September 10, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:21:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We will call the meeting to order, and I apologize for starting a little bit late. And we will, and council member McAllister's on the line, right? Counselor McAllister, are you there?

[00:22:01] Councilmember John McAlister: I believe so.

[00:22:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We will start with the pledge of allegiance, if you will join us.

[00:22:24] Unknown Speaker: Integrated public allergic science, one nation under that individual, for liberty, and that's strong.

[00:22:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And we will start with roll call.

[00:22:40] City Clerk: Council member Clark? Council member Hicks.

[00:22:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here,

[00:22:43] City Clerk: council member Kameh,

[00:22:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: here,

[00:22:45] City Clerk: council member McAllister. Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez. Vice Mayor Abi Koga, Mayor Matachek,

[00:22:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: here,

[00:22:58] City Clerk: Council member McAllister, are you there?

[00:23:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, yes.

[00:23:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Of court. Thank you. First item on the agenda 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 discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Are there any items that council members would like to pull?

[00:23:34] Councilmember John McAlister: I would like to pull item...

[00:23:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'd like to pull... Sorry, Council member, Councilister?

[00:23:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, 4.1.

[00:23:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That is the same one I wanted to pull. Okay. Any others? Okay. Is there any member of the audience who wishes to pull an item? Okay, seeing none? Why don't we do the balance of the consent and calendar, and then we'll come back to item 4.1. Council member, Clark?

[00:24:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll move the consent calendar, except for item 4.1. And the motion includes item 4.6, which is that we adopt a resolution fixing the employer contribution to an equal amount. For employees and annuitants under the public employees, Medical and Hospital Care Act, with respect to a recognized employee organization group 001 safety fire to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager, designate, to execute a side letter amending the memorandum of understanding between the Mountain View professional firefighters, local 1965, and the city for the period of July one, 2017 through June 30, 2020, we've read and titled only for the reading waved, adopt a resolution, fixing the employer contribution, at an equal amount for employees and annuants under the public employees, medical and hospital care act with respect to a recognized employee organization, group 002 safety police to be read and tied only for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager, or his designated excuse a side letter, amending the memorandum of understanding between the peace officers association and the city, for the period of July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2020, to be read and tied only for the reading wave. City Manager.

[00:25:25] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I apologize for not raising this earlier, just remembered. An item 4.2, the Stanford General use permit. We got a message from Stanford today saying that one of the numbers in our letter about the number of housing units was incorrect. It was the number we got from the county. It doesn't change the message of our letter at all, but with your indulgence, if the motion would allow the flexibility to just fine tune that letter to reflect the numbers.

[00:25:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's fine.

[00:25:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And so we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by council member Hicks. Any further comment? Okay, what call? Roll call vote.

[00:26:10] City Clerk: Oh, yeah. Council member Clark?

[00:26:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[00:26:12] City Clerk: Council member Hicks?

[00:26:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:26:14] City Clerk: Council member Kameh?

[00:26:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:26:15] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[00:26:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes?

[00:26:18] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez?

[00:26:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:26:20] City Clerk: Vice Mirabik Koga?

[00:26:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[00:26:21] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[00:26:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, then, I'm into item of 4.1. Council member McAllister, did you want to make comments, or did you want me to start?

[00:26:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Would you start, Madam Mayor, please?

[00:26:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I will. So I spend some time digging into the work plans for all of the different advisory bodies. Because it seemed like it was a thicker pack than usual. So I thought I'm going to take a close look at this. And it did look to me like some of the advisory bodies, um, are have expanded the scope of their work to go beyond what I would say is an advisory body role. And I was concerned about that because of the impact on staff time. And I know we're all pretty sensitive to the workload of city employees. And I wanted to suggest we make a couple of changes to these. I actually did have some conversations with some of the folks who work with the advisory bodies to make sure I really understood what the items were on here. For example, I was kind of concerned about the senior advisory committee, because there were so many things that talked about programs and events, and I thought, ooh, I know those are time consuming. And, um, I had a good conversation and most of those would likely happen anyway. Um, because they're part of the programming at the senior center. And so the incremental workload, um, the senior advisory committee often will give suggestions on topics or they might know somebody who might be a guest speaker or something, but they're not actually adding much to the workload. So I felt better about that one. The EPC certainly had a heavy work plan, but all of those were looking at things that we are asking them to advise us on, projects, precise plans, and so I didn't feel like there was anything to tweak there. So then, um, the one that I was wanting to tweak was the um, Human Relations Commission. And just a couple of things. I wanted to clarify that some items are truly information only updates and that we really don't expect any work items to come out of those. And if you've got the attachment, This starts on page 9 of that attachment. And, um, it would be J L, and then two. Do you have the attachments? So, you know, I think this is probably what they intended anyway, so receive an update from the police department, that's information only, and no actions would come out of it. I just like to clarify that on the work plan. On L, the same thing, receive an update from the multilingual community outreach program. information only, no actions. And then, um, the new one would be to, um, and it does say receive an informational update. And so I just want to make it very clear on their work plan that those are information only updates. And no actions are expected, or do we really want them to do? And then, um, I'd like to clarify, um, that, or actually, maybe it's collapse, some of these. So, um, on C, it starts with responding city council referrals. And I think you could end the sentence there. Um, And then I would pull in, I'm sorry, 3, 6, and 7. And those are projects that we have prioritized to support council goals. And what I would prefer to do is have the council discuss those projects. And if we see an opportunity for the HRC to support the activities, which there might be. I know, uh, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga has a couple times during meetings saying, should we give this to the HRC? So I think there will be opportunities, but I'd like to start with, those are, um, the council talks about it 1st and then we would assign projects to the HRC. So I would collapse all those into C and just end it with respond to city council referrals. And I was a little bit concerned about item five, and this is an educational form, communication or training. I'm a little bit nervous about the amount of staff time for that. So, I'm tempted to leave it in, but I also could be convinced to defer it to future here. Vice Mer, Abbe, Coca.

[00:31:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, thank you to the mayor for raising these issues. So, way back when I served on the HRC. I remember we did items and we would have subcommittees to work on items, but they were completely commission driven without any staff support. And I'm wondering if that's still the case or there is, in fact, now staff involved with these subcommittees.

[00:32:21] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah, this HRC is staffed out of the city manager's office and that's Christina Gilmore and myself. And typically she does participate in the subcommittee meetings, maybe not every single one, but to the extent necessary to make sure that it's well coordinated with the things that are required of the city. So if it's event planning, making sure that the marketing logistics and other facility logistics are covered. Also, we've had a fair amount of vacancy and new members on the HRC. And so staff has been a pretty important source of continuity. So if there's a new group of people planning, say, a civility round table, just even knowing what that is and how to go about it. And staff kind of has a lot of those relationships and information.

[00:33:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So yes, it is considerably different from my recollection of it. And I do think we should be mindful of staff time. So, I mean, I would be opened if, well, I agree with you. I think if it's an item that's on our council goals, then the city council should have the 1st look at it and then we can decide if there's further work needed to send it to the commissions. The other thing too is if there are other items, like I would be open to having the HRC too, them, but I think they need to pick and choose some. This is quite an extensive list. I believe that like the civility round tables alone is quite a bit of time. So, um, yeah, if they want to do 2 civility round tables that, you know, that's probably sufficient, to be frank. But if they want to do, you know, pick one other item and do one take round table, I would be open to that, but that would be the direction I would like to give to the HRC.

[00:34:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I was particularly concerned about Christina's time because she's also the person who works on proposed legislation and supports us when it comes to contacting and writing letters, our state and federal legislators. And we have certainly ramped that up, I think this year. And I don't see that diminishing. Council member Ramirez.

[00:34:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. quick question for staff. So, it's been a while since I've been on the HRC, but my recollection is when, I mean, the HRC, I think in particular is prone to Mission Creep, just because the scope or the mission is less defined than some of the other advisory bodies, but my recollection is staff was always quite good about letting us know when the work plan we were proposing was unreasonable or if they're, you know, if it just couldn't be incorporated into the existing capacity that Steph had. So I guess a question for Audrey, when the HRC, does Steph feel that this is a reasonable work plan? Did you, you know, provide that kind of input during that discussion? Or do you think that it really does kind of push the boundaries on capacity and some of the changes that have been described are appropriate?

[00:35:47] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think you make a good point about the fluid nature of what could be in the work plan of a group like the HRC that doesn't have a really standard body of things that it gets assigned to work on and advise the council on. And it clearly feels very passionately about the mission, um, of the commission and has no shortage of really great ideas and things that it would like to work on. So it is a pretty continual discussion between staff and the commission about what the parameters are, both making sure it's consistent with the mission of the HRC, making sure that it is feasible within staff capacity, and also making sure that it has the right relationship with the council in terms of the council as the policy maker, and the HRC as an advisory to that. And so it winds up being, I wouldn't say negotiated. That's probably not the right term, but kind of a bit of a back and forth where the commission, as you may recall, brainstorms, a lot of things it wants to do. And then the effort is to try to put some bounds around that. I would say over the past 2 years. And I've only been working with the commission for about 3.5 years. But over that time, the work plan has gotten bigger. And that is because, you know, we've tried to find, as staff, ways to accommodate the interests of the members, still being mindful of our limits and also importantly mindful of the policy role of the council. And so, um, I would, um, I think it's important to note that a couple of these, that the mayor raised, um, 3, 6, and 7 in particular, that was actually my effort to try to say, these are things that the council has identified important, that are within this, you know, this sphere of interest of the HRC, perhaps there are things that the HRC could do to be supportive of those things, not that they would be the driver of what the policy would be, but that they would be supportive. And so 2 of those 6 and 7 are kind of placeholders, if you will, saying, you know, between staff and council, perhaps there will be things that get delegated to the HRC as being helpful in the areas of wage theft and the areas of homelessness. When it came to the human trafficking and wage theft, um, there also was the sense that perhaps the community, the types of community events that the, um, HRC has been used to having is evolving a little bit that they started out as a very strict formula of a civility round table, but then they kind of became more community forums of some type. And we've kind of said, you can do 2 of those within the scope of what we have the staff capacity to support. But if you do, you know, more of those, we're getting beyond what staff capacity. And so, um, the 2 civility round tables would not necessarily be in addition to, say, item 3 or the other item that the mayor raised, which related to, um, how to be an ally. In fact, the commission did have a discussion this past Thursday about having a series around gender issues and how to be an ally that would be either a CRT or something else like it and not in addition to CRTs. However, I don't think that would really cover their interest in the potential for some kind of forum to raise awareness around human trafficking. We have been approached, the HR. Well, staff has been approached and then the HRC was approached by people who've helped put together kind of awareness raising campaigns in other cities and very much wanting mountain view to do something like that. And so that's probably the one that's kind of above and beyond our typical scope of 2 events. The other point I would make is the concept of kind of this assets and needs assessment that we are now carrying forward one that was approved last year and there isn't a new one, but that is still on the commission's plate. Does that, I'm sorry for so many words, but did that respond to your...

[00:40:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I think just, but just to clarify, so I think the vice mayor made a good point that, um, the conventional way we would do this is if there's an item on our work plan that we wanted to delegate to an advisory body, then we would have the discretion to do that, not necessarily that the advisory body would take on that workload without being delegated that responsibility. And so if I understood what you were saying correctly, these items, three, 6, and 7 would be that. It's not that they would initiate work. It's that if the council wanted to delegate some responsibility related to these items, then we have, they're prepared to respond, I guess.

[00:41:00] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think that's true. I'm sorry, there's so many pages to these work plans. I can see why the mayor was wanting to get to the bottom of this. I think that's true for 6 and 7, certainly, but I think for 3, the commission did have its own independent idea or desire to do something that would be an awareness raising around those issues. So if the council has other direction at this point or wants to fold that into kind of number six, you know, because there's a little bit of overlap between 3 and 6 and have all of those be kind of at the direction of council. And I know, you know, on the homeless or unstably housed, council will have an opportunity to provide that input. We're expressly asking for it as part of your item on safe parking on the 24th.

[00:41:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister, did you have any input?

[00:42:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I had one question for Audrey. Uh, you said there was a continuation from the last year of uh, one or 2 uh, items. How long do you anticipate those will take to clear it up?

[00:42:17] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I probably can't answer in terms of number of hours, either of the commission member subcommittee or staff, but I do know that they only are just now for the immigrant needs and asset assessment. They've completed individual interviews and focus groups, which I should say didn't engage Christine at all. That was all commission commissioner driven. But they only just launched the survey, so that has to close and be analyzed and then they'll write up the results. Again, that will be completely commission driven. And I don't know that they think that will be done really soon. I think that, you know, I mean, these are people who have full-time jobs, many of them. So, there's no real set deadline or expected end time for that.

[00:43:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then I had a question for the visual arts committee. The work plan says that the major work items for the fiscal year 201920 focus on developing a public arts strategy. I would hope that, uh, is it possible the change that we're developing to implementing a public art strategy?

[00:43:40] City Manager Dan Rich: I'll take that one, Council Mr. McAllister, they will implement a public policy if and when it's approved by the city council. It would be inappropriate for them to just unilaterally do that, so they will bring some options and alternatives to you. You will then decide what if any art strategy you want, and then if you, again, want to delegate to them, to implement it, you can, but it would be premature for them to implement something without council approval of it first.

[00:44:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Have they, uh, issued an RFP to the outside consultants? for that, uh, strategy?

[00:44:20] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes, I got a thumbs up from the back row. They have started that process.

[00:44:24] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, in fact, we've had meetings. We've had some meetings with her already, as I recall, yeah.

[00:44:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[00:44:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I guess, you know, I kind of feel like I'm still, even after all this discussion, um, am comfortable with the changes that I talked about at the beginning, um, in terms of clarifying the information only, and then saying that, uh, C turns into respond to city council referrals, and 3, 6, and 7. Um, let me make sure I've got that right. That 3, 6, and 7 are no longer on this list.

[00:45:11] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[00:45:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Because I do think, actually, some of the items listed in 3 are not ones that were part of the council project. And so I think we should have the discussion about, and I'm very willing to have that discussion. Um, Do we want to do this? Would it help the project that we have? and have that discussion when we talk about it. So I guess that's my, um, motion that we approve the work plan with the changes I talked about. Uh, Vice Mirabekoga.

[00:45:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, um, that seems reasonable. I guess I was thinking about 3 and um... The wait ZF piece. I do see there being a slight difference in, um, which, well, I mean, I guess it's all the same, but there could be an educational forum on like human trafficking, you know, how do you identify trafficking, what do you do? And so I, you know, personally have had a strong interest in that issue. So I would be open to the HRC doing that, but I think they would just have to pick. It would be three, or the civility round tables, the 2 civility round tables. I think that's just actually quite a bit. It's like an event, a quarter to me, you know, and it just might be a little much, um, so my suggestion would be to have them choose to out of the four. And I'm open to whatever those are. That's not so. So 2 of the four. So it'd be 3 is an event. It looks like, and it could be on human trafficking. So we take wage theft out because that's something for us to discuss in terms of policy. But if human, the human trafficking and the wage stuff piece is an informational item about, again, like how do you identify this, what do you do when it happens, it could be an educational forum. And so I would be open to that, um, as well as, um, I'm sorry, not 4 or five, the how to be an ally, if that's another educational forum and discussion. So those 2 could take the place of the 2 civility round tables, or if they chose to do civility round tables on different topics, then I would say we will have to not do 3 and 5. Or they can pick one of each. But I'm open to all of that. I just think they need to take two out of the four.

[00:48:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That makes sense. Okay. So is that a... So I guess that would make my motion...

[00:48:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, it was yours? I'm sorry, yours was emotion. Oh. So I guess so could that be a friendly amendment to your emotion?

[00:48:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What it sounds like is. It would then take the civility round table, which is, I can't find it very quickly here. It's on the top. Here it is, it's B. So for B, they would choose the topics from either have a new topic or pick from 3 and five.

[00:48:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Or they could do 3 and five, but then no other civil ground top bills. So, civility, round tables on something else, or one on something else and one on.

[00:49:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm fine with that 6 and seven, like you said, collapse. Council member Ramirez, are you okay with that? Okay.

[00:49:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. think we got it. Any further discussion? Okay, we will vote then. We have to do roll call votes since council member Callister's on the phone. Council member Clark?

[00:49:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[00:49:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[00:49:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:49:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kmei.

[00:49:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:49:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:49:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep.

[00:49:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm sorry, was that yes? Yes?

[00:49:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez?

[00:49:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Of course, yes.

[00:49:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayorabai Koga?

[00:49:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[00:49:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Mayor Matachek. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item five, 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 three minutes during this section, and state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. So is anyone in the audience who wishes to address the council on something that is not on the agenda tonight? Okay, seeing none, we'll close that portion of the meeting, and we will move on to item 7.one, which is lot 12, request for qualifications, selection, and final request for proposals, components.

[00:51:00] Wayne Chan: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Wayne Chan. I'm joined by Artisra Vastova. We also have Pierre Kopeter from Seipho Consulting, who assisted us with this process. Tonight, as you mentioned, we are here to talk about the Lot 12 selection process for the RFQ and clarification and final RFP components. The recommendation is to approve inviting 6 lot 12 respondents to participate in the forthcoming RFP process, and also to provide final direction on certain RFP components. Just brief site context. Again, this is a one. 5 acre site in the heart of downtown. The parcels were acquired over a period of years for the purpose of redevelopment, currently used as a public parking lot. 160 spaces and it's located in areas C. The council has held various study sessions over the years to provide direction and priorities for the redevelopment of Lot 12. The last study session was held in October of last year, and these are the following priorities. At least 50% of all the units would be affordable up to 120% AMI. There wasn't a target population specified, and there was support for up to 120 units in total. Council did express a priority for replacing all 160 parking spaces at the time, with heights up to 6 stories allowed with excellent design and transitions and responsiveness to the adjacent neighborhood in the residential community. There was a desire to create a sense of place, whether that is through excellent architecture, or having a non-residential retail component, up to 10,000 square feet. and also supporting a robust TDM and also supporting lower parking ratios for affordable housing. The RFQ process was started earlier this year. There was a website created to be a central repository for all information related to this process, and you see the website there. The RFQ was issued May 15th. There was a priest submittal conference held in June, and the RFQ closed in August. There were 7 initial respondents, but one withdrew after the deadline, and so we have 6 nets middles. The summary of the RFQ submittals is, in one sentence is all the submittals had similar components, but they were also unique in various ways. They all were 100% affordable. They all included a mixed use non-residential component. And they all put in 160 replacement parking spaces. The variations came in in the types of the AMI levels. Four submittals had essentially very low to low income units. And then 2 of the similes included moderate income units. One of those similos were all moderate, and the other one had moderate plus low income units as well. The unit counts range from 120, which was the maximum that the council stated in October, up to a version that had up to 137 units. And there was variation in the type and amount of square foot, square footage for the non-residential uses and, um, the location of those potential uses as well, where they were situated on the site. They also differed in the way they parked the replacement parking as well as the residential and non-residential spaces. As a result, the amount and types of the city subsidy requested were also different. At this point in the RFQ, process or the marketing process for Lot 12. It's really to get a sense of the developer qualifications to be able to execute a project according to council priorities. And as a result of the evaluation, it is the recommendation to move all 6 forward or to invite all 6 to respond to the RFP. Again, each submittal had unique elements that impacted the types of subsidy that they requested. There is a recognition, that the components in the submittals are the best effort at providing responsiveness to the RFQ, but they are also iterative. At this point in the process, it's not a standard thing where staff can go in and really understand in detail the various components. And so that's a normal part of that process. So they are iterative. But they all demonstrated that they can meet the RFQ goals and requirements as stated in the RFQ document. They all have relevant development experience, essentially urban, affordable housing projects, and or with mixed use. And they all have strong financial experience and capacity. And so shifting gears a little bit, The RFQ component did include various areas of flexibility, whether it was not specifying the target population, or flexibility on the percentage of affordable units, or the flexibility on the AMI levels, or the types of non-residential. For the RFP, we are really seeking various areas to have greater specificity. So that will allow the developers or the applicants to really hone in and provide a lot of specificity in their submittals. And that'll also allow staff to be able to make an evaluation to bring forward a preferred developer team, for the council to consider at that stage of the process. The 4 components are the parking requirements, subsidy, the height, non-residential retail subsidy, and the AMI levels. For the parking requirements and the subsidy involved with that. At the October study session, there was discussion about parking as a key component of overall development costs and how it could impact the overall subsidy from the city. The parking impact does come from all types of parking, whether it's the replacement parking, the residential component, the non-residential component, and how the spaces are parked again, can make a difference. And each of the submittals had different ways that they were parking it. Some were mostly below grade. Some had above grade as well. One project, just to provide an illustration of how any submittal and any particular component can have its benefits and trade-offs. Once the middle did have a standalone, fully above ground parking structure, which has greater massing, but the notion was that it could be wrapped in some architectural design to create a sense of place. And perhaps one day in the future, it could be more easily redeveloped. So there are some trade-offs. Now, all the similes paid attention to potential TDM measures. Again, this is an iterative process, but all were very cognizant of the types of mechanisms that can be incorporated into a very robust tedium strategy, and we would want to reinforce that importance in the RFP. The submittals all included, 160 parking spaces, as I mentioned, 4 of the 6 made specific requests for parking subsidy. And for the RFP, we would really want to be very clear to make sure that any financials or information submitted really clearly breaks out, if indeed the total subsidy ask has a specific parking component. And this ranges from $3700000 to $12 million. So 23,000 per space, up to 75, 1000 per space. Parking loop fees aren't able to be used for replacement spaces. So we did want to identify that. So the 1st question is, does the council still support replacing all 160 spaces on site? And as a companion question, does the council support providing any city subsidy for the replacement parking? If so, is there a cap to the city's subsidy that we may need to or want to put into the RFP? Regarding the residential parking specifically moving from the replacement parking, uh, That also ranged widely. So although all of the submittals included at least 120 units of residential, the residential parking range from 48 spaces all the way up to 180 spaces, so you can see the ratio of 0.4 to one. 5 Though 4 of the submittals came in at less than 0.75 spaces per unit. And then lot 12, of course, is in a very transit amenities rich location. And some developers indicated the possibility of making the special needs populations, which can also impact or reduce the need for parking. So question 2 is, does the council support a maximum parking ratio for the affordable housing units? Regarding height, council did support heights up to 6 stories for the RFQ with excellent designs and transitions. Area C does allow for 3 stories. But we did include the up to 6 stories in the RFQ component. And all the submittals have heights between 4 to 6 stories at the maximum. That doesn't mean that they are those heights across the entire site. Most did have step backs and other transitional elements to be responsive to the adjacencies as well, and all of them had a setback to really respond to that adjacency component. Area C currently is not part of the city initiated downtown precise play on modification scope of work. And Lot 12, just as a point of information, the residential right adjacent to Lot 12 on the West is an R4 zoning component. So, the request here is for the council to either affirm or provide a different direction for the RFP, but if the council still supports heights up to 6 stories, we would want to make sure that that is clarified. And again, there may be some flexibility with the state density bonus. And so what a developer might submit and what the selected developer eventually would do is anything above, whatever flexibility that might provide. There would need to be processed as part of the entitlement process to amend the precise plan. So there's the councils continue to support heights up to 6 stories for the lot 12 RFP with excellent design and transitions. Moving on to the non-residential retail subsidy component, the RFQ reflecting council priorities was to allow up to 10,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Council did seek and hope for unique uses, whether it's community use, or a placemaking feature, or a retail component, that creates a sense of place. There was recognition that the location is right off of Castro history. So there might need to be some kind of subsidy to support it, and the council was supportive of that, but didn't specify how much that might be. The semitals all included, some element of a non-residential component. And all 3 submittals had non-residential parking, range from 5 spaces to 23 spaces. And 3 of the 6 submittals had a modest amount of subsidy requests from the city, from just under 500,000 to 18 million. Question 4 is, does the council continue to support a modest subsidy for the non-residential retail component? And if so, is there a cap? Alternatively, or in addition to that, does the council support low or no parking requirements for the non-residential portion of the project because that could in and of itself help facilitate feasibility. Regarding the AMI levels, as mentioned, council desired a flexibility for the RFQ up to 120% AMI, there weren't additional AMI priorities or target populations specified for the RFQ. And just as a quick context, in terms of how moderate rents compare with citywide rents, for Mountain View, if we were to include entire rental housing stock, that includes older and maybe rent stabilized units, They do range around 100, 120% AMI, give or take a little bit. I think this information was provided in a previous staff report. Average rents for newer units are significantly above 120% AMI and we're calling newer units, certainly from 2016 and newer, but even from 2000, up to now it's obviously going to be lower, but it's still going to be higher. than older units. Modern communities have little to no external funding. And so that can impact the amount of city subsidy. And the city currently has $41000000 in unreserved funds. And so if there is an element where the city might be facilitating and subsidizing some of the units, Most of the housing funds are housing impact funds, and those are capped at 80%. There's a smaller amount of BMR funds that could go up to 120%. Again, for the seminal summary, the 4 seminals were between 30 to 80%, very low income, without moderate units. The subsidy requests for those range from 67,000 to 130. And then for the 2 Seminoles that do have moderate income units, that did have a wide range, and this would be the type of thing that we would, you know, eventually talk to the selected developer about of assumptions, subsidy requests, et cetera, during the negotiation process, but the range is anywhere from 23,000 for the all moderate project to 220 for the project that has low and moderate. And so the total subsidy request for the affordable component alone ranges from $3000000 to $27 million. So you can see the wide variation. So does the council have more specific guidance on AMI levels, including if there's a preference for including or not including moderate income units. Or does the council prefer to stipulate a maximum per unit affordable housing subsidy amount with the idea that having that cap would implicitly drive the mixture of AMI levels. So this just provides a summary of the questions. In terms of next steps, based on council input, the current process is to finalize and issue the RFP, based on council input with these 5 questions, with RFP responses to early 2020, we would enter into a negotiation period, either late Q1, early Q2. after council recommendation of that process. We hope to be able to move the process forward to a point where the selected developer could submit development plans in an application by that of next year before the end of next year. So, again, this concludes staff's presentation, we have the recommendations here in front of you, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:07:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[01:07:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I submitted one question to staff, um, in writing on Monday, and uh, the question was, does staff know the income range of households that have been displaced from recent housing undergoing redevelopment, and have generally been able to uh, unable to find how housing in Mountain View that they can afford? And the answer I was given is that staff is researching this question in hopes to provide an answer now.

[01:07:55] Staff Presenter: So we do have some information. We took a look at the projects over the past year that did involve the removal of existing units. There were 518 units. 101 households in those units did apply for tenant relocation assistance. That is the one mechanism that staff has to collect household AMI information. 67% of those households did relocate outside of the city. And I'll take a look at the information, see if I have it, but we do have a breakdown of the AMI levels as well. I believe, of the 67 households who had to relocate outside of the city, about 2 thirds of those were 80% and below. We don't have information on the remaining 400 units because it could be for a variety of reasons. Some of the units might be vacant. Folks might be over the 120% AMI trail, eligibility. So they just didn't apply. There is also a period of time where tents can still stay in after the project has been entitled, so they may simply just not have submitted an application for that, so we don't have that data. So hopefully that provides some color to your question.

[01:09:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So let me see if I, that was a lot of information for me. Let me see if I got it right. So you're saying that 67% of the people could not find housing in Mountain View, and they were at 80% and below, or did I get it wrong?

[01:09:46] Staff Presenter: Close. So out of the 101 households who did apply for tenant relocation assistance, 67 of those households had to find housing outside, and then about two-thirds of those 67, so about 40 of those households were 80% AMI and below.

[01:10:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: If I could see if we could answer it in the reverse, if only, it sounds like about 20% of those that were dislocated, applied for Trao, which means they were at 120% of AI or below. So presumably that means 80% of them were above 120% AMI. Or for whatever reason, did not apply for a trail.

[01:10:29] Staff Presenter: Correct. We don't have that breakdown in terms of what's the composition of, you know, why folks didn't apply or haven't applied yet, but yes, that's the overall breakdown.

[01:10:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so it sounds like you could generally assume that the ones who had trouble finding housing were at 80%, which may be predictable. Thanks.

[01:10:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come in.

[01:10:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So I know one of our questions tonight is talking about, if we have AMI preferences, and should we go with the extremely low income route? Would this be an opportunity to look at measure A funds or has staff started to explore what possibilities there might be there? I know we've talked about it for multiple projects. I'd just be curious if staff has any input on that.

[01:11:24] Staff Presenter: Sure. So the RFQ didn't preclude anyone from submitting something that was targeting the populations that the measure A funds are also targeting. And I believe, um, several of the submittals did reference measure A, but again, that would be part of the process. So that is certainly an opportunity. We have been working with the county for the last couple of years, and we hope to be able to pre-measure A funds here soon. Um, But, um, that is part of some of the Seminoles now. And this opportunity would still allow folks to do that since that was part of the potential iteration and alternatives that some of the applications have provided. Now, if there were something more specific than that. And they became strongly, for example, PSH or rapid rehousing units, then if that is counsel's deliberation, then perhaps we would talk further, if that is where counsel is, is, um, feeling like the discussion needs to take place.

[01:12:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:12:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Place mayor, Abi Koga.

[01:12:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, 1st is going to parking. Did I hear correct? So parking in lieu fees are not usable for replacement parking, but can they be used for the project parking? Which would be in addition to What's there now?

[01:13:06] Staff Presenter: The, I believe in, if our 2 Dan has any additional information for the parking loofy is really the, is intended for constructing net new public parking spaces that are for public parking. And so if any of the spaces were meant to park new uses, I don't believe that it could be used for that.

[01:13:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So all of any funding subsidy, we would, if the city would provide it, would have to be from non-in the fee, parking in the fees.

[01:13:39] Staff Presenter: Correct.

[01:13:40] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Can I follow up on that? So isn't this outside of the parking district? So if they were built on site on Lot 12. You couldn't use in the fees anyway because it's not within the parking district.

[01:13:50] Unknown Speaker: There is a provision regarding the sphere of influence of the parking district that could potentially capture, and it looks like the city attorney has some comments.

[01:13:59] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That's absolutely correct. And there is one other lot, I believe, that's outside of the district, but if there's that nexus that funds can be used for that.

[01:14:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, good question that leads me to, if it's a different, let's say a different lot. I don't know what I don't have the number of, is it six? The one between Dana and California along Hope Street. If the replacement parking were to be put there, can we use in the fees, if it's in addition to the 160 spaces of replacement.

[01:14:39] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I believe that lot is in the district, and if it's net new parking in lieu fees could be used for, just a caveat, though, I believe our current balance of in lieu fees is next to zero. There is also parking district funding, which is separate from parking in lieu fees and is governed by different rules.

[01:15:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So there's no parking in district funds available for that lot.

[01:15:15] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, I'm just saying it's a different pot of money that has a different balance and different governing rules, so it's not bound by the same in lieu fee rules, which are only for a net increase, because it's not money. It's not money coming from developers instead of parking and therefore targeted to new parking. The parking fund and Christian can help me out here is more for operations and maintenance. It's a property tax. Okay. that is for operations and maintenance, and we would need to research this further, but it's possible that those funds might be able to be used for new or replacement parking.

[01:15:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And do you have in a sense of how much is in that fund?

[01:16:01] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't have that exact number, but we can find that for you. I want to say 7 to 9 million. I saw a number, but I don't have it in front of me.

[01:16:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. Yeah, you know, if you could provide that later, that'd be great. Um, okay, so then, um, next question has to do with rental, the re- I sorry, retail subsidy. Um, The requested subsidies. Is that in addition to an expected lease income on the retail space?

[01:16:42] Staff Presenter: I may need to look to peer if he has additional information and look through the information that I have here. Um, I don't believe there was a substantial amount of revenue to be generated, um, that would go to the city on an ongoing basis. And I can clarify that by looking through as cancel deliberates.

[01:17:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So are they asking for a subsidy in addition to the forgivens of whatever retail income, release income that is expected.

[01:17:18] Staff Presenter: It would be, in factoring in their development cost and their pro forma, just the amount that they would need to develop the project and believe that that's the amount that they would need to operate that use.

[01:17:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, okay. Great. And then next question going into the AMIs and this has to do with the subsidy issue again. I was just curious, and there's mention, you mentioned, for one of the proposals, for moderate income units, the subsidy is a $220,000 a unit as opposed to 23,000 on another moderate income unit proposal. Why is there, do you have a sense of why there's such a big discrepancy?

[01:18:11] Staff Presenter: Yeah, for those 2 in particular, they're funded differently overall. They have a different income range, so the 23,000 per door, that's 100% moderate project. I believe the parking ratio is a little bit lower. Again, a lot of information here, so I'll double check. And I think the way that they parked the use was also different as well. So there were a few components that would make it.

[01:18:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, great. And then finally, this has to do with legislation, and I'm sorry, I just thought about it, but and so I didn't turn into a question earlier. And if you can't answer it, that's fine. if you could maybe get back to me. Maybe 1482, the state legislation, rent stabilization. Um, I believe that would cover units 15 years prior to current and it's a rolling um, year number. How could... How would that potentially affect MI levels and affordability? Because it would cover the newer units, but I think it freezes. I don't know when it freezes the rent at what year or what time, but could that potentially be change our AMI affordability levels?

[01:19:43] Unknown Speaker: That's a good question. I know we're doing staff's analysis right now in preparation for next week's CSFRA item. So I don't think I can speak with in a definitive way about that because we're undergoing with analysis. I know, I believe it just passed out of the Senate today. So I think we'll we can take a look and follow up and we're having that information generated as we speak in preparation for that. So we can certainly follow up with the council.

[01:20:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:20:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[01:20:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So some of my questions will be similar to the vice mayors, so I apologize for a little bit of repetition. But just to be clear, my understanding from the staff report is that the parking subsidy and the commercial subsidy would have to come from the general fund. We wouldn't be able to use the affordable housing funds, the park in Loop fees, anything like that. Is that is that accurate?

[01:20:43] Staff Presenter: We would need to do some more research about whether, for example, the housing funds could be used for the parking if it were structured in some other way. I would think the city manager was alluding to the possibility of parking district funds potentially, and we would, again, need to do some more research on that. So that could be a possibility that is not housing funds and not general funds.

[01:21:09] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so there is a possibility of some additional funding stores being utilized. Okay. Thank you. And then, what are the AMI restrictions for state tax credits?

[01:21:23] Staff Presenter: Those are up to 60%.

[01:21:26] Unknown Speaker: So that is why you typically see 60% AMI below units?

[01:21:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then would that be for the entire project for how? So if you were to utilize this state tax credits, what the AMI restrictions have to apply to the entire project?

[01:21:48] Staff Presenter: You would just be, when you're applying for the tax credits identifying, the number of units and the units that aren't qualifying under that would just not be part of the calculation for what you could get.

[01:21:59] Unknown Speaker: Okay, but you could include moderate income, that kind of thing. Okay. And then, um, I'm going to struggle to ask this. So my understanding is that the salary, you know, averages in the county are increasing quite substantially over time, which means the area meeting income is increasing. So the percentages also then are increasing. Do you know offhand what the rate of that increase is and then if you happen to have the chart? This is always a helpful chart to have available, what 30% AMI, what those rents would look like, 50%, 80%, and then sort of over time? So just to give us a better sense of who really would be served by housing targeted at these AMIs.

[01:22:53] City Staff: I'll just use a reference point right now that could apply to the different AI levels as adjusted by household size, but I believe the modern income household afford limit right now is about 158. And we have some of the developers in the room, but I believe, say, a few years ago, that was around 135. So, you know, kind of calculating the rate of change, maybe generally applying that rate of change to all of the income categories across the household sizes. That gives you a sense of that. So, what is that, a 15% increase over the last few years in terms of that reference point. But again, perhaps during public comments, we can look this up and I'll look up the HCD limits.

[01:23:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you. And that's all I've got for now. Thanks.

[01:23:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, did you have any questions?

[01:23:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. Thank you. Uh, let's talk about parking for a moment here. There was mentioned in the staff report about 223 to 355 parking spaces. Therefore, total parking ranges from, so, uh, how was that coming about? Was that sort of a, uh, population of the various ratios that you came up with, and did that include 160 or excluded 160?

[01:24:29] City Staff: That's a summary of what the, um, respondents actually submitted in their application. And so that includes all of the replacement parking, all of the residential parking spaces, and all of the non-residentials. So all 3 buckets are included in that total range.

[01:24:50] Councilmember John McAlister: And of that bucket, only a 100, I mean, out of that 160 could not use any development season, or could, could the remaining balance use development fees.

[01:25:10] City Staff: If you could clarify your question, was there a particular component of the parking that you were referring to, if you can ask it again?

[01:25:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, okay, excluding the 160 of existing parking. The rest of those units could be using development fees, I mean, the developer fees or tax credits, or whatever is available.

[01:25:41] City Staff: Well, if we separate out the replacement parking, and we took a look at the residential portion of the project and the number of spaces that are directly attributable to the residential uses, then the cost of development for those particular parking spaces could qualify, for example, for city housing funds or external funding sources like tax credits. But not necessarily the non-residential component, that would be a separate component.

[01:26:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The The AMI, if we were to go with a proposed 80 and below, or 60% AMI below, Would that Would there be enough tax credits to cover the cost of construction? without subsidy.

[01:26:43] City Staff: Not just with tax credits alone. We have four submittals that are 80% and below, and a substantial number of those units, depending on the project are 60% AMI below. Even with those projects, there is still a request for a fairly sizable amount of city housing funds and also leveraging other sources besides tax credit.

[01:27:14] Councilmember John McAlister: So, but let's say I'm proposed, I'm saying, if, if you, we modified the RFP, if you're asking us to consider, if we put 60% and below, would that require subsidies?

[01:27:32] City Staff: Yes.

[01:27:34] City Manager Dan Rich: Council member McCaskar, just to put it in context, if you think of the other affordable projects we've done in the last few years, almost all of them have been tax credit projects, and all of them have required a city subsidy, in addition to that, anywhere from 110 to $300,000 per unit. So, the financing of these projects is very complex, and it's multiple sources, tax credits alone is never enough to do it.

[01:28:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. On the... Stepbacks. How would you accomplish the 6 stories? Would you start with 2 stories to the properties to the west and gradually increase to 6 stories?

[01:28:22] City Staff: So in terms of the of the physical design of the development? So, various projects had different, but some shared similarities. Some of them had lower buildings towards the west side of the lot, maybe 2 to 3 stories, and it stepped up towards 4 to 6 stories when facing Bryant Street. And there were various treatments, whether it was design, setbacks, and other buffer elements to create that distance between the use in the adjacent properties. And so, yeah, different submittals treated it differently, but all were cognizant of trying to step it back or set it back. And again, other treatments, to help provide for that transition.

[01:29:28] Councilmember John McAlister: So after review, was this reviewed by planning and found that this was acceptable for all projects? for that type of design?

[01:29:40] City Staff: At this stage in the process, it seemed that the applicants sought to be responsive to the importance of excellent design and transitions, and we did note, again, one project that with the above grade parking structure that tended to be have potentially more bulk. But it would also be more easily repurposed in the future. So, again, under a normal entitlement project, there would be various rounds of review potentially, and certainly actively working with a project planner to refine the plans. And so, uh, the approach taken for this RFQ process is that this is an iterative process. It is an illustrative way for the applicants to demonstrate their thinking and shouldn't be taken as a final design, but as a starting point for their approach and, again, it would iterate throughout, but we would want to reiterate the importance of design. And if council really wanted to emphasize certain parts of design, we would and could incorporate that with further clarity in the RFP.

[01:30:58] Councilmember John McAlister: If the non-residential was removed, Would that potentially be replaced with 2 or 3 sub training and parking and one above? And would you be able to, or would that be able to put in more residential units there, if we eliminated the non-residential use?

[01:31:21] City Staff: I believe what I'm hearing, and please correct me if I'm wrong. is if there were not a requirement, and it wasn't required, It was the ability to include up to 10,000 square feet, but the place-baking component did provide a framework for the response to respond with a non-residential component. But if that component were not included, it could potentially help with the overall project feasibility, it may not help in terms of the affordable component in the sense of number of units, because all of the submittals provided at least the 120 units that the council mentioned was a maximum number, and they also include non-residential. So, removing the non-residential doesn't necessarily increase the number of units unless the council wanted to provide direction that it was open to more units. before Lot 12. So it could have an impact on feasibility and depending on if council was open to more units, that could also be a modification in the RFP portion.

[01:32:38] Councilmember John McAlister: And regards to parking, would that be able to reduce the cost of parking if one level was above ground?

[01:32:51] City Staff: Potentially, potentially above grade or at grade parking could help. Subterranean parking tends to be the most expensive type. And as with any site plan and site layout, there would be trade-offs with that. You would have more use of the site if it were subterranean potentially, but it's a little bit more expensive and vice versa. So most of the items that we're talking about have potentially more to do with just the trade-offs that the council wishes to see.

[01:33:26] Councilmember John McAlister: There was suggested that for the smaller ones, that they wanted to get some parking, like that was snapping, there was a project on open Dana, which was struggling to find parking. Would we be able to say to them, or if we built the parking on the city, dollar. Down the road, would we be able to accommodate or get reimbursed by smaller developers throughout the city as they came in asking for parking spaces?

[01:34:22] City Staff: We may need to think through this one a little bit. I'm looking at the city manager.

[01:34:27] City Manager Dan Rich: If I understand the question correctly, is can you take money from another developer on another site and potentially use it here or elsewhere, and I think in general, you know, it would depend on the specifics, but that's essentially what the in lieu parking in lieu is about, a developer who's in the parking district, who does not provide all the required parking at the council's discretion, can provide an in lieu fee that then goes into the pot that can be used to build additional parking. So I think, in general, the concept of what you're talking about is feasible, but a lot would depend on the specifics.

[01:35:05] Councilmember John McAlister: So, it is allowable, it potentially, it could be allowable to get in loose and outside the district. If we're buying, if we're building additional parking.

[01:35:22] City Manager Dan Rich: If there's a nexus, and there are net new spaces, if I understand the question correctly.

[01:35:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'm just trying to find a solution. Okay, well, we'll go with that. Um, on the TVM. What would be part of the TDM?

[01:35:44] Unknown Speaker: Are you talking clipper cards? Are you asking the development to pay money to, for transportation? What exactly are you thinking about when you say the TDM?

[01:35:56] City Staff: Well, the submittals all included a variety of potential strategies. several of the strategies were shared among the submittals, some of them included, certain components that others didn't, but in general, as part of the submittal and as part of the iterative process, anything from bike storage to bike share, car share, coordination with shuttle, shuttle services, enforcement, working on some kind of permitting program, programming, transit passes, shared parking, lower parking ratios, parking lifts. All of that was mentioned in some way or form, amongst all the submittals, and most of them shared several of those elements, and some of them had maybe one of those elements, maybe some of the others didn't. But that would be part of the iterative process. We would reiterate that component in the RFP as well.

[01:36:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, my last question, then. With Park and Lucy. Can the council change or modify the rules so that money can be spent outside of the district or they include that lot 12 in the district?

[01:37:17] City Staff: You mean the parking in Luffy's? Not the Park and Luther.

[01:37:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:37:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I do want to clarify that, because I feel like I heard something different tonight, then, was my understanding, and there are two different types of parking fees. One is the inlew fees. That's where the balance is next to zero. And that has to be for net new parking spaces, and it can be used within the sphere of influence if there's a nexus. Is that correct? And then there's the parking district fees where we might have a balance. Do those have to be used in the district? Is that fair?

[01:38:01] City Staff: Just to be clear, that's not a fee. The parking district is a legal entity that collects property tax. Tax, sorry. And it has to be used for the operations and maintenance of parking in the downtown area from where it's collected. We would need to do some additional research, but we believe there's a possibility that those funds could be used for replacement parking or new parking created that isn't necessarily net new.

[01:38:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And does that have to be within the district or it be within the sphere of influence?

[01:38:39] City Staff: Well, that's one of the things we would have to find out that too. look a little more closely at.

[01:38:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Sorry, John, was that your question?

[01:38:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, I just wanted to, uh, there had to be some flexibility in how we used to see. you. Those are my questions.

[01:38:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, I had, that was one of my questions to clarify. And then, Mr. Chen, earlier, you said, if I thought I heard this right, actually, I'll just ask the question. What was the zoning of the property to the west of Lot 12?

[01:39:17] Mr. Chen: It's an R4 zoning. It's not in the downtown precise plan. It is. Let us check.

[01:39:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Because I quickly pulled up the precise plan and, um, It looks like it's in the precise plan to me.

[01:39:39] Mr. Chen: I believe it is, well, we'll be able to look at that map and the boundary. just, yeah, a second.

[01:39:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So while you're doing that. I'm curious if you can share, and I don't know if you can, why the 7th applicant or responder with Drew. Was it something in the RFQ that was particularly troubling or?

[01:40:09] Mr. Chen: There wasn't a lot of information provided. I understand that they were just feeling like there were other opportunities that they wanted to explore.

[01:40:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Well, they're looking that up. Are there any other questions? From council members? John, did you have any other questions?

[01:40:36] Councilmember John McAlister: No, ma'am.

[01:40:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Then, at this time, we will open this up for public input. So if you want to provide us with your thoughts on this topic. Please come up to the microphone, the first person, and be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with the city clerk either before or after you speak. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks who might want to speak tonight? Okay, you can each have 3 minutes.

[01:41:15] Serge: Good evening, Sergeant, Fontainvue residence. So, um, I think it's great, but we had so many, um, you know, replies to that request for, for, um, proposal. Um, In terms of the questions in front of you, I would certainly favor lower income type of you know, levels. One thing I liked with your previous revise of the inclusion zoning was to have kind of an average type of target, and I think that may be a good solution there to set up one, but one that would be lower than what you had for the inclusion zoning so that the majority of the targeted income would be the lowering up, you know, lower urban than, you know, a lower average, if you will, than than what you had for inclusion zoning. And maybe, then maybe a good way for people to be kind of flexible in what they propose. In terms of the non-retail use, I like the fact that most of the respondents provided suggested some non-profit type of use. I liked, you know, the idea of having some sort of vocational training. I think one applicant had something like, you know, kitchen training or cafe training. Another possible use could be also something around a mega space or some art gallery or things like this. And given the type of uses that have been proposed, I think there are probably some ways to get some subsidies, you know, maybe from the arts committee, if it's an art specific type of use, or if it's something that benefits the community, vocational training or childcare or things like this, we are other ways to kind of provide these subsidies. that the city does, you know, no matter what anyway. Because it's a kind of a nonprofit, I would suggest that you don't make a parking requirement for these uses. Also, something that's a bit weird too, is that if you wanted to put a parking requirement for the non-retalues, I'm not sure what's going to be preventing a customer or patron to not use the free public parking that we're going to be replacing or that's available just across the street. So I don't know how you how you manage that to start with. And finally, for the parking replacement. I would be, you know, definitely against using a general fund step of subsidies or parking because I think it's a waste of money at this point. I'd rather have subsidies to provide non-non-car type of improvements so that we would have more shutters, you know, better ways to bike and walk to downtown, because, you know, it comes 2030, if we don't do anything to change the of climate change, you know, that's going to be completely wasted.

[01:44:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Explace?

[01:44:25] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: Good evening, Mayor Vice Mayor Council members. My name is Ray Brampson. I'm Chief Impact Officer with Destination Home. Destiny Shome is a public, private partnership in Santa Clara dedicated tending homelessness. We, as an organization, are constantly looking for good opportunities to develop housing for the most vulnerable in our community. with its proximity to great services, amenities, and just an amazing environment. We think that Lot 12 could be an excellent site where permanent sport of housing, housing for the most vulnerable with services could be provided. So as your weigh your options tonight, we encourage you to consider the AMI levels in the RFP and prioritize and create a preference for those most deeply affordable units. Over the past year, destination home is provided over $10000000 in funds to help developers in 3 cities across Santa Clara County prepare and set up developments and programs that include supportive housing units, which can then apply for measure a funding, and we think measure a funding could be something that could be valuable and come into this community as well and reduce the subsidy. Measure A from the county, as you know, has already funded in 6 cities, 1934 units. We have extensive experience, working with developers, who have put forth great supportive housing projects, and we feel like it could happen here if council was willing to set that priority and move things forward. We'd be happy to partner in any way we can, providing funding, support collaborative efforts. We've worked in a lot of other cities, and we'd love to work here with you as well. Thank you for your consideration.

[01:46:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you leave I think we have some questions for you. Council member committee.

[01:46:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. Thanks. Good to see you, as always. Thanks for coming up to North County. We're happy to see you. So one of the things that you mentioned was funding. Can you share with the council the different ways that you have provided funding for other projects and maybe the amounts in terms of what's accessible, for cities as we're looking at projects too, would be helpful?

[01:46:32] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: Absolutely. Thank you. So, as is the case in every city, we have unique challenges in each community that require unique funding solutions. In some communities, we've provided developers with pre-development and acquisition funds to get land and early money that can go into projects before they can even access more traditional tax credit and county financing. In some communities, we've actually provided direct support to cities with limited planning staff and supports where we could increase capacity on the government side and see how we can help out. We've also provided some longer funding to developers that have committed to developing this deeply supportive housing so that they have operating subsidies and staffing, which can expand their pipeline and get projects moving forward. In all of these cases, we're linking the types of developments that are being built to measure A funds. So we're looking at projects that apply to one of their type one or type 2 categories, because the reality is that's where for local subsidy, the large amount of the money is, $234 million has been committed, but there's 100s of 1000000s more that we think can get out there, and there's a real opt. opportunity. I think what's most exciting about Mountain View is that staff here upset a priority to see supportive housing built. This council has approved an investment plan, a housing investment plan that has numeric goals for that type of supportive housing. So we're anxious to see how we can help bridge that gap and get those measure A dollars flowing into this community.

[01:48:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:48:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: A couple of questions. So first, do you happen to know offhand what 30% AMI looks like, sort of what the salary range for the folks who would be served by permanent supportive housing would be?

[01:48:27] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: So permanent supportive housing typically refers to deeply affordable housing, so 30% of the area immediate income or below. Um, you know, I'll give you rough approximations, but area immediate income for this community is about $100,000 a year. So you're looking at about $30,000 or below. The difference with supportive housing is that the people living in those units typically will have very low incomes. And what's great about what we've been able to do with measure A is with partner with the housing authority to bring project-based vouchers. So as opposed to the rents being fixed to a deed restricted level, like extremely low income, the rents are part of their income. So they pay approximately 30% of their income. And if they have a disability or they're a senior living on a fixed income, they'll pay no more than 30% of whatever their income is. Sad reality is, even with deed restricted apartments in this county because, and I heard it referenced earlier, we keep seeing AMI levels climb and the region gets wealthier and wealthier. We have seniors living in affordable housing units who have seen 3 to 5% rent increases for the last 4 years. So what we want to do with our most vulnerable communities is make sure that they don't get strapped for rent. They don't become severely cost burdened and that great partnership with the county and the Housing Authority allows us to bring in those project-based vouchers, which also make the project cash flow a lot better.

[01:49:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. Two more questions. First, I don't know if you've had a chance to see the list of the developers who've responded to the RFQ, but if you have seen that list, or maybe staff can assist with this question too. Have any of them worked on any permanent supportive housing developments in the county?

[01:50:11] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: I have not seen the list. Um, staff, if that's anything you can assist with.

[01:50:19] City Staff: So, yes, in the report, we do mention the respondents affirmed EEH, Eden, McCormick Baron, Salazar, Midpen Housing, and the development team of related and PH.

[01:50:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Has destination homework with any of them?

[01:50:39] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: So absolutely a number of those developers on the list have, have developed Measurai projects that have worked in this community before. I think there's a lot of other developers that focus more exclusively on mission alliance supportive housing as sort of the core focus of the goal, but you've got developers on that list, like midpen and a firm who have done a number of high quality projects in this community.

[01:50:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's good to know. And then the last question, and I don't know if this is an easy one for you to answer, but it's always surprised me that even though Mountain View supported Measure A very strongly, we haven't yet to see a Measure A project here. Cupertino has opened a measure A project before we've seen anything here. Do you have a sense of why that might be?

[01:51:24] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: I think there's a number. Again, every community has its challenges. The cost of land here is extremely expensive. So, you know, on a per acre basis we're looking very, very high unit costs already. I know that staff has been working pretty extensively with county Office of supportive housing staff to find a solution to that. I think we're here today because we think lot 12 might be kind of the nexus of where something like that could really happen where there's a need and an opportunity coming together.

[01:51:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much.

[01:51:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We have more questions for you. apparently. That's the best. Go for more. Vice mayor on Bakoga.

[01:52:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, we've been hearing about the, um, corporate world um, funding more affordable housing projects. And I was wondering if you know what the status of that fund, that kind of funding is and if they have any targeted AMI levels.

[01:52:19] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: Sure.

[01:52:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Chan Zuckerberg or Google just announced, but...

[01:52:25] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: Yeah, absolutely. So it's a complicated question with lots of twists and turns. I can start with destination home first. Two years ago, Destination, we received $50000000 grant from Cisco, and we use that to create the supportive housing and innovation fund. About 85% of all of our funds are exclusively focused on extremely low income or supportive housing opportunities. So that's almost everything that we're putting money out to is going to be funded by that. Nearby funds, the catalyst fund. which is in East Palo Alto, but actually has a range that includes that includes Mountain View. Facebook. That's the Facebook fund. that was funded. And that has a carve out specifically. I believe it's a 30% car, but it could be higher, specifically for extremely low income housing opportunities and then ranges up to very low and low income. Chan Zuckerberg, the partnership for the Bay's future. Yes. They have 6 loan products in a very, very in a fund that's aspiring to be a $500 million total fund. Yes. And they have a supportive housing loan product and they have a number of others, which fund low income and even up to moderate income housing types. down south, the housing trust and the recent Google commitment to the housing trust. To fund their tech fund includes a range, and about a 3rd of all those funds have gone towards ELI opportunity. So we're seeing we're seeing some good initial money going into it.

[01:53:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[01:53:51] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: You're welcome.

[01:53:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: One more. Council member Hicks.

[01:53:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think you kind of alluded to this in your last answer, but I'll ask it a little differently. Most of the very low income housing projects that I'm familiar with that have wraparound support as well are not mixed income. Are you familiar with and have you worked with ones that are mixed income as well that provide both supportive housing and housing for people that are on the income scale?

[01:54:26] Chief Impact Officer Ray Brampson: Yeah, absolutely, Council member. The goal of the Measure funds is to create the deepest level of affordability possible, but that doesn't necessarily preclude a range of incomes. We like to seem mixed income products. We're trying to maximize tax credits in the project. So typically we'll see a blended average that's below 80% AMI in most of the projects that we're funding, but it's far further down the scale. That being said, we have projects that have ELI, permanent supportive housing, and VLI, and even some LI units as well. What we're seeing less of just because of the finances of a project is a project with market rate housing coupled with supportive housing or market rate housing. coupled with extremely low income housing. The developers and market rate housing are really, it's a different financing model and they're not really looking to include those types of units. And that's why we have a lot of problems in different cities throughout the region getting market rate developers to build on site through their inclusionary programs. It's a challenge to get them all the way down to that lowest level where we see the greatest need.

[01:55:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'll just check and see if Council member McAllister has any questions for you.

[01:55:44] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I'm good.

[01:55:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

[01:55:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:55:54] Shanay Kleinhouse: Good evening. I'm Shanay Kleinhouse. And I was listening, and I wanted to support the notion that very, very extremely low income is the population that really needs housing in this area. People that live on SSI get less than $1,000 a month. And there are people that live on that much money, both among the developmentally disabled community and the senior community. So if you can make, make housing happen for them. They also don't drive, so that's, That was mentioned by staff, and that's an advantage. So I just wanted to mention that.

[01:56:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. And be sure to turn in your blue cards with our city clerk.

[01:56:43] Frank: Good evening everybody. My name is Frank. I am with abode services, specifically working at Second Street Studios in San Jose. You might have heard about Second Street Studios recently. It is the 1st 100% permanent supportive housing project in the entire county of Santa Clara. Um, and that is a great thing in the sense that we're doing something now. And it's also a sad thing in the sense that it's the 1st one. Um, but good news are coming, uh, Renaissance Place. which is actually opening up at the beginning of 2020, uh, is actually going to be, uh, far as we know to this date, the largest uh, 100% permanent support of housing uh, project in the country at 160 units. Secondary Studios is slightly smaller at 134 units, at this moment, we have 154 residents living there. Um, and, you know, as Ray said, you know, is the kind of housing that is sorely needed, uh, because it's exactly, um, the, the, serving the kind of population that is at the edge, um, of, uh, chronic homelessness, uh, or that has already been uh, in the streets for extended periods of time. I don't know if you guys have heard about this, but it combined those 154 residents were in the streets for over 400 years. And that greater impact of sort of ending that in May of this year, we're in our 6 months now. Um, is a big deal. And so we at a boat. We'll be providing services at Renaissance Place, as we do provide services right now at 2nd Street Studios, we have 12 staff people, including myself, who provide, you know, mental health services, uh, substance abuse, uh, um, um, help, uh, and myself who, you know, organizers in the community, build community. Uh, you know, make sure that make sure that there is uh, activities uh, going on uh, every day uh, so that people, um, have something to do uh, and that they're able to thrive. And we're seeing that a lot of people are being impacted very positively. by this kind of work. We want to see more of it, whether a boat is involved or not. And so this is why I'm here. As a matter of fact, I want to offer every one of you guys the opportunity to go out and tour the facilities at Secondary Studios. We had council member Ramirez. Check it out. We've also had somebody from staff, check it out. I have some cards. I'll leave with the city clerk. You guys could contact me. We could check it out. I can answer any questions here, or there, if necessary. Thank you.

[01:59:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Oh, uh, council member Ramirez has a question.

[01:59:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. In full disclosure, Frank is a former colleague. We work together for the city of San Jose. I appreciate the tour of 2nd Street Studios. I was in the context of my day job and I learned a lot, and I would encourage everyone who hasn't had the opportunity to take a visit. So a couple of questions about 2nd Street Studios to the extent, it helps informs our decision here. Can you speak to the parking needs of the residents at 2nd Street?

[02:00:16] Frank: Yeah, so at the beginning, when the project was 1st proposed, there was a, you know, what would be considered by the neighborhood a very low amount of parking spaces, and the neighborhood was actually upset, predictably so. about the low number of parking spaces proposed. And so 1st Committee Housing, who developed the project, increased that number 287 units. If you go to 2nd Street Studios today, you'll see that, um, you know, upwards of 70% of those uh, parking spaces are empty uh, on a day to day. The populations that benefit from permanent supportive housing, um, because they are extremely low income, very low income, um, they don't have disposable income to to, you know, use cars and to, and to, you know, uh, uh, buy cars and whatnot. And so what we see is high usage of bikes. Um, you know, especially if you're in an urban uh, center. Um, I think it diminishes even further the need for cars as a mode of transportation. But yeah, we're seeing that, you know, those parking spots, which, you know, evidently are extremely expensive, um, are essentially, if we're being honest, a waste, uh, to a piece, uh, the neighbors. of the building. And maybe folks thrive, and they're able to buy cars, and I'll be wrong. But the results don't bear out.

[02:01:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And one other question, I'm not sure you would have this figure off hand, but my understanding is that 2nd Street was not a measure a project. Do you know what the city subsidy was, city subsidy per unit, or the aggregate subsidy?

[02:02:07] Frank: The 2nd question, well, the 2nd part of the question, I don't know that figure, so I won't venture to guess. Um, but I will confirm that uh, Secondary Studios was not a major project because it was proposed and uh, ground was broken before. Um, um, measure A came into effect. And so I believe Renaissance Place is a majority project.

[02:02:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[02:02:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, next speaker, please.

[02:02:41] Jan Lindenthall: Good evening. My name is Jan Lindenthall, I'm with midpenhousing. And I just wanted to make a comment regarding council member Ramirez's question about area immediate incomes, and knowing that staff is researching a couple of different things. I've got some of the answers to those questions if that's okay. So for the last 2 years, the median income in Santa Clara County rose 11%. The year before that, it was in the 8% range. And the important thing to note about that increase in area median income is that is not tied to wages. So and that makes sense, right? If we think about, you know, the families that we know, their incomes didn't go up 11% last year. So in high cost counties like Santa Clara County, HUD makes a special adjustment to the median income to account for the high cost of housing in those markets. And they look at HUD looks at the relationship of fair market rents to incomes and makes the special adjustment. And they actually cap that adjustment at 11%. So that's why for the last few years, there have been these very high annual increases in median incomes in Santa Clara County that are not tied to the wages of lower income families. What that means over time is that the range of families that can qualify for affordable housing goes up, which can have the unintended consequence of leaving out the folks at the bottom. So that's just some information that I wanted to share. It's an issue that we at MidPanner tracking really closely to ensure that we're able to provide affordable housing to a broad range. So just, for example, in Santa Clara County. For 30% of area median income for a family of four, that's $43,890. And for a moderate income family at 120% of that airy median income, it's $175,000. So that gives you a sense of that range from 30 to 120% of AMI. Thank you.

[02:04:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:04:54] Paul Davis: Good evening. My name is Paul Davis. I'm a resident and homeowner, Mountain View, about five blocks from here. Um, and I just want to, uh, endorse the messages that you've been hearing tonight that I believe that Lot 12, um, presents the city with a rare opportunity to address the greatest need, and I hope that, um, the city will, um, aim at, uh, request towards extremely low income, and, uh, supportive housing, and that the, any retail space might be used in the supportive services area. Again, I just think it's an incredible opportunity. It's a rare opportunity for us to have this kind of space where we can focus on the greatest need, and I encourage you to do just that. you.

[02:05:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:05:54] Susie Krisimanya: Hi, my name is Susie Krisimanya, I'm with Eden housing. I wanted to make another point on the AMI levels. Um, I just want, um, I'd like to just point out to the council that the difference between an 80% AMI unit and an 81% AMI are higher than that unit as, um, there's a substantial difference in how that unit is financed. If it's 80% or lower, TCAC, the state and the federal government will pay for about a half to two-thirds of that cost. I think a half is a pretty good benchmark. Once you get to 81% and above, it's 0% of that. So as you consider the different AMI levels that you'd like to see here. I hope that you also consider that in terms of what kind of extra subsidies might be necessary. If you do go above 80% AMI. Thank you. you.

[02:06:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, please.

[02:06:53] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, long term Mountain View resident. Um, I have three things to say about this. First, because we own the city owns this property. We have the opportunity to target what we think the greatest need is. Usually we're dealing with another developer, some property owner, whatever, and we're trying to influence what they do. We have the say here, and we can make sure that, you know, if we think that we haven't been building enough permanent support of housing, then we can make sure that that's done here. Secondly, in terms of height, which is one of your questions, just remember, this is across the street from the tallest building in Mountain View. And while we don't want to negatively impact the homes on Franklin, There is an opportunity to go high here, and I hope you don't reduce the height. And the 3rd thing which is most complicated is the parking. And what I urge, whatever numbers you come up with, that there be a design for parking, which is flexible. It's my understanding that Madera, right across from the train station, has lots of extra parking. They didn't know that Google was going to rent, I don't know, a 3rd or a quarter of the units there. And there's empty parking in their secure area, and they can't make that available for public parking. This is a spot where you will have public parking and parking for the residents. make it flexible, so you can move the cones or the fence or whatever. So we don't know what parking needs will be in 5 or 10 years. Waymo thinks everybody's going to be in self driving vehicles and not have cars. I don't believe that, but we don't know. So make sure there's flexibility in the way the parking is provided. It's my hope that once this project is that, well, 1st we've got the hotel on Hope Street. Then we've got this project. We have other surface parking lots that can be redeveloped with housing and parking, and we're always going to need the parking, but we don't know how much. So let's let's, again, design it flexibly. Thank you.

[02:08:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who wishes to address the council?

[02:08:58] Joan McDonald: Joan McDonald. Milton View homeowner since 1960. And everybody else has already stolen my Thunder, I'm speaking for both the League of Women voters and Advocates for Affordable Housing to re emphasize what you've already heard that Lot 12 is the best opportunity that the city of Mountain View has to address the greatest need, and that is ELI, L, V-L-I, and L. incomes. And as you've already heard, those incomes do not come with cars. So that automatically limits the problems of residential parking for those residents. And we do hope that the replacement parking for the 160 parking spaces that Lot 12 has been offering residents will be found somewhere else so that it doesn't take part of the spaces that should be for residents. Thank you.

[02:10:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none. Be sure to turn in your cards with our city clerk, but we'll close the public input portion for this item, and bring it back to council for any further questions and discussion. Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[02:10:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, I guess they will start. Um, so, uh, I wanted to go through the questions, but maybe in a different order, if you don't mind stuff. I was thinking, what's the most straightforward ones first. So, question number three, the heights. I am fine with looking up at up to 6 stories. The key, of course, is to make sure there's a good transition from the single family homes on one side. up to the, is that the Bryant side, Bryant Street side, that faces the office buildings, the one that's even 12 stories high. So, um, with good design, I think we can potentially look at, um, do that transition well. For... Okay, retail. So, um, I am fine with, uh, the parking ratio for the mixed use portion being low. And I'm going to tag this onto question one. So that's my answer for that one. And for A, um, I guess the question is how much of a subsidy are we looking at? I would say my interest is to have retail or some kind of use other than housing on the 1st floor because I believe very strongly that being in downtown. I would like to maintain that pedestrian experience. And, um, my interest has also always been to try to expand our, you know, downtown, beyond Castro Street, frankly, and to be able to look at expanding out further. So mixed use has always been my preference. And I think, you know, on this property, we're trying to accomplish several things, housing is definitely one of them, but I do believe that we have to take into account the vitality of our downtown. So, I would like to look at some other space. I really like the idea of a test kitchen or a training facility, the childcare facility. It was also of interest. I thought that was a nice use, you know, in light of the location across from Pioneer Park and the library and the performing arts center. So I think there's definitely a lot of great options here for us to choose from, but my preference is to keep it retail or communities. And 5 in terms of AMI. So, I am fine with the range. I understand the interest for, you know, very low income and I support that, but I guess I'm also looking at, you know, where is our biggest need? And we've talked a lot about the missing middle. Um, I think in light, even with the new state legislation for rent stabilization that might help down the road, but immediately there's going to be still some challenges because those rents on the, I remember from the other study, the 2016 and to current apartment rents at fit 5 or $6000 a unit is quite high. And I think that's still quite a challenge for many people to be able to afford. So I would like to keep the range wide from 30 to 120%. Going back to one and two. So, Um, This is where, and I know, I know, I think Council member McAllister and Mayor Matachek's question and line of questioning, I believe, alludes to this, a concept, but I've been thinking, and you know, you know, man, most of you know, I live downtown and I have a little issue right now with a building that was built for office. And I went to actually had a chance to go see it yesterday. Um, It's a tech company and they have 3 levels of parking underground. But for whatever reason, those employees are not using that parking lot, as I saw yesterday, the 3rd level is completely empty. And they're parking in Allison and my neighborhood. So I've been hearing a lot from my neighbors lately about this. And, you know, I've heard folks say, well, people just don't like going underground and this and that. So it started making, it made me start thinking about, well, what other possibilities are there. This is really the best use of, you know, the funding, that the costs of going underground. I've heard is, you know, at least maybe or twice as much or a 3rd more than an above level above grade parking structure. And I think we see that in the proposals we've received. There are other development possibilities downtown, and they all cite the cost of parking as being the barrier to affordability. So, um, you know, my thought was, could we, So this is with one. Could we have the replacement parking happen in a different lot? So lot 6 is the one that we were talking about, the one between Dana and California, along hope? Because it's across from the, I think it's AT&T or PG&E building that's just this monolithic building. So heights, I may not be as much of an issue, but could we have the replacement parking happen there. Take whatever fees we from, like, take the cost of building parking on site and take that as fees or funds to put into building the spaces in a potential parking structure on Lot 6. And this would be coupled with any other developments. I know we have a couple coming up next week on our agenda, I think, but any other downtown developments. I've talked to other developers about this, and they seem very excited about that possibility of not having to go underground, but doing something above ground that would be a lower cost to them. So my question there, though, is is our in-loof fee formula sufficient? Are we capturing enough in lieu fees to be able to build a parking structure? And if not, can we modify that? So that would be my, and then if we could use those in district parking and district fees to subsidize, you know, some part of it, then that would be my preference. So, I don't know. I remember the one on across from here, lot 12 with California, that parking lot with the CVS. Back in 2004, it was $15 million. I have no idea what that is that would cost now, but I would like to get a sense of that to see, you know, if we could potentially just build another parking structure taking fees from these other developments to come up with that. So that is, yeah, that would be my preference if we could look at that. And I know that this may have implications with the RFQ and the RFP and we could talk about that if other of my colleagues would be supportive of this approach. And so then question 2 actually would be tied to question one in my mind, because that would be relative to the funding piece. Thanks.

[02:19:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I just want to clarify, we do have one specific question from staff that we do need to answer at the end and that I believe is a vote on if we want to open it up or not. If we want to go back to all 6 or do we want to open it up? Or should we also talk about that now? Is that different than the 5 questions?

[02:19:18] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think the issue is if you change any of the parameters, and please jump in. If you change any of the parameters, such that it might be unfair to those who didn't participate, then you might want to do the RFP, open it up, if you stay more or less answering these questions, and within the parameters of the RFQ, then you wouldn't need to open it up. The whole point of an RFQ is to make sure they're qualified and then limit your pool to those people. So I think it depends on your answers to the other questions. So I would do that at the end.

[02:19:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so let's stick with the five questions for now. And I've been trying to capture answers so we can summarize, because I feel like this feels like a study session. Even though it's not technically one, and I did not hear if you had a cap on the subsidy for the non-residential. You can think about that, and we can come back to you if you want to. Okay. Okay. Council member Hicks.

[02:20:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, like, uh, council member, Abbe Koga, I'm gonna respond out of order to the questions. Um, and to begin with, uh, again, the easiest one seems like, do we support heights up to six stories? I do, and I think that, um, because it's near the Mountain Bay Plaza, which is, I think it's 10 to 12 stories, it's a completely appropriate place to do, um, you know, as long as the architecture is excellent, and the transitions are excellent, I think, particularly on the side near the Mountain Bay Plaza, we could even go up to seven, but maybe I shouldn't bring that up now. Um, and I should say I also met with several of uh, several of the nonprofits making the proposals, and I was very excited to hear about them because the architects they were working with. I think that to keep downtown vitality, that the architecture is very important, and they were both working with some of the affordable housing architects that I most respect. So that was a big plus for the rest of the questions for me, and that, um, for that. The next question. Do questions on specific guidance on AMI levels? I am most interested in serving people who are being displaced from some of our other developments and not able to find housing. And I think that would be people at the 80% and below level that I'm particularly interested in. Um, I would be supportive of including some, um, some very low income people, but I would probably not support the entire, uh, 120 or more units being, um, being very low income. I would prefer a mix. I think that that would work better. Then, uh, the parking, I agree with, um, What council member Ebekoga said, I also have seen when I go to underground parking in the area that it's not being used, and it's somewhat, I'm somewhat dismayed, seeing parking that's not, I think we have a lot of parking in the downtown, but it's not open to people who need to use it. And that's disturbing to me given the amount given the cost. So I think this is a question. And I also have to say that when I talk to our restaurants and retail establishments, parking is one of the things that they're most concerned about. They think that their business is falling off, and that it's, in part, that our downtown has become an office parking lot, and that people can't drop by for lunch and dinner as easily. So, I think we have to do some of the things that council member Abbe Koga has suggested in terms of, and I'm looking forward to exploring overall downtown. parking. I wouldn't want to capture it all underground in, you know, on this particular site, because I think that probably doesn't serve either the people at this site or the general downtown, as well as we could be serving them, and then it's expensive on top of that. Let's see. In terms of, oh, my computer just locked up. Um, So then another one of the questions was on the, um, Do you have a question too, Christian? Thank you. So, subsidy for the retail component? So, I, I, again, agree with council member Abbe Kogo, I think that the interface with the street is very important, particularly in our downtown, um, I would be open to various kinds of public spaces on the, on the ground floor, including, I've talked to developers who, uh, generally provide a gym to their residents, but can make it open, so that the general community can, can purchase access to the gym or a community room, that people for party rooms or meeting rooms. I would be very open. I dont know if tax credits prohibit that, but I would be very open to various kind, whatever would work out best for the project. I would be very open to flexibility, but I do think that the ground floor has to be someplace that speaks to people who are walking in the downtown because this is our downtown. And let's see. I did five. In terms of subsidy, I'm, I'm more interested in, I don't want to line, I would prefer not to have a line item subsidy for each, you know, for parking for the retail and for the units, I would prefer to have an overall subsidy and give some flexibility to the applicants, they may save in one area and spend a little more in another area. So that's the way I would look at that particular question. Now, did I leave any out?

[02:26:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, what about a maximum parking ratio for the affordable units?

[02:26:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think that really depends on the, on who you're serving, and so I would, I would support, I don't have a specific number, but I would support them being a little lower than average, but it really depends on whether it's family housing or, you know, permanently supportive housing. I think the type of housing, I think, that the applicant can make that call.

[02:26:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, And what about parking requirements for the non-residential?

[02:26:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I think the parking requirements for the non-residential can be rolled into saving the parking, you know, the 160 spaces, whether we save them on that site or somewhere else in the downtown that I think that can be remain open.

[02:27:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Ramirez.

[02:27:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, just as a quick preamble. I think what I'd like to see in the RFP, sort of my ranked priorities, the highest priority would be depth of affordability. I think that's, I think that's the primary purpose in developing lot 12 is to increase our affordable housing supply. And I think that because we own the land, we have the greatest ability to ensure that the level of affordability is quite deep, you know, deeper than we would be able to to achieve through the inclusionary program. which I think does a pretty good job of getting so like the weighted average of 65% for rentals and then I forget if it's 80 or 100% for ownership BMRs, but that does a good job of serving as we increase market rate housing. It does a good job of, you know, providing the set aside for folks a little bit higher up the income spectrum, but where we really struggle, I think, is finding space and helping create projects that serve extremely low income folks. So I would strongly support including in the RFP, even, you know, a preference or a measure A project. And that would speak to my 2nd highest priority, which is limiting the city subsidy. I think what I heard from the council in the discussion of the Palo Alto housing project on El Camino, the Taco Bell site, is there's a point where we become less comfortable investing a substantial amount of our affordable housing funds. So another way, perhaps, of saying limit the city subsidy is maximize, you know, highly leverage, you know, the existing funding sources. So tax credits and measure, I think, could be an important component of this tech fund, that there are a number of funding sources available. And I would like to see the responders to the RFP demonstrate that they are intending to highly leverage all of these funding sources. And then the 3rd priority, I guess, you know, of the three, the lowest ranked would be what I, what I'm sort of calling amenities. So those are the nice things to have, that would be great to include in this, but not at the expense of either depth of affordability or a limited city subsidy. So that would be like the commercial space and parking, which I'll get into a little bit later. But if to the extent that's helpful for staff, those would be my ranked priorities for the RFP. Was staff able to locate the AMI rents and that information? Is that something that we could place on the screen?

[02:30:22] Unknown Speaker: I don't have it on the screen, but I can read it out and, um, We have 30%, 80% and 120% AMIs and a one person and a 4 person in a household just for comparisons. For the ELI, one person household, it's $31,000, I think some of these numbers were referenced earlier. And if we did a 30% um, towards rent, that's 775 per month. For a 4 person household, that's 44,000. And it's 1100 per month. I also did find 2011 income limits. I think that was the farthest I can find on HCD site. And between 2011 and 2019, the rents increased about, sorry, the income limits increased about 40%. For the 80% level, one person household is 73,000. Rents are 1825. And for a 4 person household, it's 104,000. And rents are 2,600. The change between 2011, 2019 is about 28,9%. For the income limits. And for the modern income 120% AMI level, one person household, it's 110. The rent is 2750. And The 4 person household is one around 158, actually. 158,000, and the monthly rent is about 3950. And the change between 2011 and 2019 is about 27%.

[02:32:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much for finding those. And I think that's so that helps sort of solidify my concern about going too high up the AMI bracket. You know, it's I don't personally see a lot of value in a deed restricted BMR unit at 39, you know, $100 a month in rent. You know, I feel like there's probably a greater utility in using the land to achieve lower rents. But so going through the questions, I'll try and go through them pretty quickly. So I, um, I think I'm largely agreeing with the vice mayor and council member Hicks. I'm not, if there's an opportunity to find some kind of alternative location or strategy for addressing the parking concerns, that would be my preference. It's unfortunate we don't have the downtown parking strategy quite yet, and that could help inform that discussion. I guess what I don't want to do is tap into the general fund for a subsidy. So any city subsidy, in my opinion, should come exclusively from the affordable housing funding that we have available. I don't want to tap into the general fund. If we can tap into the parking related funds, I'm comfortable with that too. I guess that will, you know, we'll have to learn more a little bit later. Um, But, uh, So that's I don't I don't personally want to, uh, have to require replacement of all 160 parking spaces at this site. And I think doing so, you know, comes at other costs, including a greater city subsidy, you know, potentially with either affordable housing or general fund, which I'm not comfortable with. or potentially a reduction in affordability. So in my mind, the greatest priority, again, depth of affordability and limited city subsidy. So, I hope that answers that question. Question two, I would support a maximum parking ratio. Question three, I'm comfortable with, you know, a taller building. I don't, um, I don't know if we need to limit it at 6 stories if there's a way you can achieve, um, you know, excellent design, you know, with a 7 story building, this council member Hicks said I'd be comfortable with that. I think, you know, sensitivity is appropriate when considering the adjacent properties, but if and if the adjacent properties were zoned, you know, single family are one, then that's one thing. But if, you know, I think the mayor had asked, you know, confirmation about what's permitted in the adjacent properties. If you can have you know, higher density, multifamily, I'm, you know, I want to plan for a future and not just think about the existing buildings, which may be single family. So I'm personally comfortable with taller buildings. Um, question for, uh, so a modest subsidy for non-residential. I'd be willing to explore that, I think, as part of an amenity package. I think the concern I have is I don't want vacant commercial space there. as the vice mayor had pointed out, the childcare concept is what resonated most with me. there's a great need for that. So, you know, if there's a city contribution to help ensure the viability of a commercial, sorry, of a childcare facility in that space, I'm comfortable with that. But it strikes me as a very difficult place to sustain commercial, just because it's, there isn't a way to cut through the 400 block of Castro and, you know, the pedestrian experience getting there is not great. So I, I, you know, as much as I would like to expand the downtown and make that area vibrant. I think that's a difficult thing to achieve. And so I think that's something I would be sensitive too, is I don't want to just subsidize a space that we can't fill because it's not possible to sustain a business there. And I would support, and again, I think depending on the commercial use there, either a low or no parking requirement. And then question five. So I guess reiterating what I was saying earlier, my preference would be, you know, a measure a project, including some set aside for permanent supportive housing, you know, I don't want to be too prescriptive. I don't think higher than 80% AMI makes sense for this site personally, but I do have a preference for sorting, you know, very low and extremely low income people here. So those are my responses. Thank you.

[02:37:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[02:37:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: And we'll start with question three. I'm generally supportive with heights up to 6 or even 7 stories, depending on what's possible there and maybe what's on the ground floor, but I think as long as it's designed well and the transitions are there. I'm okay with that. The, um, For the AMI level. So my thought process on this is, um, Oh, sorry. So the modest subsidy for the non-residential and retail component, I'm okay with that depending on what it is. So my desire for the for, you know, a portion of it waste the ground floor that faces the street would just be that it's activated in some way, shape, or form. It doesn't have to be, um, you know, retail specifically, it could be a community serving gym, a community serving space. It could be a childcare facility. I think the goal there, for me, is just to have the ground floor activated and not just residential units with stoops or something like that. So, and depending on what, um, And depending on what is there, I'd be open to, you know, a reasonable subsidy to help make that work, especially if it's something like childcare or something like that. And I don't necessarily think that, I mean, the parking requirements for that will probably depend on the use, but, um, I generally support, you know, lower or no parking for that. If it's going to be, you know, if it were a grocery store, then that's a whole nother, whole nother story, but I don't think we're going to have a grocery store there. But that would certainly necessitate a little bit more parking need. So on the AMI levels. You know, my preference would be to serve, you know, I'd love to have a mix of AMIs, but I'm not in this, but in this particular project. I'm not as interested in the moderate income units, and the reason I say that is not because I don't support that generally. I just think we'll have a better opportunity through units included on site and various new developments to get, you know, a number of folks in sort of the higher end of those AMI spectra. And I think it's a lot easier when you have a standalone project on a city site to do a project that serves the lower ends of the AMI spectrum, just because you have, you have other funding sources at your disposal that you don't necessarily have in a market rate project where you're just doing inclusionary units. So I think, I think we've seen, we've made a lot of progress in, you know, getting, you know, middle to moderate income units in market rate projects where the units are included on site. And I think as long as we continue to make progress there, having a standalone project like this, it probably makes more sense to target some of the lower AMI levels that are, I think, a bigger struggle to get market rate developers too. to include, or at least we get fewer of them, I guess, is the better way to state that. And then going back to the others, um, So the original impetus behind this was, you know, we have, we have a city owned lot that we would like to be developed at some point for, you know, a public serving purpose. And, you know, we, I think, generally felt that, you know, affordable housing would be a great option there as long as, but we also know that we have a downtown parking problem. And so the thought was, you know, in a solid market, like we're in now, if we can replace all 160 parking spaces, get some extras in the process, hopefully, and get, you know, affordable housing on the site, all packaged together, then that would be ideal. And, um, Well, I understand the desire to have, you know, maybe structure parking on another site. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I don't think it's the best use of, I don't think it's the best use of, I think it would be really tough to have. I think it'd be very disruptive to rip up all of Lot 12, lose all of that parking, and not have it replaced within a short period of time in this case, like, you know, two-year construction period. Because unless you're going to have that new parking structure come online at the same time, you've lost all those lot 12 spots. And I think you've really created a pretty, you know, made the, that was one, the one thing I promised to do was, was not make the parking situation worse by doing this, you know, losing a net loss of spaces. And so unless you can just time that really, really well, I don't think it will work very well. But having said that, I generally support replacing all the spaces on site as we'd originally intended. I think it's a better use of the space to go underground because I think using anything above ground for parking is just, in my mind, it's just a waste of resources, and I get that people say people don't use it, that's not a reason to build above ground parking. That's a reason to implement it down. parking permit program, where all those workers, unless they own permits, and they're parking on surface streets, they get tickets, where they have, otherwise they have like reserve spots where they have permitted parking spaces down below. And if they're using those and they don't get tickets, but if they're parking on streets and they don't have a permit, that's the way, I think, to better sort of utilize and control those resources because, you know, if those underground spots aren't getting utilized and it sounds like they aren't, then we need to, you know, implement programs that get them utilized. And I don't think building more parking on the surface level is the answer to that. I think in some cases that may actually make it worse. But that's just, that's just an aside. So I would prefer to replace all the public parking spots on site. But what I would do is, is I would say there should be a maximum parking ratio, and I think, in this case, if we're serving the lower AMI levels, I think having it somewhere around what the, what the Powter housing project at Taco Bell was, I mean, that's even farther away from transit than this will be. So I don't see a need to have it above that. But what I would say with that is regardless of what that amount of parking is, I think we should be very open to making that publicly available. So that, to me, would be an opportunity to have to increase our publicly available parking spots because my guess is that even at .4, whatever the maximum ratio happens to be, it's not all going to be utilized by the residents long term. And if we can just ensure that that is also open and available to the public or permit holders, office permit holders, I'd love to get all those folks, like, underground, or with an enforcement mechanism, get them off the surface lots, and open up the surface lots for retail retail customers. and other folks. So that when you're, so folks aren't driving around looking for, or maybe they're visiting, they just don't know that there are underground or structured facilities available. And um, And as for the, the city subsidy, I guess, for that would be, my thought process behind that is if we're requiring the replacement of all 160 spots, then we can utilize additional funds because everything above that is net new, right? And so hopefully, I could be wrong, but hopefully that would open up an avenue to some additional funds in order to help provide some city subsidy to the spaces over and above what might be, um, just the replacement parts of it.

[02:46:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What about the city subsidy for the units, the residential units. Did you have any?

[02:46:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, I... We can come back. I feel like I'm gonna probably have some things I can summarize and then some I'm gonna have to go back to.

[02:46:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, that'll depend on the aim, I will. Council member Kamet.

[02:46:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. Um, I just want to give a note and thanks, uh, and, um, all the applicants who came to speak as well as the public comment. I think it really helps in this, yes, study session like discussion that we're having. I'm going to attempt to go in order. So we'll see how this goes. When, I think, just to preface question one, it would, you know, be ideal if we didn't have to talk about parking, but because it's downtown and we hear from residents, businesses, employees, the difficulty of parking downtown, I do think it is important that we replace parking. Um, in terms of having all 160 spaces on site, I do feel, um, like I want to be flexible. So if some were here and some were added to lot six. I think as long as we were in aggregate trying to replace all the parking spots, I'd feel more comfortable. I think the other thing I'm thinking about related to parking is, um, we'll be talking about it more with the downtown precise plan, the parking strategy for downtown, but it also has me thinking about, once again, the residential parking permit program, I think this just calls to mind that it would be ideal if we could have a program that residents felt that they were able to utilize more. And so, um, you know, I know in other communities, uh, residents are able to receive permits for free or the process is, um, more streamlined, and I I would be interested as we're talking about replacement parking, to also be talking about a parking permit program. I think that might help alleviate some of the concerns we hear about parking. So maybe we don't need to replace all 160 if we're trying to do both. I'm not sure if how that would go. Um, but that's just a thought that I was having, um, for the, um, support of a subsidy for the replacement parking. I really appreciated my colleague's discussion on alternate sources for that funding and it not being general fund. I do agree that that's something I don't want. So um, I would, you know, support the subsidy if we were able to find it from other sources other than the general fund. Um, For question two, yes. For question three, yes. For question four. Um, for the modest amount of subsidy, um, I'd be supportive of that. I'd also be interested in learning more information. I know that when I met with applicants over the summer, they stated that they have done a couple different models in different cities and it'd just be interesting to see in those communities where projects have gone forward. What subsidies, those cities provide it. How did that work out? What was the calculation there? Um, just be interested, um, as we're discussing that. And then for the low or no parking requirements, I'm supportive of that. And for question five, originally when, um, Lot 12 came up as an item, I thought this would be a great opportunity for, as the vice mayor mentioned, trying to target missing middle. Um, but I think one of the things that um, came to light in this discussion tonight is that uh, those who might have been in the missing middle prior are moving down into low income or maybe, you know, even into extremely low. And I do feel like this is an unprecedented opportunity to try to be creative in all our funding sources. And I do think that it would be, um, I do want to pursue opportunities for measure A funding to come into Mountain View, um, in looking at the the chart on all the different projects that have gone forward, having one in North County, um, with a community like ours that's so aggressive in terms of building housing, I really think that, um, we should be able to capitalize on this. Um, and so I do want to try to um, target the most vulnerable. And from what I've heard tonight and different meetings I've had over the summer, there are opportunities for supportive services. And I think coupling, um, those supportive services with our project, um, is another great opportunity and and having the match in funding. So I would really like to go down that path. Um, going forward. Thank you.

[02:51:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, did you want to jump in here?

[02:51:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, thank you. I will sort of do a little pre thought that everybody's asking, asking for subsidies, and that concerns me is that Mountain View can't always provide all these subsidies to these developers. We constantly have Silicon Valley at home, and Silicon Valley leadership coming by, and we have Google spending this $1000000000, so, I would like to try to keep our subsidy to a minimum, and have these developers reach out to these groups that keep advocating for housing, and see if they can get us some money. I know Lincoln had a loan, but it would be nice for someone to actually challenge some of these folks and say, here's a project. Here's your opportunity to contribute. Please do. With that being said, um, you know, I concur with, Council number Clark on quite a few of these items, that the concept was to put in the housing and keep the 160 spots. We've been playing with, always trying to, you know, the parking issue has always been a concern. And yet, in the 8 years, or that I've been on planning, and, and so, you know, to combine with council, actually 4 and 8. But we haven't built any parking per se. And if we don't build it now, when are we going to build it? We're just gonna make the problem worse, we're just gonna kick it down the, kick the problem down the road, so, I'm in favor of doing all the 160 now, plus whatever else we can put in there as it ties to question two. If there's a ratio, that we can come up with some new parking above the 160 and the amount for the, and I'll answer number 4 at the same time, or number 5, the 30 to 80% uh population. I'd like to see that kind of a configuration come about. Um, We do have all these offices come along and so forth. And so I think we need to actually allow, you know, take our our permit parking and put it underground. If you go down to downtown Palo Alto, at their city hall, that park underground parking is full, quite a bit often, because of all the action that's going on, so when people say that they're afraid to do underground parking, There's an example where people are going down that way. So I, I would like to see that. I also like to see the parking also be subterranium. Uh, we need to, uh, We need to plan for somewhat for the future, and we don't know what that future is going to be in regards to other parking lots, but this one, we have developers, we have momentum, we have, a desire to get something done, and so I think that's where we need to go. The reason, I'm sort of jumping around here a little bit because they're all sort of interrelated. I like the low AMA, AAMI, because you guys all talked about, people that are being displaced, but I'm looking for workforce housing for the city of Mountain View, for those people that work downtown, for people that could work at Baskin Robbins, for any of the mom and pops, they need a place, that is close by. And we need to have that workforce available to us. And so that's why I support the uh 30 to 80 or as I was asking earlier 30 to 60 to see if we can maximize our return uh reduce our subsidy. We, the 6 stories. I was fine with that. I think that's a way to go. The Question 4 modest amount of subsidy for a non-residential component. So I'm not mistaken, usually when we do one of these, um, subsidized units, they have a community room in them, they have, um, potential kitchen. They have some study rooms. They have a place for s- children to do computer work so. I'm not supportive of giving a modest subsidy for non-residential component for this particular area. You mentioned, few, or a few of you have mentioned the pedestrian, uh, experience, but if you look from mercy, all the way up to Dana Street. The, there is no pedestrian, um, attentiveness, because they're all office space, or, uh, north of California, they're residential, so, I think you're stretching the idea to get some, uh, activity along that line. Uh, could also just, I don't know if it's feasible to get retail down that area. Because we're seeing a lot of retail closing down on El Camino, so there are some options along the way. So, uh, Well, I think I pretty much covered it in a haphazard way. What do you think, Mayor?

[02:57:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think that is an accurate description. Late hours produce late comings. Since you're on the East Coast, we'll give you for this. Yeah, did you have any comments on the maximum parking ratio for the affordable units?

[02:57:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, that's what I was, so that, I was saying, if you tie that in, with, with some ratio, I would suspect, from the 160, keeping the 160 spaces, and the parking ratio, for the AMI of 30 to 80, that would maximize the number of units, parking spaces, and potentially, we could get more than additional parking spaces. uh, that's where I still keep going back to the thought that, there are developers out there that can't build because there's no additional parking for them, and that if we modify our new parking fee, and they contribute to lot 12, or that we build some extra parking in lot 12, in anticipation that the developers will be coming. to develop it and we have the parking built for them, we can return, get a return on an investment at that time. So again, it's sort of a movable number. Let staff to come out, trust staff, on this one to figure out what's the best ratio of getting parking in there that works for both sides.

[02:58:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So I am going to go through the questions before we do a second round here, but I do have the question about, um, the existing residential to the west of this lot. Do you want a ticket?

[02:59:14] City Staff: Okay. So it is in the downtown precise plan, not precisely R4. Right. Area B allows densities ranging from 30 to 50 units to the acre, which is a little bit different. If it's senior housing, and it does allow lower heights than R4. So, I would say it's probably closer to, um, I just call it downtown area B. It's very specific. Um, It is. It says that residential dwellings of up to 30 units per acre, and it's only 50 units per acre. It's senior housing, yes. Yes. Right. So, um, they're also smaller lots, which is why you see, you know, if there's a lot consolidation. We could see different of projects, but because they're so small, the densities, for each lot allow only a few units at a time. Lot 12 being a lot bigger, you could see more consolidation. And as I think many people have said, we would hope to see some transitions from the 3 stories allowed in area B, going up to the 6 to 7 stories as you get closer to California and Bryant.

[03:00:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, so I did meet with some of the folks who responded to the RFQ, and I felt like we had good discussions. And, um, I'm not gonna do these in order either. I am supportive of, uh, making sure we have something active on the ground floor. And actually, I was the one when I was speaking with them, suggested that maybe childcare would be a good use. To me, that is an active use, and it's needed. We talk about childcare demand quite a bit. And so I am interested in seeing if that would work there. But, um, I'm not sure I would be open to a subsidy for the non residential, um, 'cause I actually think child careapy could be a good business. And so I don't think it would necessarily need a subsidy. I am interested in replacing all 160 of the parking spaces, and one of the things I've done, in this role, is go around with our economic development team in the Chamber of Commerce, and just stop and talk to businesses, like other mayors have done. And we spent probably 3 hours in the downtown area. And every single business, said, their top issue is parking. And especially the restaurants who feel like they are losing business because their customers can't find a parking space. And I get that, uh, you know, in the future, we hopefully are not as car dependent, but we don't know when that's going to be. And we really don't have really good public transportation. Um, when you're, you know, just getting around downtown unless we expand the community shuttle, which is why I'm interested in that. And so I do think it's important that we replace all 160. I also am open, though, to having it in a different location. And I have not spoken with as many developers as the vice mayor has about consolidating parking. But I did talk to one developer who was struggling to have enough parking for his development. And I suggested that maybe we use Lot 6 for his parking and also increased the parking downtown. So I would prefer to see a parking structure, then underground parking, because I think it's easier to have structured parking that can be built for reuse for something else when we don't need it. And it's less expensive. I just feel like it's more flexible, a more flexible option than underground parking. So, when it comes to the parking ratio for the affordable units, I think it will depend on what those units are. So I'm open to a lower ratio, but it would have to be supported by a parking study. And I do think the city will have to help pay for the parking, and I'm not completely opposed to using general funds to do that. Although I certainly would like to look at all the other sources that we have. potential sources that we have. In terms of height. I'm a little bit nervous about 6 story. Although I could see it along the, that's Bryant, right? Bryant. Um, But when I think about transitions to the existing neighborhood, I think to me it's more than when you're going from 6 to mostly two, although they can go to three, it's pretty deep setbacks. Step backs, sorry, as you go to the higher floors. It's not like 5 feet. more substantial than that. So I'm open to it, but it's got to be really good design and really good at architecture. So depending upon what the use is on the ground floor, I would like to see parking to support that use, but it could be parking as part of a parking structure at a close location. When it comes to question 5, the AMI levels. This one, I've been really interested to hear so many different perspectives here tonight on this. Um, it, the discussion didn't go where I thought it was going to go. But I think I agree most closely with what council member Clark said, which was a mix of incomes, but not going to the moderate level and definitely do a lot at the lower end. And I don't know that I have a maximum subsidy in mind for this, but I know folks will remember I had concerns about the amount of subsidy for some other projects. And I'm still going to be focusing on that, but I think it kind of depends on what's being proposed, how much subsidy, I think, is acceptable. So, uh... I will circle back to the folks who are in the queue here, but, um, I think there are some things that we can probably summarize at this point, uh, question three, which is height, I think we're all open to six. And we certainly want good transitions to the existing neighborhood. So that was definitely the easiest one to summarize. When it comes to four, I think it's 4B... I think the majority said that they're open to the no or low parking requirements for the non residential. Yep, I think I got four there. And... I... Let's see. I have so many notes from this discussion. I do see at least 4 for replacing all 160 of the parking spaces that currently exist, but, um, I think we are flexible in terms of where that would be located. And... I think, uh, when it comes to question two, the maximum parking ratio for affordable units. We have flexibility there. Unfortunately, because I think you were looking for more definitive direction on this. But um...

[03:08:27] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we were kind of... flexibility.

[03:08:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I mean, Is that what you mean? I had a number of people that were okay with it, but it did, it would depend on the uses, and there will be a parking study required no matter what, so I think we're okay on that one.

[03:08:46] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And I also had a majority of the council saying, basically, the 30 to 80% AMI for question five.

[03:09:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think that one was relatively clear. I agree with that. And I did hear quite a few people say, at least the majority say, um, we absolutely want to explore all of the sources of funding that are out there, um, measure A, um, tax credits, and any other fund that might be available too.

[03:09:27] Unknown Speaker: I'd like to paraphrase what you just said and send a message to the developers to say that there will be a premium put on minimizing the city subsidy and maximizing the creative use of as many funding sources as possible.

[03:09:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I like that. Okay. So I'll start for a minute here. Actually, Council member Ramirez is in the queue.

[03:09:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Ill be quick. So just a couple of things. So first, maybe it's not helpful to belabor the point, but since I think we are sensitive, sensitive to the reduction of parking in downtown for my benefit, can staff provide a sense of the timing that the additional parking made available and the lots for innate development will come online when we will benefit from the additional parking from that development?

[03:10:24] City Staff: I believe based on the timeline, I think we're probably looking around 2023.

[03:10:30] City Staff: Yeah, I was going to say 2022, but it's somewhere in the in that range.

[03:10:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then sort of just as a point of comparison, when we would expect construction, because I think we're sensitive primarily to the loss of the parking at lot 12, when the construction on lot 12 would begin.

[03:10:54] City Staff: So, if we track the process of next steps and the plans are submitted at the end of next year, 2020, and it takes, say, 18 months, 12 to 18 months, depending on how complex it is to get through the entitlement process and then pull building permits, it could be 24 to 36 months. So we may have experienced a loss of parking, but they're actually pretty well timed where we can start, we could benefit from the additional parking from lots of 4 and 8. and then not suffer as the impact to downtown won't be as great from the loss of the 160 parking spaces.

[03:11:47] City Staff: Yes, and one of the previous study sessions, that timing issue came up, and at the time, as the Hope Street Loss was moving forward and the Lot 12 process was where it was at, it was similarly tracking. So I think both projects are maybe still on its timeline and maybe moved out a little bit, but they're moving out in the same way. So I think you're right that the timing, probably, um, they probably overlap in a way where the loss would be either minimal or we can time it so that there isn't that simultaneous loss.

[03:12:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then the staff have an update on, I know we were trying to work out an agreement with Kaiser on allowing public use of that parking, any sign of progress there.

[03:12:43] City Staff: We have been working on that item, and we are also working on the preparation of the downtown parking demand management strategy item as well. We are in conversations with Kaiser. We are still working through items that are related to operations and fun things like insurance and things like that. So we're diligently trying to work on that. I don't have a timeline on that yet, but I hope to, and we hope to have one when we bring counsel the parking demand management strategy item next month.

[03:13:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. So for whatever that's worth, I have even greater confidence in the idea of considering parking replacement at a different location, not necessarily on site here. So that's the 1st part, 2nd part, um, I hope this isn't asking for too much, but it sounded like there was interest in 30 to 80% AMI for question five. I'm wondering if the council would be willing to go as low as 0%. I don't know if any of the developers interested in working on Lot 12 would be interested in that, but particularly if we're interested in tapping into measure A. I think, um, extending that range, you know, lowering that range, you know, to 0, 0 to 80, I think could be helpful in signaling to developers that measure A is an important funding source for the council. So is that something we could sort of gauge interest in?

[03:14:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice spare, I'll be Coca.

[03:14:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So my question has to do, actually, with this measuring funds and traditionally, from my understanding, by increasing the range of AMI, it could make a project more feasible. Is that no longer the case, because of Measure funds, but then with Measure funds, are there any restrictions of paying for 160 parking spaces? as part of the project.

[03:14:59] City Staff: So to your first question, in terms of expanding the range, I think in generally, in general, the lower you go, the more subsidy. The more subsidy. Yeah, I think when it's expanding the range down to a certain and we've had a conversation about how moderate units can impact. So I think it depends on our starting point, but if we're starting from 30 to from 30 to 80 and we're saying 15 to 80, then there could be something there, though, even if we're looking at 30%, um, and wanting measure A, by default, folks may be looking at units that would include 15% in my units as part of PSH or measure A funds because folks in that population may be at that. that income level, but to potentially clarify counsel's intent, having a 15% aim, I could help clarify that. In terms of the parking, I might look to, if Ray has any additional specificity on that component.

[03:16:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just don't see measuring funds, you know, the county folks saying, oh, sure, you can use it to build 160 parking spaces on top of the affordable units, but maybe I'm wrong.

[03:16:19] City Staff: Oh, no, certainly, but vice versa. You're not wrong whatsoever. So misery funds can be used to cover the residential parking requirements. But not the extra. But not for the extra public parking.

[03:16:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. So that's my question, my challenge with this going very low. I, you know, I've heard my colleagues say we want to minimize the city subsidy, but I don't think you can do that and go very, very low income and use Measuring funds. So that's why I was thinking 30 to 100 turning points, 120% would potentially give that flexibility for a project to come in and not ask for city subsidies and be able to do the parking and so forth. I just, you know, I appreciate the measuring funds, but, you know, our challenge and the why we haven't had a project here, I've heard, is that there are certain restrictions in the financing is more challenging in North County where cost land costs and whatnot are more expensive. So I just don't, I just didn't think we could do public parking with measuring funds. So if that's doable, I'm fine going lower. But, you know, I thought maybe we had to go higher just to have that flexibility so we don't have to subsidize so much with city funds. So if you could clarify that, you know, I'm fine to go 80%. If you think it's really doable, I guess I just don't think it's doable.

[03:17:48] Unknown Speaker: One element, Adam, maybe Pier, has some information to add, but as we go above the 80% and tax credits are lost, then it's not necessarily that a project with 120% AMI is more feasible than a project with some portion of 30% or 15%. I think it would depend on the mix. I think there was a comment about maybe having a weighted average component in the RFP to allow for the flexibility, but that'll really allow the council to be really clear in the developers of where that AMI target is, with the flexibility to go up or down. And then perhaps some language about, um, it's really about, you know, if that were in place and then some language about, for a given weight at average, there is the priority of having, um, minimum city subsidy, maximum external leverage for that level, then I think that's a way that would be a way for us to evaluate the submittals. If the weighted average were higher and the same language were in place about subsidy and leverage. We would be able to evaluate those subsidy requests at that weight to that average and so on and so forth. If it were lower, we that would provide us a framework.

[03:19:12] Unknown Speaker: So just, so you would like a weighted average, is that you're asking for now?

[03:19:20] Unknown Speaker: I didn't necessarily be asked to be as strong as that, but it is sort of if we're able to hold a variable constant because there's so many variables in this. The more variables we can hold constant, the more we can do an apples to apples evaluation. And if the council is saying 30 to 80 or 15 to 80, but maybe there was a desired weighted average, then we can have a sense of the types of subsidy requests that would be competitive or reasonable or something like that, um, in the RFP language.

[03:19:53] Unknown Speaker: So I guess my interest is, I think we've heard it. Priority is going to be minimizing city subsidy because I actually don't know how much we're going to have left in our fun funds anyway. So if that means we have to move up the weighted average, I'm fine with that. So I want to give as much flexibility in the AMI requirement to minimize the city subsidy, is how I would describe that. And then the parking piece, the reason why, and I was thinking that, frankly, I don't know, but my thought was going underground doesn't not only cost more, but sometimes takes longer because I've seen those holes in the ground for a long time. So if we can build, you know, even a 2nd or 3rd story on lot six, I think that might go faster. And so maybe we could actually get the parking done more quickly and at a lower cost. So then that again would minimize the subsidy needed from the city.

[03:21:02] City Manager Dan Rich: Just a caution. I mean, there's clearly support for allowing the parking elsewhere. It's gonna become complex and a timing issue. We dont know where that would be, what the cost would be, what the size would be, what the contributions of others would be, and it's going to be challenging, in my mind, and others may have a different view, but how do we structure this, and what do we require of these people regarding parking and or funding towards parking elsewhere? Yeah, if we knew, for example, a lot on a structure on Lot 6 was going to cost X amount and we had, you know, X minus 10 lined up or whatever, but there's a lot of moving parts, is my point, and I'm a little concerned, how we're going to proceed with an RFP saying, yes, you can propose your parking elsewhere, but we don't really know. what that looks like. I mean, we can noodle on it and figure out how to structure it, but I just caution it's gonna be a little complicated, and it's not necessarily gonna be faster, because there's other pieces to it that are gonna have to be figured out.

[03:22:18] Unknown Speaker: I'm fine with noodling on it. You know, my thought was because one of the proposals actually has a structure on site proposed. Can we just can't, why can't we just move that over to another lot? is my thought? And, you know, we know that we have estimates of the cost of a parking space underground and above ground, I believe, because we've had cost figures for other projects that are asking for the city subsidies. So, you know, I would just take those costs and make that the fee is my recommendation.

[03:22:59] Unknown Speaker: So when I talked about replacing the 160 spaces in another location, I was not, uh, including whatever is needed for the development in that, I think the development needs to provide its own parking on site.

[03:23:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, on the side of the development. Yeah.

[03:23:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, I know we didn't completely answer every single question that was asked of us. So I guess at this point, I'm wondering if there's anything that you do want us to circle in on.

[03:23:40] Unknown Speaker: I think the 2 things, I think Dan hit the nail on the head when he said, if we knew that the council wanted to see all the parking replaced, right? And then we can give some flexibility to the developer to see what percentage they would want to put on site and what percentage they could, quote unquote, provide funding for that the city could use. And you know, that's the only way, I think, we can do this because I don't think the developer would have enough information on us having enough confidence for them to say, I'm going to land it here, because there's so many moving parts. So I think they need to figure out a way to replace those 160 spaces that was pretty clear. And we can probably meet with them to give them some parameters of what that could look like. But the only toggle factor I see is money that the city gets to go build this somewhere as opposed to saying, I'm going to build this on lot 6, so I'm going to build this on lot because there's too much uncertainty around an RFP that sends everybody into a, and it becomes just an exercise of where to find parking. And so I'm trying to build this project. So it's almost clean to say just replace it and then we can figure out what we want to do with that.

[03:24:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I think we did have enough people say, yes, we want to replace the 160 spots.

[03:25:03] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah. There's clearly majority to replace it all, and majority who's interested in allowing it to be elsewhere. I think we're just gonna have to figure out kind of the mechanics of how to do that, or whether or not they propose it two ways, if it's all on site, it would look like X, and if they contributed an equal amount of money, somewhere else, it would look like Y or something like that.

[03:25:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, did you have any other comments?

[03:25:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, well, this conversation about parking, uh, is a little concerning because, well, they say, well, let's do parking lot 6 or this or that, you know, we got to remember that 4 and 8 are going under construction for a while. Um, I know this project is 22 to 3 years out, but, Why do you want to tie up the future with these other lots when you know you have developers willing to develop a lot 12 now? And I would like to strongly recommend that those that said they don't, they want the 160, but they're looking elsewhere to reconsider. that this would probably be the most efficient way to get those 160 units of parking now, uh, for certainty, just like all developments, they'd rather have certainties and flexibility. And I think that also would be helpful for the developers, that they would be able to know that everything's going to be on this one site. So I'm asking those who've said elsewhere to please reconsider that this is probably the most expedite a way to get the parking done and for the developers to feel certain on where they're going. That's all.

[03:26:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Ramirez.

[03:27:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just responding quickly to Council member McAllister, I think that the challenge I have is there is no scenario in which replacing the parking at Lot 12 will help the downtown will help the city compensate for the loss of the parking at lots 4 and 8. Lots 4 and 8 will be, you know, in development, uh, and we'll lose that parking and there's there's no possibility for the replacement parking at lot 12 to address that loss. So, and that's why the timing was important to me. The other thing that I'm a little concerned about is I don't envision a scenario. So if this were a market rate, housing development or not the space, you know, having that development provide the parking at their expense totally makes sense. But I think what I'm sensing is the reality for affordable housing development is that cost will be borne by the city. We're going to have to subsidize the replacement parking. And so it's not really a savings to the city to replace the parking here. If this were, you know, if we could, you know, shove off that cost to a margarite developer developer, I'd be more than happy to do that, but I think having a lot of parking replaced here just means that our subsidy will be much higher. And I think the value of measure A is, if we can tap into that, then that's a funding source that we would otherwise not be able to leverage. So I don't have a good working sense of how much measureay could offset, you know, the subsidy that the city would provide, and maybe having a better understanding of that, you know, could help address some of the concerns that are identified here. But, you know, it's not like, you know, saying to an affordable housing developer, replace the parking here is going to, you know, benefit the city in a tremendous way. The reality is we're still going to have to bear that cost. you know, in one way or another, whether it's a reduction in affordability or a greater subsidy. So that's the challenge of, I think this project is where we're asking for a lot. And some of these things are mutually exclusive. And I think it's, it's helpful as the vice mayor did and as I tried to do, sort of having sort of a ranked priority of what we really want to achieve. And, you know, based on that, we can sort of work backwards and figure out how do we achieve those things?

[03:29:42] Unknown Speaker: If I may go back and I'm trying to mentally have a conversation with a developer, trying to explain to them what RFP means, and what I would say is the council's interested in replacing parking. So show us a project that does that. And if you think that, you know, you can achieve some better monetary efficiencies with an alternative, show us a performer that says, I'm not going to put, say, 80 spaces here, but you could give me X amount of less subsidy to do that. And then we can maybe slice and dice the information as it comes in. Because we also don't want to make it too difficult for developers to create different projects. So you see the worst case scenario with the entire 160 and the height and the amount of money you pay. And then they can give you a performer that says, okay, if I take 80 spaces out, you'll have to pay me 12 million less, so whatever it is. And then I think we can dice that information, bring it to you. But that's about probably as complicated as we can get with the parking. And then once you select a developer, we can work through a lot more detail. But I don't think we can do this with 6 developers on 12 iterations.

[03:31:02] Unknown Speaker: Just to add to that point, to be able to have respondents to have really clear guidance and to minimize the iterations and just from a process perspective, we don't necessarily envision being able to have conversations with potential respondents to ask for clarifications or provide much guidance outside of what gets written to the RFP. And similarly, like the RFQ process, we have the ability to ask for clarifying information, but we're not necessarily able to go in and have those types of conversations we would under a normal entitlement project to say, hey, what about this option that you didn't show us? Um, so for that process, that process perspective, we're hoping to be able to have as much information as possible with the ability to maybe discuss some iterations. Um, but having those um, clear criteria be a way for, um, us that people evaluate without having an applicant, have many iterations or being able to even discern which iteration we should be looking at. So, just some process considerations to put out there.

[03:32:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And hence the specific questions about subsidies, as a way to create some fixed points and hold down some of the variables that lead to apples and oranges in pairs.

[03:32:37] Unknown Speaker: Sorry to believe this, but when we went out, did we expect subsidy requests? I guess my original, I can't even go back to the past time we did the RFP, but was the intention was that it would pay for itself. And that's why I think we said 50% affordable and allowing market rate, but did we clearly say somewhere that subsidies are may or are available?

[03:33:06] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I believe we try to provide some information, and at the October study session, we try to do some economic modeling to see what potential scenarios could look like, and similarly with that exercise, because there are so many components we could have modeled 100s of scenarios, but we modeled, I think, 3 to 5 scenarios to approximate what folks might do. And at the time, for example, for a 75 unit, 100% affordable project, with all replacement parking and a parking ratio of .75, it was modeled to be about $19 million of a subsidy on top of foregone rents or release. So, um, and then we and then it changed from there. But I think the assumption was that there would always be a city component as well.

[03:33:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All right, thanks. I'm going to look to the other side, but I think we're pretty good shape in terms of clarity, Wayne. Do you need anything else to write a crystal clear RFP?

[03:34:14] Wayne: I think we just, I'll stop after this. Just want to confirm that we heard, what we'll convey is, there may be a little bit of willingness to provide subsidy for the non retail, although the preferences that it kind of do its own thing, but it doesn't have to specifically be retail, but it needs to be some kind of community serving or projects serving outward.

[03:34:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yes, the majority did say that a modest amount of subsidy for the non residential would be okay.

[03:34:49] Wayne: Would it be possible for the counselor the mayor to do a similar summary for one B, just to, so staff is certain that we have captured?

[03:35:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah we did not all answer that one. I thought we said yes, but look at, um, just like the district parking. Not general fun.

[03:35:20] Wayne: I think what I heard was some subsidy, not general fun, explore other options, but there was not an answer to the, is there a cap to the subsidy, if I don't want to reopen this issue at 10 o'clock, but if the council wanted to put a cap on something, obviously, that would provide more clarity to the respondents. Or if there isn't a cap, some kind of guiding principle or something that could help with evaluation.

[03:35:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[03:35:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Well, I think if we can tap into, I think it's the parking district funds, then absolutely, totally open to this, and if we can't, then what I was thinking, I think staff had provided in the report, kind of an average per unit subsidy based on the subsidies we've provided for other projects, and looking, I think something like that would be helpful as a guiding principle to me, if memory serves the average subsidy ends up being around 180,000 per unit. And I think that seems like a reasonable thing to strive for, going beyond that, I think, but then we better.

[03:36:36] Wayne: And this is... One to speak, we're really talking about subsidy specifically for the replacement parking, which is different than the per unit subsidy. I mean, we do have a matrix for kind of a typical per unit, affordable housing, but this is really a different pot and a different subsidy. So, you know, it would be pretty hard, I think, at this point to come up with a somewhat arbitrary number. I think the direction was you're okay with some subsidy, you can't be from the general fund, and like with all of the subsidies, our preference is the lower the subsidy, the better. Meanwhile, staff will explore other funding sources that might be usable for replacement parking.

[03:37:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, oh, Council member Hicks.

[03:37:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Just my trouble in answering this one is it seems like we need the downtown parking study to understand the answers to some of this, and I don't feel like absent that, I can really come up with an answer. So I think that what we have now is probably the best we can get at this point.

[03:37:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Okay. Let's close this item.

[03:37:59] Wayne: Just to clarify. So one of the questions was whether or not you were changing the parameters to such an extent that you might want to open it up to others, I think our assessment is there hasn't been significant change, even though you're open to offsite parking, that's not mandatory, and even that alone wouldn't legally mandate opening up the process. So I think we would be comfortable sticking with the 6 we have, but we don't want to just get clarity on that.

[03:38:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I see Nottingheads, I apologize. I forgot that part of this. I remembered it at the beginning and forgot it by the time we got here. Okay, now we'll close this item and I'm thinking maybe we want a little break. You guys want a break? Does emotion need to be made on this new business item? This really felt like a study session to me, but I was wondering about that. Do we need to make any emotions in a formal vote?

[03:39:08] Unknown Speaker: I think you have majority support on all the questions, so I think it's clear to staff.

[03:39:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wonderful.

[03:39:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Maybe just draw for formality, um, a motion for the, uh, six, uh, existing, uh, respondents to to move forward, just for clarity.

[03:39:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion from Council member Kabei. which is the staff recommendation.

[03:39:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:39:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And a 2nd by council member, Ramirez. And we'll have to do a roll call vote.

[03:39:40] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[03:39:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:39:42] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[03:39:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:39:44] City Clerk: Council member Kameh.

[03:39:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:39:45] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[03:39:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you repeat the motion, please?

[03:39:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Are you... Is it a joke or serious? Are you serious? Okay. So I'm... I moved to a pretty inviting six Lot 12 request for qualification respondents to participate in the forthcoming Lot 12 requests for proposals, and provide final direction on certain RFP components. It's actually just the 1st bullet point.

[03:40:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Just the 1st part, John.

[03:40:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. Yes.

[03:40:23] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[03:40:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[03:40:27] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[03:40:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. And Just one last housekeeping item while you're making motions to go past ten. Right.

[03:40:45] Unknown Speaker: A move that we start a new item past 10 o'clock.

[03:40:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Or was this? Sorry, was this for this one? This is the old one, right? Okay, so all those in favor? Oh wait, we have to do a roll call.

[03:41:02] City Clerk: Council member Clark? Council member Hicks?

[03:41:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:41:04] City Clerk: Council member Kameh.

[03:41:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:41:06] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[03:41:09] Councilmember John McAlister: For obvious reasons. No.

[03:41:12] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez. Vice Mayor Abby Koga? Mayor Matache.

[03:41:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we will take a short break here. Let's come back at, um, all these clocks say a different time. Let's take a 10 minute break.

[03:20:40] (archive recording) Staff Presenter: Tentative subdivision map for the development at 1255 Pear Avenue. That development includes about 230,000 square feet of office and 635 housing units. There was a condition number 190 in the conditions of approval for that development that addressed the trip cap for the North Bay Shore gateways, and that's what we're here to talk about this evening. And then the applicant did apply for building permits in February 2019 and has been in the plan check process since that time. This is a layout of the development. We have an existing office building here on Indigo Way, proposed office building to the south, next to that, parking and residential here next to Santiago Villa, and another phase of parking here on the north side. The development is also proposing to construct the Inigo Way extension, which is one of the transportation improvements identified in the North Bay Shore precise plan connecting Pear Avenue and Space Parkway, and finally dedicating a parcel to the city, adjacent to Inigo Way for below market rate housing. Now, this is an excerpt from condition 190. Basically, the applicant will not get building permits until the Shoreline Boulevard Highway 101 off ramp realignment is constructed, and the Plymouth realignment to Space Park, or the applicant demonstrates to the community development director and public works director that the office component will not add any new trips beyond the gateway capacity until those transportation projects are complete. Now, the applicant has requested that condition 190 be deemed met based on several factors, one that the dates of occupancy of office, and completion of transportation improvements coincide closely, that the shoreline reversible bus lane, and pair Avenue right turn lane should be counted, and to remind you the pair Avenue right turn lane is being constructed with the shoreline reversible bus lane. That's the project we talked about last week, and that the transportation projects add sufficient capacity, and therefore permits should be issued. Now, just quickly, in terms of dates of the development. This is the developer's current schedule, and I'll point out a couple important dates here. We have the tenant improvements in occupancy, the office building here in June 2022, the residential South building, that's 220 units in March of that same year, 2022, and then the northerly residential component had 415 units about a year later in June 2023. Then the transportation project schedules. This is our current schedules. We have the bus lane, the Plymouth Space Park realignment, and the Inigo Way extension, which the developer is building all coming online before occupancy of the office building. And then you'll see the Shoreline Highway 101 offer amp realignment at July 2022. That's about a month behind the developer's current schedule for occupancy of the office building. And just quickly to show you graphically where these improvements are, starting here at the south. This is the Highway 101 offer amp realignment. This is the right turn lane between Lavanita and pair that we're constructing with the shoreline reversible bus lane. This is the stretch of Inigo Way extension being built by the applicant. And this is the Plymouth Space Park realignment. So staff did some analysis of what the developer submitted to us. And we found that the transportation improvements and the office occupancy are, in fact, closely aligned. Their schedule and our schedule are about a month apart in June and July 2022. And what we did was we and there was a table in the staff report. We looked at the current volumes from the spring, 2019 gateway counts. We added the projects that have been approved that we expect to come online. We added the pair right turn lane, which does add some capacity. We added the bus lane, which does add some capacity. And what we really found before the off-ramp realignment is complete is that the gateway deficit is very small when the occupant is scheduled for occupancy. We said in the staff report, it's less than 50 trips inbound AM on the shoreline gateway in the peak hour. And what I'd say about that number is there are a lot of assumptions that come into gateway capacity, the capacity is affected by a lot of different factors, driver behavior, signal timing, the number of buses, and the amount of queue jump we give them and the bus lane, the number of pedestrians crossing streets, all adds delay. And so, It's really, it's impossible to come up with an extremely precise number. What we came up with was about 50 out of 3000. So we consider that to be a very small number. And then when the off-ramp realignment is complete, that deficit disappears completely. So our recommendation is actually to allow issuance of the building permits and to allow occupancy no sooner than when the off ramp is complete or August 2022, whichever is sooner. That is a couple months later than the applicant's proposed occupancy date based on their current schedule. And it gives a little bit of cushion to our own off-ramp schedule, it adds a month to that as well. So what we've done is give a date with a little bit of cushion, but then allow occupancy once that date occurs or the off-ramp is done, whichever is sooner. And we do have to adopt a resolution if council approves the status recommendation because the conditions were approved by resolution. And that concludes staff's presentation, we'd be happy to answer any questions. And the applicant is here as well.

[04:02:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you We'll start with council questions. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[04:02:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I was able to pull up the trip cap report from May 14, 2019. I believe that's the most recent one.

[04:02:50] Staff Presenter: It is.

[04:02:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And in the staff report, Um, a couple of things. It talks about precise plan compliance, and that the policy allows new development to propose strategies that could result in compliance with the trip cap. My understanding of that would be, was that the developer would propose and also develop or build the improvement. So, um, other than in a go, I believe, which I understand they're building, of the other projects that are being, create, uh, built, like the off ramp and the right turn lane, um, is the developer funding any of those projects.

[04:03:42] Staff Presenter: The developer has paid a transportation impact fee. I don't know if there were any other community benefit funds dedicated towards specific projects. Yeah, just the impact fee. So to the extent that they've paid the transportation impact fee, yes. They are contributing towards funding of some of those projects, beyond that, no. And what they proposed in terms of deeming the condition met, basically had to do with capacity and timing rather than funding additional improvements.

[04:04:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'm sorry, so this, um, this policy, is that in, is that taking into account the fee or is it on top of the fee?

[04:04:28] Staff Presenter: Some of the developments in North Bay Shore have offered to contribute towards transportation funding. That usually occurs when they apply for, in some cases, it was a bonus FAR. In other cases it was entitlement. That wasn't the case with this development, though. So some have proposed funding specific improvements that are not otherwise required and some have not.

[04:04:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So in this case, what was something else proposed or why did they not propose to fund transportation improvements?

[04:05:10] Staff Presenter: Yeah, they weren't required to, per the precise plan, beyond the fee. I mean, they can.

[04:05:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But if there so this one says the compliance issue. So they're not going to be in compliance if we, because of the cap trip, they're not meeting the trip cap, right? So to get a waiver, it says here, the policy does allow new development to propose strategies that could result in compliance with the trip cap. So other than Inigo Way, which you also said in the staff report, Minna is minimal to that. The other items seem to be bigger and contributing to lowering the trip cap or the capacity, are they contributing to those projects?

[04:05:52] Staff Presenter: Not be on the fee.

[04:05:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then, so my, I guess my, I started getting a little confused. My recollection was, I understand the capacity issue, but a big part of the precise plan, the original one was to, you know, the 45% SOV target. And that's not being met. I looked at the chart and it's actually gone up, not down. And so I guess that's my concern is like, how do we know what guarantee do we have that it's actually going to go down and not up?

[04:06:35] Staff Presenter: Well, that was discussed, I believe, in May with the trip cap report, and there are some strategies that the city has to try and drive that SOV rate down. I think we, um, I wasn't actually at the meeting, but I think we started talking about congestion pricing and other strategies. And that's always been kind of in our back pocket ever since the precise plan was approved. I think the more development we seized, these newer developments compared to the legacy developments are going to have lower drive alone rates. They have TDM plans approved with those developments and so on. But we're going to have to look at some district wide strategies at some point, depending on whether or not that number moves down or not.

[04:07:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You know, it's not just that, but bicycling, but walking, transit, it's all coming, going down, not up, which was, you know, the promise, right? With all of this, that we would have decrease in SOVs and alternate, higher alternative trans modes of transportation. And we're seeing the complete opposite. And that's, I guess, my concern. So how do we ensure, and, you know, congestion pricing. I think I was one person who is open to that. But do we need to start studying that? And then should we be looking at maybe, you know, development developers starting to fund that study? Like, how do we, yeah, get that?

[04:08:10] Staff Presenter: Well, yeah, part of the strategy for supporting a very low drive-alone rate was infrastructure. Um, and what we've done here with the with this precise plan is, you know, simultaneously approved developments and approve the infrastructure, and they're both in the works. I mean, we've been actively designing that off ramp for going on 2 years now. We're working on the bridge. We're working on the bus lane. We're actively designing the Plymouth Space Park realignment. And so I think we recognized when the precise plan was adopted that a lot of that infrastructure needs to be in place to really achieve that rate that we're looking for. Most of it hasn't been built yet. I mean, some of it has been, um, Google's built some of the Charleston East. They've done some of the greenways and so on. But the really big projects that we've started out with are still, some of them are getting pretty close. The bus lane. going to come back to you with plans and specs pretty soon, and the other ones are short on their heels. And so I think those things really start to need to be in place before we're going to hit that drive-alone rate. I think that's important part of it.

[04:09:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: just one add-on to that. My recollection is the precise plan says any applicant who has a project has to achieve 45 on a individualized basis, that also means when a very large property owner and employer in that area has its 1st completed project, which would be Charleston East, their entire fleet, so to speak, or their entire employee base has to be at 45?

[04:09:52] Staff Presenter: So there are some other built-in tools in addition to, as Mike says, the reality of needing the infrastructure to be there in place. But if those things still don't move the needle, then, you know, we can move to the congestion pricing and other kinds of tools.

[04:10:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So in that case, if whoever is going to eventually occupy this building, could we require the occupant to meet the 45%?

[04:10:23] Staff Member: Yes.

[04:10:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Great. Thank you. So I had a couple questions. I think there was some confusion about what we were doing tonight, based upon some of the emails we received. And I was wondering if you could just clarify. All of the, we're only changing one condition. right?

[04:10:47] Staff Member: Yes.

[04:10:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And all of the other conditions that need to be met before a building permit is issued still have to be met.

[04:10:56] Staff Member: Yes.

[04:10:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And, um, We're not issuing the building permits tonight.

[04:11:04] Staff Member: No.

[04:11:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. There was definitely confusion about that. Council member Kamet.

[04:11:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Sorry about that. I just had a quick question for that applicant. if that was okay. I know. I figure you've been here a while. So, um, I did meet with the applicant, but I didn't get a chance to ask you this question. which was the schedule for construction. Um, so I was, it says that the office would get occupancy in June of 2022 and that the residential south building would be occupied, occupied by March, uh, 2022. Is that correct? Is that my understanding that the residential would come before the office?

[04:11:58] Applicant: That's right. Staff's table is correctly representative of our current schedule for construction. The resident, the residential, the office, and the garage for both are all gonna be built at the same time, but the residential is projected to be totally completed and start occupying about three months before the office billing.

[04:12:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions from Council members? So besides the clarification I had, I do have a couple other questions. So, um, did we talk about this condition, like, in any great detail prior to the project being approved internally or with the applicant?

[04:12:41] Staff Member: There was a section in the with the applicant? Oh yes.

[04:12:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And at that time, was there any pushback on this condition?

[04:12:55] Staff Member: There was some concern because, you know, I mean, part of the potential strategy was getting the tenant to agree to know new trips. They were unable to reach an agreement with the prospective tenant on that point. Um, and so, um, applied with another different strategy to deem the condition met. But no, there was some there was some concern, and I don't want to put words in the applicant's mouth, but there was some concern about that.

[04:13:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor. Abbe Coca.

[04:13:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, I had one more question. Do you have an idea of how much the fee paid the transportation fee paid was? Sorry, I just thought about that. Ballpark is fine.

[04:13:45] Staff Member: If you give me a second, I think I have that staff report right here. public comment, if you'd like.

[04:13:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Is there any other questions or council members while we're waiting for that? Council member McAllister? Did you have any questions?

[04:14:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, yeah, I just had one. Those timelines seem to me a little bit tight. How much is PGB, uh, involved in any of those uh, the off ramps, the realignment? of the uh, for those projects, based on the prior history of seeming to drag things on?

[04:14:26] Staff Member Mike: Yep. I don't think we have any significant PG&E issues associated with the off ramp. We do have a potential PG&E issue associated with the bus lane. We talked about that a little bit last week. We've since met with PG&E after the council meeting, and I'm starting to feel a little more comfortable about coordinating their work with ours. But the main issue with PG&E, and this is one of the things that happened at McKelvie, is if there's a major windstorm or a fire or some other issue where they need to respond. Um, they can they can disappear from your project for a while. And so, um, we can come back with a little more information on the bus lane when we approve plans and specs, but I'm starting to feel better based on, you know, the scope of their work, their strategy for getting the work done. They want to time it in between their critical seasons for disasters and so on. They really seem like they're doing the best they can to schedule the work and implement it in such a way that to minimize that issue.

[04:15:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[04:15:37] Staff Member: I have the staff report for the development, and I'm going to see if that fee was broken out.

[04:15:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, while you're looking that up, we will switch gears and open this up for public input. So if there's anyone who wishes to address the council on this topic, please come up to the microphone, be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with the clerk either before or after you speak.

[04:16:07] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel again. I think it's really important to approve this the staff recommendation tonight because we want to start getting housing built in North Bay Shore before Trump crashes the economy. You know, maybe Google has money to build in a down economy. I'm not sure Cobrado has the internal resources. by approving this and allowing the office building to pull permits, so when they meet the other conditions, we'll be able to get the housing that's promised as part of this project. And it's the housing in North Bayshore, which is going to help solve our traffic problem as much as the infrastructure development. People will be able to walk and bike to work if they live in North Bayshore. That's the number one solution to our traffic issue. So I urge you to move forward. You know, we've all been following the proposals in Sacramento to 4 cities to accept denser housing development in residential areas. I think we've taken the right path in mountain view by focusing on building, housing, and centers of employment. Not only does that reduce commuting, But it helps preserve our neighborhoods and preserve our naturally affordable housing. So this is our 1st housing project in North Bayshore. Let's see it move forward. As the screen says, they aren't going to be able to occupy the building until the off ramp is completed.

[04:17:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:17:36] Alex Brown: Hey, Alex Brown, Santega Villa, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. Could you pull up figure two, the one with the lines on it? For reference? So, yeah, I live in Santiago Villa, which is going to be just off right of the screen for this figure. And Sobrato has been excellent neighbor and developer. They've been very responsive to our community and I support their project as a whole. as the 2nd one. We are in that one on the bottom, but they return it sideways. We're right there. Well, yeah, the perspective is shifted in between the 2 images. So we're on the bottom of the one picture and then to the right of the 2nd one. So my issue with this isn't the trip cap. And as a whole, hasn't been like morning or evening traffic. It's more that from Santiago Villa, we have 2 means of aggressed to get out of our community or back in, both in event of emergency and also just day to day. And when concerts come, it's impossible to get home in a reasonable amount of time, we can be stuck for 2 hours getting from middle field to our house. And that's more my issue with any development in this area. I don't think this is going to contribute to it significantly. But all of these traffic plans are seem to be taken individually, and also in terms of the traffic capacity as a whole, but it's those targeted moments of there is high demand specifically in the evenings of concerts where we are, I think, at risk, because if there is a disaster of any sort, getting out will be difficult. We can't cross the one on one otherwise. And this is only slightly allevating the concern that is held by a lot of the communities. This is what we hear at every meeting for the neighborhood association, is the traffic, specifically getting out of or into the park, is the problem. And, you know, the hotel is not going to help. It's already down in one lane every day, on Space Parkway. Thank you for taking into account, you know, our quality of life as the people who live there and our soon to be neighbors. But yeah. It's problematic. TripCap doesn't really account for the real issues that we keep seeing. The other issue is the all the parking that's going to be removed when these are finished. But that's for another night. Thanks. Thank you.

[04:20:11] Tim Steele: Hello, Tim Steele, and I want to take my two minutes to maybe answer a couple of the transportation questions a little clearer. We are responsible for pay a $23.26 square foot, impact fee, transportation impact fee for the North Bay Shore area precisely. That's over the new square footage for office that is there, which is a little over $3 million. Second thing is the indigo extension is in the impact fee as a proposed improvement within the transportation network in the North Bay Shore. So we're in a sense paying for it twice. We're paying the full fee. Plus we're paying to do that particular piece of the fee estimate that was used to structure the fee to begin with. So I wanted to point to that for a minute. Also, your congestion management, we actually have a very strictive curb cut count requirement, which will have to turn in an annual monitoring, and there's a fee, a penalty that is assessed if we in fact don't meet those trip cap numbers, that are precisely in the 2 driveways in our project only, not the area wide. So, I don't know if I've got everything. By the way, the indigo extension. The land that is attributable to that segment is a little over an acre, using your city's park fees structure that's over $10 million and right away that we're contributing to the city for that piece. And then the cost of construction of the Indigo extension itself is about $3 million, not counting the oversizing of the water line, the sewer line, and the sanitary line that the city has also required us to put in place as part of that street segment. Thank you.

[04:22:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wanted to provide input on this topic? Okay, seeing that, I will close the public input portion, and bring it back to council for if there's any other questions.

[04:22:19] Staff Member: I confirm he did confirm that number. It was about $3 million. For the impact fee. Fee.

[04:22:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[04:22:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, uh, any other questions? Councilman McAllister, did you have any other questions?

[04:22:44] Councilmember John McAlister: No, not at this time. Thank you.

[04:22:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, okay, Council member Clark.

[04:22:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um... So on this one, I generally concur with staff. I think, um, I'm, I'm confident that with, with studying the dates, the way that they have in not allowing the occupancy until the, the off ramp, the alignment is complete, um, um, or 2022, I think, um, given where everything is in the, in the planning, or in the, um, planning phases and hopefully construction soon that a lot of the, um, these realignments and everything will have occurred by the time, this opens, and I think, you know, I'm happy that the residential timeline is different than I originally thought it was. I was worried that the office occupancy would occur. Most of the office occupancy would occur significantly sooner. And I think that, you know, the housing portion of this is a is a significant contributor to hopefully mitigating some of the other issues. So that combined with the realignments and all the other infrastructure improvements that are coming that are occurring in the next 3 years, I think will help offset all this and give me some comfort that what they're proposing here will help the project meet the goals that it needs to to proceed. So, um, I'll, I'll move the staff recommendation, which is to adopt a resolution amending exhibit A of resolution number 18259 to amend condition number 190 of the planning community permit, and development review permit, PL 2017 380 for 1255 Pear Avenue to allow building permits to be issued prior to completion of the Plymouth Base Park realignment and drawing. Highway 101 off-ramp realignment into not a while occupancy of the office building. until the off-ramp re alignment is complete, or August 31st, 2022, whichever is sooner to be read and title only for the reading waived.

[04:24:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor obbe coca.

[04:25:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, so I was actually not thinking we were gonna make a motion yet. I had some comments, and I think there may be other thoughts on this issue, and I certainly have a different perspective on this. So, um, you know, as the council member who was part of the original North Bay sure precise plan, um, you know, I have a lot of history and interest, and, of course, intention, uh, historic memory of the intention of, uh, this, um, policy that we're dealing with. And, um, you know, at the time, and even to this day, I'd say it's become more severe, but, you know, we've had a congestion problem. And that was what we were trying to solve before we allowed any new development to potentially worsen the problem. Um, And, uh, so that was the whole intention of the trip cap and the 45% SOV mode share. In my mind, I've always thought of both. It had to be both. So, you know, I understand the challenges of building and so forth, but we had this policy, we put this policy in place intentionally, um, to try to monitor and try to balance the traffic congestion issues with any new development expansion in North Bay Shore. So this is, to me, actually a significant policy waiver, if you want to call it, or an exception. And so, um, you know, we're moving from not being able to pull a permit until we meet the trip cap to cycles to letting the development actually be developed, um, before we even reach the trip cap or under the trip cap. So to me, that is actually a really big change, big exception if we were to grant it. So I believe strongly that, you know, if we're going to make that concession, then we need to have something in return. And in my mind, to be, you know, in this policy that I pulled the wording that I pulled up here about new development, proposing strategies that could result in compliance in my mind. And I think in my old former colleagues' minds, we really had the intention that any new development would be responsible for basically funding the improvements that were going to be needed. And I know since then, because that was too nebulous, there was a fee, you know, the fee created, but we now know the fee does not cover the entire cost of these projects. And so the city has had to come in and actually sub, you know, subsidize or subsidize or fund a lot of these projects. And that's my concern is that, you know, and I've heard folks, and like residents say, you know, why is my taxpayer dollars going to improve traffic congestion for the people working in North Bay Shore? So, um, So that's my real concern here. If we're going to, you know, I can see how in this situation, and as my line of questioning alluded to, you can separate the building development from the occupancy. So that's one approach that we could take that I would be open to. We can allow the building to be developed, but perhaps at the time of occupancy. You know, I was gonna propose emotion that we, um, you know, require a study, a trip cap study to be done. And if the trip cap and SOV targets are not met, then there would be some kind of consequence. And I think I'll be open to hearing from other colleagues if, you know, they're interested in that. So that's where I'm going if we're going to even allow. this exception to occur. I would also say that I would like to keep it strictly to when the off ramp is complete and take out, remove the August 20, 2022 date, because we don't know, frankly, right? A lot of things are moving targets, and I just want to make sure the off-ramp is complete before we allow occupancy.

[04:29:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Council member McAllister, did you have any comments? There's no one in the queue here. But I will let you know that Council member Clark made the motion and Council member Hicks seconded it.

[04:30:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so you already had your comments were under, so there was no public input on the? Oh, was that already? Yeah, my, uh... My only comments were, um, I was there along with my, with, uh, the vice mayor when we were making the decision, and I was, uh, very concerned that we didn't do the, on ramp, and the, uh, realignment concurrent with the construction of Charleston East. And at the Council allowed it to go forward. So, um, to come back and say, oh, we need to do certain things, we had many opportunities to try to rectify it and get, and get the, on ramp done 1st, and we, the alignment done 1st to avoid a lot of these, uh, potential conflicts and delays, and so, Um, that's still so pointless maybe, but that being said, I, I'm supporting the project. So, it's, uh, it's, we're sort of aligned with what we're doing with Charleston is that they were supposed to, initially do, Google was going to do it through their community benefits, but we didn't go down that path, uh, that's to my recollection that we didn't get any, uh, community benefit dollars to pay for this project. So, those are my thoughts and, uh, use it there. Thank you.

[04:31:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Other comments? Council member Clark?

[04:31:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Can staff just walk us through, um, or, or, like, maybe you can just walk us through the, the thought process between the, um, the sooner of the realignment completion or August 31st, 2022. I know you had it in the report, but I think it would just be helpful to hear that one more time, why the 2 dates versus just one thing.

[04:32:15] Unknown Speaker: Well, if, um, I mean, the key issue here is getting the getting the outframe prealignment done. So if that if that beats our schedule, which is possible, um, then, um, there is no there is no issue and and we're comfortable documency um, occurring. And really, we put in a date certain, um, to give the applicant, some certainty. And the reason we were comfortable doing that was the, the, Gateway deficit, even without the off-ramp, we thought, was very small. There's a lot of uncertainty in calculating that. You could almost call it within the margin of error. And so, we were comfortable. Um, giving the applicants some certainty by saying adding a little cushion and saying, okay, you've got to move in date. And, you know, if the if the gateway deficit without the off-ramp had been much larger, we may not have been comfortable doing that, that was a factor.

[04:33:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: And if the deficit were to significantly increase between now and 2022, we have other tools at our disposal, I assume, to address that other than just, um, you know, this one, um, this one project.

[04:33:41] Unknown Speaker: Well, yeah, there's a separate process. I mean, we've got one process with all the individual developments like this, and then we've got the separate process with the gateway monitoring. And that's what's really keeping an eye on the current volumes on the gateways, how we're doing with mode splits, how we're doing with the capacities and so on. And so I think through that process, and the periodic monitoring that community developments bring back to council. We will be keeping an eye on that and we will be talking about those other tools. So that's really happening on a kind of a, it's its own path and it will continue to happen with regular check-ins and counts and so on. And if we, I mean, as the city manager alluded to either, if the tenet of this were to happen to be a, you know, Google, for example, and they're already required to meet certain other SOV rates, that would apply to this to this too.

[04:34:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think you said, it was system wide, or did I just misunderstand?

[04:34:40] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, regardless of the tenant, this one has to meet the 45%.

[04:34:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yeah, so I am, uh, I want to disclose that I did meet with Sobrado to talk about this. And I am very torn about this one. Um, I feel like we keep on revisiting this project, uh, and I would really prefer not to do that. So I hope this does not set a trend for other developments in North Bay Shore. But, I mean, this condition was discussed and agreed to prior to this development being approved, and now we are potentially granting an exception that, to me, is pretty significant, as the vice mayor pointed out. And You know, I do also, though, appreciate that, um, we... It would be really good to have the Indigo extension at the time we have the 101 off ramp realignment. And I also appreciate that, um, You know, we put together this precise plan for North Bay Shore and it would be good to see something happen. But I'm open to discussing sort of like the value of the exception, if others are interested in doing that. Council member committ?

[04:36:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So, all of this predates my time on council. But when I met with the applicant, I did say this is the 3rd time I've seen something related to your project in my short tenure, but I've been promised that we won't, that this is the last item. I mean, I think, at least for myself, I am, you know, anxious to see residential development, start in North Bay Shore. And so that was why I just wanted on record to make sure that that timeline was reiterated. Um, that, and that it is on track that the residential would come 1st before, um, the office. I think that is a priority in that area and a priority for the city to generate more housing units. Um, so I think, you know, that I want to see a path forward. I do know that the project has, um, had several different exceptions on its pathway to, um, seeing construction and so if it's something colleagues want to discuss, I'm open to it. If others are ready to go forward. I, you know, I think that, um, one of the things I do want to try is continuing a path forward for projects and priority areas like this one. Um, so I'm open to conversation, but I think, um, I don't know how I would quantify the exception, because that's what I'm, I guess that's what I'm struggling with. So, I don't, I look to the Mayor Vice Mayor if they have more that they want to share, but, um, yep, thanks.

[04:38:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[04:38:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I know everyone wants to see housing being developed here. In my mind, I, you know, folks who are advocating for housing, I don't think it should be after office, it should just be housing. So and that's where I am on the housing piece. But, um, I was looking at the timeline, I think, you know, the other piece to this is I do want assurance that the housing is going to happen. And if the housing does, in fact, help with the SOV, right? Um, Good. That's great. So, um, my thought, and I guess I could make this an, an alternate substitute motion, is that, um, I would alter or wreck the, what's the original here. Okay, so, um, I would alter the resolution to allow building permits to be issued prior to completion or at... to be issued prior to completion of the Plymouth Base Park realignment. And...

[04:39:24] Unknown Speaker: Are you just trying to eliminate the August date?

[04:39:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, so I would actually, I was actually saying, was wanted to say at the time of occupancy. And at that time of, I'm sorry, so at the time of completion of the off ramp, um, a study, a trip cap study would be conducted, and um, if the trip cap is not met at that time, um, there would be, I was going to say, a fee, um, equal, and I could, I was thinking either equal to the, um, transportation impact fee. um, I know we gave them a discount on the park fee. We could ask for that back. And it would also have to be the completion of the 1st housing development. So I want to see the housing development completed and then a study done at the time of the off ramp completion. And if the trip cap is not met at that point, then, um, we would, uh, we would charge a fee of either anywhere between, I think the park fee is $6 million, so it could be $3 to $6 million. So maybe it's not a motion yet because that's still open, but that's where I'm going.

[04:40:50] Unknown Speaker: What the, sorry, I wanted to ask a question about that. So the housing development complete, meaning people are living there. So that you would get some benefit to, uh, the internalization rate.

[04:41:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I mean, that would be the ideal, but, you know, I could be flexible with the schedule at the time of completion of the building. But I just want to see that housing development built before we start making any exceptions to, you know, allowing more employees to enter North Bay Shore.

[04:41:29] Unknown Speaker: If I could throw in a nuance. There are 2 phases to the housing development because of how they're using part of the state site for staging. So, am I presuming that you're talking about the 1st phase of housing?

[04:41:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, the 1st phase is March 22. Second phase is June 23. Um, I mean, they're all within 6 months. So I would prefer to say the completion of both.

[04:41:57] Unknown Speaker: I believe the 2nd phase is a year after the office building and more than a year after the 1st phase.

[04:42:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking about in relation to the off ramp. Is that, where's that? Oh, July 26th. So it'd be a year. A little under a year. Well, I mean, I would my preference would be to see both housing developments completed, but um, I can be open to some compromise there. So it's not emotion yet. I guess I think we need to, I'd like to hear from my colleagues to see if this has any legs.

[04:42:40] Unknown Speaker: Just one thought on that particular item. The schedule shows phase 2 of the housing to begin construction in July of 21. So, one thing, if your goal is to make sure all the housing happens, it could simply be construction, you know, phase one is done and occupied, or, and phase two is at least started. You know, that way, you know it's gonna happen, even though it wouldn't be occupied on the schedule until 23.

[04:43:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I've seen housing projects started and completed or sitting for years. So it's not necessarily a guarantee, but I can be open to that if there's interest for my colleagues. I just don't believe that we should just approve this waiver, exception without anything guaranteed, in return. So if a trip cap or a trip report was done, um, it would not,

[04:43:42] Unknown Speaker: At what time?

[04:43:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: After the completion of the off ramp.

[04:43:49] Unknown Speaker: So just the mechanics of that is something we would have to think through. I mean, right now, we do two trip caps a year on a fairly regular schedule. It would not be possible, but it would be a little challenging, depending on the exact timing, to do a separate trip cap, you know, immediately upon completion of this project. So you might want to say whether the most recent trip cap or something. Remember, the current precise plan says the trip cap must be exceeded twice before there's any kind of real consequences. So you also might want to think about that as a potential parameter. But the point of that count is to see whether or not the 101 off-ramp is having any impact.

[04:44:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, and the reversible, trans, lane, and all of the other improvements, because that's the, that's what we're banking on, right? But I guess I'm still not completely convinced of that. And again, I'm not talking about just, you know, throughput is one thing. But my real interest, and I believe the interest of, you know, my former colleagues was to get the SOV trip down. And that's not happening. And that's my real concern is like, we can put more cars through, but if we're not lowering the number of cars, it doesn't help. So that's my that's where I'm trying to get at.

[04:45:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:45:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, I'll do my best to be coherent. I feel like I'm I'm I'm struggling with this as well. So, I thought the staff report was helpful in giving a sense of timing and sort of anticipated impact of modifying the condition. And I felt and reviewing the data that it was not a significant impact. So I'm fairly comfortable with the underlying motion. But if there is an interest in exploring, um, you know, a concession, I think, to council member, Kame's point, you know, how you value that, I think is an important question. And some of the ideas that I think I've heard are, you know, ensuring that the project complies with the 45% SOV requirement and then maybe funding, congestion pricing study or something like that. So I support, you know, the vice mayor's interest in exploring that. I think that's a very powerful tool. We don't necessarily have to implement it right away, but in the event that becomes a very helpful tool in achieving the SOV, you know, mode split. I think that's something I think that would be worth, you know, including into this. But, um, I think so, what I struggle with is how, you know, how do you value the modification? The other thing that comes to mind too, is pulling the building permit sooner gives us access to the other benefits of the project, including the dedication of the land for affordable housing, which then we can, you know, begin, um, you know, an issue, an RFP 4 and, um, you know, the school contribution, I think, would be valuable sooner rather than later. So there's there's a benefit to us as well in accessing those community benefits, but if there's an interest in exploring something on top of that in exchange for the modification, then something sort of oriented towards transportation seems to be within that nexus. And I like the idea of saying fund the congestion pricing studies so that way if we need to access that tool, we have it readily available.

[04:47:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:47:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, Let me throw something out and see if it has support. Um, I think maybe just modifying the 2nd part to address some of the concerns that you had, um, if we say, we, um, we won't allow occupancy of the of the building, um, of the office building, um, under, so basically occupancy of the office building is contingent upon um, a couple of things. One is that phase one of the residential needs to be complete. I don't know, necessarily about occupy, but it needs to be complete, and phase 2 needs to be underway, and you can define that as, you know, I'd prefer it to be a little bit more than building permits or polled. But I think once they actually start construction, it's pretty rare for someone to stop. They might pull building permits and not do anything, but I'll sort of leave that to staff. And then the 2nd piece would be, well, you have the sooner of the off-ramp realignment being complete. That's fine. But I think if it ends up being the August 31st, 2022 date. So something other than, since you're talking about the sooner of, if, for whatever reason, the, um, we're going with... But the housing has, that, that, that just has to be there. either way, regardless of the 2nd piece. The 2nd piece, so that condition has to be met, and then the 2nd would be if you're either the realignment is complete. Or if you're going with something before the realignment is complete, that August 31st date, then there should be there shouldn't be a current violation of the trip cap, so we shouldn't have triggered it those 2 times, right? So if we're in that condition where the trip cap is out of compliance, then we wouldn't issue the we wouldn't allow occupancy of the office until we're back in compliance, one way or another. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm trying to prevent occupancy of the office in the event that we're in violation of the trip cap prior to the off ramp completion?

[04:50:12] City Staff: Yeah, staff didn't propose withholding occupancy of a complete building? We. I imagine that's possible. We tend not to, we tend not to try and use actual occupancy of a complete building as a, as a condition, but it could be given as a waiver. So if they were to agree at the time where we're approaching finishing the building, we know that we're in violation of the trip cap, maybe as part of a waiver request, we're going to say, here's how, you know, either we're really close to another trip cap measurement that might bring it back in the compliance or they can propose some other mitigation. But I'm just thinking, oh, out there.

[04:50:59] Unknown Speaker: I think that's really what is getting in the heart of the vice mayor's concern is that we're in a condition where the off-ramp realignment hasn't been done yet. The trip caps in a vio in a condition where it's violated, and we're about to make it worse by allowing occupancy of 200 something 1000 square feet of office. That's the condition that I think. like where you're going.

[04:51:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and I like the idea of a mitigation if they haven't met the trip cap at that point. Um, you know, my my thought, my suggestion for mitigation is, you know, I'm going to go back to the other waiver we gave this project already, and, you know, maybe we take back the park fees.

[04:51:44] Unknown Speaker: I really struggle with assigning a value to this tonight, and park fees are used for things other than transportation.

[04:51:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure, but this was a... But we gave them that waiver once. And I feel like, you know, they should be meeting then all of the other conditions. If they cannot meet a condition, then we take back the waiver.

[04:52:04] Unknown Speaker: But whatever you're asking, I think, should be related to the violation that's occurred. So if it's funny in a congestion study, or is funding something specifically that's related to curing the condition that is an issue, then there's a nexus.

[04:52:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, then I'm comfortable with, but then I would say the, um, equal to the fee, the transportation fee.

[04:52:26] Unknown Speaker: I just, I don't like assigning values to things at a dais. And at this point, we're so far away from the staff recommendation that I am really uncomfortable, frankly. So, um, we can try and craft some sort of compromise that, um, that says we're not gonna allow occupancy of the office in some certain, uh, additional parameters or conditions, but I, I don't want to deviate too much from that.

[04:52:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: My thought is, you know, we talk about certainty, and to leave that mitigation value down the road is not providing that certainty, so I'd rather just provide it tonight.

[04:53:09] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, a lot of these infrastructure improvements aren't going to... We just talked about that I was on a council that really, really wanted those and They're not going to happen if we don't approve any developments. So I know it's hard to do. in advance, but we just...

[04:53:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, but the other, the flip side to that is, we don't have to do all of these improvements, if we have less cars going in there. So, and that was the whole point of this was that if we're gonna allow more expansion, then we have to have these improvements, to, you know, make sure that it doesn't become gridlock, and part, and that was the whole point. It's like, if we don't have development, then we don't. I mean, yes, we have a challenge right now, but um, it wouldn't get, it wouldn't worsen with more. And so if development doesn't happen, then development doesn't happen. And I think we just, I don't know. That was where I was resigned to or comfortable with. Um, and so, you know, to me, it's not be all end all, let's develop North Bay Shore. You know, we did it because we were asked to because of economic development, concerns, whatnot. But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. And I just don't want us as a city, to have to, you know, deal with the unintended consequences, the impacts, and, you know, all of the externalities without having a way to mitigate that. And I just don't believe that the city should be bonding and paying for all of this on its own.

[04:54:52] Unknown Speaker: So is there a way to, um, I do like the way the sort of compromise was going here, but is there a way to potentially factor in if you, if the trip cap shows that you're over to, um, limit employee headcount, um, sort of like it is now, um, but add, Some, um, but not enough, so you go over the trip cap. Like they did with Charleston East. Right. Or is that too complicated? I'm not sure.

[04:55:30] City Staff: I mean, the reason it worked with Charleston East was, Google has a lot of employees out there. They have a lot of building space out there, and frankly, they have the flexibility to move people around. Here we're talking about one isolated development. And so I think imposing some kind of a headcount condition on a single development. I'm not sure how that's going to work.

[04:56:01] Unknown Speaker: I guess it is on a single development as opposed to an employer.

[04:56:05] City Staff: Correct. Yeah.

[04:56:12] Unknown Speaker: Could we could I could I ask staff for some guidance, if we wanted to, if we wanted to move forward with not allowing occupancy of the office building, So let's just assume that the phase one of the residential needs to be complete in phase 2 needs to be started, however that gets defined. And then, um, is there, um, and then if, um, if the trip cap is sort of exceeded at the time, um, let's say the off ramp isn't complete, and we're in a condition where um, we're not in compliance with the trip cap at the time, um, they're ready for occupancy. So this, um, August 31st, 2022 date, um, then is there... Is there some, um, some mitigation there that could be provided. If it's not head count, could it be funding a condition management study, or could it be a straight, you know, fee paid for transportation impact? that we could tie to an existing measure or an existing amount.

[04:57:26] City Staff: I think you can do that. I think there are already penalties if, you know, if you exceed your 45% as an individual project. So you could impose some sort of penalty. Now, I mean, our analysis shows that if the off ramp is not complete. There would likely be a gap of approximately 50 vehicles, which is the margin of error. So, 1st question is, are you saying a gap of one vehicle, are you saying a gap of more than 50 vehicles, or some X? But I think you could structure something that there's a penalty or a study that's required or, I mean, in theory, you could even force congestion pricing right away. I think that would be hard to do if all the mechanisms hadn't been kind of preplanned for that. I think another factor is that if the gateway has exceeded 3 years from now, there are other factors associated with that exceedence. I mean, there's an SO, like the Vice Mayor pointed out, there's a larger SOV problem in the North Bay Shore district and so on. And, and, um, I'm not... There are larger issues than this development at that point, is my point.

[04:58:54] Unknown Speaker: Could we say that if they're seeking occupancy of the building, prior to the off-ramp realignment being completed, that it basically just requires a waiver from us at that time. So they would know, I would think, fairly, fairly far out from that way or not, the offer employment is going to be completed, and we would know the council would have information at the time about the trip cap status. And if they, basically, if they want, if they want occupancy, prior to the completion of that offer at we alignment, that it would just, it would have to come to us for a waiver.

[04:59:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I think you're just kicking the can down the road, and the point of tonight was to provide some certainty and provide a balance of competing interests between making progress on desired North Bay Shore objectives, like housing, and in a go away, and et cetera, while providing certain some certainty, the developer that they can proceed. So I think one way or another, we need to resolve it. I don't think, you know, going 3 years down the line and then saying, come back for a waiver is good public policy.

[05:00:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Well, we just have more information at that time than we do now, is all I'm saying.

[05:00:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez.

[05:00:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just for my benefit, is the penalty for exceeding the trip cap or going above 45% SOV proportional to the number of vehicles in excess of the trip cap or how is that how is that determined?

[05:00:40] City Staff: You know, honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the penalty for exceedings of an individual is basically your individual TDM program and you're an individual SOE target. And honestly, I don't know how that penalty is structured. That's a Martin Alcair question, but my recollection is it's something like a flat fee per percentage that you exceed it and the fee increases as your percentage of exceeding it increases. I want to say it's like $50,000 for one% or something like that.

[05:01:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That provides evaluation, right? If we're projecting, well, so I guess, different types of violations here, right? whether it's the number of vehicles in excess of the trip gap or SOV, that there's already a methodology for determining, you know, a penalty, and if we can project that, that may be the valuation we're looking for. as an idea.

[05:01:53] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I think there's something to be said. If you want to ensure there's some pain, so to speak, for violating it, then set, you know, a flat fee or an escalating fee based on the degree of escalation, if the off ramp isn't done, and the trip cap is violated. And I think another idea that would provide some benefit to the city is, if we haven't already done it at that point, is to fund a study for congestion pricing, because, as Mike says, if 3 years from now, you know, there's a lot of different factors that are going to be causing challenges, and they're not going to come or go based on this one project, and we're probably going to be at the point where congestion pricing is going to be necessary as a tool. So do the penalties come to the city or do they go to the TMA?

[05:02:53] City Staff: I don't recall. I think they come to the city, but they're intended to be used for transportation purposes. And we can certainly provide you a memo with what the current penalty structure is and how it works, if you're comfortable using that, as the baseline, we would just reference that, assuming the city attorney lets us do that. kind of by reference, and then we would write it up to match that. We would certainly fill you in with those details.

[05:03:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, O V Coca?

[05:03:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I can go with the penalty, and if there's a valuation, and we can be in alignment with that, with the exceedence of the trip cap, or is it the SOV, right, or is it the trip cap?

[05:03:47] City Staff: I think the penalty structure we're talking about is there's a there's a trip cap for each property, basically, which is why they're doing counts in the driveways. So that, I mean, that aligns with the SOV rate for the development, but it's basically a vehicle count.

[05:04:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So whatever that amount is, Could we apply that to if there's a exceedence of the overall trip cap.

[05:04:18] City Staff: I think and you mean at the shoreline gateway?

[05:04:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[05:04:24] City Staff: I don't know, that potentially captures a lot of vehicles that have nothing to do directly with this development, I think, would be my concern. I mean, again, there's a lot of, there's a lot of,

[05:04:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, and my concern with this is this is perhaps one instance today, but you know, I want to set something. This is also precedent setting is how I look at it. So whatever we decide tonight, You know, if we grant this waiver, I will guarantee you we're going to have other waiver requests. So whatever we do tonight is, you know, is gonna set the standard. And that's why I really want to take some time here to figure out, you know, what are we going to, other than just granting waivers and not getting anything for it? What are we, you know, what is the value of this waiver? And, um, yeah, maybe if it is the congestion pricing study, I don't know, was that like a $1000000 study or so or maybe, I mean, if you want, maybe we just leave it at that, that they pay for this, the pricing study. I could live with that. It's going quite low from my original 6 million, but, you know, that's fine. I just think we need to set some kind of requirement. So I just want to clarify, they would have to pay a penalty independent of all of this if the trip count, or is it the SOV rate, in and out of their development is exceeded.

[05:06:01] City Staff: Yes, that's a whole separate thing that's already that's already baked into their TDM program conditions of approval.

[05:06:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And is it?

[05:06:09] City Staff: That isn't related to the count at the Shoreline Gateway to North Bay Shore. That a micro trip cap. So it's really not an additional penalty. It's already there.

[05:06:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yeah, that's the congestion pricing.

[05:06:25] Unknown Speaker: Do we have any idea how much a congestion? Is it just the study or is it more than that?

[05:06:30] City Staff: I think we're just talking about the study and honestly, I don't know I don't know what that would cost. I have not done one of those before. I have a feeling a congestion pricing study is a lot less than AGT. But I could be wrong about that.

[05:06:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark, unless you had other comments.

[05:06:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so... Is staff comfortable if we, um... with 2 amendments? So the one is not allowing occupancy of the office building until the 1st phase of the residential is complete and the 2nd phase is underway. I'm not sure how to define that is the only thing, but I don't know if I need to. And then the 2nd would be, um, And then the other condition would be if the off-ramp realignment isn't, um, Basically, if they're going with the, if the, if we're going with the August 31st, 2022 date, the date's certain, but the off-ramp isn't complete at that time, and, um, and we're in a trip cap violated situation, um, then the developer would need to fully fund or the applicant would need to fully fund a congestion management. Um, study, um, not to exceed, um, I think in this case, not to exceed $1 million. I think that should cover it. Or if you would prefer it be based on a square footage basis. We can assign, we can assign a cost per square foot, if you think it makes sense to do it that way, given that way it's more directly tied to the impact of the size of the office. It could be like $5 a square foot or something like that. I mean, you can do it either way. I think a per square foot is somewhat arbitrary at this point. I mean, if we have a desired goal is to get a studier to move us further to solving congestion, I think that's a better... Or do we need to have a maximum of this time? We could just save fully funded congestion management.

[05:08:40] City Staff: Well, we can say whatever we want. The question is if the developer will do it, so you might want to invite him back up to respond to things. The other thing, I would say, if that's the path you're going towards funding a study, I would probably modify to say, or an equal contribution. I mean, there might be a chance that we moved to congestion. And we've already done the study, but we would want that equivalent value as a sort of penalty, so to speak.

[05:09:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: So yeah, if the applicant, Tim, if you don't mind coming up, I think what we're really getting at here is like a pretty rare scenario. So it would be, it would be, basically, you're going with the August 31st, date certain, and the off-ramp isn't complete at the time, and the trip cap is is violated. And so I think what we're asking there is there is there some mitigation that can be provided at that point?

[05:09:38] Applicant Tim: Got a question first. We're pretty close to schedule and mine isn't maybe as precise as Mike's as far as expectation of construction, there's a good chance that to get my building in a position to occupy what happened concurrent or even after the off-ramp is complete, is what you're talking about, also apply in that case too, because we haven't, at that point, contributed to the trip cap being exceeded at all, and we wouldn't be asking for...

[05:10:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think what we're saying, I think if you look at it from our perspective, the scenario that we're worried about is your office is ready to come online, it's done. But the off-ramp realignment isn't complete yet. And we're in a and the trip cap is violated. So we're in a really bad world, right? Because our realignment isn't done yet. The trip cap is in a really bad state and bringing 231,000 square feet of office online is going to make it even worse. And so that's the scenario that we're worried about that we're trying to address.

[05:10:40] Applicant Tim: I guess what I'm trying to break it down to us, that scenario, in the event that maybe I'm looking at, I got a building ready to occupy, or I'm very close to being able to occupy it, and Mike schedules off by my schedule, maybe a month, whatever the 2 dates are. And I'm in a deciding factor in a wait a month to move in. Or am I going to pay a penalty to move in a month thoroughly, then the off ramp being completed in that circumstance. Is that what you're suggesting?

[05:11:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, if I were in your shoes. That's how I would think about it. Yes, is you might delay occupancy, or you, or you, or there would be this, this sort of penalty to help. Yeah, I think the intent is, if you're going to occupy, and it's not done, and there's a violation, then there's consequences you can choose not to occupy, or it can be done, in which case all of this goes away. This is only kind of worst case scenario.

[05:11:40] Applicant Tim: So if I take yours and I say that I move in the exact same date, the off ramp is complete, the trip cap has been violated at that point, not of my own doing, I still pay this penalty.

[05:11:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: No. No, if the offer it's done, then everything's fine. Okay. It's only if the off man isn't completed. You want to occupy before... You want to occupy on August, whatever it is. And the off ramp isn't done yet.

[05:12:11] Applicant Tim: The likelihood of Mike's schedule slipping before mine is unlikely, and I think will most likely align very closely to it. So if it's me waiting for a month for the off ramp to be done. That would probably be my first choice. If we're 3 months apart or 6 months apart, we might choose to pay the to have the study done. So if we're understanding each other, I'd be comfortable with that.

[05:12:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So I so I think that would be so as I articulated earlier, that would be the motion. So it would be the staff recommendation, except that we not allow occupancy of the office building, if, and Tim, you can comment on this if you want to, phase one of the residential would just need to be complete at the time, and phase 2 would need to be underway.

[05:13:03] Applicant Tim: Two is the harder question. Phase one is absolute, because I have to build all three pieces, the garage, the residential, and the south, and the office at the exact same time. So, and starting at the exact same time. gets the residential in the south, completed 3 to 4 months before the building's ready to occupy. The north is a little more difficult to tie into that same data point. But your proposed schedule, if I understand, is you'd be starting construction on phase 2 residential in July of 21, which is a full year before we have a potential problem. So it's just that the 2nd phase of the residential is tied to a lot of things on top of how long it takes me to get a billing permit, and when I get to submit for a building permit. So I can assure that the South's residential will be occupied, absolutely. First, the office building 2nd and somewhere in process and starting the construction on the north, but I don't know the date I'm gonna be in a position to say I'm under construction.

[05:14:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think all we're asking is that you're under construction before you occupy the office. which should hopefully, should hopefully not be an issue.

[05:14:18] Applicant Tim: For the offering ramp. If the off ramp is done and I can occupy the building as part of the first condition, that's okay. I just, I just, the second phase of the residential is the harder one to pinpoint, exactly one to be under construction.

[05:14:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: All we're asking, we just want to make sure it gets done. We just want to make sure we don't end up with a phase one residential and phase two doesn't get...

[05:14:38] Applicant Tim: There was a reference to, I think, Trump destroying the economy, and if I can't get money to start the second phase, I can't start the second phase. Just being honest. So I have everything in line for the 1st phase, we want to build a second, but we're talking about pulling a permit in a couple years on the other phase, it's a difficult thing to commit to. Today. I don't know how to assure that gets built.

[05:15:08] Unknown Speaker: If I can comment on that. So, you know, the park fee forgivens was based on your building the housing. And so if you're now saying you can't build that, you can't guarantee us the housing, um, that puts everything else into question. So we just want assurance that these, because, you know, the whole premise of housing in North Asia is, right? It's having housing in North Bay Shore. And if you can't guarantee that, then I don't know where we're going. So this is our way of trying to, we're going to give you a big waiver. It's 3 years difference, if you ask me. And so, you know, all we're asking is you just start that project before the off rank gets completed. And if you can't do that, I don't know then if I can even support this.

[05:16:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Clarification, I believe, in what you just said is before the off ramp is completed versus before we occupy the building. I heard occupy the building. So you can occupy the building when after the first building is complete, that residential building, and the second one is started. And if you want, if it's before the off ramp being completed, then you can choose to pay for the study, or if it's after the off ramp is completed, and everything is fine, then you can just move in.

[05:16:41] Applicant Tim: I'd like to see it in writing. It's kind of a lot of variations here.

[05:16:46] Unknown Speaker: Well, we don't have to get agreement, right? This is our condition. We just put it, and then it's up to the development.

[05:16:52] City Staff: Yeah, I mean, it's true. It is your condition. I think it would be a good idea, since there's been so much movement to take a two minute break to let us get exact wording, so we can read it back to you, so everybody's...

[05:17:06] Councilmember Chris Clark: Do you want me to repeat it one last time?

[05:17:08] City Staff: Sure.

[05:17:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: And so, it would be the staff recommendation, and all I'm talking about is in point number two. So, um, not not allow occupancy of the office building, until after the realignment is complete. I should have said this first, not allow occupancy of the office building until phase one of the residential project is complete and phase 2 is underway, and either, one, the off ramp realignment is complete, or to August 31st, 2022, If the trip cap isn't currently in violation, as we defined it, with 2 consecutive, um, violations in a row, assuming the off-ramp isn't completed. If the off-ramp's completed, then, then we don't have to worry about that. And then if they do want to occupy in that sort of in a violation condition, on August 31st, then they would need to make a they would need to make a $1000000 contribution to. the city's transportation impact, fun for the North Asia area.

[05:18:31] City Staff: Wait, I thought it was, they would need to fund a congestion management study up to a maximum of one million. Or you could... pricing, studies, pricing, sorry, or making, or making a similar valued contribution to the... I think.

[05:18:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Yeah, whatever transportation study. Does that sort of kind of make sense?

[05:18:56] City Staff: Yes, and we can, I'd like to get the exact language correct when the motion is made, but, um, In concept, if you can go ahead and make that motion and get a 2nd and we can come back with exact language for me to read into the record.

[05:19:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, yeah. I think we have emotion in council member Hicks, do you feel comfortable? You had 2nded the original motion.

[05:19:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, my only question is, is the second half of the housing, did that drop out of this, or did I just miss it?

[05:19:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's still... still. You missed it. I articulated it. So, like, the first condition is that the first phase of the residential needs to be complete, and the second phase needs to be underway.

[05:19:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[05:19:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's just a given. And then the rest is sort of related to the off ramp.

[05:19:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll go with that.

[05:19:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we do have a motion in a second. Okay, and if you could just give us two minutes, we'll come back to you. Thank you. Really brief, uh, pause here. And we... Can we do council staff committee reports, and then come back to the item? Can we leave it open? I don't know. I don't know if we can skip around. I believe we can. Yes. So, um, I... Within a topic, can you skip around when you still have one open? Can we do item? Is it 8 tonight or is it 9? Could we pause this and reopen it while we do, like, item 8 or nine?

[05:20:43] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, you can just continue the public hearing.

[05:20:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we'll continue the public hearing. And we will, if the council members agree to go to item eight while we're waiting. So, yeah, I want to make sure everybody's okay with that. Okay. Then let's do that. Does anybody have any items? I do have one, a toilet. Some member Clark?

[05:21:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I just came back. I'm on the National League of Cities Community Economic Development Committee, and we just had our summer meeting in Maryland, and because of the proximity to DC, we actually had a meeting at HUD with Secretary HUD Secretary, it was a very sort of last minute meeting that we were able to get with the Secretary of Housing urban, uh, Housing urban development. Sir J. Carson. And I just wanted to share something that might be of concern. So the night before, um, or the day before our meeting, there were some executive orders issued that were somewhat concerning, um, regarding possibly withholding or reducing CDBG and other HUD funds from cities that, um, they deemed to not be, um, doing what they should do to produce housing, and that includes cities with rent control measures, cities that aren't have what they define to be stricter zoning, and all sorts of other things. So they're trying to use that as a stick to get basically cities to do what they want them to do. I think what we determined, and we shared this with the staff, obviously, but, um, You know, that was obviously really concerning to us. I think our saving grace here is that a lot of those things are actually in statute, and so they'd have to go through Congress to make a lot of those changes and start actually withholding funds based on those bases. But I thought it was important to share just to sort of say the administration is looking for all sorts of different ways to sort of get cities to comply with some of their specific goals and what they think will help the housing crisis. And some of those may or may not directly impact us, especially if they go down the route of looking at things that are, in our case, sort of out of the council's control, like rent control. So, um,

[05:23:23] Unknown Speaker: You said cities with rent control?

[05:23:25] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Okay, just wanted to make sure I heard that correctly.

[05:23:28] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[05:23:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does anyone else? So I have a couple items. We did send a letter formally requesting that Sunnyvale help fund the design of the Stephen Creek Trail extension. And they are going to talk about it at a council meeting. They're not certain of the date yet, but they are going to talk about it. And we're hoping they will match our contribution and then we could apply for, yeah, additional funds. So I'm glad at least it's moving a little bit here. And the 2nd thing. We also are weighing in on the Hangar one remediation and restoration, both Sunnyvale and Mountain View supported. They had 3 different courses of action they could take to do the remediation and we all, we both supported option three, which we felt was the most, um, environmentally sensitive and would do the job. and would last long. It just seemed like the best option to both of us. So that letter, I believe, is going out tomorrow because the deadline is the day after that. Anybody else have any item? Okay, no more item eights. So we'll close that item. Can we do anything else?.

[05:25:28] Unknown Speaker: Do you want us to do item 7.3? I think we're 30 seconds from launch.

[05:25:34] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I think the sing-along idea is a wonderful one.

[05:26:00] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Okay, I think we can reopen that item, and I can assist with some language, and then you can, um, the motion maker can just, uh, refer to my language. So it would be the staff recommendation until the word, um, Until in the one, two, three, 4th line from the bottom, and it would read until phase one of the residential component of the project is complete, and phase two of the residential component of the project has initiated construction, and then there would be a period, and a new sentence replacing the balance of the recommendation that would read, if occupancy occurs prior to the completion of the off ramp realignment. And the trip cap is exceeded after two consecutive monitoring events, then the applicant must fund a congestion pricing study, up to $1 million, or make an equivalent contribution to the city for transportation improvements.

[05:27:19] Unknown Speaker: And I think that is accurate, except there's one piece. The, um... If the, if the trip cap were violated two consecutive times, um, even prior to, um, occupancy. So I think what I'm getting at is not to measurement periods after occupancy, but if we're in that condition already. I just want to make sure that's clear, that's understood.

[05:27:46] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes. Yes, the prior two.

[05:27:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Okay. Yes. So that is, so I'm amending my motion to be that. If the 2nd door is okay with that.

[05:28:01] Unknown Speaker: Yep. So I have a question on the part about the congestion pricing study, up to a $1000000 And it says, basically, if we've already done that, then it's an equivalent contribution. So if the congestion pricing study is $50,000, the equivalent contribution is 50,000 or a million.

[05:28:27] Unknown Speaker: Good question. Well, I think, in fairness to everyone, have certainty, we should get an estimate, sooner or rather, and later, at least a ballpark of what the congestion and congestion pricing study would be, and then do that, but I think the intent is it would be the equivalent of the cost of that study.

[05:28:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and I think what I was getting, I was just trying to say, and it wouldn't exceed a certain amount, just so everyone has some certainty about, you wouldn't have to come back to us.

[05:28:54] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Yes, that's the intent.

[05:28:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any questions? Council member McAllister, did you have any questions?

[05:29:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. You guys have dated this quite a bit tonight. Um, how can you... how can they have occupancy if the original condition says not allow occupancy until the realignment is done? I'm, you guys been betting us around all night, and I'm going, well, if the alignment or the on wrap is not done, off wrap, then there's no occupancy. So... Why would this, uh, discuss so much?

[05:29:44] Unknown Speaker: Well, the intent of this motion would be to change the condition to this new wording, and therefore, that current condition one night. We'll call this 190 asterisk for eternity. So, basically, that wording goes away and is replaced by this new wording.

[05:30:03] Unknown Speaker: John, I think what you might have, um, not heard was part of what they were, part of what staff's recommendation was tonight, was to allow them to occupy the building if the realignment wasn't complete on a date certain, so that August 31, 2022 date. And so what we're saying is we're adding some additional conditions to that so that it can't just happen even if the trip caps violated.

[05:30:31] Councilmember John McAlister: But I thought, in general, that when we have our trip cap, nothing was going to be allowed to occupy throughout North Asia.

[05:30:42] Unknown Speaker: I believe the general rule is, you cannot get a building permit, if the trip cap has been violated twice, in this particular case, we're essentially making an exception if multiple other factors come into play, and that's a subjective choice up to the council, but that's the motion in front of you at this point.

[05:31:05] Unknown Speaker: And that's why we're adding the additional conditions. I mean... And we're hoping...

[05:31:15] Councilmember John McAlister: There are so many moving parts to this, there's Microsoft reopening, there's other components that the applicant has no control over it, and yet, we're gonna penalize them for things that can occur two years down the road, that we don't have any certainty on, that, uh, I find that sort of, uh, unfair that we're doing, that, Even though the intent is to try to make sure we get our housing, but to go down that path and put these restrictions on, seeing, uh, and trade it a little bit.

[05:31:56] Unknown Speaker: Well, that restriction is in the North Bay Shore precise plan for all projects. So we're allowing an exception for this one because we want to get things going, and we want the infrastructure that comes along with this project. And we want some residential in North Bay Shore. So in some ways, um, They're not being penalized as much as future projects would be if we're over the trip cap.

[05:32:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so let's call the question.

[05:32:34] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[05:32:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[05:32:36] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[05:32:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:32:38] City Clerk: Council member Kamee.

[05:32:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:32:39] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[05:32:42] Councilmember John McAlister: No.

[05:32:42] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[05:32:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:32:45] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[05:32:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[05:32:47] City Clerk: Mayor Matachek.

[05:32:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:32:48] City Clerk: Thank you. So that passes 6 to one.

[05:32:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Correct. Okay. So we will close items 7.2. And you want Councilman McAllister? I forgot to ask you if you had any comments for item 8 because we already did that.

[05:33:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Madam Mayor, I did not.

[05:33:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. So we will move on to item 7.3, which is regional housing needs, allocation subregion. And we will start with the staff report.

[05:33:27] Unknown Speaker: Do you need to have another vote to continue?

[05:33:30] Unknown Speaker: Oh, I did. New item? Do we have to have another one to start because we're starting yet another topic?

[05:33:38] Unknown Speaker: That is, yes.

[05:33:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. No, apparently not, John. We just keep going. Okay.

[05:33:44] Arti Shrivastava: Good evening, counsel. This RT Shravastova. I'm sorry, I missed the memo, I'm putting my name on the slide, which I will from now on. Um, I will keep this really short, um, since it's late. Tonight, we'll come to you to ask you to authorize the city to move forward with the arena subregion. Just a quick reminder. The state requires every jurisdiction to plan for housing. We have our housing requirements are divided into housing elements cycles. The current one is 20, um, 15 to 2023, and we're talking about a subregion in the next cycle, which will run from 2022. to 20, 30. Typically, A bag, which is our metropolitan planning organization, is responsible for allocating the large number they get from the state. However, the state does allow cities to band together to form a subregion. The cities association, which consists of representatives from every jurisdiction in Santa Clara County, has been wanting to explore this for a while. Previously, the council did support in October of last year. moving forward with exploring a subregion and we're being asked to see if the council would like to authorize the signing of an MOU. And the council did look at some guiding principles in October. I'm just gonna go through some of these slides and go through some details on the subregion. The subregion is seen as an entity similar to jurisdiction. It can determine its own allocation and methodology. It can use a separate methodology or it can keep A-bags methodology. Here are some pros and cons of having a subregion. While there's greater flexibility, and cities have a greater say. And there could be alignment between regional and local needs. It does sometimes duplicate the processes that A bag would have provided. There is some concern among the members about how fair and equitable the process is because the methodology hasn't been determined yet. There is some distance from the MTC and A bag, because now you can't appeal as a jurisdiction, if to appeal as a subregion, if you don't like the number you got. And then the subregions are responsible for the outreach and the cost and making sure the methodology, which now has to be approved by the state, is all done within the subregion. We did have, and we're working on a draft MOU framework. We don't have the final draft yet. However, the basics of the draft require the creation of an arena policy committee that consists of elected officials, they will be the recommending body and they will be kind of the governing body of the subregion. A 23rd vote will be needed for as a majority decision on items. And there will be a technical advisory committee that consists of staff who will be providing technical assistance. They will also hire a consultant and the initial cost was estimated at $50,000. I'll talk a little bit more on that, just to make sure based on some assumptions under a arena process that we were going to move forward with. Cities do appear to have a veto option. They also have the option of going out of the subregion if they wish to. They can opt out, as a worst case scenario, if they don't like the way the process is going. The city association is considering this issue at their meeting this week on the 12th of September. The fiscal impact of the, of the, um, will be about 3125 from Mountain View, it's usually allocated on population. The initial cost will cover a consultant for up to $50,000. I'll speak a little bit about recent developments now. We have had an update on Friday and there's been a little bit of concern. The deadline for subregions to adopt a methodology is about a month ahead of when A-Bag will provide its methodology in draft allocations. That means that, um, the subregion has to come up with its own process, and it could use A-bags or try to use the draft, but it's going to be a difficult case. And so I think this is what the city's association is going to take up. The subregion was expecting to use the airbag allocation as a starting point, which would have reduced our costs when we did some reallocations internally. However, we feel that there are enough, if the city's association just choose to move forward, there are enough checks and balances that will be built in the MOU for the city to opt out, should they get uncomfortable with the process? The options that are there before the cities association and the subregion now is to create a methodology that's separate from A-Bag. which could come at a significant cost in time, or use A bags methodology, as I mentioned before, it's better than the 1st option, but it still will cost more time than we thought we would have spent had we just got our A bag allocations. We are, however, recommending that the city move forward because, like I said, we do have some checks and balances built in. If the cities association decides not to move forward with the subregion, then the issue will be moved. But we're asking the council to authorize us to move forward based on the guiding principles so that we can sign in MOU if we do move forward, authorize the city manager to provide that initial funding of 3125 and that the council recommend a council member to serve on the subregion. This ends my report, and I'm happy to answer details, which I do have. Thank you.

[05:40:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh... Vice Mayor Abenkoka.

[05:40:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, As recent as 4 o'clock this afternoon, I got another update. Um, so, uh, Chappie Councilor Chappie Jones from San Jose is the head of the arena committee. And so our executive director from the City Association spoke with him, and he is suggesting, or he is planning to introduce on, at the Thursday, City Association meeting, the recommendation that the association moves forward with a planning collaborative, which would embrace the goals of working as a region without forming the Arena sub region, and instead form A planning collaborative to further positive outcomes to the housing and homelessness challenges faced in Santa Clara County, similar to 21 elements, which is in San Mateo County, use the anticipated Arena subregion funds designated in the MOU and Reno light plan, and collaboration opportunities may include planning, housing element, home for all ADU, effort, RV dwellers, homelessness, legislative guidance by consultants. So I guess the idea is that we move forward with this collaborative now rather than the subregion in light of the challenges that of meeting the HCD requirement. So.

[05:42:02] Unknown Speaker: So just to recap, would this issue be moot now and would the city need to be authorized to move forward the collaborative? Okay, so... Would we amend the resolution?

[05:42:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think the key here is going to be the funding piece and the whether we want to be in this collaborative, if not the region, subregion. Whatever. It still has to be approved by the association board on Thursday.

[05:42:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think, um, I think it behooves us to go ahead and take this action. We can amend it to say, or a similar collaborative. I mean, what I just heard you say is really nothing that can't be done today by the city's association or any voluntary group of members to work on regional issues. So I'm not sure, you know, what formal mechanism there is or if they're looking to a JPA or an MOU or contributions of funding. But I think we could use the same parameters, and council could amend it to say, you know, we'll contribute up to that amount for now, we can come back if it requires more funding, and if it's a broader scope than what you articulated, you know, you could bring it back to the council. But I think if for some reason there is a path forward to a subregion, it would be good to have that authority.

[05:43:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[05:43:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I just wanted to be clear, you're suggesting that we authorize tonight to do one or the other. I mean, to do, basically, to authorize doing,

[05:43:49] Unknown Speaker: yeah, to provide authority to do either one of those, depending on the direction the city's association takes away. We would probably just want to make a minor tweak in the motion to provide that greater flexibility.

[05:44:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister, did you have any questions?

[05:44:09] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I just have comments. Thank you.

[05:44:12] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So just the one other comment, sorry, to interrupt is what I heard the vice mayor articulate coming from Vice Mayor Jones, I think, in San Jose, is significantly broader in scope. It's really what I heard, sort of all things housing, homelessness, RVs, which is great. I mean, there's a reason to collaborate on those things, but I just want to be very clear. It's not an equivalent to the subregion. It's much broader in scope, and at some point, interest might diverge, but it certainly would be a value to be in a collaborative, to talk about those issues.

[05:44:52] Unknown Speaker: So I have a question for the vice mayor. Um, so, uh, was there any more than that to it, like a timeline or what the steps would be?

[05:45:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: In terms of the collaborative?

[05:45:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[05:45:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, that is, that was it. My sense was that... The key piece was the funding and I think what's of value is that there would be a consultant hired, similar to what San Mateo County has done in the past to facilitate, similar to the airport noise round table to facilitate and move this along. So, um, Are you asking for when this would be formed or

[05:45:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just wondering if, um, yeah, any sort of a timeline was also discussed.

[05:45:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, it wasn't.

[05:45:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[05:45:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That probably could be discussed on Thursday.

[05:45:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, we'll open this up for public comment. If there's anyone here who wants to address the council on this item?

[05:46:07] Public Speaker: Morning. Um, uh, Serbant, Mantendieu, uh, resident. So, I'm even more confused about what this thing is about than it was before. So, I understood the that subregion as being, you know, yet another county type of body and you know, and if you look at the number of groups that you or commissions you associated with, it's like 2 or 3 pages long. So I don't know why we keep adding to those. But in this case, I mean, the funding is minimal, but you already have no clue what you're signing up for. I mean, it's, and these things tend to stop to have a life of our own. And, you know, in 10 years, you know, who knows what this commission or whatever will do and we will have no idea what you guys decided tonight. So I don't know. It's kind of a blank check, you know, not very expensive, but it's still a blank check. In terms of the MOU that was contemplated. I have some serious concerns about the way we organize these type of things where each city gets an equal vote. And if you looked at, you know, and I don't think it's fair to democratically uneven to the cities, but Monte Serrano and Los Altos Hills could team up and outvert mountain view. That's really not a good setup. And I'm also concerned about how much each city or each town because that's what they called can contribute to a technical policy type of things. Because I have no, you know, I'm very certain, very confident, but Mountain View has the talent on the bench to fill these positions. I don't think Los Altos heroes are not necessary, no, as even like a part-time person to Sanverse. So there are really things that you need to think about before creating more of this county level things. I mean, discussing is fine. They are plenty of opportunities to do this, but let's not just create one other commission of repressive without even knowing what it is. Thank you.

[05:48:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, can I, did you have a question for? Oh. Is there anyone else who wanted to provide input on this? Okay, seeing then, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. Council member commit.

[05:48:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks. So, I think for myself, in looking at this, this is the culmination of discussion that's been going on for years and years, I don't see it as not being something that we've openly talked about many times, which is a regional approach. And I feel like this is a step towards actually bringing some structure to the regional approach, that every meeting, it gets brought up, or, um, conference, you know, I think that we're always discussing regional, and this is a more, this is formalizing that process. Post, A bag, and MTC. uh, you know, joining into one entity and that is, that's, that's been an interesting process, but I think that, um, this is striving to, to bring some efficiency to, um, and a stronger, more cohesive voice, um, to our regional housing needs. So that, that's my, that was my takeaway from the staff report and kind of the discussions that I feel like we've had here over the last 9 months. And my colleagues can let me know if, I know that the mayor and vice mayor are both involved in the city's association, and so I could turn to them for more information, but that's, that was my understanding of going forward. Um, I also feel like, um, you know, our city contribution is the same as every other city's contribution, then that makes me feel comfortable in terms of it being equitable. Um, I feel that in other, um, associate or entities, we can be a part of, for example, last week when we talked about VTA, you know, they have more representation on VTA from San Jose, than from North County, at least in the, for what I read, everyone would technically have an equal voice in the subregion. Um, which I think is extremely important. Um, And a lot of these meetings are happening. I know the city manager is all me, the city attorneys all meet, you know, council members meet through different from different cities. And so having everyone being on the same page doing this, I think, is actually important. Um, so I think the only question or comment I have is I know we have to, um, designate someone. Um, and so I just didn't know if the mayor or the vice mayor had any comments on, um, on that, having someone to,

[05:51:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I was going to bring that up once we decide whether or not,

[05:51:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: yeah. I just want to... I was just curious. Thanks.

[05:51:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[05:51:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I appreciate council member committee's comments. I think they're very accurate. This is something that we've been talking about for, at least when I 1st started, and, you know, the challenge has been with the subregion is it's a seven-year cycle, and oftentimes we start talking about it, and then by the time we get to that next cycle or the start of it, most of us turn out and the conversation stops and it start all over again. In this round. I think we had some help from the county and other entities, so it's moved forward to this point. You know, I've been on the committee to come up with this process. MOU, whatnot. And, um, you know, to be completely honest, I have some reservations and doubts. I think when we looked at even the numbers, Mountain View would be, you know, Mountain View is doing its share or more. There's a, you know, possibility that we could end up with even more. And my question is, you know, and we might be okay with that, if we get something for it, right? resources or transportation and whatnot. But that is all undefined. And so there is that concern. But I guess after, you know, discussing this pretty extensively, I did come out feeling that, um, it would be, I think, worthwhile to at least engage in this dialogue, um, through like a round table type of, um, format. Um, you know, yes, there are other venues where we can discuss this, but frankly, they're informal. They're usually, you know, hosted by another organization that might have its own agenda. And this is really the only opportunity for us as, you know, the cities, again, as mentioned, one vote per city, to sit down and try to discuss these issues. And so nothing, you know, may come out of it. honestly, other than a better understanding of what each city's challenges are. And I think that that's worth the dial with $3000 or so to do that. So, um, you know, I think it's worth moving forward with this. I know it's very nebulous and things are changing. Like we were thrown with this, you know, change in the methodology and Friday morning after the staff report went out, then this came in just this afternoon. Um, you know, we could have waited until Thursday after Thursday to vote on it, but, um, you know, it was already on our agenda and we have a full agenda. So I think the interest was to do it tonight. So I would, you know, support us moving forward just to at least try to have an honest dialogue with the other cities.

[05:54:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:54:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I support where the previous council members are going on moving forward. I just want the short answer on why we would be, sort of, might be sort of pushed to do even more, even though we're already doing more. So, um, you know, I participated in the MTCA bag um, meetings on housing legislation, and um, with uh, Mayor Klein from Sunnyvale. And this was a, you know, similar discussion at a larger scale. And as soon as we walked in the door, you know, other smaller cities and counties like Livermore and Tracy just came right up to us and said, it's all of your fault because of all the jobs that you're creating. So you should be the ones to build all the housing. And that is my concern here. And, you know, I look at it differently. I think we should be sharing in this and the people living in Los Altos Hills and Monte Serino. You know, they're benefiting from the economy jobs and economy here. So in my perspective. I think they should share in the responsibility, but that may not be the sentiment that we hear. So that's the challenge, I think. So I am, I guess pretty nervous about going forward this because I do have the concern that Mountain View could end up with a greater allocation. And, um, I can't remember where I read this because I was actually looking for more information on this. As this council, we have not really discussed this in any great detail. We got, um... gosh, it was maybe a year ago. We talked about this. and said we were willing to continue the conversation, but we really didn't have any details. So this is, from my perspective, the 1st time we're really talking about this. And I still feel like I don't have enough details to say I feel comfortable moving forward with this, especially, I think I read somewhere that if two-thirds voted, um, basically you could be overruled. So does that mean if all those small cities get together and say, oh, mountain view, you get more allocation. And we say no. Because I don't see anything here that says we can refuse to do that. But under what circumstances? So where is all that information?

[05:57:15] City Manager Dan Rich: My understanding, and one of the parameters that we would insist on, that we mentioned in the report, is we would only do it if we essentially have veto power. In other words, you could not be forced to change your allocation in a way against your will. We've had this conversation numerous times with Andy and been assured that that is what would be in the MAU. I mean, all that, frankly, is probably moot given this new information. But that is my understanding, and that would be the only condition upon which we would sign the MOU if a subregion went forward. That's one of the parameters and expectations of this city. So, you know, we would not be forced to do something against our will. Switching gears to this potential new version that we're just learning about this morning. Yeah, I think providing the authority to be part of it makes sense because it's so unknown what it is and how it's structured, I would recommend that if it becomes something more than a forum for dialogue, if there's a formal MOU, if there's a JPA or kind of a legally binding structure and a funding commitment beyond the 3125, we would bring that back to you. It's just too amorphous at this point. But I think for tonight, what we're saying is provide the authority to have a dialogue and be part of it as a starting point.

[05:58:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I have concerns about moving forward with even the original proposal for the arena subregion. So, I won't be supporting it.

[05:59:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister, did you have anything you wanted to add?

[05:59:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, yeah, thank you so much. Um I'm concerned. More of, uh, well, I'm not more concerned. I cannot support this. I've always heard all these other cities wanting to do the subregion, and the people that were always pushing it was a small city. I'm afraid that, uh, we're gonna get dumped on, and that, by going down this path, is just gonna be, getting ourselves more into the muck. And I think we need to stay clear of it. I know even though it's the discussion process right now. that we are gonna eventually, someone's gonna cave and say, okay, Mount here, yeah, we can do it. And then what's going to happen, we'll give you some money. But that's only for a short period of time, but the consequences, uh, lingering for decades. So anytime they say, Oh yeah, you guys still, that we have to come up with the infrastructure money, we have to come up with the public safety money, we have to come up with the, the transportation money, so, I just don't see any win for us, going down the subregion, and that we need you to have, our own autonomous decision making, we've done a great job with our housing. We've done a great job of trying to support what we have. But going down a path where other cities can take some of our control and then throw away, you know, a nice dollar amount at us and say, yeah, go for it. Some council could say, oh yeah, let's do it. But the consequences are gonna be lasting for a long time, so, I cannot support any idea of joining a subregion. at this time. Thank you.

[06:01:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I would prefer to see all that information, MOU, and all the details, and then have the vote on, are we joining or not, rather than saying, we're gonna join, and then we can withdraw. even though I don't have the details in writing as to how we do that or if we can really do that, um, before we make that decision.

[06:01:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[06:01:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I mean, that's fine. I mean, nothing more than you provide, I think, input on what the term should be, but my understanding, a really high level of this is in the MOU world. Like, basically, it's saying, you know, we're willing to, you know, explore this path, and the only way that path happens is if everyone agrees that they've found an outcome that is better than their individual allocation. And if that doesn't happen, then no one's bound by anything. So no one nothing will be forced on anyone. in that world, it would only be, wow, if we all get together and figure out some outcome that's better for everyone involved, that's better than their individual allocation that was given to them from high above, than what to explore that. But that was, I think, the point of the MOU. But if it, but or the subregion, but if folks are thinking about not going with the subregion route and we want to allocate you have 3 or $4000 to forming a collaborative group to share resources and other things, like we probably did on other things, like minimum wage, we probably just didn't put some money toward that, and we want access to consultants who, and we can share information, everything like that, and there's nothing that's going to be binding on anyone, then I think that's fine. I think if we do get to this stage of like a formal MOU or money beyond this initial allocation, then I would definitely want to see that, but I don't have any problem with us collaborating with others and, you know, putting a little money into to get access to a share consultant or something like that. I think that would be perfectly fine, especially as fast as things are changing because, you know, I didn't even know, I'm on the ABAG executive board, and no one told me that, that on Friday awake, apparently, apparently they told all the subregions and potential subregions, but they didn't tell the executive board that, um, you know, well, a lot of legislation changed pretty rapidly in the last 10 days. So that's what happened here, but basically the legislation changed, and now all the timelines are shifted. And now, the allocations that ABAG is going to make are going to happen after when all the subregions would have to happen. So it's all it's all a mess right now, but and everyone's trying to figure out what's coming out of Sacramento and adjusting to it. So I think that's probably what happened. So if the way that you want to adjust course is to sort of form a more collaborative group that isn't going to impose anything binding on anyone, then I think that's fine.

[06:04:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor Abi Koga.

[06:04:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, that's exactly what I was going to suggest. And actually, Counselor Clark, you reminded me of another piece of this collaborative, possibly is to, in fact, have some resources to track all of the housing legislation being introduced at the state level. I think there was, you know, a consensus by all cities that none of us have the resources right now individually to be keeping up with all of the changes going on. So, you know, just to have someone to be able to do that, which was, you know, one of our other goals, we'll talk later as a city, but to do it collaboratively and maybe share the resources in doing that, I think is worthwhile. So, um, I would recommend that we change the motion and, um, I don't know if we need to adopt a resolution for the planning collaborative or could we just a lot that the, the dollar amount to go towards the planning collaborative. Do we need to actually adopt the resolution? Because I don't think at this point the arena, subregion's going to happen.

[06:05:23] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I think, you know, in the old paradigm, they wanted a formal resolution to join, if we're pretty sure that's not going to happen, or we could bring it back on consent, you know, but obviously there's some disagreements on whether or not that's even a good idea to do. So I don't know that you need to do the that. You could just direct staff and the mayor or the mayor's designee to participate in this effort.

[06:05:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, should I make the motion to authorize the city manager to provide initial funding of $3,125 for the regional housing planning collaborative, as outlined in this, well, it's not at the staff report anymore, but as outlined. And, um, I guess, well, why don't we just start with that one and then we have to designate someone so we can talk about that?

[06:06:27] Unknown Speaker: on the commotion. So I have a question. Um, I felt like the email from Chappy was pretty brief. Um, is it the executive board that is gonna talk about this?

[06:06:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, it'll be at the board meeting on Thursday.

[06:06:48] Unknown Speaker: I feel like I would feel more comfortable at least having a conversation and defining it more before we allocate resources to it. And I don't know that we need emotion to say we're going to participate in a discussion because it's a discussion that's happening at the Cities Association meeting.

[06:07:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, we're, you know, I'm, I, I originally suggested we pull this item and table it, um, but, you know, I was told not to do that. So that's why we're here now. quite a bit. Yeah, so, you know, if you want to just pull it or table it. I'm more than happy. I'm fine to do that. I think the issue is more that where are we going to put this in the on our calendar in the future, but if you can find space to do that, then let's go ahead and just table the item. And that's my most.

[06:07:39] City Manager Dan Rich: I think that's fine. I would just suggest assuming something comes back with some form that's more or less in line with this, we would probably bring it back on consent and it could be pulled, if it's more elaborate and intricate, then we would have to find a slot for it. So do you want us to move forward, then? Is that your...

[06:08:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I would just pull it. Okay. Yeah. Continue the show. So then I would, do I need to motion, make a motion to table?

[06:08:08] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I don't know. You can actually just take no action.

[06:08:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And not make a motion.

[06:08:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, so... Okay, so is there any other discussion on this? Okay, no action taken. Um So we will close this item, and... The next would be, um, if there is a closed session report. So does the city attorney have a close section?

[06:08:37] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no close session report for the 1st component of the closed session tonight, and there's none anticipated for the continuation of that closed session.

[06:08:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will take a very brief recess before we start the close session again. And then we will reconvene. After that closed session, I'm sorry, we will adjourn after the next closed session to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 17th, 2019 at 5 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street. And so the regular meeting is adjourned.

• ← Previous
• Next →