier is if and when they exceed that threshold, the duration by which they can still stay there and find another place to relocate to. Council did support the notion that maintaining tenant stability, but also being able to place folks on the waiting list, who are eligible, was important, but did ask for additional emphasis on preserving existing tendencies. And one of the key components is that existing tenants, especially lower income tenants, even if they have, say, 10% over income, such as in the original recommendation, wouldn't be able to then take that income and find a place in the market and could result in displacement out of the city. And so there was direction to take a look at that and see if enhanced stability could be incorporated into the program. So based on the council input and also the APC input at the public hearing, we did conduct some additional analysis. The EPC had this input at the public hearing. This table, though, does include additional components that disaggregates the average overall rents. The overall average rents were provided to the EPC, but CSFRA units comprise 75% of our rental stocks. So we thought it would be important to disaggregate CSFRA units from the overall average. And we can see is that in the 1st row of rents, that is the over average of all units. That 2nd row is rent stabilized units. And because they comprise 75% of the overall stock has an effect of pulling down the averages, but you can see that the new units have rents that are significantly above the overall average and CSFRA rents. I want to just flag a little bit. When comparing average overall rents in average CSFRA unit rents, Many of the maximum rents that could be charged for different bedroom sizes and at the different AMI levels, right around the 100% AMI levels where you start to approach average rents citywide. There is the issue where larger bedroom sizes tend to be more expensive than smaller bedrooms, kind of disproportionately. So you see a gap that widens as the bedroom counts go up for a unit. But in the 2nd set where there is a comparison with non-CSFRA units, All of those rents are significantly higher than any kind of rents that would be under BMR rents. So part of the analysis was acknowledging that there is a comparison between rent levels, i.e. say BMR rents and average rents and CSFRA rents, but there is also comparison between the quality of the units. The quality of the Nubian arguments are new, modern units, and the CSRA units are going to be older units and older buildings. So even though there is a comparison between rents, there is also a distinction between quality of the units. One is just to illustrate this one more way. The dash line is the overall average rents. The line on the bottom are CSFRA rents, and the 2 lines on the top are the newer units, post CSFRA. Maximum low income rents are below any of those lines. Moderate income rents at 120% AMI is above average rents, but it starts to converge at larger unit sizes. And then the median rents at 100% AMI has some units that might be on average, a little bit higher than overall rents, but as we get to the larger bedrooms, it is well under even average rents. And so part of this analysis was take a look at that range of around 95% AMI, 105% AMI is where there starts to be convergence with overall average rents. That's what led to the modified recommendation based on council direction about concern for relocating out of a BMR unit, but still having enhanced stability to find some place to reside and relocate within the city of Mountain View. And so the modified recommendation is that tenant households in BMR units, where those rents are at the 50 to 80% AMI level would be allowed to have their incomes go up to 95%. For tenants in BMR units where those rents are set at the 80 to 100% AMI level, those households would allow to have their incomes go up to 105%. In 4 units that have rents set over 100% AMI, they wouldn't be able to go over income because they're about where the overall average rents are. In each of these scenarios. The recommendation is to maintain the BMR AMI levels as determined. Staff does believe that there would be some fairly significant administrative complexity if we start to adjust AMI levels up along with allowing incomes to go up as well. And it's not just tracking each of the units over time is ensuring that the overall project with all of the units, maintain the weighted average. And so we can envision scenarios where if a 3 bedroom unit was allowed to have the rents increase, but the next unit is a studio, those aren't comparable units. How do we maintain that? What if the studio unit was already at 50%? Do we go lower than that? So a lot of questions there. Want to visualize this particular item? So, again, for units between 1580 with rents at the AMI level, those tenants can go up to 95% for units between 8 to 100, Those incomes can go up to 105 in 4 units, over 100% AMI, there would be no over income provision. The EPC input on this item was that 1st BMR rents shouldn't be set out levels that would exceed the average rents, and we think we can take care of that and address that issue within BMR procedures. The 2nd component was this notion that if folks in the low income category somehow saw their incomes expand quite significantly, for example, from 50% AMI, with rents at 50% AMI, but their incomes went up to the maximum of 95%. Um, this could result in some some version of a tenant windfall. And the notion was that if that were to happen, they wanted to see an ability to raise the BMR AMI level is to capture some of that and have it go to the city. Staff felt that the recommendation is a balance approach. If this were an issue to incorporate this into the five-year review. once we have some data to see what actually happens to incomes, and whether they are increasing that much over time, and also assessing whether it's having the intended effect of stabilizing tendencies. Question 7 is, does council have input on any other components? One was a five-year review. We'll incorporate that into this program. Another was about concern for annual rents for BMR units increasing too fast, and we'll address that within BMR procedures. There was a comment about maybe having a lower AMI range for BMR rentals, for example, not up to 120, but up to 100%. And there was no further council direction on that. or discussion. And then also to adjust it in loop fees by the CPI, both up and down, and that has been incorporated into the guidelines, and those fees will be adjusted annually in the master fees schedule. So the recommendation here is to introduce an ordinance amending the BMR program and set a 2nd reading for June 25th and to adopt a resolution amending the administrative guidelines. And as such, on that path, there would be a 2nd reading next week at council. And if approved and passed, the effective date of the program would be in 60 days late August. That concludes staff's presentation happen to answer any questions.

[00:27:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Council member McAllister.

[00:27:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to clarify that the, uh, on your furry 1st question, that the, uh... the, uh... the, uh... Here you have it up to 25%. I just want to clarify that.

[00:27:36] Staff Presenter: That was the original question posed to the council up to 25% and then based on council direction. There was some support for a lower, higher than 15 but less than 25. So at the 20% requirement. But the original question was asking about up to a 25% requirement.

[00:27:53] Councilmember John McAlister: So you're into this adopted as 20%? What's current? 15%?

[00:28:00] Staff Presenter: What's currently in the administrative guidelines is the 15% requirement that would apply to all ownership units, but with an additional option for specifically row house projects at a 20% BMR requirement at the higher MI ranges.

[00:28:15] Councilmember John McAlister: And you said the higher end was over 100% or 120?

[00:28:19] Staff Presenter: Yeah, so the shift would be from 80 to 120, under the 20% requirement, that range would expand to go from 80 to 150. And then the weighted average increases from 100% AMI to 120% AMI weighted average.

[00:28:39] Councilmember John McAlister: So, okay, so, so, so, so between 120 and 150, it would be required to put 20% to BMR.

[00:28:47] Staff Presenter: An applicant has the ability to place units between 80 to 150, but needs to meet that weighted average of 120% AMI under the 20% option. And

[00:28:59] Councilmember John McAlister: if they don't, what if they want to stay at the 15% option?

[00:29:02] Staff Presenter: They can choose that. Yes.

[00:29:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so what's the advantage for them to go to the 20%? I thought I read something in one of that it said it didn't in the council questions that it doesn't pencil out or?

[00:29:13] Staff Presenter: Yeah, that that input was based on, um, was based on council input and council input was to to have that range as an option. We did do some additional testing to understand what that would mean. And the testing shows that it still pencils well. The 15% just pencils slightly better, at least under current economic conditions. And so that information wasn't available at the time of the council study session.

[00:29:43] Councilmember John McAlister: So what are we getting by going to 20. So what if the one incentive is there for the developer to go to 20%?

[00:29:55] Staff Presenter: That option was provided based on council input for having that other option, but the, I think, approach to that was to address the missing middle for homeownership, because those...

[00:30:10] Councilmember John McAlister: I understand that. What was the incentive for the developer to do? I know what, we were thinking? What incentive is there for the developer to go to 20%?

[00:30:19] Staff Presenter: I think under the stipulated AMI range and level, there, at least under the now that we've seen, there may not be a reason for developer to do that, but that information wasn't available at the time of the study session.

[00:30:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so now that you have the information. What's the incentive for a developer

[00:30:36] Staff Presenter: to go to 20%? To go to 20%, to go to 20%, there may need to be some adjustment in the AMI level, to have a pencil a little bit better, to get to 20%, or to have the 120% weighted average, have an associated percentage requirement that's a little bit lower, so that the 2 options are economically equivalent to the developer, as it is right now. They're very close, but they're not quite equivalent.

[00:31:08] Unknown Speaker: Just want to note, you know, the developer gets to put his best foot forward. It's an option that the council wanted to give. And so, they can choose it. And I would say that project economics change over different cycles. And so it'll give us a little time to see if something changes and to see if we we're coming back in 5 years to test us and bring it back to you. It's a good test to see, um, what kind of incentives they respond to. Or could it be a disincentive?

[00:31:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, it's an option. they won't pick it. Um, you know, but it'll be interesting to get some input from them. Okay. Thank you.

[00:31:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[00:31:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I think I can start with answering Councilman Rumi Hallister's question. I guess I brought it up as not actually an option, but when we were looking at between 15 and 25% for townhomes or in row homes, my thought was like if we were to increase the AMI to 150%. Could that still pencil out for the developers so that perhaps we look at a higher requirement of 20 or 25% with a tier of, you know, 15% at 120 up to 120 AMI and then the remainder of 10% at a 150% AMI. So it was just another option. I was hoping we could look at. And when we decide what that number should be. So I wasn't wedded to the 15%, only just based on what information we had that last meeting. But now that we know that will help in this discussion. Um, The other question I had was on item, um, it's side 19. So this is about the increase in incomes. So I just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly. And I understand the different, the 2 categories, is it low and then more, or is it very low and low income AMIs? is it 50 to 80 and then 80 to 100, 120? Is that?

[00:33:24] Staff Presenter: It actually, yes, between 50 to 80 is low. Between 80 to 120 is moderate, but in this graduated approach, it splits it in half. It splits moderate in half.

[00:33:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, originally, my thought was, if you're in the 50 to 80 and you get to 95% income, um, and I don't know how many cases there are, but if, if you're not at 100%, um, do you still need an affordable, a BMR unit? Or are you, but it looks like you're saying now that at 95% folks could potentially afford a market rate unit. Is that correct?

[00:34:07] Staff Presenter: There is some dependency on the unit size. And so if we're looking at the smaller units, it seems to be at or a little bit higher than overall average rent. As we go to larger unit size, then it seems to fall pretty well below that. And also, you know, over time, as new units come align at the higher price points, it'll have the effect of pulling that dash line up as well.

[00:34:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So the 2nd question was with the next, the 80 to 100% category, you're allowing for that 5% increase, but, um, like, If at 100%, you are able to find something in the market. Is there a way where folks in the 50 to 80% group can move into an 80 to 100% unit? So what I'm trying to look at is, you know, folks who can be let go free, free birds to go into the market, could, could that open up more moderate units for the lower income folks to move into? Or is just that is that just too much movement that it would be hard to administrate?

[00:35:26] Staff Presenter: I think we could address that in BMR procedures. It would probably add a little bit more administration, but I think it would be easier to administer than having rents changing where the AMI levels changing.

[00:35:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Thank you.

[00:35:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:35:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm going to cover some of the same issues that council member Abbe Koga covered, so I'll keep it short. First, uh, First, to also add to the question, the council member McAllister had added, I was also very interested in a 20 in the originally proposed 25% or at least as council member of a Koga indicated 20% BMR requirement for the townhomes and road homes because I thought it was one of the strongest things we could do to provide missing middle housing. And I thought the staff proposal was really good. So, um, if, if what I'm hearing is that council members want to look at that, I'd like to know, you know, whatever input you have as to how to make that really work, because I continue to be interested in it, sounds like other people may be as well.

[00:36:39] Staff Presenter: Council could direct that the the draft guidelines to be quickly modified with the percentage requirement that it wishes at the ranges that it would like to see and at the weighted average. The analysis that we had done in preparation for the study session was that, even at a 25%, at the 100% aim, I weighted average, that it appeared to allow row house projects to still pencil and achieve the returns needed.

[00:37:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my 2nd question. I just wanted to clarify that you're saying when tenant incomes rise, that there's no time limit for that. My main concern is community stability. I don't want every time somebody gets a bonus or, you know, temporarily steps back into the workforce between having 2 children or something. They have to move. So, um, So I just want to make sure I was kind of happy with the way you had it arranged that they would not have to move immediately and that we could address it maybe by relooking, uh, when we relooked at the, uh, BMR plan to see whether, you know, is this involving a lot of people and maybe adjusting at that time? But I just wanted to clarify how that would work because I'm very concerned about stability. Thank.

[00:38:05] Staff Presenter: Sure. Let me see if I can take an approach and see if that answers your question. So, for example, a BMR household that's in a unit that's set at BMR, AMI level at 70%, that household can earn up to 75%, income levels, or 80% or 90% or 95%, and still remain in the unit, and there's no issue with their tenancy. If they go over that, and they're at, they go to 96 and over, then that household would have one year to be able to transition and look for another unit. And that, that principle would apply to, to any other situation, whether it's at 50% or 50% or household in a 60% AMI unit, their incomes can go up to the 95% with no issue with tenancy until they surpass that threshold. And that same principle would apply to the 80 to 100% range. Those folks can have and be in a unit at, say, 90% AMI and have their incomes go up to 105.

[00:39:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Clark, did you have any questions?

[00:39:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, no question.

[00:39:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, I had a couple. So if we, instead of having the 15 and the 20% as options, if we just had the 20%, um, Is there a way to structure that so that all of the units count toward the arena allocation?

[00:39:51] Staff Presenter: I think the only way to guarantee that would be able to would be to have that cap at 120%. on the top range. And as a result, you probably want to lower that weight to average down from 120 towards the towards the 100% AMI weighted average. You have to have both a cap and a lower weighted average. Yes, in order for the range to be able to truly provide flexibility in where those units could be set at.

[00:40:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then on page 10 of the presentation. When it comes to the equivalency of for 20%, the way the draft ordinance is currently structured, if that's an option, and you chose the 20%, Wouldn't you primarily be building the units? And so would you need a per square footage? in Luffy? Or how does that work?

[00:41:04] City Staff: Yeah, under the BMR program, the objective standard is the units on site. The request for an in-law fee has to be a request for an alternate mitigation, the parameters need to be met. The council will need to prove it. The, including the $92 here as information is just to have a program that has consistency. So, If there were an option for the 20%, the $92 may not come into play, if the 20% BMR requirement was the only option, then that would likely come into play more. But if the Rowhouse project type had the 2 options between 15% and 20% and at least under current economic conditions, an applicant is maybe only going to choose the 15%, then the $92 doesn't come into play.

[00:42:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Right. Okay.

[00:42:03] City Staff: Just one more quick point. It's also administratively used to pay the balance of fractional units, and so that's when it starts applying. And that's honestly what it's used for. Somebody may choose to do it completely for their project, but that's what we use.

[00:42:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. That makes sense. And I think those were all my questions. Did anybody else have any questions? Okay, then we will open this up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on this topic? Okay, each speaker will have 3 minutes. And be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And if you haven't been here since we've implemented our new chime at the end of 3 minutes, you will hear a chime when the time is up. Right.

[00:43:01] Gary Wesley: Gary Wesley, Mountain View. I'm still here because I haven't heard anybody order a report on 592, so I'll comment on this. And 1st of all, those of you who are against rent control can't possibly vote for below market housing. the people that are in the game, that are playing and paying because it's some people paying for other people. have a little more choice than existing landlords, but the principle is the same, which is that you're intervening in the market, just like rent control, and making some people pay for other people. So I hope you're all going to support rent control when it comes back around. The landlords have a repeal on the ballot, although it might get removed from the ballot, or be invalidated after the election. If they get it passed, as I've told you about. But, um, I've always wondered about BMR. This has been around a very long time. And it always seemed to me that the ownership aspect of this was welfare for the wealthy relatively, that if you're going to spend the city resources, or employ city regulations to get something. You ought to get it for people that really need it, not people that would like to have a home, but couldn't buy one, but could rent. And so it's really focused on the wrong group. Now, I don't want you to run afoul of what the legislature might have in mind about a broad variety of housing. And all of this conversation may be utterly moot, if something like SB 592 passes before anybody's analyzed it. So good luck. Thanks.

[00:44:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:44:44] Alex Nuñez: Hi, Alex Nunez, Mountainview Resident. I really appreciate staff's presentation on the BMR program updates or potential updates. I definitely support the you know, 25% level for BMR requirements for the Rohome and townhome development. You know, not sure if that's on the table, but if it is, then I think that's a good thing to look at just because, you know, I'm sure our development partners would agree that they want a thriving community for their projects. And, you know, given that staff has identified that these projects can still generate a good return on the investment, then I think it really just makes a lot of sense to make sure that everyone is winning. you know, the developers who are creating these projects and the people who are really trying to get into the ownership market, but are thus far locked up. So I definitely would just, you know, appreciate, you know, that discussion. And I hope that you guys and implement something like that. So thanks a lot.

[00:45:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:45:49] Diana Livarez: Hello, um, my name is Diana Livarez, and I'm a homeowner, Hidad Montague. My husband and I were lucky enough to wait around place 7 years ago. However, we had to struggle a lot in order to get it. At our savings, we'll use it for it. My husband had to switch his job. He couldn't get the place that we actually wanted, et cetera. But still, we have a place where we can go every day after work and call it home. I have a friend who has been living here in Mountain View for more than 18 years. She lived with her partner, her daughter and her newborn son. They don't have their own place, even though they work very hard every day, more than my husband and I do. One day, she asked me, Daddy, if something happened to them, including having to move away because the high rent, to take care of their, of her daughter. She's almost done with high school and want to go to Foot Hill College. As a parent, I know this is a request so hard to do, but I still cheated it. That is not fair, not for not to be there for your children because you can provide a place for them. I want more people to have the same opportunity that my husband and I have. To able to be able to have their own place where they can be with their families and feel safe enough to know that as a parent, if something happens to them, their children will have a roof at least over their heads. That's why I support the staff initial 25% BMR proposal or the highest rate that work for everyone. Because I know it is, it will be a life change for many people. People and families that deserve to be able to have their own place and their own home. Thank you.

[00:47:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:47:39] Pat Saseo: Good evening, Mayor and Council, I'm Pat Saseo with BIA Bay Area. BIA has submitted comments regarding the BMR Affordable Housing Program previously, beginning in February of 2018. Tonight, I will highlight what BIA, as an industry, believes are key outstanding concerns with the recommendations before you. First, we continue to encourage the city to extend phase 2 modifications through June 30th, 2020, for projects that have already submitted development permit applications, gatekeeper applications, or significant land use applications, projects that have already submitted applications, should have some reasonable expectation that the city will not be enforcing project killing policies, such as increasing inloof fees to 100%. following projects to middle. Also, the feasibility studies, lack of accounting for the tier one precise plan fees, estimated to add at least $20 a square foot on FARs above $1.35. And the additional school fees that many of our developers will be facing as they meet with school districts at the city's encouragement to find reasonable ways to find agreement with the school districts. They could ultimately look at higher fees far above the tier one level that's currently required by state law. Also, BIA. I thought, after listening to the conversation earlier this evening, was going to say, We very much appreciate the BMR requirements, not imposing BMR requirements, greater than 15% on any housing type, including ownership, townhome, and row houses. It sounds as though that's still going to be an option. And I'm certainly encouraging that that is maintained this evening throughout your deliberation and decision making. With that said, the proposed inly fees of $96 for rental. And $54 a square foot for ownership housing will far exceed the cost of entitling new housing beyond any of your neighboring cities. Inloof fees for rental in Milpitas, $33. San Jose, 25. Santa Clara, 20. By imposing in lieu fees of $96 on new rental per square foot. For BIA, that just seems irresponsible, considering the serious housing crisis. that we're facing, and we still don't know how we're going to get out of this. Again, BIA strongly recommend elimination of the unit dispersal policy. Elimination of this policy would allow aggregated, affordable units to be developed, constructed, and managed by affordable housing builders, with unit quality, easily regulated by the city. It would encourage partnerships of market rate and affordable housing builders. Thank you. We ask you to take our comments seriously and to read our written comments that have been sent in. Thank you.

[00:50:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Good. We have a question for you before you leave. What does BIE stand for?

[00:50:59] Pat Saseo: Building industry association.

[00:51:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And how big are they? Are they Bay Area?

[00:51:04] Pat Saseo: The Bay Area. It's East Bay, South Bay. and up through South San Francisco.

[00:51:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[00:51:11] Pat Saseo: You're welcome.

[00:51:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, seeing done, we'll close the public input portion. And are there any further council questions or discussion if there's no more questions? question, question. There is a question, question. Those are what we answered in May. The one that we have to go. So, we have the draft ordinance that staff prepared. So, um, I would say the discussion would be around you. Do we want to make any changes to that? Vice mayor I'll be Koga?

[00:52:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I'll start off with, um, I think the main questions I saw was with follow up to the 1st question about, uh, townhome Rome, home, BMR percentage. So, yes, so again, I wanted to see what we could do with increasing the AMI up. And the reason why, and, you know, I understand some of the public sentiment that perhaps people in the 100 and 150% AMI range don't need help. But I guess from what I have seen over the years. They do. I think that, if I remember correctly, the average income or the income you have to make to, as a family of 4 to be able to afford to buy a home outright is about $177,000, and that was a couple years ago. So it's probably gone up. And my interest here was to see if, and I understand the 15, the rena number concern. And so that's where, you know, I think we could stay with the 15% up to 120% AMI, which would count for rena numbers. But I was just looking for some opportunity to really address the missing middle as council member Hicks Menson, because this is a missing middle. And I look at it as, you know, you can help, sure, they can rent, they can afford rent, but I'm also looking at from an inventory perspective. And if we could help some of those folks, get into a home because they could probably afford the mortgage looking at the rent some of these rents are charging. Um, and they just need that a little bit of help to get into a home that frees up another apartment unit that would be more, more likely for someone at a lower income level to get into. So that's how I was looking at this. It's not about helping people who are, you know, doing okay. I mean, they are, but they're still not doing well enough to be able to do it by home outright. But so let's help those folks, you know, and then see if we can free up some inventory is how I look at it. It's a, you know, 22 goals that I'm trying to achieve here. And, um, you know, again, as I said, we were fortunate, my husband and I to, you know, we scraped together to buy a home here. And when I hear that folks now in their 20s and 30s, it's buying a home is just not even in their realm of possibilities, that really, it just, you know, it bothers me. It concerns me, and I still want to give folks that chance to own a home because at the end of the day, that is the most security you can have. So I would like to look at a 15% be up to 120 and then, I mean, I'm open. I don't know if it helps to have it higher at 25% and to pencil it out or not, but, you know, and stuff, if you can help with that, that would, I would appreciate it. But I'd like to then also see like a, you know, up to 10% requirement from the 120 to 150 AMI range. Just to repeat. So 15% between 80 to 120 and then an additional 10% that goes from 120 to 150 as an option or as a requirement. I mean, I think that if it's an option, it's not gonna happen, to be honest. So we just have to require it. And if your study said at 120%, we can afford a 25% BMR rate, then 150% definitely should be doable for folks. So that would be my, um, answer to that question. Did Q6 did we need too? Deal with that or we can just say yes to the rest of this?

[00:56:22] Unknown Speaker: I think. Yeah.

[00:56:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: The only other issue I would bring up in the other category is the annual review. So I, and I guess this goes to Q6, question six. I'm not quite sure how this is all going to shake out and I think all of us are, this is pretty new in terms of the income increase and what happens to those folks. So, I was going to suggest maybe we bring it back sooner, like in 3 years, to have a better have another conversation and review. And that's it. Thanks.

[00:57:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[00:57:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. All right, I'm taking a lot of notes here. So I, um, I really like the vice mayor's suggestion, just to make sure I understand it. So it would be, we would be collapsing the options into one option. And then there'd be the base 15% requirement for 80 to 120% AMI, and then the weighted average being 100. And then the an additional 10%, but with the higher weighted average between 120 and 150% AMI. Um, because then we're, we're, so looking at that, um, the graph provided in the written, um, responses to the question submitted in advance of the meeting, I thought looking at ownership only, option B was instructive, because even with the 120% AMI weighted average, the purchase range is still significantly less than what we're seeing market units right now, which suggests, and so I, you know, looking at the family, the 4 person household in particular, you know, that might be a dual income household where they're doing fairly well, $150,000 a year or so. But even with that income, they're clearly not able to afford the market ownership units. So there's there's a need that is not being met. that would really only be meaningfully served through this product type. So, I'm, you know, very strongly agreeing with the vice mayor. I think the other thing to consider too is, you know, not only having a range of incomes that could be served through the BMR program, but also looking at the demographics of the folks that were likely to serve. you know, many members of this council know far better than I, looking at the unit mixes of a lot of the projects we're seen. It's studios, one bedrooms every now and then 2 bedrooms, you only really get, you only really meaningfully get multi-bedroom households with the row home townhome developments that we're seeing, 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms. So that's those are the units that are going to be serving families. Um, and, you know, as much as I would like to be able to serve them with the rental market. We're just not building those units. So I like this idea of providing access to the ownership market, you know, not only across a range of incomes, but also for families who I think are particularly struggling to find those opportunities. So I support that the idea wholeheartedly, just to respond to one of the public comments. I, you know, I understand that, you know, in Luffy's look high, but I believe the intention here is to require the units. So we that's not really what we should be looking at. What we're looking at is the inclusionary requirement. If we wanted to be in Luffy, we can sort of facilitate that. But my understanding of the direction last time was we're really interested in unit production. Um, And then the last thing I'll say about this is, you know, the development feasibility issue is one that I am sympathetic with. But in thinking about what distinguishes this product type from a lot of the other development we've seen, one of the things that struck me, I think this came this came to light more with the 2310 Rock Street Development, but with 2005 Rock Street, 1950 Montecito, 2310 Rock Street. If memory serves, none of those developments had to pay parkland dedication in Lou fees, because even though there was a net increase in bedrooms, there was a reduction in total units. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that any of those developments had to pay the part in Luffy's, which we know are pretty high otherwise. And then because a lot of these developments tend to be fully compliant with zoning, there's no community benefit requirement either. There isn't subterranean parking, which is another extraordinary cost. There isn't the same liability concerns that we see with condo development. So, I, you know, I never had a chance to read the, I don't think we were provided the development feasibility study that staff had conducted, but you know, thinking about the, you know, the requirements that are being imposed on development. I can understand why this product type might be better able to sustain a higher inclusionary requirement than maybe condos or some other rental developments. And particularly since we're looking at targeting these BMR units to higher income ranges. You know, if we're talking about 30%, you know, AMI, that's an enormous subsidy that we're providing. But, you know, we're gearing more towards the 100, 120, 150% AMI. So, you know, the purchase range is certainly far less than, you know, the market rate units, but we're not talking about a subsidy that is so deep that, you know, that it's, you know, it's, and I think we'd also talk, we had commented on those folks who are at the very lowest income ranges probably would not be able to sustain homeownership anyway. They couldn't pay the HOA fees and the maintenance costs. So I feel this is appropriate. I appreciate the vice versa's elegant solution to sort of figuring out how we can incorporate multiple income ranges here, and then sort of gearing this more towards, you know, since these are more likely to be 2 and 3 bedroom units, more towards families. I think this is a great opportunity. I also like the idea of, so I, you know, I wish we had data on tenant income growth over time. to help address the other question, I think, that I think was challenging, but I think coming back in 3 years, you know, with an analysis, are there actually households that are starting at 50% AMI and ending up at 95%? I think that would be helpful for us and then we can sort of tailor the requirements, you know, based on the analysis. that's done. So coming back and looking in, you know, 3 years, whatever you whatever staff feels is appropriate for that. And then revisiting that issue, I think is a really good idea. Aside from that, I'm really grateful for staff's work on this. I think this is a very comprehensive and positive set of modifications to the BMR ordinance or requirements. And I think, you know, it'll really help streamline, you know, the production of affordable units. Thank you.

[01:04:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:04:21] Councilmember John McAlister: We really haven't met Irina numbers in years, so why is it important now?

[01:04:28] City Staff: We're looking at a wide range of strategies to try to achieve those numbers. We are in terms of percentage, the 2nd best performing city in the county in terms of meaning the rena goals and I think we do share a lot of the same challenges that other cities have. And I think council's input at the affordable housing strategy, affordable housing, study session, to provide a variety of strategies, to look at additional ways of meeting our rena goals and other council goals is, this is one of those. avenues for that.

[01:05:05] Councilmember John McAlister: But if we want to supply variety of housing. And we take Rena off the table, what do we get? What options are available to us then? Do we have more options? Can we change the percentages? If our goal is to house people in Mountain View, not necessarily worry about meeting an arbitrary number from Reno.

[01:05:26] City Staff: I have a couple thousand, and I think our team may have some ones as well. We have our precise plans that we're looking to add housing with 20% goals there. We have council's goal to continue to look at homeownership opportunities and middle income opportunities as was adopted in the next two-year cycle. Um, We are looking at ways to leverage, measure A funds to achieve those units, uh, to respond to permanent supportive housing needs and rapidity housing.

[01:06:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Are these all related to Rina, though? If you took Rena off the table and just said, we're gonna build the units.

[01:06:06] City Staff: No, the really, the only reason that we raised the issue of Rena is if you increase the income level above 120%. There are 2 that has 2 impacts, and one of them is that we wouldn't be able to have it count towards the arena. And legislation is really has been of late focusing more and more on those arena numbers. So we just wanted to make sure that if the council chose to go in that direction, they understood there was some impact and we came up with a solution for that, that those funds would be segregated so they could only be used for housing up to 120%.

[01:06:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Do we have any idea how many how many units we're talking about? If we just changed it and didn't worry about the arena. So you're saying they wouldn't point towards arenas, but do we have a projection of how many units maybe developed? Could we develop more or less based on the lack of trying to accomplish the rena numbers? I don't I don't know that the whole, the, the, arena isn't the focal point, right? That's... That is what our point, I'm trying to understand.

[01:07:12] City Staff: It's not. And so we're just trying to point out that if you increase the income level above 120%, then we won't be able to count those units. We'll be able to count all the other units, but it's just an impact that we wanted to make sure the council understood that there's some trade-offs.

[01:07:28] Councilmember John McAlister: There's a tradeoff. And that's what I'm trying to visualize the trade-off, was that we're going to provide some units that are needed, that are sort of a balance, but we just don't get, we're providing some housing, but we just don't get credits for that particular unit. For the units in that, 120%, to 150%. And if there's a need?

[01:07:48] City Staff: Okay. They do count towards above moderate, just not the affordable component, so it does still count in arena, but just not the affordable component. And so it'd be a minor amount of units at best.

[01:07:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's I just, you put it in there. My other question was about, you know, you had the deal about the incomes changing up, and I was looking again at Chart 13, And if somebody was in a rain control unit, it was 3 bedroom, looking at a family unit. And their average rants are $3,900 a month. And let's say they got a bump in income. of, let's say, to, and if they were bumped out of that particular category to find an average rent for a non rent control unit, it goes up $1,700. That seems to be a pretty steep increase for one minute you're there and the next minute you're out and you're paying $1,700 to find a comparable unit. Is that is that am I just interpreting these numbers wrong?

[01:08:52] City Staff: This is just what the current marketplace is showing the households in a CSFR unit. They're not means tested, so they can stay in those units, but if they were to vacate that unit and weren't able to find another rent stabilized units, then the next row and the next 2 rows are what they would be looking at if they were not looking at rent stabilized units.

[01:09:18] Councilmember John McAlister: So then they could be displaced then. Okay. And so what have we accomplished then?

[01:09:27] City Staff: I think it's a delicate balance between making sure that there is stability, but also the units are reserved for affordable, because we do have a long list of people waiting to get into units. And so you don't want them to wait indefinitely. You want to make sure that you're keeping people as long as you can justify that they require that affordable housing, but there are other needy people. So I think we're trying to find that balance where we're gearing towards stability, but also recognizing that there's a long waiting list.

[01:10:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So I know I understand there's a long waiting list, so and when we get people in, but then we just place others to take the other spot. I mean, it's just, it's sort of a paradox that we have such a discrepancy between one type of unit going into the free market. Okay, I was just trying to understand. Thank you.

[01:10:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark, did you have any comments you wanted to make? Council member Clark. Okay, any other council members, and welcome back to him. Council member Kameh.

[01:10:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I think 1st I just, I want to thank staff. I feel like this has been an enormous amount of work with complexities and calculations and equations and math is not my strong suit. But thank you so much for providing, I think, flexibility. And although, um, there may be some challenges as council member um, McAllister was alluding to. I think that ultimately it'll lead to what council member Hicks mentioned, which is some housing stability. So providing flexibility with the different ranges, the different options, some stability, allowing incomes to be able to grow. And then I think the ultimate goal, which I think most people have is to find a permanent home, right? And that's homeownership. And I think what, um, these BMR modifications do are trying to do is trying to find a pipeline to that homeownership. Um, which I know for myself, who's someone who would like, who is in that, um, pipeline, you know, very much looks forward to. I also feel like this ties into our council goals in providing housing at all income levels. It also touches on missing middle, and I think there are arena numbers for the moderate income bracket, which I know council has not been able to address these last couple years, but I think that with these modifications will actually be able to do that. Um, while serving, um, as um, council member Ramirez mentioned kind of all demographics of residents. And I think ultimately providing our main council goal, which is access to housing. So, um, I am supportive of, um, the staff recommendation. I think there were some couple tweaks maybe. So I will leave that maybe to, I don't know if that'll be the vice there, um, or not who will, um, do that. But I'll be I'll be supporting. Thanks.

[01:13:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, try again, Council member Clark. If he's there. One of our city Kirk has heard anything from him.

[01:13:22] City Clerk: Not yet. I'm working on it, not yet.

[01:13:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. Any other comments from council members? So, um, I, the last time we talked about this, I had some concerns about doing more than 15% for row houses and townhouses. And I do think sometimes simplicity is good and consistency. And so I am, I'm still leaning toward that. Although I totally understand the perspectives of my colleagues who are trying to hit a different part of the market with ownership units. So I'm a little bit torn at this point. But I certainly appreciate all of the thought that staff put into updating all the other sections, especially the section on as people's incomes increase in BMR units. How do we handle that? And I think these are all good updates to this ordinance. I do think coming back as something less than 5 years would be good so we can see how things are turning out. Vice mayor Abikoga?

[01:14:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I don't see any other, uh, anyone else in queue, so I'll try to make a motion. I'm not sure if I'm going to be doing this correctly, so please correct me if not. So, one, I'd like to make a motion to introduce an ordinance amending article 14 of chapter 36 of the Mountain View City code, sections 36.40 to 36.70 regarding the below market rate housing program, to be read entitled only for the reading, waived, and set 2nd reading for June 25th, 2019, um, and include, in the amendment, the ownership BMR requirement of 15% at up to 120% AMI, and an additional 10% at from 120% to 150% AMI. Does that sound right?

[01:15:47] Mr. Chen: Yes, and A clarifying question? So the way that we've structured the ordinance is that it's 15% for residential and then row houses and townhouses have a different 15%, but you want it for all houses. I'm sorry, for townhouses and row houses.

[01:16:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: would be the 15% at up to 120 AMI, an additional 10% at up to 150% AMI, or that 120 to 150. And do we have to do an average in there?

[01:16:21] Mr. Chen: So I think we can go back and figure out what a weighted average is if we, if we, uh, you can leave it at the 2 tiers or you can combine them and make it a weighted average, that implies that. And then the other is that we would also, I think, want to figure out the associated equivalency fee level for this new recommendation as well.

[01:16:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I wanted to keep it separate because of the staff pointing out the Rena issue. So a clear 15% that would count towards Rena and then an additional 10%. And maybe I don't know if this is different, but if we say 120 to 150% AMI, that average goes up on the 10%. So maybe that's what 135% weighted average in the middle. Okay. And then item 2, adopt a resolution, amending the below market rate housing program, administrative guidelines associated with the ordinance, amending the below market rate housing program, mountains view city code sections 36.40 through 36.70 to be read entitled only for their reading and waived, and direct staff to return. I'm just going to say in 3 years' time with a review of the new ordinances or amendments to the ordinances. And also my thanks to staff for all of your hard work. This was quite the academic paper. But very comprehensive and, you know, hopefully a model for other cities. Thanks.

[01:18:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the vice mayor and a 2nd by council member, Kamei. Is there any further discussion? Council member, Clark, did we get you back yet?

[01:18:19] Unknown Speaker: I have not heard from him yet.

[01:18:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um... There I go. I'm not going here. So cancel my o'clock.

[01:18:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have any comments you wanted to make? And then we, I don't know if you heard the motion.

[01:18:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, can you, can you clarify, are we settling on the recommendation primarily, or are we, are we tweaking it?

[01:18:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we, uh, the vice mayor tweaked the staff recommendation. And the part she tweaked has to do with the row houses and townhouses, and it would be 15% from 80 up to 120 AMI, and an additional 10%. So it's no longer an option. So the total is 25%. And that 10% would be from 120 to 150 AMI. And then we would need staff to figure out the fee equivalent for that. And we also have staff to come back in 3 years with an update.

[01:19:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then the weighted average, um, the 135, is that for just the 10%?

[01:19:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Correct.

[01:19:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So it's 100, weighted average, 100% AMI for the initial 15% and then 135 weighted average for the additional 10%. Okay. Okay. Um, Yeah, I don't, I don't, that clarifies it. I don't think I have any comments. In general, my, um, my inclination was to, I, I thought that, that staff in the APC sort of came up with a, a generally a, a good medium ground, so I was prepared tonight to, to support the, the changes that they've made there and, and go with the modified recommendation, but, um, I'll prefer the others, um, if, if others feel that, there's a better path for, then I'm open to that.

[01:20:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yeah, I would sort of echo those comments. I was prepared to support the staff recommendation, but I'm open to this tweak that's been made.

[01:20:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So any further comments. Okay, then did the city attorney have a COVID?

[01:20:39] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yeah, I'd like to run the, what I see is the revisions by the real thinkers over there and the mathematicians over there. So under, for the ordinance, section 36.40.10 B1 ownership units, would be modified in accordance with council member Abby Koga's motion, beginning at the sentence, in that paragraph that reads row houses and townhouses and residential ownership developments shall be subject to a, um, I think that's going to be a 25% on-site BMR requirement with 15% at 100% AMI weighted average with a range of units between 80% and 120% AMI. And an additional 10% onsite BMR requirement at 135% AMI weighted average. And that would be the only change we need to make in the ordinance. And then turning to the guidelines, and we'll have fun tomorrow morning doing these. Turning to the guidelines in on page 7 of the guidelines in paragraph B towards the end of the paragraph, the last sentence of the 1st paragraph will be very similar. Row houses and townhouses and residential ownership developments. shall be subject to a 25% on-site BMR requirement, with 15% at a weighted average of 100% within the range of 80%, 120% AMI, and the remaining 10% on-site BMR requirement at a weighted average of 135% AMI with a range of 80% and 150% AMI. And Mr. Chen, did I capture that?

[01:22:37] Mr. Chen: I think that's perfect. And then we would also make one modification under the equivalency in a low fee. And that we just adopt on the master fee schedule.

[01:22:46] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes, sir. Okay. And then, of course, the motion also included that we would come back and report to you in three years.

[01:22:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:23:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So you were talking about row houses and townhouses and other residential ownerships. Where does stack flats or condo come into this play? are they exempt?

[01:23:11] Mr. Chen: It says all non-exempt ownership, resident developments other than row houses and townhouses. Those would be subject to the BMR program under the 15% requirement.

[01:23:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Not the 25.

[01:23:22] Mr. Chen: No.

[01:23:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[01:23:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions? Or comments? Okay, we'll call the question by roll call vote.

[01:23:34] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[01:23:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[01:23:37] City Clerk: Council member Hicks. Council member Kimei.

[01:23:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Aye.

[01:23:41] City Clerk: Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez.

[01:23:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:23:44] City Clerk: Vice Merabicoga. Mayor Matachek.

[01:23:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. Okay, that passes unanimously. And we are on to item 6.2, which is adoption of fiscal year 2019, 2020 budgets, appropriations limit, fee modification, and funding for fiscal year 2019, 2020, capital improvement projects, and projects 20 dash 59 and 2440. And we will start with the staff presentation.

[01:24:28] City Manager Dan Rich: Tonight, you're gonna get a solo presentation by Jesse Takahashi, our Finance and Admin Services director.

[01:24:43] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Good evening, Mayor Metachek and council members. First, I just wanted to acknowledge, before we get started, the outstanding efforts of the budget review team, who work very diligently this past year, to put together, to pull together this year's proposed budgets. We have with us tonight, Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director, Susie, Niederhofer, over across from me, right next to her senior analyst, Anne Trin. And we have been, audience here, financial analyst, Lauren Kawaukee, back there, I see. And we also had with us retired principal analyst, Helen Ansted, who also assisted, as well as our administrative services staff, helping put together the documents. And of course, this was all led by our city manager, Dan Rich, of course. And also also want to acknowledge our department heads. We also very much involved in the development of this year's budget. So tonight is the culmination of more than 6 months of diligent staff work, public meetings, council dialogue that resulted in bringing this balanced budget to the council before you tonight, all in conformity with the requirements of the city's charter. Since there were no significant changes made since last week's June 11th public hearing, the remainder of this presentation is essentially going to be a high level summary of the budget, which is being proposed for adoption tonight. Hopefully my clicker will work. There we go. There's a delay here for some reason. All right. So the 1st slide here is really just a summary of the actions that were taken to date, most of what you've seen last week, and as can be seen. There have been numerous meetings that address the budget process, as well as providing opportunity for public input, as well as council direction. Tonight will be one last opportunity for input for both the public and the council. All right. So 1st start off, I have a series of charts, which may look familiar to you, the 1st one being revenues for all funds in the budget, and that number is $453.4 million. Just we'll point out there. The largest of that piece of the pie chart, that nice lime green is the general operating fund, 148 million, or about 30 just under a third of our budget for all funds. Next, we move over to the expenditure side, and at the total level, we are proposing $522 million for all funds, that is net of $23 million in projected budgetary savings. would just point out that the expenditures are quite large compared to the prior year and also exceed the revenues, primarily due to a number of capital projects that are funded from existing resources, as well as a number of significant re budgeted items that were in the current year, but that aren't expected to be expended until next fiscal year. And again, I would just point out that the general fund comprises the largest portion of that at about 28% of the total. Now, wanted to just focus briefly on the general operating fund revenues. As I mentioned, that was the biggest part of the total. This breaks it down a little bit more. And there, you can see that property taxes represent the largest component of that at about 38.5%, followed by money, use of money and property at 15%, and sales tax at 14%. So that those 3 items comprise a good portion of the general operating fund dollars. And looking at general operating fund expenditures, again, we have $148.2 million, and of that, you'll see how by function, it breaks down, and this chart will illustrate that police and fire, comprised just under 50%, about 46% combined of the total general fund expenditures. This slide is a summary of the general operating fund proposed balance after operating revenues and expenditures are netted out, but before allocations, from this balance of $12.4 million, proposed allocations of $10 million are being recommended for a variety of important needs, and these were discussed at our previous meetings, the council. This will leave an unallocated balance of about $2.4 million the end of the fiscal year. This slide is a summary of the proposed expenditures that for increases for next year, and that totals about 6, a little bit over $6.6 million, the majority of which are in the category of limited period expenditures. All those essentially were the same with what we had discussed at the last hearing. These items that were listed were not in the proposed budget at the time, but since then have been incorporated into the final numbers that you hopefully will be approving tonight. Um, and uh, So basically, uh, assuming that there is no change, we will, they are incorporated, and we will move forward with those. The one item that from last public hearing that was needed. First, some follow-up was related to the multilingual community outreach program. And based on the discussion, from council staff came back, brought this back and is now proposing to increase this coordinator position from what it is currently at of a .5 ongoing position, and increase that by an additional .5 FTE from limited period funding for next year. And this would help enable the program to expand and help develop a strategy as well as to implement enhanced programs and services in furtherance of council's priorities and goals in this area. So staff would be looking for confirmation of that proposed change tonight before the adoption, if possible. This next slide is a summary of our capital projects that are proposed to be funded for next year. Council approved the CIP last week, and tonight is it's anticipated. That funding for the fiscal 1920 will also be adopted. A total of $142.5 million is the amount for fiscal 20 and I believe that is one of our largest appropriations in ever. So quite, quite busy in this area. And tonight, Steph Williams is anticipating any further public comment that may come up as well as direction from the council prior to adopting the budget. And finally, we have a number of motions and recommended actions that councils being asked to consider to complete the adoption of both the operating in capital budgets for fiscal 19 20. So this will conclude staff's presentation and we're available for any questions that you may have.

[01:33:23] City Manager Dan Rich: Just one comment, if I could. In my error, I didn't ask FazD to change these motions there in order, but as you know, there are a number of recusals tonight. So, ideally, the motions would be items one, three, and then 6 through 12 could be one motion, but items two, item 2 has to be separated out, and items 4 and 5 have to be separated out due to recusals.

[01:33:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you both. Are there any questions from council members? Council member Clark, did you have any questions?

[01:34:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh No questions, and there's no public comment here. I just wanted to know, I was going to note the city manager just said, just that, um, I think it would be helpful if we could do, um, some of these motions in order, just so, uh, we can go by our notes in terms of who needs to recuse himself.

[01:34:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Uh, council member Hicks, questions?

[01:34:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I just have a quick question. Was the increased multilingual community outreach funding to be restricted to staffing or was it to be applied to programming in general with staff's discretion on how to spend it?

[01:34:38] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: So, uh, counsel's direction last week was to, um, provide that amount of funding, equivalent of a half and asked us what our recommendation would be after going back and discussing it with staff, we think the best use of those funds is to add it to the coordinator position. There is also additional limited period funding and the base budget that you've already seen, I believe, another $10,000 for additional supplies and hourly cost as well.

[01:35:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so it's at your discretion, but you've already decided.

[01:35:12] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Yes.

[01:35:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, at this point, we can open this up for public comment. So if you want to address the council on the budget. Please come up to the microphone. Be sure to fill out a blue card before or after you speak. Is there anyone wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for discussion and action. Council member McAllister.

[01:35:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I like to make a motion. And if I'll do the 1st one. The motion to vote on staff recommendation is one, three, and 6 through 12.

[01:35:58] Unknown Speaker: Unfortunately, you do have to read those items.

[01:36:00] Councilmember John McAlister: That's what I was waiting for. Yes. Okay. Adopt a resolution approving capital improvement project 20 59, automated guideway transportation phase two, feasibility study, identified in the fiscal year 2019 20 through 20,23 through dash 24 capital improvement program to be read entitled only further reading wave. Three, adopt a resolution, adopt an appropriations for the adopted capital improvement project at 20 59. Automated Godway, transportation phase two, feasible study identified in the fiscal year, 2019 20 through 23 24 capital improvement program to be read entitled only further reading wave. Six, adapt a resolution adapting the fiscal year 2019 20, city budget, and appropriations for the reminder of the adapted fiscal year 2019 20 capital improvement projects, including amendments to existing projects, but excluding the shoreline regional park community to be read entitled only further reading wave. Seven, adopt a resolution adopting the fiscal year 2019 20, appropriate limits to be read entitled only, further reading, waived. Eight, adopt a resolution amending the city of Mountain View master fee scheduled to be read entitled only further reading waived. Nine? in different color. Oh, well...

[01:37:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You don't have to read it, but as long as you want to read it.

[01:37:29] Councilmember John McAlister: I want to roll, thank you, mayor. Commit $2,729,000 to Parkland dedication. Funds to be adopted fiscal year 2019 20 capital projects, including amendments to existing projects secluded on shown on Tachment 9 to the council report. Well, that was a big one. I like that one. Number 10, Adapt a resolution authorizing city manager or his designee to amend the classifications and salary plans for regular and hourly employees for fiscal year 2019 20 to be read entitled only further reading wave. 11. Adopt a resolution adopting the fiscal year 2019 dash 20 Shoreline Regional Park Community Budget, and appropriations for the adopted fiscal year 2019 dash 20 Capital Improvement projects for the Shoreline Regional Park community, including amendments to existing projects to be read entitled only for the Reading Wave, and 12.

[01:38:22] Unknown Speaker: And I just point out that you, number 11 is in your capacity as the Mountain View Shoreline Regional Park Community Board. And then for number 12, that's in your capacity as a city of Mountain View Capital Improvements financing authority.

[01:38:35] Councilmember John McAlister: You stole my Thunder. And at... And at the resolution, adopting the fiscal year, 2019, dash 20 budget for Mountain View capital improvements, finance authority, debt service payments to be read entitled only for the reading wave.

[01:38:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member McAllister and a second by council member Ramirez. Vice Mayor Abikoka, did you have a comment?

[01:38:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, um, I will be registering a no vote on item one, items one and three, but we'll support the rest. Thanks.

[01:39:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I will also be registering a no vote on items one and three. And I want to add that I appreciate all of the work done on the budget. Well, tonight we don't have a whole lot of discussion on it. It's because we've had the opportunity to talk about it at 7 other meetings. So, um, we're down to the home here and, um, We don't have as many questions as we had at the previous 7 meetings. Any other comments, council member? Clark, did you have any other comments? No.

[01:39:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[01:39:44] Unknown Speaker: My smear, I'll be okay. I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify, so the item is not originally not included in the proposed budget and the multilingual stuff. That's all included in these motions, that's read.

[01:39:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[01:40:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, very quickly. I also wanted to thank staff, Jesse, and the incoming council members, this is our 1st time working on a budget, and it went very smoothly. I know it's a lot of work and we're probably not super privy to the bulk of the work, but I'm really grateful for the work that you have done. And I also wanted to express gratitude for the council. for your support for the multilingual community outreach program. I think, you know, we'll see the fruits of this investment over time as our community becomes more diverse and access to the city from folks who are not, you know, native English speakers. I think the demand for access increases. So thank you very much for your support.

[01:40:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments? You look like you're going to say something. Okay, we'll do a roll call vote.

[01:40:50] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[01:40:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[01:40:53] City Clerk: Count Summer Hicks.

[01:40:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:40:54] City Clerk: Council member Kimei.

[01:40:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:40:56] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[01:40:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, yeah.

[01:40:57] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[01:40:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:40:59] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abikoga.

[01:41:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[01:41:01] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[01:41:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Okay, now we are to sections where we have some recusals. Council member Kameh?

[01:41:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, I also want to thank Steph. And I will now be recusing myself from item two. Um, because of a lease I hold in adjacent property, thank you.

[01:41:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, emotion is in order.

[01:41:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Is this, is this leftover? I don't mind. I'll do it again.

[01:41:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, we have a motion by council member McAllister and a second by council member Ramirez. Do you wanna read it?

[01:42:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep, thank you. Dr. Resolution Approving Council, Capital Improvement Project 24 4, Moffat Boulevard, Class 4, Bike Way, Middlefield, Clark, Preliminary Design, identified in the fiscal year, 2019 dash 20 through 23 dash 24, capital improvement program to be read in title only further reading, waived.

[01:42:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member McAllister, 2nd by council member Ramirez. And if there's no discussion, we'll do a roll call vote.

[01:42:34] City Clerk: Council member Clark?

[01:42:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[01:42:37] City Clerk: Council member Hicks?

[01:42:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:42:39] City Clerk: Council member Kame is recused. Council member McAllister.

[01:42:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:42:44] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez?

[01:42:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:42:46] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abicoga?

[01:42:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[01:42:47] City Clerk: Maryam Matachek.

[01:42:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No. And this is consistent with my past votes on this capital improvement project.

[01:42:59] Unknown Speaker: Oh. Was this the one, uh, El Camino? Isn't this Moffat? Moffat and... Moffat and... and Central? Isn't it?

[01:43:17] Unknown Speaker: This is bikeways, so in Middlefield, Clark. I think, uh, you are referring to the Moffat Central short term improvements, I believe this is a different project.

[01:43:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then I'll change my vote to yes.

[01:43:29] Unknown Speaker: Good. Because I was going to change mine to no, but... But now we're okay.

[01:43:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so that passes unanimously with council member Kamei recused. Thank you. Okay, um, we are on to item four. Council member McAllister.

[01:43:55] Councilmember John McAlister: I need to announce that I'm recusing myself on this particular item. It's because I have a leasehold improvement on El Camino and the financial responsibilities overwhelmed the projects, so...

[01:44:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga. Sorry, actually, does Councilman or Clark make an announcement?

[01:44:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, I'll recuse myself from the signing because of an interesting real property, um, within the, within 500 feet of this particular item.

[01:44:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, and so now I'd like to make a motion to adopt a resolution adopting appropriations for the adopted, how many adopt, adopted capital improvement project, 20 dash 61 El Camino Real, bike improvements, design, identified in the fiscal years, 2019, 20 through 2023, 24, capital improvement program to be read entitled only for the rating waived.

[01:44:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the vice mayor in his 2nd by council member Ramirez. Any further discussion. Okay, we'll do a roll call vote.

[01:45:08] City Clerk: Council member Clark is recused. Council member Hicks?

[01:45:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:45:12] City Clerk: Council member Kameh?

[01:45:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:45:14] City Clerk: Council member McAllister is recused. Council member Ramirez?

[01:45:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:45:18] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abikoga.

[01:45:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[01:45:20] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[01:45:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. So that passes 502 with council members, Clark and McAllister recused. Thank you. Okay, now we are on to item five of Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[01:45:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I will be recusing myself on this motion due to real property I own in the downtown area.

[01:45:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:45:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will also be recusing myself due to property I own in the area.

[01:45:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, Council member Ramirez.

[01:46:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'll go ahead and move to adopt a resolution adopting appropriations for the adopted capital improvement project 20 66, downtown precise plan update, identified in the fiscal years 2019, 20 through 20, 23, 24 capital improvement program to be read entitled only further reading waived.

[01:46:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by Council member McAllister. Sorry, Ramirez, and a second by council member, McAllister. Any more discussion? We'll do a roll call vote.

[01:46:43] City Clerk: Council member Clark?

[01:46:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[01:46:46] City Clerk: Council member Hicks and council member. I'm sorry, council member Hicks is recused. Council member Kameh?

[01:46:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:46:52] City Clerk: Council member McAllister?

[01:46:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:46:54] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[01:46:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:46:56] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abikoga is recused, Mayor Matachek.

[01:46:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. So that passes 502 with council members, Abbe Koga, and Hicks recused. Thank you. Thank you. Um... that is it for the budget. For next year. Thank you very much for all...

[01:47:21] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate my thanks to Jesse and his team, as I mentioned, at the 1st session. This was the 1st budget cycle for Jesse, Susie and Lauren, and they did a phenomenal job. So they and the rest of the team, but particularly for the newbies, so thank you all very much.

[01:47:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, um, do you folks want a break? Next one. You know, I think we are going to take a short break, and we will start the next item at, we'll call the meeting back to order. And the next item is 7.1, which is the timing of future gatekeeper application hearing. And I just want to make sure we have council member Clark on the line. Are you there, council member Clark?

[01:48:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[01:48:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great.

[01:48:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Still here.

[01:48:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. So we will start with a staff presentation.

[01:48:20] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Good evening. My name's Stephanie Williams, and I'm the planning manager, and I have with me RT Shravostova, who is our community development director. So at the council goal setting meeting on May 21st, council requested that the topic of timing for the next gatekeeper application hearing via agendaise for discussion. Currently, the next gatekeeper review hearing is tentatively scheduled for October of this year. Staff has received 3 gatekeeper applications submittals thus far and anticipates additional applications closer to the announced application submittal deadline of August 2nd, including one or more in the Terabella area. Staff provided some contacts information in the staff report for consideration in the discussion about the planning division's workload, as well as the long-range items directed by council to be done over the next 2 years. Staff also provided some background info regarding the Malone Geier, TDR Gatekeeper Project, located in the San Antonio Shopping Center, whose authorization expired in January of this year. And the TDR memorandum of understanding, which commits the city to working collaboratively with LASD to implement the TDR program and process TDR gatekeeper applications in a timely manner. So staff request, council direction, on one of the next gatekeeper application hearing should be scheduled, and that if delayed past October 2019, that the Malone Geyer, LASDTDR gatekeeper authorization, be considered in the fall, separate from the feature gatekeeper requests. This concludes staff's presentation. We would be happy to answer any questions.

[01:49:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member Ramirez?

[01:50:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question. So this letter that we've received is new to me. Um, and I just wanted to get a better sense of, um, there's no alternative process for what looks like a very small project to go through that there's, they have to go through the gatekeeper.

[01:50:31] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: That is correct. There were there are 3 gatekeeper exemptions, categories to the process. One of them is basically for split zone properties. The 2nd is for, that is under 2 acres. The 2nd is for under 2 acres and also uh, conversion from industrial to residential zoning, a budding and existing residential zoning district, and the 3rd is for NoFoot projects.

[01:50:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[01:51:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:51:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Do I ever accuse myself at this point?

[01:51:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, not yet. We're doing questions.

[01:51:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, then I have a question. If we wanted to, as we move forward with the discussion, we wanted to have some path of progress for a project that we felt was exceptional for the city, like a master plan in a particular area, or a large number of subsidized housing. How would we go about incorporating that into tonight's discussion?

[01:51:41] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: Our 1st recommendation was to defer and rehear this. The other way to do it would be to give some priority, and when we have staffing availability, we can come back to you, and you can hear the gatekeepers.

[01:51:58] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: I would say the one issue with authorizing gatekeepers and telling them to wait is kind of hard because no one actually wants to wait. Everyone wants to be in a quote unquote informal process, which takes up a lot of staff time. And this issue is entirely about staffing. Because if there were staff, there were a lot of interesting projects that we would want to process as well. It's just that it's hard to maintain the quality control, just even getting on council agendas, for example, you'd have to have probably 2 meetings a week. But just giving you an example. And other departments, you know, we start affecting the legal, you know, public works, our administrative support staff. And so, um, I think up to a point we're able to handle it, and, um, After that, it starts getting difficult. So what we're asking the council ideally is to prioritize, you might re-prioritize things, you might say, you know, we had all these goals, you might do this differently. But based on everything we've heard from you, and your last goal setting session. We've understood that you have some important priorities that you want to have.

[01:53:13] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I understand. But, again, if some project comes in that's incredible, dynamic, innovative, something that's totally different, but is still within sort of a guidelines, how would we be able to have it considered by the council, or would it be considered by staff to say?

[01:53:35] City Manager Dan Rich: So 2 comments. Number one, just certainly, well, 3 comments. One, I totally agree with what RT said. But number two, you know, tonight is not about whether or not a gatekeeper goes forward, tonight is whether or not we have a gatekeeper hearing in October of 19 or we push it out to fall of 2020. And as RT said, it's really about resources and we simply don't have them in the short term. The 3rd answer would be there's any individual council member always has the ability to do an item 8. And if, you know, something incredible came up with some future date and the majority, the council wanted to take it up or agendize it, or reagendize gatekeepers, you could do that at that time, but our response at that time would be what's going to come off the list of priorities or what's going to get pushed out.

[01:54:25] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I understand. I understand that, yes, we're looking at 2020, but that's why I'm saying, of something unique and innovative. So your solution would be an item 8 item.

[01:54:37] City Manager Dan Rich: An item 8 and reprioritization of other goals, or projects.

[01:54:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Or projects? Okay, so back to your question for you. Could a project of such magnitude be able to have an informal, would they be able to approach the planning department with an informal review? If we had a large gatekeeper that we had.

[01:54:58] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: It's not gatekeep, it's okay, it's been new. If we had a large project that, again, assuming we had staffing for, we would want to work with them in an informal capacity to get them up to a point where they could formally submit. So, for large projects, that's almost a given, that, you know, they come in, we, we sort of meet with them and give them a shot at meeting with all, you know, going through this, with all the departments before they send in their final plans. So it's normal for us to do that. But assuming there's staffing availability.

[01:55:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Are you planning to increase staffing in the next year?

[01:55:40] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: Well, we have one additional principal planner that was added by council in order to finish out your goals, as well as our current gatekeeper list.

[01:55:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Any more additional people?

[01:55:52] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: No. I mean, I think you had the entire list of people, um, at the last, um, at our goal setting, set, set, set, set, so we're adding one more.

[01:56:03] Councilmember John McAlister: And that includes all the subsidies from large corporations to add staff if...

[01:56:10] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: That includes all the staffing that we have so far for this fiscal year, but Dan.

[01:56:15] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, just to clarify. We do not get a subsidy by any corporations. We get one company that has a funding agreement where they fund staffing and prepayment of their fees, and that staffing is not devoted to them or any one applicant. It's simply adding resource and that is already included in the workload capacity.

[01:56:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are we anticipating adding any more of those employees?

[01:56:42] City Manager Dan Rich: I believe there is an additional engineer that's being added as part of that package, but no additional planners.

[01:56:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Abbe Kogan.

[01:56:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I just wanted to clarify or confirm, even if we were to do a gatekeeper process in October of 2019. Um, and I know this is all speculative, but would it be most likely that staff recommendation would be to defer starting any of those projects that we might approve through Gatekeeper for some time as we you did, I think it was maybe 2015 where there were several projects that went through, but they waited a year or so to actually get started.

[01:57:31] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: Yes, that would be our recommendation. However, our experience has been is that they don't wait. They want to come in and have some time with staff, and that's very understandable.

[01:57:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So if we say no gatekeeper until 2020, then does that give you more flexibility to say, you know, sorry we can't meet with you because we have to finish these other projects. first.

[01:57:58] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: Well, I think at that point, they're not in the process. They're not in the gate, right?

[01:58:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So it gives us more time to finish things out.

[01:58:06] Community Development Director RT Shravostova: There is a subtle difference.

[01:58:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right, thank you.

[01:58:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kame.

[01:58:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I was hoping we could talk a little bit about the original intent of gatekeepers. Um, and so I know that in one of the attachments from December 6th, I talked a little bit about how it was a process, um, that preceded the kind of the general plan and the update there. Can you kind of share with us a little bit more about the original intent of the gatekeeper process, which I know is very unique to Mountain View.

[01:58:46] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, you know, a few cities have instituted it, and I'll start by saying when I worked here, I started working here about 15 years ago. I worked for about 5 years. It was in the process at that time, and my understanding of it is, and maybe Jannie can expand on this. Staff typically works on a bunch of projects with, you know, it's this permit streamlining projects that we don't have an option on, and then we have council goals. But then as projects start coming in, some of those are those optional projects. And eventually they start taking up a lot of room, and some of the council goals aren't completed in time, because we take everything in without having a gate. At which point, I think there was some general frustration. And so this gate keyboard process was instituted, so the council had the authority to say, wait, we have goals. And we want staff to work on those goals, and then we might have some additional projects that we would want staff to work on. But it does give the authority to council to start directing some of those discretionary projects.

[02:00:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[02:00:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark, did you have any questions?

[02:00:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: No question.

[02:00:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions from council members? Okay, um, seeing no other questions, some council members will open this up for public input. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to provide input tonight? Okay. Each speaker will have three minutes. If you can be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, and leave it with our city clerk, and then come up to the microphone.

[02:00:38] Pranav Shah: So, Dear Mayor, Matachek, Vice Mayor, Abby Koga, and council members. Thank you very much for Slashi, for the opportunity to talk at this forum. You know, I'm Pranav Shah, and me and my wife, we have recently, you know, moved to the city of Mountain View, and it's been great. It's been, you know, we're enjoying actually all, you know, all things here in the city, actually, including the beautiful, you know, and very welcoming, warm welcoming parks, the beautiful lake, you know, and the very vibrant community. The one issue actually that we would like to raise today is really in connection with fostering real estate development, and it particularly pertains actually to, you know, unusual single property owners like us. So my wife and I, we own a single family home at 203 Cuusta Drive, right adjust into the Cuusta Park. Our home is located on an exceptionally large lot, and given the housing crisis in Santa Clara, and much of California, in fact, we would like to build one additional home on our property. For the past for the past several months, we've been working with our professional consultants and communicating with the city planning staff and the public work staff to understand the requirements for subdividing the property into 2 into 2 parcels. Because our proposed 2 lot subdivision would require a zone change from R 175 to R1. Our goal has been to successfully prepare and submit in a gatekeeper application for review by the city. At its next scheduled gatekeeper hearing. We were therefore surprised and disappointed to learn that the council is considering postponement of the next gatekeeper hearing until the 3rd quarter of 3rd quarter of 2020. As you know, the last gatekeeper hearing was really scheduled was happened in December 2016, the next gatekeeper hearing tentatively scheduled for June of this year. That hearing has since been postponed to October. We have been diligently working to meet the submittal deadline for the October hearing, postponing this hearing until the 3rd quarter of 2020 would result in a nearly 4 year, waiting period for gatekeeper applicants. While we understand and appreciate the need to manage the city resources, the continuing delay creates ongoing uncertainty for all potential gatekeeper applicants. We therefore respectfully request that you grant, and particularly actually for private, you know, single property owners like us, you know, the same courtesy extended to LASD, and conduct a city council gatekeeper hearing this year, in order to consider these applications on a timely basis. Thank you very much.

[02:03:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor has a question for you.

[02:03:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you for your letter. It's just reading it. So with the 2nd unit, Were you looking at a regular singer of single family home to add?

[02:03:41] Pranav Shah: Yeah, considering the space on the size of the lot, that would be the most optable thing actually to do.

[02:03:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Have you thought of an ADU and accessory accessory dwelling unit where we're encouraging those right now?

[02:03:54] Pranav Shah: You know, the, you know, so ADUs, ADUs work actually, but the value that can be unlocked by having a single family home is a lot more actually than an ADU. You know, for you as the property owner. And actually it's like, you know, in general, actually for anybody who's, you know, going to be residing in that property.

[02:04:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, well, we're looking at affordability and an ADU is usually more affordable than a $2000000 home.

[02:04:21] Pranav Shah: You know, though, actually, to your point...

[02:04:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure. Thank you. Next, please.

[02:04:30] Adam McMichael: Hi, good evening. My name's Adam McMichael. I work with Prometheus, and I'm here. to talk to you tonight about the opportunities for gatekeeper, the opportunities for gatekeepers in Mountain View. Prometheus owns the former and now vacant El Camino paving site and an adjacent parcel totaling just over 2 acres, located along San Ravelle in the Terabella Vision Plan area. Our plan is to add medium density for sale townhomes to this parcel in order to offset the number of jobs that exist in the that exist nearby already or that will be added nearby in this plan. Since purchasing the site in May of 2008, Prometheus has been actively engaged with the staff and their consultants in the drafting of this Terabella vision and guiding principles plan. The project, again, medium density townhomes, is consistent with the vision plan thus far, as developed thus far. in our site. So our site has remained vacant since we purchased the site in May of 2018. And this would not result in any displacement of existing Mountain View residents. Uh, this development would not, um, And in fact, this development, we feel, would complement the existing adjacent single-family homes and also create a buffer for those homes as you move to the more industrial areas of Terabella, the Terabella area. The gatekeeper process is vital to new development in Terabella. And the neighborhood has already spoken out repeatedly in support of the gatekeeper process, and we stand with the community and also asking for a gatekeeper process for this area and asking for a gatekeeper process in this area as planned in the fall of 2018, 2019. excuse me. Thank you.

[02:06:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[02:06:32] Kati Kamangar: Thanks. Good evening, Mayor, Metachek and Vice Mayor of the Koga and Council members, Kati Kamangar with Summerhill Housing. And I wanted to just mention to you, we do control land both in Terabella in another part of the city where we had been working with staff based on the understanding that there would be a gatekeeper, 1st in the spring, then it was maybe June, now October. But then this. And we do, fortunately, have, um, cooperative and patient property owners here on both of these properties. But, you know, there's a limit to that patience. But mainly I'm here this evening to encourage you to really think about the gatekeepers as a means for mountain view to deliver housing, more housing, without the displacement challenges that most of the residentially zone properties that you have in the city entail. And that's just by virtue of the gatekeeper process is because you're basically taking land that is not in residential use today and converting it to residential. And while there, I know there's also a desire to maintain a base of commercial in the city, I would also argue there's a number of parcels that are underutilized right now, such as some of the parcels that we're talking about. So, um, you know, such as storage or just low intensity types of commercial uses. So, our request would be that you would consider still hosting a gatekeeper later at the end of this year. Thank you.

[02:08:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[02:08:19] Brian Miranda: Good evening, Honorable Mayor Mattachek and city council members. My name is Brian Miranda. Regional Vice President of Development at public storage. I'm standing in for Andres Friedman, who I believe most of you have met with. We submitted a joint letter earlier today with Palo Alto housing regarding our potential joint gatekeeper application, as you're probably aware, Palo Alto housing, does it require a gatekeeper? However, we do. What makes this a little bit unique is that if this gatekeeper application process gets pushed, this potential synergy between the 2 property owners could disappear. I know that Palo Alto housing has time considerations, whereas obviously we don't, we're still going to be an operating property, we'd like to consider, we'd like you to consider, we respect the fact that there's significant staff constraints. But if there was a way in which there could be some criteria such as those enumerated in the letter you've got in front of you, an increase or significant increase in affordable housing, limited impact to staff resources, our projects typically don't require the significant secret process, and also that we could prove that the project timing impact of the push would be. considerable. Thank you.

[02:09:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Nix, please.

[02:09:45] Randy Suda: Good evening. Madam Mayor and members of the council, Randy Suda, Palo Altima Housing. First wanted to express my thanks and appreciation to public storage for their offer, to donate land to Palo Alto housing, in order for us to increase the number of affordable housing units that we can incorporate into our project. We're exciting, excited for this opportunity to jointly plan, both parcels, to be able to increase the size and number of affordable units we can deliver to residents and also to jointly work out an effective and efficient site plan with public storage. Obviously, I'm very cognizant and sympathetic to the demands on staff, having lived through it for many, many, many years, and fully understand the need to really channel and direct staff resources to the most important projects. What I'm asking what Palo Alto housing is asking tonight is that you leave the door open to consider certain limited set of gatekeeper applications, one that deliver on an increase in affordable housing beyond what is required under the city's current standards. And that if should you signal that tonight, Palo Alto housing and public storage would spend the summer working on a site plan to potentially increase the number of units beyond the 20 or so that we previously indicated. We think if we spend additional time over the summer, we can potentially yield at greater increase than what we were able to identify at a 1st glance. So thank you very much.

[02:11:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you go, the vice mayor has a question for you.

[02:11:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and I hope the workload wasn't why you retired for the city.

[02:11:37] Randy Suda: But it may have been.

[02:11:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I wanted to, I met with, you know, I met with you and the Andreas from public storage. I understand the offer, but I just wanted to get clarification on that. It's a donation of land, but if you were to build more units, Is there an expectation that you would be requesting affordable housing funds from the city or is the property owner willing to subsidize all of the units in its entirety?

[02:12:16] Randy Suda: At this point, my understanding of the offer is that it's a donation of land, we haven't not heard of an offer that would to pay for the construction of the units.

[02:12:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Would there be an or a potential request to the city for affordable housing funds to help construct the unit?

[02:12:37] Randy Suda: Potentially, yes. We would, as we spoke about, we would look at a variety of funding sources, potentially exploring measure A funds, which would significantly decrease the amount of city contribution, that would be involved in building the project. Yeah, that's it's certainly an alternative that we have been exploring and speaking to, variety of, both to our board and variety of advocacy groups, to bring to reality. Thank you.

[02:13:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have one more question for you. Council member Kameh?

[02:13:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I don't know if it's for you or for your co letter writer. But one of the items noted was the parcel land value. So it says $300, so is it $300 a square foot of the land or?

[02:13:31] Randy Suda: But that's the figure in the letter, yes.

[02:13:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, it says valued at approximately 300 square feet of land. with a dollar sign before the 300. So I just didn't. I thought I thought the, how much square footage is actually being donated, and what's the total land value of that donation. Is that available?

[02:13:51] Randy Suda: Yeah, it's close to 10,000 square feet, about 9,700. We don't have we have not done a detailed civil on the exact parcel side. It's roughly 9,700 square feet, so at $300 a square foot is the estimated value.

[02:14:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: At 300 a square foot. Okay. Thank you.

[02:14:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? Wishing to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion, and at this point, I think what we are going to do is divide the conversation. Um, and we have a couple of council members who need to recuse themselves, uh, when we talk about the LASD TDRs.

[02:14:37] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And if I may, Madam Mayor, just if it's the council's pleasure, we could segment the discussion, and if you deal with the LASD, TDR 1st and separately, then the 2 council members who will be recusing themselves could participate in the rest of the conversation.

[02:14:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, that's what I think I would like to do. Thank you.

[02:14:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, yep. Council member Ramirez.

[02:15:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I will disclose that I have a leasehold interest, what is it, some 800 feet away from the from the potential, the Merlone Guyer PDR project, and I will not be participating in that part of the discussion.

[02:15:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member McAllister.

[02:15:20] Councilmember John McAlister: I will be recusing myself on this particular item to avoid any conflict of interest concerns.

[02:15:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And Council member McAllister, that's because of your leasehold relationship with LASD, correct?

[02:15:37] Councilmember John McAlister: That is correct.

[02:15:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um... the question we have before us is, uh, just regarding the Merlon E. Geyer, LASD, TDR, application in the San Antonio Precise Plan area. And, uh, are there any questions or comments about that? The question is should we allow those to go forward? Vice Mayor Abi Koga?

[02:16:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yes, so I know that we allowed the other, or we've moved forward with the other LASD, TDR gatekeepers, and, um, I see, um, Mr. Superintendent here, I'm hoping that, um, things are moving along on the school district side site, um, side for the, um, acquisition of that, um, federal property for the school. So in light of that, I know this was an expectation that all of the TDRs be available, so I am inclined to support moving this final one forward.

[02:16:51] Unknown Speaker: I agree with everything you said, I think we are committed to helping the school district, create the 10th site. And so I'm supportive of the LASD TDRs going forward.

[02:17:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Commade, did you have a comment?

[02:17:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: No, no real comment. Just that I'll be voting for the motion, and I agree. I feel like we've all committed to moving forward, and this is a step in terms of making sure that that happens.

[02:17:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have emotion by the vice mayor, and I 2nded it. Council member Clark, did you have any comments or are you just ready to vote?

[02:17:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: No comments.

[02:17:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, we are ready for a roll call vote.

[02:17:35] City Clerk: Council member Clark?

[02:17:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: No.

[02:17:38] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[02:17:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:17:40] City Clerk: Council member Kmeh?

[02:17:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:17:42] City Clerk: Council member McAllister is recused. Council member Ramirez is recused, Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[02:17:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[02:17:48] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[02:17:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. So that passes 502 with council members, McAllister and Ramirez, recused. Thank you, yes. Thank you. So now we can have them come back. Unless they left. We were quick. Okay, so moving on to the second part of this. Uh, which is, um, the timing for the next gatekeeper application review. Comments. Council member Ramirez.

[02:19:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sorry, quick question for staff. So just so I can better understand the 1st gentleman's comments regarding the subdivision in the R1 zone. So can you help me better understand what the property owner can do with that property and sort of what this project would entail?

[02:19:27] City Staff: So serving from memory of my previous discussions with the property owner, they are intending, or they would like to rezone their property from R17.5 to R1, six, which has a R17.5 has a minimum lot size of 7500 square feet, where R1 has a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet, with our intention to do a flag lot. with the reduction in the minimum amount size. Based on initial staff analysis, they wouldn't have enough lot width or lot size to do a flag lot because flag lots require additional square footage above the 6000 square feet to accommodate for the flagpole, which cannot be done as an easement. It has to be done in fee to the street at a minimum width. And in addition to the 6000 square feet. So, were they, would they be able to acquire additional land surrounding it? That might be feasible. But as the property sits today, We don't believe that it could accommodate a flag lot.

[02:20:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great, thank you.

[02:20:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:20:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can we is it okay to go into comments? Okay, thank you. So, um, thank you to staff for bringing this forward and thank you to my colleagues for allowing us to discuss this. This is something that I've been thinking about for a while in light of just hearing from staff. I am seeing the number of projects that we have in the pipeline. Um, frankly, um, and I wanted to respond to council member Kame's question about the nature of gatekeepers. And I was with RT back in 2004-ish when I was on the EPC. And at that time, we had an older, our old, our previous general plan that was already about 10, 12 years old. And we were seeing a lot of rezoning proposals coming through the EPC. At that time. Interestingly, they were mostly commercial properties wanting to develop into residential. And so there was a concern that maybe the general plan was outdated. And the gatekeeper was created as, I don't know, like an interim process until we created a new updated the new general plan to let projects move forward so we didn't have a complete stop of all projects. But, um, as you know, um, and, you know, frankly, back then it was, um, Council member, uh, Jack Siegel, and I, we were on the EPC together and we ran for council, and one of our platform items was to, uh, do the general plan update, which we've done. And we've also done the precise plans. And, you know, we've spent a lot of time and resources. I know there was an article in the paper about North Bay Shore on these updates of the plan. And the idea was eventually when we updated everything and allowed for rezonings and up zoning a lot much of the city, we would not have to do cakekeepers anymore because they should just be able to come in through the process. As long as they follow the general plan. They should streamline and get approved and move forward. So somewhere along the way, that was lost in translation. And, you know, I know back in 2015, there was something like 15, I don't know, 20 gatekeeper applications. And I understood that as, you know, potentially, as we were working on East Wisman and other areas, we might have needed an interim process. But at this point in time, we have, you know, pretty much we're completing most of our precise plan areas that we deemed as change areas. And, um, frankly, you know, as there are some comments about trying to deliver housing more quickly or quickly as quickly as possible. The fastest way to deliver housing, if you ask me, is one, let's complete the 35 or I saw up to, I don't know where the number, 3500 to 6500 units in our pipeline. Let's just get those built. And two, Finland, in our precise plan areas that we've upzoned 4 and developed there. That was the whole intent of doing precise plans and general plans. So this gatekeeper process should really be going away and it's not, and my concern is that these projects, because they're not zoned already, take probably more time for staff. And I've been concerned about, you know, just the backlog, frankly, we're getting, you know, scrutinized by the state, to build housing, build housing. And I say, you know what? We have 4th of 3504,000 units in the pipeline, they're just not getting built. And so, you know, when I ask, well, what's the problem? And I hear folks say, well, staff is, you know, backlogs so they don't get back to us in time or very quickly. Um, you know, I just felt that, okay, maybe this is time for us to put a pause on gatekeepers, finish up all the, you know, as many projects as we can that we already have in the pipeline, finish up our precise plans. We just added in our goal setting, downtown precise plan and several row house guidelines, which will probably take a couple of years. So there's a lot of projects in the pipeline. And I'd like to get those done before we look at gatekeepers. And, you know, I want to be clear today. as my feeling is, you know, I brought this up before, but in East Wisman, we're about to finish the precise plan and I don't expect any gatekeepers for that area. I don't plan to look at personally look at any gatekeepers because we just rezoned it. We just, you know, change, we just up zoned it. So you need to follow the precise plan to develop. And that's simply what we're saying. El Camino has done well. San Antonio is moving along. Let's get these other areas done. And then developers just need to find land in these areas and develop those lands and that will happen much more quickly through the streamlined process. Thanks.

[02:26:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments? Council member Clark, did you have any comments?

[02:26:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I feel slightly differently. Um, You know, I, I, I, I agree with the sentiment generally, I, I agree with the history and the sentiment around, um, you know, the gatekeeper process in general and, and, um, you know, putting plans in place and, and, you know, you've been, deviating from those as, little as possible. I think what I'm struggling with is, um, is in Terabella specifically, um, we, we, very deliberately chose, um, you know, I, I thought the profess plan was the best path, but we, we went another direction, and my understanding of going in that different, other direction was, you know, okay, we, we decided we don't want to spend a year or 2 doing a full precise plan. We'll consider gatekeepers because they come in for the area, um, and sort of try and fulfill some rough. I don't know if it certainly wouldn't be exactly the T of what the visioning would be, but something along those lines. And so now what I'm hearing is. Oh well, never mind. Um, not only are we not going to do it precisely and we're not going to consider any gatekeepers for a year either until everything is just DOA, um, and I just don't think that's the right approach, um, and had I known that that was how this is going to play out. I probably would have prioritized things in the goal setting very differently. So, um, what I would say is, you know, I, I'm not interested in having, you know, these marathon gatekeeper meetings where we have 20 applications and, you know, basically staff, so we can handle one or 2 and um, we try and force 3 or 4 um, to, to go through or something like that. I think those days are over, but what I do think we should at least be open to having a hearing on is, if there's something that's a significant master clan, or if there's something that provides a significant amount of affordable housing or land dedication over and above what the city would normally require. I think we should at least have a meeting where we say, where we, one, just take a look at a high level of what that is, and 2 decide whether or not something else on our, um, agenda or, or, uh, on our priorities is where shipping around for that, and maybe the answer is no. But I, I think it's, um, I think it's short-sighted to just say, no, we don't care how good anything is, if it's a gatekeeper, we're not even going to look at it until, you know, a year from now. I just think that's short-sighted. So I, at minimum, you know, if we have a hearing on the, on those, if we set the threshold, someone applies to that, we have the hearing and we decide at the time that it's not worth shifting our priorities around for, then so be it. But I think we, um, I think we, we lose something by, by not even being able to consider those and considering what those priorities are at the time. So.

[02:29:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[02:29:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm gonna basically underline what council member Clark just said, I was following the vice mayor's logic and liked it a great deal, with the exception that we did decide not to do a precise plan in Terabella. we did say we'd do gatekeepers instead. So I like the solution that council member Clark is leaning towards of having a meeting where we could reprioritize things. Um, because of the Terabella situation.

[02:29:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments?

[02:30:05] Unknown Speaker: Where are we at at this? What are we trying to be decided? Is it just general comments or are we trying to do?

[02:30:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: General comments, where you are on timing of gatekeepers. Council member McAllister? Go ahead.

[02:30:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was I was involved in the 2015 marathon. But I thought it was a good process. I was asking the earlier question about if something really big comes along. Um, But I don't, uh, I personally don't believe that we should wait or not accept gatekeepers for a year and a half . I sort of like having things on the docket ready to be moved ahead because we never know what's going to happen in the environment. And at least if we give some certainty to the developers. We always have the option as a council to say yes or no to the project, but I sort of like to be knowing, okay, well, here is something I can pick from. And if it's really good that we can move forward with it. So to just totally shut down the gatekeeper process for a year and a half , I have concerns about. I know before we had projects where we did delay the gatekeeper for a year, says, okay, you're in the queue. We had initial informal look and it would still take a year out. And I sort of say I sort of like to go along that same lines, I was looking at something particular. Along with the questions I was asking earlier is that if something comes along in a master plan that really entails a lot of property that could bring in 1000s of units and so forth. And one fall swoop versus doing 200, 200, 200, I think that would be an exception that I would like to see be able to move forward. In many ways, I agree. I sort of like a hybrid of what the vice mayor is saying is clamp down on things and just say, let's get everything done, but at least give people to get in the queue and say, you're in the queue, but you're not going to be seen for a while, but at least you're ready to have some informal review or whatever, but you're still not going to get until we get some other projects done.

[02:32:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Voice mayor, I'll be coca.

[02:32:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure.

[02:32:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I sort of have mixed feelings about this. I appreciate that folks want to know. But I also believe that it's really important to do long range planning. we have more of that to do, and we prioritized as part of our council goals, additional projects that take up long range planning resources, and we were actually even adding a person. So, You know, I think when you do that long range planning, then you have a better idea of what collectively something is going to could develop. And I think that's really important. And I'm concerned that if you do a gatekeeper process and you say, but you don't get to start on that for a year or whatever, you know, we've heard that folks don't want to wait. Plus, I feel like so many things could change in that year. I'm not sure. I prioritize the same things I prioritize now that I might prioritize a year from now because things might change and there might be other options that we'd want to look at. So that kind of also is a concern if we just say, oh, let's pick a few, like a large master plan. Well, how do I know that that's the one we should focus on when there might be others that we haven't seen? So I feel like I either want a complete view or not working on this for a while, rather than kind of piecemealing things and saying, well, then we'll make some exceptions. So I'm kind of all or nothing on this. Vice Merabe Koga.

[02:34:22] Unknown Speaker: Council member Kameh?

[02:34:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, so, uh, I kind of echo the sentiments of feeling torn. Um, you know, one of the things, uh, that I think is really important is when we, as a governing body, um, set a priority or set a goal that you meet them or achieve them. And I think when we were looking over council goal setting, we prioritize the North Bay Shore Master plan because we already are, what, 6 years in to trying to complete North Bay Shore. Um, we looked at East Wisman because that had been in the docket for years. Both of those sites are also part of the general plan as change areas. So for me, not only are they prioritized by the council, they also fit into the overarching kind of goal of our general plan. And so for me, that's very important when I am thinking about, as a mayor was saying, kind of long term planning. Um, and I think that we have set expectations in those areas, um, as change areas. Um, And my concern about the gatekeepers, particularly the ones that are getting, uh, public comment tonight, um, are that, one, it's not identified as a change area in our general plan to, there isn't a precise plan or a completed vision plan to, um, move forward with. So overall in that area, there isn't a vision. on what that area should be. And I think it's really important to treat everyone equally, and the same. And what I have been hearing from staff, at least in the last 6 months is in this new role is the issue of capacity. So while we could say we moved forward with gatekeepers, it sounds like on a capacity level, realistically, things would not be moving forward for a year as it is. Um, So that is kind of the reflections that I take into looking at gatekeepers, I think council member McAllister touches on what about the exceptional, and I think that that is, um, you know, part of why I feel torn because that we also want to seize those opportunities, right? The city has always done a good job about doing that. So, Those are kind of, some of my initial thoughts, um, on this.

[02:37:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[02:37:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Similarly, I've struggled with this a little bit. There are certain, you know, I think we've all met with a number of prospective applicants and there are some very compelling proposals out there. But when I think about what we're achieving with gatekeepers, it's the overriding consideration in my mind is staff capacity. I don't find a lot of value in authorizing a gatekeeper, as the vice mayor had said, and then delaying it from the get go. because that then deprives us of the opportunity to evaluate other potential projects. So we've already committed some staff capacity for a project when we really haven't had an opportunity to have more, you know, holistic view of things. I know this has been done historically, but I think the process ended up being unsatisfactory for almost everybody. Some of these projects took 4 years. We heard concerns about evolving expectations, which I'm comfortable with because over 4 years, our expectations change. You know, I appreciate where council member McAllister is coming from, but I would argue that there's actually no certainty with gatekeepers. because of the, you know, the lengthy period of time it takes to evaluate these gatekeepers and because of, you know, potentially many different councils providing comments and many different councils with differing and changing expectations. So, and I'm also not interested in reshuffling priorities. I think we spend a lot of time with our with our goal setting. And I'm quite happy with how things ended up and I would have great reservations about reviewing those and then arguing about which of the priorities that we've set, you know, should be delayed for potential consideration of a gatekeeper 2 years from now. You know, so I'm not I'm not comfortable. shuffling the priorities that we've just set. I guess the only way I would be comfortable with reviewing gatekeepers at all is if there's a demonstration that it would have no impact to staff capacity, that we would not have to change any of our priorities, that it would not delay any other projects. And I think realistically, that's, I assume, that that's not possible. Well, that may be crystal clear. That is not possible. So this is the fundamental challenge I have, is I don't want to delay our priorities. You know, I would like at some point to review a lot of what I think are very compelling, you know, potential projects, but if there's no way to take them on without changing our priorities and without bumping other things further down the road, then it's very difficult for me to want to spend time doing this.

[02:40:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[02:40:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And thank you for the comments. So, um, yeah, I guess, you know, I've been doing this a few years now and I've seen from 100s at this point, about projects coming and come and go. And, um, in light of where we are with our precise plans and general plan. If we were going to do a gatekeeper, I feel that it has to be extraordinary. And to be honest, the projects I have, if we've seen, come through maybe a couple, I would say, are extraordinary. 777 West Middlefield with 144 units for educators. I'd say that's pretty extraordinary. But the other projects I'm seeing aren't that extraordinary. And so, you know, I just I think the bar is higher now than it was 4 years ago, 6 years ago. And so it really has to be something spectacular. And I just don't feel like we're seeing projects that are at that caliber to shuffle around all of our priorities. I also wanted to mention that with gatekeeper projects. We've seen projects that, you know, they sit around for a while and they change, right? Like the one, the Fayette condo project. How many times does that come back to us? Is it gave care for like 2 or 3 times? So there's some, you know, I just have a lot of questions about the necessity or the usefulness of the gatekeeper process at this point in time, frankly. I'd much rather look at, you know, our precise plans. And I think we put in some pretty cutting edge strategies on how to get some, you know, what we want in terms of affordability, transportation. And when we talk about units and, you know, I hear, well, we can deliver more units. For me, it's not just about units. It's about the community and having a plan for how the city is supposed to be laid out. And when we see the gatekeeper projects, they're, you know, one offs here and there usually. And so, I, you know, we, we veer away from our plan. And I would really like to focus, get us back on focus, to our plan, because we do have a vision and a plan for this community. So, I was going to ask staff. I mean, I was a little surprised that your recommendation was fall of 20 or Q3 of 2020, do you see that potentially moving up to Q2 or earlier in 2020? I mean, I would I would be open to that. But I don't think we should be doing it this fall.

[02:43:15] Unknown Speaker: Questions, question. RT and Stephanie can certainly chime in and overrule me. I think the reality is, as you recall, when you talked about goals, and we made you prioritize your priorities because we couldn't do all of those, even with an additional body funded by the council for advanced planning. You recall that additional body, actually only bought you one more project, because these projects are so big and so complex and so long term. So, you know, I think we can say if, for some reason, resources free up and we have the capacity, we would come back to you, but honestly, I don't want to set that expectation for you or the applicants at this point. Even a year for now. Again, many of these projects on our list are 18, 24 month projects. So I think it's unlikely, but certainly if capacity did free up, we would come back to you sooner.

[02:44:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And so then, and one last comment about Terabella, I understand that challenge, I, you know, I mulled over it too, but I guess for me personally, I wasn't around when Terabella was put on the table, it wasn't a part of the general plan update, you know, and I think Councilman Ramirez had a really good point when we discussed it. We don't know what the vision for that area is. So, if anything, and I think it's in our our list of projects to do is to finish the visioning of Terabella, and I would be, you know, definitely be supportive of doing that. So we get a clear understanding of what we want to achieve in that area. So with that, I will make a motion to um, accept stuff, recommendation, to, or actually stuff, didn't have a recommendation, to delay the gatekeeper, um, authorization hearing to Q uh, Q3 of 2020.

[02:45:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:45:20] Councilmember John McAlister: I have a question for staff. So we drop gatekeepers. And then, but people that meet the precise plan can still come up and put a development package to us, correct?

[02:45:32] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:45:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So in the in the flow of development. Do you see any kind of little beep or in our development as we go along that there's going to be a time when not much is going to be being developed or there's enough to phase it out so that there's a continuum that we really wouldn't notice a delay in taking gatekeepers?

[02:45:59] Unknown Speaker: I think for the two-year council goal cycle, we didn't see that opening, which is why we said to the council, we can't do all the goals. I don't know what's going to happen from after those projects are completed. Obviously, we'll have some capacity.

[02:46:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I mean, but these projects we're looking, if they start today, it could be three, four, 5 years, 6 years before we even see them developed. And that's what I'm saying is this timeline is, you know, there's ability to get financing, whatever, you know, the iron strikes when it's hot, but if we delay, the precise points, that's still going to be 2 years out or like the East Wisman is coming up. We still have North Bay Shore. Terabella is a visioning, so. Is there going to be a process where, you know, there will be a gap that we've caught up or is there still going to be enough in the pipeline that just keeps going out for, you know, we got a backlog of 5 years or 10 years, you know, 6 years of projects that there's going to be continuous building along that whole timeline.

[02:47:02] Unknown Speaker: So I think this projects are very planning intensive in the beginning. And then after that, we still do need to keep up because it takes an inordinate amount of time to make sure that projects meet all of the conditions and expectations. So yes, you're right. A project might take 6 years before people can move in. But we're mainly looking at the planning part when we talk to you with some consideration giving to the building part. So, again, if you're asking in 5 or 6 years, when we finish council goals, right? It's a two-year cycle, we still have this, the bottom layer that takes up probably a good 70% of our time of projects that meet precise plan requirements that we don't have a choice. We have to do those. And we have a little bit of bandwidth than to do those discretionary projects that include council goals. as well as gatekeepers. And so in about 18 months. I mean, you're going to hear this in about a year and a half, by which time I would say we can tell you if you've got some bandwidth. But before that probably not.

[02:48:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I probably won't support the motion because I'd always like to see something in the particular pipeline, even though it's delayed a year, which it has been and it has worked in the past where projects have been delayed a year. One advantage of, as and I remember in March 15, when we came up, we had a quote, beauty contest, and what happened, it raised the bar of the projects and the benefits, community benefits to us is that people were eager to get their projects approved. And so forth, they did do exceptional items, community benefits and making a great project. So it's an opportunity that we could say, okay, we're not doing it or we may take a few, but we're only going to take the very, very best of what is, and again, the innovative project. So, uh, I think there's an opportunity to max, you know, take advantage of this curtailment and just say only the very exceptional project so forth. So I would like to see that, but if that was part of the motion, I could see that, but I cannot support the current one.

[02:49:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Mermirez.

[02:49:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I wanted to see if the vice mayor would be willing to include a modification that would allow for us to consider gatekeepers sooner if staff capacity does free up.

[02:49:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, thank you. Council member Clark, did you have any additional comments?

[02:49:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, because I probably won't support the motion. I think, you know, I heard comments about, you know, if something really is spectacular, um, and, you know, we're, by doing this, we're not creating any sort of path to even look at those things, and, um, which I think is, I just don't think is the right, the right path forward, and I heard a lot of comments about how important long range planning is, which I totally agree with. Um, but we actively chose not to do long range planning in an area where the zoning is really old and we're just seeing a lot of applications and, you know, I respect the council's decision on with that, but my, uh, but I, um, but even if you finish up the visioning for that area. You're still going to, under the current rules, force everyone to go through a gate a non-existent gatekeeper process. So, maybe as part of the visioning, we allow visioning compliant projects to proceed, without having to go through a gate keeper hearing. I don't know, maybe that's a decision for a later time, but I just think at a very, very high level. You know, this is, you know, vice mayor, and and many others have been either on council or not EPC for a long time, making very different markets. You know, this is a market in which we can get things like teacher housing, that we can't get another times, and I think to just totally slam the door and all those things is, um, and not even have a hearing to consider those things, and whether they should take priority over other things is, um, just not the, not the right course, but, um, I'll certainly respect the, the decision, the rest of my colleagues make. I just hope that we can at least find some, if we, if we don't want to allow gatekeepers, um, that we can at least allow a path forward maybe in areas like, Terabella, where the zoning is quite old. We've gone through an enormous amount of, um, public outreach and a visioning process and all of those things, and I would hate for all that to go to waste. Um, I know that we don't want to do a precise point at this point, and maybe the, maybe a solution is to after we finish divisioning to say that, you know, certain applications that meet certain threshold requirements that and are compliant with the visioning process are allowed to proceed. But, um, but anyway, I, uh, I'm the gatekeeper fund. I just, um, I think we should leave, at least, um, leave the door open to considering projects in in this type of market, so, um, I won't be able to support this particular motion.

[02:52:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member command?

[02:52:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. Um, so, uh, Counselor Clark brings up something that I was thinking about. So my understanding is that visioning will be coming back in October, November, is that right?

[02:52:25] Unknown Speaker: In the fall, yeah, fall.

[02:52:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, you know, I think that I have an openness to talking then when we have a vision, but, you know, I think that would be more aligned with our goals and then we can, you know, see. So I'm open to having that conversation once the visioning process is complete. Um, But even, you know, that is also to say, I feel like I am hearing loud and clear from stuff that the capacity, even if we listen to them in October, the capacity might not be there. But I think that, you know, so that, to me, is the largest thing to think about. But for the applications in the Terabella area, I mean, I just think that that conversation should happen once we have the vision. Um, which, you know, I don't know if we can include in the Vice American, include in the motion, um, for, you know, when that's when that comes forward in the fall. I think that's more reasonable.

[02:53:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor of a Coca.

[02:53:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I'm gonna try to, I'm open to that, but I'm really gonna, um, frankly, leave it to staff to let us know when they're ready because, you know, yeah, we've had this conversation many times, you know, I've heard city manager and, you know, and say, and we see it. I mean, I mean, look at the projects, the number of projects coming through. It is a huge load. And I really want to be mindful of our staff. I mean, they work hard and they, I think they're the best best of the best. And yet, you know, we have issues of burnout. We have issues of, you know, folks leaving because of, I mean, the challenges of living here. And then when we put on top of that, a humongous workload. I mean, let's just, you know, remember that we have approved and we're building more housing units and pre- pretty much any other city in Santa Clara County, including San Jose. And we're and we're, you know, a 10th of their size. So I really want to be mindful of staff. So I'm open to us revisiting it. Yes, I think we should finish the visioning of Terabella in the fall. And then based on that, if staff feels that they can take on projects earlier, let's say maybe spring of 2020, then I will leave it to staff to bring it back to us. I understand the interest and concern. But again, we've we've zoned for 15,000 housing units in North Bay Shore and East Wisman, and none of those have been built yet. So we have a lot of things that we have a lot of units that can just get built right away if they just follow the plan. So we're not stopping development at all. We're just saying go through our streamlined process. Don't go the hard way. And this is a year, folks. It's not forever. It's not even like 5 years. one year, just to give staff some breathing space. So that's what I'm asking for is if, you know, we really could be mindful of our staff. Thanks.

[02:55:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, and we have to finish East Wisman too, but once we do, we'll have, you know, we'll have zone for over 15,000, actually 22 if you put the rest of the city that we've zoned for. Council member Hicks.

[02:56:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just want to clarify that I understand what the motion is at this point. So my and whether I'll support it or not. My main concern is staff capacity, and my secondary concern is Terabella, where, if I remember right, we decided not to do a precise plan and have very old zoning and made that decision based on the idea that we'd be considering gatekeepers was my understanding. So, if what this motion is, is that we would put off gatekeepers until the fall of 2020, but do a Terabella visioning earlier and revisit revisit the decision at that time, then I think I could somewhat reluctantly support that.

[02:56:56] Unknown Speaker: Is it just, um, revisit gatekeepers in Terabella?

[02:56:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, what is it? Keepers overall? Terabella. I'm going to say gatekeepers in Terabella. Okay. to just focus.

[02:57:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, is everyone clear on the motion?

[02:57:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, so just so I heard right, um, so when we, when we finished the visioning, we'd also talk at that time about whether or not to consider, um, maybe basically projects that meet the, the roughly meet the visioning. Um, is, is that right?

[02:57:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: In the Terabella area, yes.

[02:57:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think I think that's reasonable and that's really what I cared most about. I, I think what I, what I was a little bit, um, frankly, I was just a little bit annoyed at was that we had, had I known during the goal setting process that, I, I assume that, you know, we decided not to do a precise plan, which was fine. I just assume that, you know, we, we basically decided to do a visioning process and then gatekeepers, and had I known during the goal setting process that, you know, one of the trade-offs was, 0 and no gatekeepers, including Terabella, I probably would have made other prioritization decisions. So, if, if we're, um, if we're willing to sort of finish envisioning and then talk about what projects we, we do or don't prioritize, then I'm perfectly fine with that and, and, uh, and um can support the motion then.

[02:58:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments? So we have a motion by the vice mayor, and I 2nded it.

[02:58:29] Unknown Speaker: If I could chime in not to model the waters further, but I do want to be clear. Again, I mean, we do intend to bring back the Terabella Vision to you in the fall of this year. That does not free up capacity. So there will still be the same capacity issue then. If and when we take up gatekeepers, it's absolutely your prerogative to say our priorities in Terabella, or we're only going to allow them in Terabella, or whatever you want, but just because we've adopted the vision, does not create capacity at that point. So I just want to be clear that, you know, we're not necessarily going to be able to take on Terabella gatekeepers that time.

[02:59:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I understand that. I know it doesn't magically create resources and those decisions have been made. Maybe what we can do at that time was just, would be talk about maybe the thresholds under which maybe it has to not only meet the vision, but meet certain other threshold requirements and there would be some sort of facing. Um, where, you know, we could do one or 2 within a certain amount of time. I I think we can talk about it then. I I certainly don't expect it.

[02:59:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, you know, just because we have this meeting, it magically means that we can start accepting gate coopers in Turbo. I mean, at this point, we're talking about months, to be honest. So let's say we finished the visioning in the fall, have a conversation about whether what kind of gatekeepers to look at. It probably won't come back to us until the spring anyway. So, um, I'm open to letting that happen if staff is able to, but let's, you know, I think we just should really be clear that staff capacity is limited, and if we want to get all of our goals done, we're going to have to hold off on this, and I just, you know, to me, it's like, I'd rather just say, hold and get some of these projects through and done, and then take on a whole new batch and by next fall, maybe there'll be other projects that look better, right? And that's that idea. I mean, things change, priorities change, economy changes, and all frankness, folks, you know, I've been here over 10 years in projects like we can approve them and they sit for 5 or 6 years anyway because something else happens financing or whatnot. I know everyone's afraid the economy is gonna, you know, tank and whatnot. Yes, it probably will go down at some point, but it always comes back up. And that's just something like, you know, I've seen. I think we all see the economic cycle, but to me, it's staff, time, staff, load is more important to me right now than getting one more project and quickly. That's probably going to have to wait another year anyway to get worked on.

[03:01:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments? Cancel number Hicks, did you ever comment?

[03:01:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No.

[03:01:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay.

[03:01:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: What?. Do I repeat that? So, my emotion is to... I'm not even going to say delay to hold our next gatekeeper hearing in the 3rd quarter of 2020. complete the visioning for Terabella. And if that at that time after the completion of the visioning staff, deans that they have capacity to take on some Terabella gatekeeper projects, we can bring that back and have that cover discussion.

[03:02:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep. Any comments? Before we vote? Okay, let's call the question.

[03:02:35] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[03:02:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:02:38] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[03:02:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes?

[03:02:40] City Clerk: Council member Kameh?

[03:02:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[03:02:41] City Clerk: Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez.

[03:02:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:02:45] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[03:02:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[03:02:46] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[03:02:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We have one more item. which is the item 7.2 El Camino Real Street skate plan, which is Project 1667. And before we dive into this, We have a comment from council member Clark.

[03:03:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'll excuse myself on this item into a real property interest within 500 feet of the project and did you all good night.

[03:03:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And Council member McAllister?

[03:03:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Third time's the charm. I have to recuse myself on this particular item because I have a leasehold improvement on El Camino and need to avoid any conflict.

[03:03:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will start with the staff presentation.

[03:04:01] Transportation Manager Ria Hutabarat Lo: Hi, I'm Rhea Hutchbarrett Low Transportation Manager, and this is Dawn Cameron, the assistant public works director. We also have the project manager, Helen Kim, in the audience and bike paired planner, Nate Bed. So today our goal is to present and obtain council feedback on elements of the El Camino streetscape plan, with a focus on those elements that could potentially be integrated into an upcoming Caltrans repaving project. In Mountain View, El Camino Real is a 4 mile multimodal transportation corridor and linear activity hub. It includes some segments, as you can see here, that, you know, cross borders and some segments where mountain view only controls land juices on one side of the border. or on one side of the street rather. So there are an extensive set of policies and plans that relate to El Camino Real in Mountain View and also the surrounding cities and regions. And these policies envision El Camino Real as a revitalized boulevard, including pleasant pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and an attractive place to live, work, and play. In developing these concepts, we've conducted extensive outreach and engagement, including the community, stakeholders, committees and also agencies, and that includes door-to-door outreach and postcards to all tenants and owners within the corridor. And tonight we're not presenting the full streetscape plan, but we're specifically focusing on those elements that are pertinent to the discussion about integration into the Caltrans project. So when we compare with the existing cross section, key changes would be accommodated within the existing curb to curb right of way. And these include removing on-street parking and installation of class 4 protected bikeways and class 2 bike planes in areas where there are pinch points or other types of constraints. So the class for protected bike lanes are fully separated. They have some sort of vertical elements, such as a curb or the armadillo bumps that you can see in the slide. And the class 2 bicanes involve paint only. To understand the parking implications of these changes, staff has conducted a parking survey. And what we found from this survey is that in terms of supply, there are 556 on street spaces. There are some segments where there is already no parking permitted, including the whole segment from the 237 to Sylvan. In terms of parking utilization, our survey found that the utilization is generally low, for example, between El Monte and Calderon, the peak utilization was 37% and in other areas, the peak utilization was 25%. For areas where people were parking on street staff also conducted an on-site availability study, and we found that with the exception of 7 parcels along the entire corridor, people are parking on street out of convenience rather than a lack of other alternatives. And so the 7 parcels include a popular eating place, a residential development, with side street available for side street parking, another popular eating place, a service space that has available side street parking, a landlock eating place with no on site parking. A home business and a service place with side street parking. So looking at the potential for bikeway integration in conjunction, implementation, sorry, in conjunction with the Caltrans project, we have another a number of recommendations based on, you know, a number of factors including these parking impacts. So for the outer segments from Delmedio to Ringstorf and also from Sylvan to CrestView, Staff is recommending waiting to implement the bikeway until we can align with projects in the neighboring or adjoining cities. Between Rangsdorf and Castro Street, Council would need to weigh the benefits of bikeway implementation against the impacts on parking that I previously mentioned. And then from Castro to Silvan, staff recommends prioritizing bikeway implementation and working to implement this in conjunction with the Caltrain's repaving project. We recently learned that the repaving project also includes a number of pedestrian elements, including upgrading of the ADA ramps. And so therefore, we'd like to work with Caltrans to see what other pedestrian elements we can integrate into their project. In terms of process, what would happen is that based on the feedback that we get from you tonight, the city would submit a proposal for improvements as part of the Caltrans project. And we found out Caltrans has informed us that they need this information this summer. in order to piggyback onto their project. Caltrans would then consider whether these elements are consistent with their policies and standards as well as the scope of this project. And if so, um, If the projects are covered under other projects covered under the Caltrans budget, for projects that could be covered under the Caltrans budget, Caltrans would build and fund those improvements as part of their repaving project. For projects that, you know, would not fit within their budget, the city and Caltrans would execute a cooperative agreement, and then the city would provide funds to Caltrans and Caltrans would install the facilities as part of their project. When we return in fall, where the full streetscape plan, there's another number of other elements that will also be included in the plan, and that we can also pursue as either CIP projects or that would be installed by the developer by developer developers. So, um, for example, there was um, 3 new pedestrian and bicycle crossings at Pettus, Bonita and Crestview Drive, and we would envision that these would be pursued as CIP projects. Also, intersection improvements, including protected intersections, and closure of the El Monte slip lane creation of a pedestrian plaza. We would anticipate that these would also be separate CIPs. And then other street escape elements, such as landscaping, lighting, and street furniture are most likely to be included as part of developments along the corridor. In terms of next steps, staff would like to start engaging with Caltrans in the summer and then return with the full plan in the fall. And what we're recommending tonight is that council provide input and direction on the draft concepts, including the proposed removal of on street parking to accommodate bikeways. And secondly, the council directs staff to work with Caltrans to identify an advanced opportunities to install bikeways between Castro and Silvan, and also to pursue pedestrian improvements that are compatible with a Caltrans repaving project. Thank you.

[03:11:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[03:12:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. One is, have you explored any shared parking between housing or commercial uses so that, you know, the odd, it sounds like there's not a great deal of need for additional parking if we removed the parking to put in the bike lanes, but there might be, in projects I've worked in in the past, there might be a project with nighttime uses adjacent to a project with daytime uses. And I'm wondering whether you've looked at any situations like that.

[03:12:45] Staff Presenter: Um, so, um, yeah, shared parking is a good option for new development. The issue is the existing developments that already exist on the street. And so for those ones, the existing conditions is what we were looking at. But certainly for if there was a development proposal, that would be something that could be considered as an efficient use of parking.

[03:13:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So there's no way to look at shared situations among existing uses. Because often when I go up and down the street, there's a lot of empty parking in longtime uses.

[03:13:22] City Staff: I think in this case, we're not suggesting that the city would try to lead any of those conversations between the existing uses, based upon the parking lotization study, as we were noted, there's only seven parcels where it appeared that at certain times of the week or day, there is overflow parking happening onto the street. And we're not recommending that as the initial segment for implementing a bike way. Now, should the council decide at some point that they would like to pursue a bike way upon that segment, those segments where there is parking overflow onto the street, we can certainly under council direction, you know, suggest to property owners that they talk to their neighbors, see if they can work out shared parking arrangements, but it isn't something the city would take the lead in.

[03:14:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, another question. What is the full extent of the draft streetscaping plan we'll see in fall of 2019? Because for me, when I read this as, and I indicated in a written question, this isn't a streetscaping plan to me. This is just a, this is a bike lane, a limited bike and pedestrian plan, for me, streetscaping is about a number of additional things that make the, make the bike lanes and the, um, you know, make it so that people can walk more and make the street usable in a number of other ways that include things like street canopy, wavefinding signage, lighting. And I'm just, are all of those things going to come back to us in the fall? I understand that, um, some of the, those things will be done when developers do particular projects on the street, but I want to know that they, you know, the lighting, wayfinding signage, street furniture, um, tree canopy, all those things will be coordinated, so it won't be, you know, each, each development one off with no connection as I'm hopefully enjoying myself walking down the street.

[03:15:33] Staff Presenter: Yes, thank you. We definitely will have in the street state plan concepts, tree and shrub, palettes, street lighting, pedestrian scale lighting, concepts, street furniture, what those concepts would look like so that there can be, you know, a uniform consistent, you know, development of El Camino as a quarter. So a lot of this is already in the precise plan, and the streetscape plan is just taking it to a little finer development for easier use by developers as they come in as well as doing our capital improvement projects. So you will see a much more robust streetscape plan when we come forward in the fall.

[03:16:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, including the kinds of elements that I just, not to belabor it, but I just want to be sure. And then, um, what sort of vertical element, would you, so you talked about a vertical element dividing the bike lane from the street. What do you foresee? I would personally prefer something like a curb rather than, you know, temporary plastic ballards that get knocked over. But I'm wondering what you see in the plan.

[03:16:49] Staff Presenter: So the 2 that I mentioned were curbs, and then the armadillo bumps, which are, they're not plastic, they would be permanent. And it would be they would be permanent features rather than, you know, the rubberized curbs or those sorts of things.

[03:17:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So how do I know which one we get the armadillo bumps or the curbs or is it different ones in different places?

[03:17:12] City Staff: This is a case where Caltrans gets to make the final decision. It is their roadway. So we will work with them and tell them, you know, what our preferences are. but they will also be looking at their own standards. They are putting in more protected bike ways on their facilities. They do have standards and guidelines. they work with. It will, you know, so we will work towards probably something like armadillos or more the curbs that are permanent.

[03:17:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I strongly suggest you, if you're working with them, you work with them towards curbs that I think that I think actually work better in the long run and make a more pleasant place to bike. Um, that's all for now thing.

[03:18:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else have questions? Okay. And we'll open it up for public comment. Could I see how many folks want to address this on this topic? Okay. Each speaker will have 2 minutes. If you could be sure to fill out a blue card before or after you speak, and the 1st person can come on up.

[03:18:44] John Cortis: Good evening, Mayor Mattachek, and esteem council members. My name is John Cortis, and I'm the Santa Clara County advocate for Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. Good evening. First off, I want to thank the staff and commissioners and consultants and members of the public, Phil, create such a good streetscape plan that's before you tonight. It's a very good plan and we support the staff recommendation to partner with Caltrains on implementing improvements along the El Camino real, as part of the outcoming, I mean, real, repaving projects. We urge councils to consider recommendations tonight to focus on improving safety and implementing this plan quickly. The 2014 precise plan is already 5 years old and it focus on wider sidewalks, new pedestrian crossings. Improved bus stops, protected and buffered bike lanes, and removal of on street parking. These guidelines will help turn out Camino realms with thriving and balanced multimodal corridor and destination. In the precise plane, it took strong sand sword, making El Camino safer and more accessible, recognizing that we're moving on street parking. is a very important step in creating a safe environment for travelers and for everyone as well as for quality of life, pollution reduction, congestion, and economic benefits. Last year, you move forward, or excuse me, last week, you move forward with your Vision 0 plan, and tonight you improved your budget, all of which are helping to make some of your El Community out safer for everyone. There's 4 miles of El Camino Reounds in Mountain View, and it's some of the most dangerous streets that you have. Please accelerate your plans for implementing this street taste can to implement protected bike lanes and other safety improvements. Please feed up the work with staff and try and figure out how you can do these implementations quicker. And the more you improve the street, the more people will benefit from these facilities now rather than later. Thank you.

[03:20:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:20:49] Steven Lynn: Hi, my name is Steven Lynn. I'm a business owner in 100 West Al Camino Real. That complex is a complex mix of between residency and residence and business. And that particular area, the parking is scarce. The street parking I use quite a bit. I know the study shows like only 25%, but actually on a anytime on a given day is used more like 90%. I took pictures, but I don't have it with me. I can send it by mail. I spoke to a proper business owners in the complex as well. They also said about the same concern as I do. The next door is a mortuary and they have, whenever they have events, which is quite often they took most of the parking spaces around the area, not just the street parking, but also in the complex parking. Um, So I was, my recommendation or my request is if there's a way to uh, due to the bike lanes without taking off the uh, parking spots. especially on that section. you know, perhaps making the lane a little smaller or anything like that. Thank you very much.

[03:22:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:22:16] Leia Melman: Yes, thank you. My name is Leia Melman. I am a resident of Sunnyvale. I commute on a regular basis from Sunnyvale to Palo Alto. Right now, the corridor that I use is mostly California Avenue. It's not as safe as it could be, as especially last week or 2 weeks ago, I saw a vehicle bicycle collision on Escuela and California Street. which looked like the cyclist was rather seriously injured. So, um, because it's a residential area with lots of on street parking, having an alternative route with class Ford bike lanes on El Camino real would probably be uh, more beneficial and more attractive to uh, people to actually use the bike lanes and to use, you know, the area for the intended purpose. So my idea is that we should, if you really want to attract people to get out of their vehicles and to, you know, as an envision, as a downtown where people are strolling around in shopping and so forth, then you really need to concentrate on building class 4 protected bike lanes to make it safer because otherwise El Camino real is just too terrifying to contemplate. Thank you.

[03:23:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:23:36] Fred Egley: Hi, Madam Mayor and city council members. My name is Fred Egley. I am a resident of City of Sunnyvale. I'm also a member of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. I cycle a lot around here. I have a family member. I have a mother who lives here in Mountain View. And unfortunately, I have a brother who is a paraplegic as a result of a hit and run by an automobile and a protected bike lane would have protected him. And this last year, one of my coworkers was hit and killed. by biking to work, cycling to work and a protected bike plane would have killed her, would have protected her as well. I, like I say, I bike a lot. I've been downtown San Jose, I've seen what they've done recently with the protected bike planes, and it really has changed the environment down there. It seems to be a much more pleasant walking area and more useful area for everybody. So I encourage you to adopt a plan and move forward with it. Thank you.

[03:24:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:24:46] Public Speaker: Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor. member of the council. Um, I want to thank staff for taking this before the city council. I'm really excited about it. Um, I've been a resident of Mountain View for about 18 years, and for many of those years, biking has been my primary mode of transportation. And where I go, my kids go with my bike, too, as well. Usually they're on the back of my bike. Um, but now they're getting older, and my daughter rides her own bike, but my son still doesn't want to. Um, anyway, uh, I've also been a part of a group called Safe Mountain View, and, um, we've been advocating for this kind of project along El Camino Real, since I started to be an advocate, which is back in 2014. So I'm really excited to see this come full circle and come back again, even, sort of in an even better state than, uh, we were looking at back then, which was the El Camino precise plan. So I'm super excited about the protected bike lanes, and even more excited about the protected intersections. And I really appreciate your in-depth analysis of the parking, um, along out commuter real. I feel like that was kind of, um... I don't, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. I feel like what you, the analysis you did was really good. From my own observations, I've seen that when people are parking on the street on El Camino, aside from maybe the gentleman who just spoke, it usually is the case that there's other nearby parking, that, so the businesses don't seem to be like they would be affected too much if the parking was removed. Um, and I will say that El Camino not only is a thoroughfare, but it's also a destination. There are so many places on El Camino that you can't get to. unless you're on El Camino. So if I want to get somewhere by bike, I have to go on El Camino. For example, some of the places we go on a regular basis are dittums, and again, are with my kids. Baskin-Robbins. Um, of course. Oh, sorry, my time's up. But there's a whole host of places on El Camino. Thank you very much. I support this project.

[03:26:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:27:00] Sargebond: Good evening, my name is Sargebond, 20 years residence in Mountain View. So, I live on the other side of El Camino, so my dealing with El Camino is really a lot about crossing it, whether it's by bike or by foot, like I did tonight. And I'm re-looking towards, you know, the improvements for bikes because it looks like, you know, they would be protected bike lines and better treatments. I'm really not impressed by the proposal when it comes to crosswalks. I think that there is a good proposal for the proposed midsection crosswalks, and they have all the right makings of a good crosswalk. you know, highly visible. They are, you know, they look like zebra crossings, like the way I learn English. And they have, you know, a buffer from vehicles to the crossing area. They also have an island in middle because, you know, when you cross El Camino on food, You have to cross 6 or 8 lanes of traffic. And there are many times where for one reason or another, people can get stuck in the middle of El Camino. So I appreciate the, and none of his treatment is proposed for the existing crosswalks. So I appreciate that, you know, there is a recommendation to direct staff to work with Caltrans. But I think that we need to demand, you know, better crossworks on par with the ones proposed at the crossings. And if it means more money from the city, it means a longer timeframe to implement the whole thing. So be it, I don't think we can leave over crossworks as they are for the next 20 or 30 years. It's just not safe. Thank you.

[03:28:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:28:51] Janet LaFleurma: Hi, I'm Janet LaFleurma, a resident of Mountain View, and I'd like to thank staff. I'm glad to see that they're protected bike lanes are in the new crosswalks are in the streetscape plan. The bike lanes are important to me, because I use my bike for almost all my in town errands. And El Camino is our retail spine, so that means I'm going everywhere from Dittmerst, Trader Joe's, Bevmo, all the way down to Cost Plus, even down to Smart and final, because that's where everything is. And because there aren't bike lanes in El Camino, I try to use the side streets, but they don't connect, and then the blocks are really long. So one way or the other, I end up on El Camino, either on the sidewalk, avoiding pedestrians, or in the road, and where people aren't really parking that much and then zipping around cars. It's not pleasant and it's not particularly safe. And that's just what I have to do. Now, I have a choice. I can drive and use up the valuable parking spaces. But a lot of people on El Camino don't have that choice. It's their primary mode of transportation. So it's not just about me. We're also building more housing there and anybody who moves there will be limited in how they can get around by bike because they'll be stuck in the middle of one of these long blocks. So I'm concerned about that as well. Finally, protected bike lanes also really do benefit people walking on the sidewalk because if you're on the sidewalk and there's a big SUV park next to you and somebody's trying to turn into a driveway, You better be really careful. I find I'm actually way more comfortable walking on the opposite side of El Camino from where the traffic is. It's amazing how much more stressed it is just having the cars coming from behind. So, um, I'm really happy, um, that you are doing this project and I encourage council to approve this and to put people before cars with this. Thank you.

[03:30:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:30:46] Jeff Grafton: Mayor Manachek, and members of the city council, I appreciate the opportunity here to speak in front of you. My name is Jeff Grafton. I am a resident of Mountain View, living on Ortega Avenue, and I'm a cyclist as well. Like several previous speakers. I try to bike pretty much everywhere around. I usually bike to work, bike to get food, bike to groceries, all that stuff. Last month, I had the opportunity actually to lead my coworkers, number of my coworkers from Rengstorf Park to Google Sunnyvale in Moffatt Park. And, you know, like one of the previous speakers, you know, I avoided California because California is not really a lot of fun with all the parked cars and speeding cars on one side, park cars on the other side. Narrow bike lanes not safe. So, you know, I took Villa over to Stevens Creek Trail, over to the Hetty Trail. So we actually had a fairly low stress route until we got to the Ellis 101 under crossing. And there you have to mix with cars and there's a train there and there's heavy traffic. And, you know, basically I brought this group there and everyone said it was so fantastic. It was such a nice ride. And then we got there and like, it was the worst thing. And like, you know, people haven't ridden since then by themselves because they're terrified of that. And basically it's highlights that, you know, we can have these great bike networks, but if we're missing, if we have gaps in the network, it isn't useful because if you can't actually connect all the pieces together, then you can't get what you need to go. There was an interesting Sunnyvale has been working on their draft vision 0 plan. There was an interesting survey, I found, that they asked, Currently, the primary mode of transportation in Sunnyville is 82% car, 11% bike. But if safety was not a concern, it would go to 47% car, 42% bike. People, if they feel it's safe, they'll bike. So I guess, you know, I'm very supportive of this project, as many people before me have said. My main concerns are just that, you know, there are those missing segments which we're not prioritizing. And I know there's good reasons for them, but I'm worried that, you know, there aren't explicit timelines of like when there's actually going to be redeveloped, when they'll revisit them, when we're actually going to work for the cities nearby to kind of connect those networks. And given that, you know, Caltrains repaving, I think there's opportunities kind of be able to use some of that budget to do stuff and just, you know, want to have better timelines, bounds on that. Thank you.

[03:32:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:32:55] Bob Stans: Hi, my name is Bob Stans. I'm a resident of Mountain View for over 20 years and to council and staff. I want to thank you for considering the protected bike lanes. Really everywhere, but everywhere they make sense, but moreover, El Camino Rio. A few months back, I rode my bike from San Francisco. I'm sorry, I rode my bike to San Francisco from Mountain View. And when I arrived in San Francisco, I arrived from the Golden Gate side. And I needed to go across town all the way to Carl Terrain. By chance, and I think in this case, more likely to go city planning. I stumbled across the protected bike clan, he's in San Francisco. And, um, found it just really a delightful ride across town. It was fun. It was fast, much faster than a car. So it'd be wonderful. If Mountain View adopted an approach like San Francisco has done with their bike lanes. And having such a bike lane, I think is really just a nice consolation at a minimum, a nice consolation to higher density. So I hope the city can act quickly, so we can start enjoying the many benefits of riding everywhere and every day. Thanks.

[03:34:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:34:09] Terry Barton: Evening, council members. My name is Terry Barton, and I'm a 33 year resident mountain, you know, in the neighborhood. El Camino has been the way to get places in California since the 1770s. As you heard, everything's on El Camino. It's, it's, you want to tell someone from out of town how to get someplace quickly and easily. It's just make it some go down El Camino. So there's not much choice. In my neighborhood with the large blocks in the Jamelo area. The creek crossings, limited turns, it takes 2 to 3 times the distance and the time to get someplace if you're not biking in El Camino. I had to come here on El Camino tonight. So I don't have a choice. I bike every day to work and started in since I started working in North Bay Shore 31 years ago in 1988. I now bike to Menlo Park. Over that time, I've seen improvements on ring store, if I've seen crossings added to 101. I've seen Palo Alto, add protected bike lanes. I've seen minimal park ad, protected bike lanes. The one in Menlo Park is now the most popular bike route in Menlo Park. In that time, the 6 lanes of El Camino have seen 0 improvements. Buildings have gone up along with tremendous amounts of housing, new offices, and lots of businesses. But even retail still struggles because it's looking for that vitality, which the traffic tends to drive away. So thank you for your consideration in making progress on El Camino. I strongly encourage you to do everything you can to continue to make it a safe and pleasant place for active transportation so the community can get out. So you or yourselves might even be comfortable biking in El Camino. And it's not just a hardy few that have made that commitment or don't have a choice that are doing it now. So thank you and please continue to make progress. El Camino deserves something better. Thank you.

[03:36:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing then, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. Are there any other questions? If not, we can go into comments and staff has asked us, um, a couple things. In the staff report. that are now on the screen. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. Thank you for stepping up.

[03:36:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, thank you to staff for bringing this to us. Um, I am very excited that we are here, and I appreciate the Vedstrom, especially SV, um, BC, who've come. This has been a long time in making, and I remember our conversations, especially with Janet Lisler. been a big advocate. It was when we were doing the El Camino precise plan and we had this debate of do we put bike lanes on or not? And I was convinced and what really convinced me was the fact that there actually are people who bike on El Camino, and that wasn't going to go away. So why not make it safer for them and also try to encourage others to bike. And as was mentioned, El Camino, is really the connection to so many things. And so I'm really glad that we are here, it's opportune, that Caltrans is doing their project. And so I fully support the bike lane at, um, edition of the bike lanes on El Camino. Thank you to staff for doing the parking analysis, very detailed and suspected that there wasn't a big parking issue. And the idea was too, as we redeveloped, that new projects would include their parking within their projects. So, I like the idea of shared parking. I don't, it seems like it might have to be up to the property owners to work that out, but I do think there are opportunities for that. And maybe even as new projects redevelop, We can think about how to incorporate any parking that's been lost. I appreciate Mr. Bont's comments. I know we met earlier too, about pedestrian safety, and we want to make it a good experience for both bikes and pedestrians. I guess my question is, are we looking at improving existing housewalks as well as adding the new ones?

[03:38:49] Staff Member Cameron: What we're proposing is for all the existing crosswalks to work with Caltrans to see what we can do to improve those crosswalks further in terms of, you know, high visibility crosswalks and those types of things because the beauty of a paving project is you have a blank slate, they were going to have to put back the crosswalks no matter what, and this is something they can pay for, and we just work with them to get the kind of crosswalks we'd like to see.

[03:39:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, great. And then I would just say too, that I appreciate some of the members of the public who came from other cities, these are the cities that we need to work with. So I encourage you to go to your city councils and ask their your own city councils to work with us. I think we are more than willing here. And I would like to see these these segments go as quickly as possible. So, um, we have a few cities that are cooperative, a couple not so cooperative. So, um, and that's really gonna, it sounds like, is gonna be the, the, the, the, the determinant is how willing our neighboring cities are willing to work with us. So, yes, I'll be ready to support this.

[03:40:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[03:40:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So thank you so much to staff. I got to see a preview of this item early at CTC. Um, so I've been looking forward to this coming back to the full council. I want to thank the public for coming as well as the property owner. It's always so important to get the input. And I think that, you know, for the property owner, um, whether it's shared parking or as we are going forward doing the segmentation, perhaps that'll be a way to address some of the, you know, phasing of finding other um, parking alternatives. But I think that I also will be supporting this tonight. I think that it is a nice way to, um, uh, integrate it now, even though the precise plan is over for Alchemia Real. Um, for the pedestrians, I think one of the comments that I brought up at the CTC mini meeting was making sure that we make it, um, inviting for people to walk and cycle because what I always see, and I mentioned, was jaywalking and how that just gives me such heart palpitations every time I see it. Um, and I, you know, I understand that to be a good route. We don't want too many breaks, um, you know, too many lights, but, you know, is there a way to make the crosslocks that we do have so inviting that people will walk the 100 extra, you know, feet to cross safely. Um, would be one of my um, concerns. And I think that, you know, by taking this action tonight, it'll be a really great way to work with the state. Um, and try to, um, as Ms. Cameron mentioned, you know, it's a playing slate where there's a lot of possibilities and a lot of collaboration and a lot, to me, that means funding opportunities and partnerships as we're trying to do this improvement. Um, so I think the timing on this is great too. Thank you.

[03:42:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:42:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I also wanted to thank staff for a clear and comprehensive report and members of the public for coming out. I will be strongly supporting this project. Um, I just, I also met with Mr. Bonton. I wanted to make sure I agree with him that often we don't look closely enough at what pedestrians need. And I wanted to make sure that the 3 things that he communicated are ones that you communicate with Caltrans and those, I think, were zebra striping of all pedestrian crosswalks, buffers for cars to stop a little earlier, you know, several feet from the crosswalk, and a midway islands or some protected midway, if possible, I think, were his main the main items he wanted to make sure that you brought up.

[03:43:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[03:43:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I don't have much more to add. I agree with all of the the, um, previous speakers. Um, you know, I think the paramount concern for most folks is safety. There are the handful of crazy people like me who prioritize convenience and will, you know, ride my bike down, you know, the wrong way of a street or on El Camino. But there aren't very many people who will demonstrate such reckless self-disregard. And I may have shared this story. So several years ago, my sister was a student in the Los Altos school district, and she would ride her bike to school every day, crossing El Camino, and she was hit by a car, and fortunately wasn't hurt. But as a consequence, she doesn't ride her bike anymore. She walks to school. And, you know, I don't think anybody needs to have that experience to appreciate the value of safe bicycle pedestrian infrastructure, but, you know, when it happens to somebody so close to you, then you prioritize that. So I strongly support all of the recommendations that staff is proposing. I didn't have a chance to meet with Mr. Bone, but I agree with his sentiment as well. If there are ways to improve pedestrian safety. I would support that as well. Thank you.

[03:44:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I also had the opportunity to talk about this at the council transportation committee meeting. And, um, I think my main message there was, well, we're doing all these improvements for bicyclists, I think it's just as important to make sure we do improvements for pedestrians. As long as we're going to be working on this road, I think we need to factor in not only the major improvements to the intersections with pedestrian protection, but invisibility, but also places that are not those 3 intersections or those 3 crossings. because people are crossing El Camino at lots of different places. I want to make sure they're safe. But I am supportive of everything else that staff has laid out. And, um, do we need to take a vote on this? It's not a study session, but it's not like, um, It's an ordinance or a resolution or anything. It's just kind of direction.

[03:45:39] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I don't think you need a formal vote, but kind of a show of hands or nods that, you know, really, if there's any significant changes, which it didn't sound like, so supportive of the concept in bringing back the final plan in the fall. I think that's what I heard from everyone.

[03:45:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, with an increased focus on pedestrians. Show hands. Okay, unanimous. Yeah. Thank you. So we will close that item. And next is item eight, which is council staff and committee reports. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[03:46:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I wanted to report on the City's Association. We had a legislative action committee meeting, as well as the board meeting, which the mayor is representative for. We continue to discuss various state legislative legislation bills, and we took some positions on some new bills, mostly housing, a few non-housing bills. I'll just read them off quickly. Our websites not updated yet, but it is, there's an advocacy page on the city's association website and that will get updated with our new positions, but AB 836, the Clean Air Centers, we took a support position. AB 1487. This is one of the housing bills that would create that new Haba agency that could, um, go out for funding measures. We took an opposed position. Maybe 11. This was the, this is the RDA 2.0, um, a new funding um, mechanism for cities to, um, to pay for housing. We took us support with amendments, position amendments being that we wanted to ensure that schools are made whole. It's a tax increment type of mechanism. SB 50 and four, which has been put off, although it's coming. There's another bill. We took an opposed position, and then AB 1279 is the high resource areas bill, that we took an opposed position. In light in response to our public member earlier, I will personally look at SB 592 as part of our ledge action committee work. And then I also, on Friday, of a few of us, mayor Klein from Sunnyvale and council member, Sayak from Los Gatos, and I represented the Cities Association, and we went and met with Assemblyman David Chu, who was the chair of the housing committee in the Assembly. It was a good and informative meeting. Actually, he gave us an update that AB 11, the funding bill, the RDA that he sponsored, the governor has actually decided to delay it. So it's become a two-year bill and apparently the governor doesn't feel that cities are ready to start finding ways to fund housing. We have to be ready to allow for housing to be developed. So he wants us to work on that. first. And then, um, The hubba bill has also been delayed. That's 1487 to a two-year bill. Um, And then with SB 50, however that comes back, we talked about, um, you know, how what kind of amendments could be offered that might make it more palatable. And he was seemed open to the idea of, you know, carve outs for cities that are meeting their goals, you know, maybe rewarding them with more affordable housing funding or whatnot. So he was open to working with us to see if we can create some amendments. And then his other bill, maybe, I think it's 516, the towing bill. So yes, so he mentioned that there's 3 out of 30 reasons for why you can tow that he's trying to change, so it's not the whole bill. I mean, the whole code in that we could, the cities could pass ordinances to override those 3 exemptions. So, I think we still have to look more carefully at what it says, but he said he's working on amendments with Senator Bell actually is working with him, in light of what cities have been telling him. That's it. Thanks.

[03:50:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I just have 2 items. As the vice mayor mentioned, we had the city's association board meeting, and we mostly talked about the actions that the legislative action committee recommended. And then the other thing is, we had a meeting of the, I guess it'd be called the Manzanita Group, which is the group of cities and corporations and organizations looking at forming some sort of the original intention was to look at a regional subregional TMA. But at the last meeting, we decided that what we really needed to do was back up and take a look at What issue are we trying to solve? Because there are many different issues that cities are facing, that TMAs may or may not address, and they may address them in different ways, before we figure out whether or not it makes sense to form a sub regional TMA, or any other sort of coordination between the cities and RTMAs. So they're going to think about that over the summer. And that group picks back up in the fall. anything else? There's no other item 8 as the city attorney if we have a closed session report.

[03:52:09] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, we had a closed session this evening. We do not have any reportable action, and therefore no closed session report.

[03:52:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting, which is a closed session to be held on Monday, June 24th, 2019 at 815 AM in the Maple Room, Mountain View Community Center, 201 South Rangstorf Avenue.

• ← Previous
• Next →