October 15, 2019 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: And we will start with the pledge of allegiance, if you'll join me. of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which is sense, one nation, underground, indivisible, with liberty. Thank you. And we will start with roll call.

[00:00:01] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Ave Koga and Council member Hicks are absent. All other council members are present.

[00:00:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next up is the consent calendar, which is item four. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council member McAllister?

[00:00:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, I'd like to...

[00:00:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Turn your microphone.

[00:00:37] Councilmember John McAlister: She's not. Four point. What is that? 4.3? Okay, thank you. 23.

[00:00:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do any other council members wish to pull an item? Okay, did you have a comment?

[00:00:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, this is the one where the barriers are to protect, uh, personal property, and I just, uh, we have one of the, uh, people that are gonna be directly affected by this one at Dana in Moore Park, and they wanted to say a few things, but I just want to make sure that when we go and put in these barriers, we try to be as neutral as possible, so that there's any vegetation, that goes in there, that the barrier doesn't take out the vegetation, because their houses are right on a very busy street, and it's pretty noisy, and there's a lot of dust, and so forth. So any kind of vegetation that will protect the neighbors or their property would be considered. And ask them if they want, say anything.

[00:01:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What? This is a council. So, uh, yeah, is that all you had?

[00:01:47] Councilmember John McAlister: That's it.

[00:01:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, are there any members of the audience who wish to make comments on any of the items on the consent calendar? And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. Okay Leave it with our city clerk, that'd be great.

[00:02:00] Public Speaker: I own the house that is at that intersection of Dana and Moore Park. Our back, and it's a sound wall fence. Every panel's been hit and broken, and we've had one replaced, they cost $16,000 a piece to replace. And it's been going on since, oh, the early '80s, I guess, is when it kind of started. We tried to deal with them at that point, but now it's, and you guys have put those orange barriers up after we saw them over by the hospital and we requested to do that. So you know, you're trying to help the situation along. Um, I talked to your engineer people, the traffic people about the the, uh, guardrail aspect of things. I don't know if that's really the perfect thing, but it's better than those plastic barriers, I think. But I'm concerned about the foliage. So I'd like on the record that the foliage does stay, like what John mentioned. And, you know, I can answer any other questions about it or whatever. You know, used to be no traffic and nobody out there, you know, as you well know, you know. Things have changed, haven't they? Things have changed, you know? So, uh, but it is, it is, we'd like to keep the bushes up, 'cause it does get dirty in the backyard and that kind of thing.

[00:03:12] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So can staff just clarify? Um, I think the guardwheels are very close to the road is, uh, somebody from public works here.

[00:03:24] Unknown Speaker: There's a sidewalk, and then...

[00:03:26] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. If if Jacqueline, if you wanted to describe where those are, they'd be great.

[00:03:34] City Engineer Jacqueline Solomon: Hi, I'm Jacqueline Solomon, the city engineer. We did meet with a resident. Oh, I didn't. But my folks from Public Works did. And, yeah, we were actually planning to, at first we were gonna have the, um, the guardrail, um, back, but we actually were able to work out where we moved it closer to the curb, so we should be able to keep the, um, bushes that are there.

[00:03:55] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And is the one on Grant Road also closer to the curb?

[00:04:00] City Engineer Jacqueline Solomon: That one. I think it's actually... Oh, it is. It is closer to the curbble. So yeah.

[00:04:06] Unknown Speaker: Because I think last time we talked about this, we said we preferred that because then the pedestrians are also protected. Right.

[00:04:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Is there any...? Oh yeah.

[00:04:20] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, here to comment on item 4.1. The minutes of the October 1st meeting. This is a Sharpie. It has become the symbol of people rewriting recent history. to cover up their mistakes. And that's what's essentially happened when the council modified the minutes of the September 24th meeting at your last meeting. And basically, you know, when I was on council, we always considered the video, the recording of the meeting, sort of the, that's what happened. But somehow, uh, at the last meeting, you decided that you, The majority decided that you passed something that you didn't intend to pass. So you're going to use the minutes to clarify that. To me, that's highly irregular. The process is a reconsideration motion to bring it up on the 2nd reading. I understand that the majority voted for something they didn't intend to vote on. But it's highly irregular and improper to use the minutes to change the motion that was introduced and voted 4 to 3 for the band with the center line exemption on September 24th. So I suggest that today, you do what you did last time, and use the minutes as a way to modify what happened in the past, and then, on October 22nd, when the matter comes before you for second reading, you make the modification that you want, and then at a subsequent meeting, you actually enact the ordinance that you want, so the voters can referend what we really know is happening. There's a real problem with the ban or the prohibition on oversized vehicle parking. And that is, you don't even know what you're doing. You don't know what streets are covered. You don't know where people will go, once you ban them. And this center line exemption, and your confusion about it, that is simply a symbol of the fact that the council is in such a hurry to drive our motorhome residents out of town that they're willing to do things in an irregular way. So I ask you to vote at your next meeting on what you actually passed on September 24th. If you do that, bring it up for a 3rd reading, and then we'll take it to the voters because we've got dozens, maybe 100s of people willing to go out and collect signatures on a referendum petition to protect our neighbors who happen to be living in vehicles. Thank you.

[00:06:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:06:50] Public Speaker: I also wanted to add one comment to the minutes clarifying the minutes, I guess, and admitting that wasn't the only item that had to be clarified. There was another item that came back, that was to clarify, you know, some land or transportation, you know, um, you know, I guess ordinances related to a project in North Bayshore. That of a project, however, was properly notified. There was a staff report, and it did provide the opportunity for the developers to come and mark their case to be heard. you know, about this and it was notification to the public. In contrast, you made some changes to, you know, an ordinance, essentially related to Mountain View residents affecting Mountain View residents, who happen to live in vehicles. And these residents didn't get a chance to be notified. They didn't get to chance to make their case to you. And I think it's just wrong in terms of process. Thank you.

[00:07:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Alex Brown?

[00:08:03] Alex Brown: Related this. Just, it would be, I know that you're short staffed up here. a lot of the time, but it would be nice if the motion on the table were presented on screen to make it easier for everyone to understand what is being discussed and what amendments would look like. you know, so that everyone can be on the same page. Thanks.

[00:08:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any other comments on items on the consent calendar? Okay, we'll close. public input portion of this. Council member McAllister.

[00:08:40] Councilmember John McAlister: I make a motion that we accept you. Consent kennel.

[00:08:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: you have to read.

[00:08:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I got to read something. Okay. Okay. These items will be appear, oh, that's your line. Oh, on 4.2. Adopt a resolution improving the final map of track number 10494315 to 319 Sarah Vista Avenue, accepting dedication and making findings as required by city code to be read entitled only further reading waived.

[00:09:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have a motion by Council member, McAllister, and a 2nd by council member, Ramirez.

[00:09:23] Unknown Speaker: Can I just make a statement?

[00:09:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sure.

[00:09:25] Unknown Speaker: I just wanted to say before I vote, I appreciate the public comments. I think we took the vote on the minutes at the last meeting, and although I voted against them, The council made a decision to proceed, and so I don't think I'll be supporting the motion because I don't believe it's, I believe that it now reflects the record of what a majority of the council wished and voted on at the last meeting. So that's why I'm that's why I'm not voting against this. I feel it's with the council made a decision. I may not have agreed with it, but we have to we need to move forward and proceed with what a majority of the council wishes.

[00:10:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that passes 502 with Vice Mayor Upicoca and council member Hicks, absent. Okay, next is Oro Communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section, and state law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. So is there anyone who would like to address the council on items that are not on the agenda tonight? And if you could also remember to fill out a blue card for anyone before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk, that'd be great. Thank you

[00:10:56] Public Speaker: Uh, there's, I just wanted to say that uh, the San Antonio Caltrain stop on the southbound side of the tracks, the underpass where there's usually a mirror that lets you see around the corner. It's not there. I don't know if that's a city issue or a Caltrain issue, but I figure that you guys would know the proper channels to go. wanted to let you guys know about that. And also I was here, I think, 2 weeks ago. I asked for the council to institute a study about the cost for providing tampons in all public bathrooms in the city. I want to reiterate my request for that. And then also make a comment that just after I spoke, it seemed like there was an entire neighborhood that was pleading for help to be able to stay in their homes and I feel like I've been reading things in online in the newspaper for years about people being forced out of their homes, affordable housing, being knocked down to build luxury apartments. It seems like there's not much help coming from the council on people who are renting and trying to just live and get by and survive. And then related to that, the ban on RVs seems kind of, I'd say shameful to not help people stay in their homes. And then when they are gone, if they're still trying to stay in the city that they live in, that they call home, to kick them out seems pretty shameful. Thank you.

[00:12:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is the mirror us or do we need to notify Caltrain, do you know?

[00:12:32] Unknown Speaker: We'll have to look into it.

[00:12:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If the speaker can leave an email or phone number just in case we have questions about that. That'd be great.

[00:12:39] Unknown Speaker: If it's in the yeah, I'm not sure who controls the tunnel, but we'll certainly look into it. Thanks.

[00:12:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And also, just to note, we do have a study session on displacement coming up very shortly. I can't remember the date, but it's coming up soon. Okay, so moving on to item 7.one Yes, sir. before we start, our city attorney, Mr. Chopra.

[00:13:08] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have a brief announcement that Vice Mayor Ave Koga and Council member Hicks will be recusing themselves from this item due to real property ownership in close proximity to the project area.

[00:13:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So since this is a study session, we will start with the staff presentation, and then we will open it up for public comment, and then we will bring it back to the council for any questions, and then direction to staff. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[00:13:40] Business Development Specialist Tiffany Chu: Good evening, city council, Tiffany Chu Business Development Specialist, and with me, Wayne Chen, Assistant Community Development Director. The purpose of tonight's item is to discuss and receive council input on the potential downtown strategy. First, staff will provide context about the downtown vision, past council items. The downtown parking district, and current downtown parking conditions. Downtown Mountain View is a thriving commercial district with a diverse mix of uses and surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The downtown is supported by a civic center, public parking system, and public transportation. The downtown precise plan guides the vision by creating a pedestrian created environment, maintaining the character of the downtown, encouraging development in specific locations, including office, facilitating ground floor uses along Castro Street, and incorporating transition areas into the residential neighborhoods. For this reason, the plan also identifies parking objectives to address parking demands in a manner that achieves the vision of downtown. Over the past couple of years, the city has taken various steps to facilitate the growing popularity of downtown, and the demand for more public parking through individual and separate strategies. Beginning in a fall of 2016, city council discussed short and long term options to manage parking demand. As a reminder, council directed implementation of valet parking and ridesharing pilot programs, and a paid parking study, but not to add supplies through a 3rd parking structure at that time. The city launched the valet program at a lot 11 and hired Dixon resources to complete the downtown paid parking study. In March of this year, city council discussed a paid parking study and generally supported paid parking. But when, but discussed how paid parking should be strategically implemented. Council also provided input on broader downtown parking goals and issues, including parking technology, spillover, increasing parking efficiency, transportation demand management, and supporting the downtown businesses. Following the March Study Session, staff initiated work with Dixon 2 develop a comprehensive and integrated parking strategy. In addition, some additional context for council to consider is Hope Street Development Project will add 75 new parking spaces and 160 parking spaces through a shared parking agreement. Lot with Lot 12, council reaffirmed replacing the 160 parking spaces, but was open to where and how these parking spaces are replaced. Transit center master plan includes parking as a component of the plan, and the downtown precise plan is where council directed staff to make modifications, but not parking. To support the downtown vision, the city administers the downtown parking assessment district. The district is responsible for managing and operating 11 public parking facilities and creating new parking. The district funds, programs to manage parking demand and supply. The parking permit program is available to property owners and businesses within the parking district boundaries. The valet park pilot program increases the parking capacity at lot 11. There is parking technology at the 2 public parking structures, which indicates when the facility has available parking or is full. Parking occupancy data is collected track, parking demand, and last, downtown parking in lieu fees, pool funding from development projects to create larger and more efficient parking facilities to support properties in the historic core. There are also 2 non-parking district programs that support downtown parking demand. Time parking restrictions, and residential parking permit program. For a reference shown before you is a map of the parking district. The parking district boundary is in the doubted line, and the purple lots is where permit holders can park and blue is where permit holders cannot park. is important to note that any visitor coming into the downtown can park in any of these parking lots under the timed parking restrictions. As mentioned, the city collects parking occupancy data within the public parking facilities twice a year. The most recent data collection occurred in April 2019. On the chart before you is the average occupancy by time of day in the 11 public parking facilities. The dotted line is the industry standard of 85% desired capacity, where there is enough available parking without creating an over supply of parking. The data demonstrates the following conclusions. Downtown continues to have available supply most of the time. Brief demand peaks, which exceeds the 85% capacity occurs during the weekday, lunch, and dinner hours and weekend dinner hour. Weekday demand is also impacted by downtown parking permit holders. Currently, there are more parking permit holders than available parking permit spaces. They tend to park in parking structure number one, lots, 6 and 7. Permit holders may also park in parking structure number 3 and lot 9. While most of this, while it's also important to note that this is the most recent data collection, these conclusions are consistent with past data collection efforts. Based on the downtown vision, council input, and current downtown conditions, staff developed for parking goals. Number one, increasing parking efficiency can manage parking demand and supply through modifications of existing parking programs, to parking technology can also facilitate parking efficiency. Three, facilitating alternative modes of transportation demand management can shift parking demand. Last, increasing parking supply can ensure parking demand is at the 85% desired capacity. These goals are meant to work together for a comprehensive and integrated approach as opposed to individual programs as previously implemented. The strategy is outlined with a direct and achievable programs under each of the 4 goals. Staff considered phasing for the programs under 3 options. The 1st one is immediate and ongoing items that are currently in progress or will begin this fiscal year. staff view these as high impact programs. The 2nd phase, which will begin in one to 2 years, and phase 2 in 2 to 5 years, which are longer term items that need more evaluation. Additional staff considerations with this phasing is some items go together. There was strategic implementation and resource considerations of how each program could fit together. And staff looked at how these phases can have direct input impact. The 1st goal is a key component of the strategy. Staff believes these program modifications could greatly increase parking efficiency and facilitate meeting much, if not most, of the current parking demand. The 2nd goal is implementing parking technology to support efficiency. While most of these programs fall under phase two. Please note parking apps is under parking efficiency as phase one to implemented additional information, parking information to the public. Paid parking also falls under this goal with the beginning process of identifying parking technology needs. The 3rd goal is supporting transportation demand management. The city can consider broader programs to shift parking demand through transportation demand management that shifts travel from autooriented to alternative modes of transportation. These programs can also support sustainability efforts. And last, there are policies to increase public parking supply that could be considered to ensure parking demand is at the 85% desired capacity. While the downtown is under the 85% capacity, most of the time, efficiency can efficiencies can meet these parking, the peak parking demands. However, the city can create supply without creating new spaces through shared parking. It demands significantly increases in the future, the city can consider new public parking, and the city can begin to plan for future demand now through these programs. Tonight, staff recommend city council provide feedback and direction on the following. Does city council support the 4 goals for the downtown parking strategy, to does city council agree with the programs and phasing of the proposed strategy? Following feedback at this study session, staff will continue to work on ongoing projects and present the draft strategy to the downtown committee, Central Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Businesses. Staff will finalize a comprehensive integrated downtown parking strategy for council consideration by the end of 1st quarter 2020 with resources, timing, and funding estimates. This concludes staff presentation. Thank you.

[00:23:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So before we discuss this, We will open this up to the public comment because I said this is a study session, and so if there's anyone who wishes to address the council on the downtown parking strategy. Now's the time. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks wanna... Okay, each speaker will have three minutes, and be sure to fill out a blue card or perform after you speak and leave it with our city clerk. But come on up to the microphone. Thank you.

[00:24:14] Chris Petty: My name is Chris Petty, and I've lived with my wife, and my kids at 660 Sierra Avenue for 25 years, and I understand the, the idea of managing parking in the parking resources in downtown, and trying to do it in an environmentally sustainable way, I drive an EV myself. I charge it with a solar installation, and I co-founded a PVs affordable take startup a few years ago. So I appreciate I applaud the city's efforts to uphold these principles. So our house is between Hope and View streets, and it's just a block and a half one. 5 blocks from the corner of Castro on Church Street. So on our block, on a typical workday, we see our street, which is a pretty narrow street. It's parked full on both sides from about 9 to 5.30. for the entire work day. And this is really a relatively recent phenomenon. It coincides with the completion of the commercial developments on the 2 corners of Church in Castro. So we can see that the, at least on a casual observation that the people parking on a street are office workers because they have ID badges. And in the evening, some of them are carrying meals that they get from their employers. And some of our neighbors have also seen that they are parking here and taking private shuttle buses to other places because they've asked them. And I can see why the planned parking in these developments may be limited, but others have observed that some of the garages at these office sites are not full during the workday. So the limited onsite parking is not the major reason for the parking spillover into the neighborhood. Now, the full parking on our narrow street is difficult. Many the driveways, like ours, for example, are narrow. So the sight line, the sight lines and the turning distances are limited when you have cars on both sides of the street, parked full. And there's really not enough room for 2 cars to pass each other in opposite directions. And access for emergency vehicles is really impossible when during the day when the street is full. And we have several seniors on our street. So it's a big problem for them. And we've thought about the permit process, but it seems like it'll take at least one person a full-time job to navigate it. And the permit cost of $120 a year is going to make it difficult for all of us to get all of our neighbors to buy into this. So we're still looking into this. But in the meantime, I hope that the city can help us out by communicating with the commercial businesses on Castro Street about the situation or by possibly streamlining and reducing the cost of the permit process or any other ideas that you have. I'm sympathetic to the employees who park there, because I've been, it's my 4 in my 4th startup now in the last 3 years and some of them have been in downtowns in the South Bay, so I've had to park there myself. And I understand the challenges of planning for a thriving business in a commercial district that's just yards from the residential area. So I'm optimistic that something can be worked out that benefits us all. Thanks.

[00:27:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:27:20] Robert Cox: Oh, Honorable Mayor Matachek and members of the city council. My name is Robert Cox. I'm here to speak on behalf of the old Mountain View Neighborhood Association. Parking subcommittee. We sent a letter on the topic to you yesterday, and would like to take this time to just highlight a few of the main points. We generally support the main direction of the staff report. In particular. We support an inloo parking fee that equals the true cost of building each parking space. We would like to comment on one key issue that the previous gentleman mentioned, and that's the parking of office employees on residential streets. Many downtown residents have come to us recently and asked why office employees of tech firms, who have buildings with dedicated private parking spaces, are parking their cars on the residential streets. We encourage the city council to direct staff to explore ways, to encourage or mandate, the employees use their own parking spaces. I mean, at the very least, council could write a letter to these companies, explaining the situation, the frustration of the residents, and asking them to be good neighbors, and to park in their parking spaces. It could also be done as a part of a compliance checkpoint. in a downtown TDM plan, and we've heard about this being done in East Palo Alto. Best practices in other municipalities too, could be studied and were appropriate adopted. Having said this, we understand that the residential permit, parking, may be the best and only effective means of motivating a change in downtown commuter parking practices. Therefore, we recommend that when the residential parking permit program comes up for review, the process of obtaining a parking permit, zone is made simpler and less expensive for the residents. Both Sunnyvale and Palo Alto have established RPP zones in areas impacted in residential areas with annual prices running from free to $50 for the 1st residential permit. Our residents would like to know why Mountain View can't also do the same. Residents are also wondering about private shuttle stops that have been established in their vicinity. We ask that the process of establishing these stops be transparent and open to the public, and consideration given to their impact on local residential parking. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.

[00:29:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:29:44] James Kuzman: Good evening. My name is James Kuzman. I just wanted to express some concern about the overall vision of both this parking process and the downtown precise plan in general, just because it seems like to a large extent, we don't really have. It's not so much that we have a parking problem in the downtown, so we have a transportation and land use problem in the downtown end throughout Mountain View. And that fundamentally, If we're focused just on making it easier for people to continue using cars at the same rate they currently are using cars to get to downtown and making that slightly easier, that won't really solve many of our long-term problems. Because fundamentally, if we want to downtown that can thrive, that can actually use the land that is in downtown for people and businesses, rather than using that as a bunch of pavement that we dedicate towards car storage, then we can't continue to just focus just focus on making parking marginally more efficient. We also want to focus on improving public transit access, doing things like, say, running the community shuttles in the evenings to and from Castro Street, rather than just during the days, doing things like trying to encourage the VTA, if not pay the VTA, to run the 35 and 81 buses more frequently in the evenings and on the weekends. I mean, there's some limitations to what Mountain View alone can do, but it just seems like there's a lot we could be doing in the long term that brings us towards a downtown and Mountain View as a whole that is much better for living in and being in than just a place where there's a bunch of cars everywhere. I mean, I would personally love to see a mountain view where we could have Caster Street close to vehicle traffic and have that be a pedestrian space, have that be restaurant seat, have that be placed for street vendors and entertainment, rather than a large area where a bunch of people idle their cars constantly. And so, I guess what I sort of wanted to see the, what if I wanted to could ask for one thing that could happen sort of, earlier and now, it would be to focus on doing things like saying, all right, if a parking spot costs $50,000 apiece and is corresponds to probably 10 to $20,000 a year and lost rent and maintenance, et cetera, why can't we spend some fraction of the amount of money that we're using to subsidize car parking on running the community shuttles? Can we experiment with, say, closing down Castro Street every other weekend for a few months just to see how that goes? I mean, we do it periodically for festivals and parades anyways. Why not see how that goes? And so, Just like to see a mountain view that people can use, people can get around in without needing to hop in a £3000 vehicle, go through risking life and injury for everyone, including the air and incurring a whole bunch of expense and unnecessary land use. So thank you.

[00:32:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:32:39] Public Speaker: Good evening, Sergeant, Mountain View residents. So, I had one suggestion and one comment I wanted to make. So, the 1st suggestion is to building on the valet service program for cars is to institute one for bikes. You know, people could come and bike and drop their bike and it's, you know, and pay magical about their business. So it would be, I think, a good and cheap way to kind of avoid driving. I know that I never bike downtown, you know, for fear of my bike being stolen. And I think it's been used in some festivals. You have sometimes a bike car where you drop your bike, get a ticket and get it back. that works along the same lines as a car value service and it would be pretty cheap and could make a pretty big impact, I think. My command has to do with a console. I have a bad, you know, access to parking downtown because downtown is not just for people who work here, not for people who live near downtown, it's pretty much for all of Mountain View. This is, you know, where you have to go to go speak here. You know, this is where you have to go to go to the library, to see your performance, to see many street events that occurs there. So it's really something downtown is for all of Mountain View. And in a lot of ways, we all pay for this. So I'm a bit leery about, you know, some proposals to maybe institute it's a pay parking or restrict parking on resident streets, 2 people who live here, you know, because that seems to be a bit unfair to the rest of Mountain View who need and want to go to downtown and pay for this just like anybody who lives here. Thank you.

[00:34:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:34:40] Cliff Chambers: Hi, Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View. I generally support the overall goals of the parking strategy, but I think some of the key implementation features need a little bit more attention. And I actually quite agree with the gentleman spoke to people before me in terms of the overall vision, in terms of the parking strategy. What I don't see in the staff report is any discussion at all of the environmental sustainability, task force recommendation, which essentially recommended that implement modest fees for parking in downtown public lots and parking structures, and use the funds to underwrite investments in bicycle and EV charging infrastructure, transit, and a transportation demand management. program. And I think there's a real missed opportunity for not doing that for some of the things that I know you have the goal for improved bicycling, a robust TDM program, and trying to reduce the solo drivers that we have coming to downtown. And these kind of, you know, parking policies can generate quite a bit of money with oftentimes very little impact. The 2nd point that I'd really like to make is that, You know, I actually, before I moved to Mountain View, I lived in, in, uh, I lived in Grass Valley, California, for 5 years, and just in down the road in Nevada City, There's meter parking there. There's paid parking and lots, and people really didn't mind paying because it was a significant revenue source. So I think if Nevada City can have paid parking, we can have at least seriously considered more paid parking in Mountain View. And finally, I think, you know, the whole climate change issue, there's a relationship in terms of parking, our driving habits, and really parking policy. According to the transportation research board, which is an arm of the National Academy. A science is really points to the fact that parking policy, both supply and pricing, is when a major has a major impact on people's behavior. If they have sufficient alternatives to use, and your miss opportunity is not using at least some of the parking funds to support alternative transportation modes, thank you.

[00:37:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:37:21] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, resident of Old Mountain View. In general, I support the council's goals, with a couple of exceptions, the staff recommendations on the recommendations of my neighborhood parking committee. One of the things I suggested to you, having listened to the gentleman from Sierra Avenue, I actually used a photo of that street when I talked about narrow streets a few weeks ago. That's a narrow street problem. There was a narrow street problem on my street, but somehow it seized up, maybe some of our efficiency mechanisms are working today. I bicycled home at noontime down Laredo Street, and there were no cars parked between Bush and Anza on the south side of Laredo. Usually in the past, it was parked out. So maybe we're making some difference. But maybe we need a survey of the neighboring streets to downtown to see which ones are impacted and which aren't. I do support significantly reducing the fees on the residential permit parking, whether you think it's fair or not, people aren't going to vote for it as long as it's as high as it is. One of the things I saw in the staff report was the fact that parking structure 3 is underutilized. Somehow, I think we can use our fees for permits, tiered system, or even restrictions, moving the permits around so that some of the surface lots, they're parked out all day, will have vacancies, and the people with permits will park in parking structure number three. We have that asset. Let's use it efficiently. Um, Number of other things we can do, transportation, demand management, have doing what's being done in Palo Alto, offering subsidies, to restaurant workers, who would, um, for them to take transit. The restaurants can't pay for it, but some of the city or some of the other employers can. Parking restrictions in the evening, 2 or 3 hours. We do that during the day. Why don't we do it at night? There are a whole lot of efficiency things that we can do to help solve our parking problem. There are two things I'm against, though. One is paid parking for short term parking. This is where I differ with some of my friends, in the absence of good transit for people to come 2 or 3 miles to downtown. All that's going to do is drive business away from downtown. Maybe at some point, it makes sense. But just as a revenue measure. I don't think that's a good enough argument for paid parking for short-term visitors to downtown. And the last thing, something that came up during the Lot 12 discussion was building new parking structures above ground. I think that's the wrong idea. We don't want to devote more land to parking. Some of those parking lots can eventually be redeveloped, perhaps with affordable housing. Basically, there's an opportunity cost to make parking structure is more expensive, as well as aesthetically displeasing, and basically, we tie our hands to what we can do in the downtown. So please don't go to a new parking new parking structures. Yeah, new parking as part of developments, that's fine, but a new parking garage above ground, I'm against it. Thank you.

[00:40:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you go, we have a question for you. Council member, McAllister.

[00:40:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you mentioned the residential fees are too high.

[00:40:31] Lenny Siegel: Yeah.

[00:40:31] Councilmember John McAlister: But other people... So what's considered high, what's considered reasonable and what's considered low?

[00:40:37] Lenny Siegel: Well, it depends upon where you live. On my part of Loretto, people wouldn't want to pay anything, because we don't have a problem as you get closer to Bush. It's got to be, you know, $25 or less, 'cause people haven't been... at all in the past. Or a year. Per year. $25 or less.

[00:40:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Have you sort of thrown some numbers out to people, just sort of get an idea?

[00:40:57] Lenny Siegel: No.

[00:40:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. What are we currently charging? Staff? Or do you know?

[00:41:04] City Staff: We'll take a moment to look that up.

[00:41:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, Lenny, do you recall?

[00:41:08] Lenny Siegel: I thought it was at least 80 bucks when we enacted it.

[00:41:15] City Staff: There is no charge because there's no residential parking permits that's been set up yet by the neighborhood. I believe the fee was in the '60s, it was based on a full cost recovery. But we are coming back to council on November 5th to discuss the residential parking permit program.

[00:41:31] Lenny Siegel: So basically, no matter what you think is fair, people aren't going to vote for something that much, 'cause they aren't struggling that much. It's just that, you know, there's danger driving down the streets, their friends can't find a place to park, but people have parking in their driveways. Thank you.

[00:41:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:41:52] Public Speaker: Are you guys good at this point? I also want more bike parking downtown. I like to bike down there on Stevens Creek Trail, and it'd be nice to have a safe place to park my bike. I accept that it's going to get stolen at some point, but the later that happens, the better. Thanks.

[00:42:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on the downtown parking strategy? Okay, we'll close public input and bring it back to council for questions, and then we'll move into responding to the questions staff had for us. So are there any clarifying questions of staff? Council member Ramirez?

[00:42:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just one, one quick question. So, um, this parking strategy does not, um, look at bike parking, right? That would be evaluated in some other context. Is that is that true?

[00:42:57] City Staff: Bike parking could be considered as part of TDM measures, so I believe public works is actually looking at additional bike parking, but it would fall under goal number three.

[00:43:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so it would be incorporated into this broader strategy, but it's not explicitly laid out as a program, but that we could consider that as we further flesh this out.

[00:43:21] City Staff: Correct.

[00:43:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[00:43:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[00:43:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: Do we have a rough sense of the number of spaces we might have access to in the Kaiser a lot, just out of curiosity, or do we not know that yet?

[00:43:36] City Staff: I do know the Kaiser parking structure has approximately 300 parking spaces, so we are in conversations with Kaiser to utilize one floor for the start of a pilot program, pilot program. So it'd be about parking spaces at first.

[00:43:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Roughly a third. And those would just be evenings, weekends.

[00:43:56] City Staff: Correct.

[00:43:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, thanks.

[00:43:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:44:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a... I sent in a question about technology. And let's go to the page that you had that on. And you had it under phase two, and you were gonna, why, if we have something that we can have software, something that we can actually control ourselves immediately, that we would move it down, you know, down the road instead of immediately addressing it. And I've talked about the wavefinders, the technology into public parking lots. So as people come into town, they can find the spots and availability. So why was that considered phase two? And just the app is phase one? Why don't you comprehensive do it and get it done?

[00:44:55] City Staff: Staff was looking at existing parking programs 1st and part of the parking management software ties actually into the parking parking permit programs. So, um, staff is interested in increasing the efficiencies of the program 1st and then moving into a parking management software in your common regarding apps. The apps was placed in phase one because it's under the intention of providing information to the public through the city website and parking apps. So, in a way, parking technology is also parking efficiency, and that's why they blend a little bit. But if council is interested in shifting some of these phases around, we can incorporate that into the strategy when we bring you back to council.

[00:45:51] City Staff: Part of this too, and then that was a great framing, is there are various items also in phase one, so we were also looking at staff resources to be able to work on various items. We do see an incremental approach to technology where perhaps paid parking is the end result, and that's the full buildout of infrastructure, but along the way, we may need to incrementally get our way there with enhanced waybinding, maybe installation of parking management software, and then getting to paid parking, and then there is a component of evaluating the feasibility of paid parking as well. So, the intention behind park technology, as Tiffany said, was to support complementary programs throughout the phases, and then rolling out technology in a sequential way.

[00:46:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, but if you have the technology, so if we put sensors on all of our parking lots and people come into town and they can look on an app and say, here's the parking, that's regardless if it's paid parking or not, wouldn't that help be in a more efficient, something that we actually have control over now, instead of saying, well, we're gonna phase it in later. I mean, I don't see how it's tied to paid parking if we can manage our existing parking with wayfinder so people as they drive in, make it much more efficient. So lot 3 would always be much more efficient and people wouldn't be driving around. So, I'm not following your logic of why we couldn't do it sooner.

[00:47:18] City Staff: So apps, for example, could be part of the wayfinding, there could be opportunities perhaps to work on wavefinding a little bit sooner than installing sensors or meters, for example, for paid parking. So there can be some considerations there. But installing the infrastructure is different than turning on a paid parking program and actually having patrons pay for parking that could require a further evaluation to see whether there's a demand for that. So that it doesn't impact businesses, for example. And also figuring out what that pricing strategy could be. So that would be layered on top of infrastructure, and that could take a little bit longer.

[00:47:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, you kept saying paid parking. I'm saying you can do this. I don't understand why you can't do. You can do it without paid parking. You can put this information in for wavefinding or sensors and what's available. And you kept going back to paid parking. So why do you keep going back to paid parking? I still can't see why you just can't do it without worrying about paid parking.

[00:48:21] City Staff: So maybe a helpful way is under parking technology, we are including apps, wayfinding, and system to get to paid parking. So those are separate things. We think that apps, for example, is part of your concept of having something on a phone or having information that shows where parking spaces are. Those types of things can be done earlier, and that is in an earlier phase.

[00:48:46] Councilmember John McAlister: That's what I'm like. Okay. Also, I ask the question about the true cost of parking. And what you have in here, the parking is $52,000, and I constantly hear about underground parking of $60,000, up to $70,000. So, Is this a standard, or is this something actually that we can tie into construction in Mountain View today?

[00:49:15] City Staff: So the 52,000 is not an accurate number. Staff is currently looking at the cost of of cost per parking space for a parking structure. We do know it is upwards in the starting at the 75 upwards to over 100,000, depending if it's above grade or below grade.

[00:49:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's why why aren't we charging the true cost of parking, then? Is that a policy decision that we were going to review?

[00:49:46] City Staff: Uh, yes. So under goal number four, as part of phase one, it's to review the downtown parking district and update the parking and loop fees by the end of this fiscal year.

[00:49:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And so I was Dennis Drennan here? I don't know if he's still here, but so we were talking about, I was asking about, but we had a lot of small developers. that small wannabe developers in downtown Mountain View. Marwood is one that has a unique property, some other, the Smith Brothers have a piece of property, that they Their property's too small to really dig into, so they're, you know, built underneath, but they want to do in lieu fees. And we haven't had an opportunity to do a true survey of all these other potential small developers that if we got a sense of what they want to do, we could prefund a parking structure, and so as development comes along, we would charge those people, the inluth fees, and therefore it adds some certainty to the development of the city, and it also gives us parking structures available. Have we thought anything about that way of trying to be proactive in getting a parking structure by prefunding it and then collecting the fees as they come along?

[00:51:15] City Staff: The strategy that the city has historically taken is through the parking district, through the NLU fee program, if that is a type of program that the council wishes for staff to validate, we could evaluate it.

[00:51:32] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Just adding a little bit more, our teacher vastivas and city manager and community development director. I think that's part of what we wanted to come to you with. The parking assessment district was established with the intent of having in Luffy's fund structures, and we want to reconfirm that that's what the council wants to do and create shareable parking in the district in terms of supply. Future supply, what you're bringing up, um, council member McAllister, something slightly different, which is prefunding. I don't think we're prepared to answer that question, but we could certainly take it back and come back and see what we can do. Because I think we'll need a little time to figure out if we can prefund how much funding is there, what options we have, and how much development potential exists in the downtown area to fund it.

[00:52:24] Unknown Speaker: Well, isn't paying in Park Loopy is one of the hardest thing for developers to find their parking in downtown potential for downtown parking right now?

[00:52:34] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Did you mean, um, sorry, I didn't know.

[00:52:37] Councilmember John McAlister: If somebody somebody wants to develop a small property and they say, well, we'll pay parking in Luffy's. Right. We don't have any place to really park them. You know, so, I mean, does that say, well, then that development can't go forward because you...

[00:52:50] Unknown Speaker: Well, theoretically, they can pay parking and low fees. It's up to the council to decide if they can, but you're right. There is a phase lag, right? By the time we collect the money and build a structure. And that's really where we need to figure out a better way. So right now, a developer can come along, propose a project, go through the entitlement project, paying Luffy's for parking. If the council, so allows him to do that. So it is a council decision typically to make that decision. But historically, yes, the parking assessment district was set up with that intent so that each space is shareable as opposed to it not being shareable. So, because when they build their own parking, it's not shared.

[00:53:33] Unknown Speaker: Well, yeah, but okay, but the point is that these, we don't, the whole thing we're having this discussion is because we're getting development, but we don't have places for, we don't have the parking spaces for these people to go to, correct?

[00:53:45] Unknown Speaker: Right. So there's two options. One is, can you prefund a structure? And the second that we're talking about in the supply, the council has mentioned in the past is, can we partner with developers to see if we can create parking spaces as part of the new development. So there are a couple of options that the council can wish to proceed on or provide us with some direction. It'll take us some work to figure out how we might do that in the future. So, say you have a developer with a lot next to a city parking lot, you know, can we partner on creating a structure in some form. That's an example, and it's actually one of our strategies.

[00:54:25] Unknown Speaker: Oh, so they would partner up with the city to enhance the parking lot or?

[00:54:31] Unknown Speaker: Right. That is one of the strategies that would increase supply of parking.

[00:54:37] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Was there any talking about validating? So if we're going down the road of parking, or paid parking, that there would be a component of validating in that?

[00:54:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes, paid parking can include a form of validation, depending on and validation can be supported, either through the paid parking revenue, or businesses can pay for the validations. But yes, it can be a component of paid parking.

[00:55:07] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[00:55:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Komei?

[00:55:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So there was some public comment about, um, taking into account some of the recommendations from the sustainability action plan, and I was just wondering if you could maybe share a little further on ways, um, that the departments are working together on some of those recommendations, if you just share a little bit or what you're planning to do in the in the future with some of the work.

[00:55:37] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to address that question. The city council will have an opportunity at its next meeting to see the next sustainability action. plan, which lays out 81 different actions for the next 3 years, um, which include, um, many of the recommendations from the task force. Furthermore, there's an attachment for that report that looks at each of those. task force recommendations and indicates the status of the implementation or the city's position on those recommendations, either in the current sustainability action plan or the one that's coming to council next week. In addition, the departments that have operating responsibilities that encompass sustainability, have begun meeting as a governance committee. And that includes community development and it includes the opportunity for the sustainability team to review key council policy decisions that have either sustainability, opportunities, or impacts. And so there were some comments to the to that in the report that you've got before you tonight on paid parking, particularly with regard to the creation of additional parking structures and the potential for negative impact on achieving sustainability goals by not having incentives for things other than driving to get to downtown. The plan as a whole is going to address a number of ways to try to provide alternatives to people other than single occupancy driving.

[00:57:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I know that this came up at the subcommittee meeting that I sit on, that we talked about. And so, um, not to veer too far into comments, but I think it's really helpful when we see items, where there is cross-departmental work, that I understand it's going to come forward and we'll be able to get more into it when it comes forward next week. But if we can note that or attach that just so we can see, and that was the request I had made in the subcommittee, just so we can kind of further illustrate how we're already tying these things together, I think would be really helpful in terms of the implementation. That would be my request. Thank you.

[00:58:18] Unknown Speaker: Uh, just a couple questions. So besides the Kaiser parking structure, are there any other lots downtown that we are eyeing to potentially have shared parking agreements with?

[00:58:34] Unknown Speaker: The Hope Street Development Project will have shared parking once it's developed, so that is coming in the future. Staff has talked with several other office buildings in the downtown about shared parking and all 3 of them have come back with a situation where they have commitments to existing tenants to provide available parking all day, but staff will continue to look at other options as they arise.

[00:59:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And what has been the most challenging aspect or aspects of doing these agreements? Because it seems like they must not be easy because they take a while.

[00:59:26] Unknown Speaker: Part of it is insurance and liability. So how much does the city cover to ensure that the liability of the property is kept whole. There is also considerations about the current maintenant in the building, as I previously mentioned, with some of the other buildings, there was concerns about actually security and actually client security, as some of the other businesses operations, they run sometimes the 247 business where there is client attorney privileges. So that came up as a challenge as well, but getting back to my original statement, it's the insurance and liability and where the city typically requires that on the other party, we're in a situation where we need to provide that.

[01:00:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay. When we did the valet parking pilot, Didn't we start that at 2 lots? And now is it just in one?

[01:00:29] Unknown Speaker: It's just in one.

[01:00:31] Unknown Speaker: Has it always just been in one?

[01:00:32] Unknown Speaker: Correct. Okay. Have we talked about expanding that to other lots?

[01:00:39] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we are looking at expanding the valet parking pilot program into the Kaiser parking lot once we have a shared parking agreement with them. The idea is to minimize the security and liability concerns is that if we run a valet program, It limits the number of people accessing the parking lot, but then at the same time, it allows for the public to use it.

[01:01:06] Unknown Speaker: Ah, I didn't realize that was going to be a valet parking lot. at Kaiser, okay? Let's see. So I sent in the question about, had we done any parking studies on on street parking, and I apologize for not being incredibly clear on that question because what I really meant was, had we ever looked at marketing capacity and utilization of on street parking that is beyond the downtown business area, like to get a, that goes into the residential neighborhoods to get an idea of the spillover that's happening into the residential neighborhoods. Have we ever looked at that?

[01:01:53] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we did. Back in the 2010 study, we did a comprehensive data analysis that included the greater downtown from Evelyn Avenue, Shoreline, El Camino, and we called Iran. So we did have numbers that looked at the on street parking then. And so the conclusion is actually the same for the council responses is that the, well, actually, it's, when we're talking about the core of the downtown, the commercial core of the downtown, there is a demand for more a bigger demand for on-street parking because of the convenience of on-street parking. So people's behaviors tend to tend to shift towards finding the closest available parking spot. spot. When you get into the neighborhoods. It's a different situation because there's only on street parking available versus the off street parking is somebody's private parking. So there still continues to be a demand in the neighborhoods because of that situation. Does that answer your question?

[01:03:03] Unknown Speaker: It does, but that study was done almost 10 years ago, so I'm guessing things have changed. We have a lot more business or offices that have been built downtown. And I'm wondering if we would find the same thing now. Just kind of curious.

[01:03:23] Unknown Speaker: If counsel would like to do another comprehensive data collection that could be added to the programs and proposed phasing when we come back to you.

[01:03:34] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um, let's see, in in the table that lists the programs, it says that the residential parking permit program is being reviewed on an ongoing basis. So did that mean, so actually, I didn't catch the 1st time we went through all of this, that ongoing means you're doing it now, or it's scheduled to be done in fiscal in the fiscal year.

[01:04:04] Unknown Speaker: So it's more of an ongoing things that are happening right now versus immediate, which will happen before the end of this year.

[01:04:15] Unknown Speaker: So we are revisiting the residential parking permit program, and we've started doing that already.

[01:04:20] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and it will come back to you in November.

[01:04:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[01:04:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay, seeing none. So staff, ask us some questions. And, um, Since this is a study session and we want to summarize the input provided to staff. I was trying to figure out how we were gonna do this. And um, When we get to the table on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report. Instead of reading all of these when you want to comment on them, I went through and just gave them all a letter. So I've got one A through J on the 1st one, just so it's easier to refer to them so we don't have to read the whole thing. So if that works for you, I've got mine already lettered. It might be easier than reading the whole thing. So I think we can cover both questions together. Both one and two. And then if you have any other comments, you know, I'm sure staff would love to hear those too. So the questions are, do you support the 4 goals? And then I think the meat of our discussion is about the timing or the clarification of what the programs really are. So council member Ramirez.

[01:05:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I'll try to be brief. I support the 4 goals and support all of the programs for each of the strategies or for each of the goals. I'm really glad that staff has prioritized the review of the residential parking permit program, because I think that will really enable many of the other programs to succeed. So addressing that first, I think, is essential, particularly as we explore, you know, TDM strategies, paid parking, that kind of thing. So that would be my highest priority and it's already coming to us next month. So I'm really glad to see that. For the 4th goal, increased parking supply. The recommendations I would make would be to move up, let's see, here, A, B, C, D, E, I guess E and F, the 1st 2 of phase two, up into phase one. So, um, support parking district within Loop fees instead of allowing private parking and support partnerships with private property owners to build parking within the parking district. So just, you know, to attempt to articulate a vision for downtown parking. I'm less interested in lots of private parking dispersed throughout the downtown. I would rather enable shared parking, you know, once we have the residential parking permit program, and we've, you know, corrected some of the, um, employer sort of based permit parking, um, you know, the fees and sort of made that make that program more successful, um, then, uh, then I think the next step would be, uh, you know, figuring out how to make district parking work, rather than have lots of shared parking dispersed, you know, potentially within private developments, consolidating that parking in areas where there's the greatest demand. So we've talked about potentially exploring a 3rd, um, structured parking or parking structure at lot six. And I think, you know, these 2 programs that are currently slated for phase 2 would make more sense in phase one. So explored concurrently with our continued evaluation of a 3rd parking structure. So how can we leverage private development, you know, utilize the capital, that would otherwise be spent on private parking, and instead, um, create parking that could help, you know, address the needs from employers in the area, but also create uh, net new parking spaces available to the public. So that would be my recommendation for, uh, for goal 4. And then, um, similarly for goal 2 under parking technology, um, the very last program here under phase to identify parking technology needs for a potential paid parking system. I would also move that up to phase one. I think paid parking if done right if, um, implemented incrementally, starting, I think, you know, with Castro Street, where we have the greatest demand for parking, um, and, you know, having a program that would help encourage folks to use that parking more efficiently, you know, like meters along Castro, creating a revenue source that we could then invest in TDM programs and that kind of thing, makes a lot of sense. And I'm not sure we need to wait as, you know, as long as 3 to 5 years, once we have the residential parking program, then I think paid parking makes a lot of sense. And so I would like to enable that opportunity more quickly. So again, you know, highest priorities fixing the residential parking permit program, and then, you know, exploring more creative ways of leveraging private development, and then speeding up the paid parking exploration as well. Everything else, I think, looks great. Thank you.

[01:10:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[01:10:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'm fine with the 4 overall goals. I will spend most of the time talking about the individual items. I do agree that I think the most important thing that we can do is prioritize a permit program for downtown, for, um, so, one, for, and we'll talk about this in November, apparently, so I won't get into details and comments tonight about cost or anything else. But I think that having that enforcement mechanism in place will allow us to start tweaking things in the downtown to optimize current efficiency without causing folks to just, you know, if we implement different time limits, for example, in certain high demand areas. you know, getting the shift that we want to other downtown lots as opposed to pushing them into the neighborhood. So I think the permit program is key to that. And so I'm glad that we're discussing that in a few weeks. So, uh, I think in terms of...

[01:11:27] Unknown Speaker: So are you talking about the residential parking?

[01:11:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, that was primarily what I was talking about. that's what we're going to. I think we will need at some point to, and I think this is in here, is just take a look at the office worker permits, and just making sure that, you know, we probably don't necessarily want to charge the same price for certain lots as we do others. And I think there are just ways to optimize that. And that's why I tie that to the residential program because I think you need that in place 1st before you start tweaking those other things because people will be tempted to, um, you know, just take whatever's free as opposed to, um, change changing behavior like we want it to necessarily change. And then, um, the only thing under under item one, um, for efficiency, that, um, I wasn't sure about having in phase 2, was just exploring the on and offstreet limits, um, to create more parking options. So I think in the near term, the best thing that we can do, especially with lots more innate going offline soon, is it always temporarily is to maximize efficiency. And so to the extent that we can do that with shifting existing demand around and perhaps changing limits to the hours in certain areas of downtown, especially the peak areas, in sort of encouraging people to utilize some of the lesser utilized lots in spaces, I think that would be helpful. But I struggle with what to take off of phase one there. So I was trying to do, I know they aren't all one for one trades, but I was trying to figure out, you know, if we if we add something to phase one removing, you know, moving something down. And so I don't know if, um, We're probably going to reviewing our enforcement efforts as we go through a neighborhood parking program anyway. So I don't know if there are some synergies there. But that was the only one under number one that I felt might be worth doing a little bit sooner, um, in terms of the technology front. It looks like most of that is in phase two, which I think, and a lot of that, I think, is tied to preparation for paid parking. So you need to know where all the spaces are and do the inventory and make sure you can monitor those before you can do the paid parking and enforcement. So, I think I'm fine with the way that that's phased. in terms of supporting TDM, I'm fine with the way that you have that structured. Although I actually am not. I would flip, sorry, I would flip one and two. So I would actually prioritize, um, requiring new downtown developments that are going to have their own parking structures to enter into shared parking agreements. I think that's actually more important. And perhaps we can do as part of the review of the downtown precise plan. That would be my thought.

[01:14:43] Unknown Speaker: And you'd move the A, TMA to two?

[01:14:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: I would probably, um, I mean, that's tough, but I just think having that shared parking requirement as part of the downtown precise plan is probably going to get us more long term than, um, than some of the baseline things that we could get just through the TMA work. Not that that is important, I just think, from a timing perspective, we should address that with a precise plan, which is happening pretty quickly. And then, increase in parking supply, those comments I just made sort of tie here because a few of the things like explore options to extend shared parking with new projects, you know, some of these things are tied together. So I think if you move one up, you sort of have to move the other one up, but I don't necessarily think we need to look at expanding the legal structure of the parking district. I think that's probably a heavy lift. But I'm not against doing another study, sort of outside the district that is encompassing of residential neighborhoods, if we need to do that in order to make some of the other changes, but I think expanding the parking district boundary is probably a bigger, a bigger lift. But otherwise, otherwise I'm okay with the way you have everything set out in number four. I think the partnerships with private property owners to build public parking within the parking district is sort of tied to the shared parking arrangements. So I think there's an overall structure that we can talk about of, you know, if you're, if you're building, um, if you're building parking for your development, there should either be, you may, there's a requirement to enter into a space sharing agreement, um, with the city or if they're building an underground structure, um, perhaps there's a public parking component to that, I'm not sure all that structure, but I just think we should have that conversation as part of the downtown precise plan and that's coming up. So I just want to make sure we don't miss that opportunity.

[01:16:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[01:16:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So I am in agreement with the direction. My colleagues are going. And yes, I support the 4 goals for the downtown parking strategy. And I'm going to try to go in order with my comments. So for one, programs to increase parking efficiency, I am most interested in the residential parking, a permit program, and I know that's coming back on the second. So I'll just save my comments till then. And then um, for section 3 programs to support TDM. Um, I was interested. There was some comment that came into us via email and then tonight in public comment about, um, uh, having public input on the shuttle stops and having maybe a shuttle map. Um, I would be interested in that, so maybe folks would know where the shuttles are and that transparency and then maybe areas where they want to avoid either walking, biking or driving during those high times when, um, shuttles are picking up or dropping off. And I think that that could maybe help alleviate some of the congestion that we see downtown.

[01:18:13] Unknown Speaker: Are you talking about the private shuttles?

[01:18:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, the private shuttles. The private shuttles. I also was interested in, you know, but I know we've been talking about expanding the hours of our own community shuttle. And I know that that will come back at some point for us to comment on. So I'll wait till it comes back. for policies to increase parking supply. One of the things that we talked about at a prior meeting was the possibility of a parking structure. And when looking at that, I would like to, um, look at something similar that we saw 2 weeks ago was a potential for that parking structure to be converted. Should we not need parking, that parking structure in the future? And I, and as we were talking about parking, while it may be something of importance now, as hopefully as we move towards mode shift, it would be great to have the ability to repurpose that structure into perhaps housing. So, um, I'd like us to keep that out of top of mind, um, when talking about parking supply. And then, um, one of the things that I think I brought this up when we were talking about downtown parking is removing the signs for a rideshare, I think when we had piloted that, those signs and those white striping is still there, um, and that could be a really quick way of adding more spots and removing that since we um, did not go forward with that pilot, that rideshare pilot. So those are my comments. Thank you.

[01:19:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:19:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Uh, concerning the four, I think they're fine. They're pretty comprehensive. They cover a lot of stuff. On item one, gold one. The review of the current residential parking permit program. A couple of my colleagues have mentioned it. And so I'd like to see that high on the list because We got all this free parking around. The parking district, so all of a sudden, if we stop that parking, then we're going to get a better sense of what's happening within the parking district. So, I see that as one of the 1st things to do instead of people going out into the neighborhood. Let's close it off and bring people back into the parking district. So I'd like to see that immediately. And so since we are bringing that back, I think that would be my sense of trying to start taking control and really gather data that is true of what's happening out in the parking areas. The also current parking enforcement efforts. I know the city manager wants to hire some more parking attendance as we go before he leaves. But that was, I understand there might be a shortage of parking attendance out there, parking enforcement people. So, um, So when you say current, does that mean that they're not getting to various areas or does that mean that we're understaffed? or that we don't have full-time parking intent, enforcement, and that we're just using people as a sort of a stopgap. So that's something I'd like to see. Again, if we start doing that, again, we're starting to tighten up the parameters, and then we get a better sense of what's happening to me. Some of the other things that I saw there. Again, you said provide parking occupancy information to the public through apps and so forth. And that sort of ties down to parking technology is I'd rather see some of that, I think, It's a two, you know, they go hand in hand, is that if you get the information out, you're going to improve the efficiency, but you need the technology to get it there. So I'd rather see technology taking care of what we have now, because we can do that immediate, and it will carry over to what other strategies, parking, shared parking, whatever, that will carry over to anything else. So I think it would be adaptable. So I'd like to see the technology get out there much more faster than phase two.

[01:22:35] Unknown Speaker: So all of them that are listed as phase two, you'd put phase one?

[01:22:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, there's beginning parking, paid parking. I mean, if we have I would say, except for the paid parking, I think that could come. The other ones we can do immediate, and there will be an effect, and it won't inhibit or encumber other technology or whatever policies we come up with, because then it will help us figure out if we start doing this, and we have people able to find parking without going to the paid parking system. Maybe that's what I would rather do instead of going, we'll leapfrog all this technology and go to paid parking and spend money on paid parking. I'm open to paid parking, but I'd rather see us get those efficiencies done sooner, and then go into the paid parking as we go. I mentioned something about prefunding a parking garage, and I've paid parking, but could be part of going to that parking structure, underground, above ground, and help the development project goes along. I'd like to see that So you do sort of review certain things, ensure accuracy of current parking technology. So that goes back to getting the information out accurately to people. I guess you could do that. So ongoing by annual collection of occupancy data to monitor parking demand, that's going on. But again, I think if you get the residential, get the people off the side streets. And also, I don't know, would that also be in taking on the resident parking, the people that are affected by the commuters that go to the transit center versus the downtown, because they're 2 different groups of bodies. And so, would we incorporate that, attacking that problem too at the same time?

[01:24:30] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the RPP would tackle the transit center at the same time.

[01:24:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Because that would good, because they do overflow into that. TDM. You know, projects to enter and share parking agreement. Other than seeing lots 4 and 8 going into early development right now, I've been doing this for 8 years, and I just don't see shared parking working. I mean, we've been talking about Kaiser. We talking about all these, and everybody here, so it really doesn't happen that quickly. And until we see a new development come along. That's why I say maybe if we do the prefund the 3rd parking structure, then you could start collecting money faster than center. So the TDMs are good, but we still have to have a TDM that's effective. And you might get a chuckle out of this, but I say we park everybody at one end of the street and give them scooters and then we take care of the parking area for the rest of the neighborhood. So that goes pretty good. And I know we're bringing back scooters. We're going to follow Palo Alto's lead, so we're going to, so scooters are something that, but that's another issue for another day. Increased parking supply. Again, if we're looking at the parking in Luffy, we got to be realistic, and so that goes back to prefunding or another parking structure. So I think that needs to be done sooner than later. Well, that ties into the bullet point right below it. I think the parking permit parking for downtown for employees. I think you're going to review that. I'd like to see that done sooner. I don't know if people paying, if they get to park closer to their employment would be an incentive to pay more money. I thought our goal was to get the closer parking to downtown for the people that are coming and going versus the long term parking. So I would like to see the employee parking on the outskirts, and then having them walk a little bit, and so therefore we get the turnover downtown a little bit better. Explore options. So those are those are my thoughts. I think I've covered them. Yes, in a totally random order.

[01:26:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I tried to keep up with you, but... Okay, so, um, I do support the 4 goals. There was a statement in the Urban Land Institute study that was one of the attachments that really caught my eye. And it said parking should be provided and managed so that downtown remains an attractive destination for those who choose to drive. And parking does not diminish the quality of life in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. And my experience has been that there are people who are no longer coming to downtown because they can't find a parking space, and there are people who are parking in the residential neighborhoods, which is um, not a great experience for the folks who live in those neighborhoods. And it's people who are not parking in the structures where are the lots that they should be parking in, or it's folks who work downtown and their employers don't provide the permits and their parking beyond the time limit zones. As I mentioned before, I did a walk along with Tiffany. or a walk along, walk along to the downtown businesses. And every single restaurant we went into, they said they feel like they're losing business because people can't find a place to park. And many of their workers who spoke with us said that they were parking beyond the time limits in the residential neighborhood because they didn't have the parking permit program. So I would like to address that. And while I wish there were great options for people other than a car, were still struggling to provide those. Not everyone is going to ride a bike. Not everybody's going to walk. We are looking at expanding the shuttle, the free shuttle, but we just need more. And I don't want to penalize the people who don't have another option. Not everybody's gonna ride a scooter. I think we should explore the options, and I don't have any issues providing those options, but not everyone's going to take advantage of them or be able to take advantage of them. So, um, When it comes to the programs that are listed here, I think all of them seem great. I was wanting to tweak the timing of a few of them. And actually, I would on one A, I do think maybe we should look at expanding the valet parking program to another surface lot and not wait for Kaiser to come on board. To me, that seems like an easy one to do. Um, I am interested in F, one F, reviewing the RPP, which we are, I'm sorry, the downtown parking permit program, and seeing if we should change the price and limit the number and change the locations. I agree with council member Clark, who said, J, maybe we should move that up to phase one. And I'm sorry, I would move up the review of the downtown parking permit program to now as opposed to phase one, so ongoing. And then... I do agree with Council member McAllister that a lot of the technology items, you know, technology can provide so many benefits that we should be doing them sooner rather than later. But I agree, paid parking is not necessarily part of that, but putting the infrastructure in place is a good thing. In section three, I would move B, which is the shared parking requirements for new downtown development, as council member Clark said. And in section four, I would move B to ongoing rather than phase one, as council member McAllister said, and I would move E to Phase one. And I would move F. Well, actually, I'm going to change my mind on that. That was before my colleagues provided some comments. And I would say maybe it is time to do a study again of the capacity and the utilization of the district. Although I do think once we implement a residential parking permit program, however, we do that downtown, as council member McAllister said, we will end up seeing how much moves to the district. And, um, then maybe we don't need the study because now we've solved that problem outside of the district, but it depends on the timing. So, um, are there any other comments? So if I was going to summarize this. We do support the 4 goals that were laid out. We're all anxiously awaiting the review of the residential parking permit program that's coming up shortly, couple weeks. And then... I don't know that I really heard a majority for any of these. For moving the timing, although we all talked about ones we would like to see moved. So there were some themes. You know, I felt like I did hear, although maybe not everyone mentioned it, that we should take a look at the downtown parking permit program. Perhaps sooner than phase one. And that, uh, perhaps we want to look at extending the time limits, or reviewing the time limits to see if we should extend them. Correct that. And, um, looking at additional shared parking agreements, whether that be for new construction or for additional businesses downtown that would do that, and exploring a, let's say, updating the parking in Luffy's and exploring, Additional parking, whether that be a structure that is paid for and then we're reimbursed or that, um, we're in a partnership with other property owners. I guess one's the financing and one's the partnership parties. And... I think that is it. Did anybody else have anything that, uh, like I missed? We did hear a couple of technology items moved a little bit earlier that seemed to be echoed by a few council members. Great, yes.

[01:34:48] Unknown Speaker: I think thematic wise, I just the only the shared parking requirements are other things. I just want to make sure we don't miss the opportunity with a downtown precise plan update to make sure that we talk and think about that and incorporate whatever into that. So it sounds like that's what we're planning to do, but I just want to make sure we don't miss the opportunity.

[01:35:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, is that it on this one? Okay, we will close item 7.1. Thank you so much. I felt like that was a good overgame and a good discussion. Uh... Well, let's see, we could take, let's see, we can have our other colleagues come back now. Um, I don't know if they're here. Did you wanna take a break? You know what, let's take a, like, a five minute break, sorry, now that you're here. Just so we have a quick break here. So let's come back at, uh, 8:15. Is that good? 8:15? Not on that clock. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order and we will move on to items 7.2, which is the citywide school strategy. And again, this is a study session, so we'll start with the presentation. We have a presentation by the school districts. Then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council for direction. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[01:46:12] Eric Anderson: Great. Thank you very much, Mayor Matachek. Thank you, counsel. This is the citywide school strategy. My name is Eric Anderson. So there's a bit of background. The city council and the city in general has responded to our local housing crisis by authorizing new residential gatekeepers, and starting work and adopting on new precise plans, with significant new housing, and a visioning project for the Terabella area. All told, these projects and plans could generate up to 20,000 new units in the city. Three of these plans, the North Bay Shore precise plan, the East Wisman precise plan, and the Terabella visioning, include draft language for school strategies. This requires developers to negotiate and to come to an agreement with school districts prior to approval. Then the city approves the agreement when the project is approved. Ultimately, this has been tried once before with one project by Sobrado in North Bay Shore. And it's been difficult to manage. There have been disagreements over assumptions, and overall, the process was a lot of work, and the two parties never really fully came to an agreement, and it had to be brokered by the city council. So the purpose of this study session is to set council expectations to overall provide clarity to the school strategy process. Upcoming projects, including some projects that are buying the Los Altos school district, transfer of development rights, floor area, will use this council direction for their school strategies. In the end, implementation of the citywide school strategy is intended to be dynamic and to change with the times, with new information and new economic circumstances. There are three main parts of the school strategy framework. The first one is the school district responsibility, which is one fundamental question that we have for city council. The second main part is the land strategy, which I'll get into in more detail in a second. And the 3rd main part is developer contributions. Ultimately, developments that may be responsible for implementing the school strategy could include residential, mixed use, bonus FAR projects in North Bay Shore, East Wisman, and Terabella. Office bonus FAR projects in East Wisman and Terabella, and of course, gatekeepers. The land strategy has 3 main characteristics. The first is shared open space. The city has made agreements with the Mountain View Wisman school district and the Los Alto school district, to share open space, and it's a major percentage of the city's current supply of open space, as you can see, from the red pie splice there. In the long run, the city could continue to contribute parkland dedication fees to school districts, to help them fund site acquisition, and that open space would be shared open space used part of the time by the school districts during the day, and by the rest of the community in the evenings, weekends, and holidays. The next main part of the land strategy is offsite transfer of development rights, this is the program that the Los Alto school district is using to acquire a site in San Antonio. This is when allowed floor area is moved to another property to help finance or preserve a public resource, as illustrated for, for example, a historic resource here, but in this case, it would be a school. To use this option, the school districts would need to identify a site, and then the city would facilitate the purchase by allowing the school districts to sell the developments of that site to other interested developers in the city. The 3rd element is land dedication from development applications. The city has allowed developers to keep development rights when dedicating, for example, a park. Here's an example, the bird's eye view of the project on San Antonio Road, where they are dedicating a park, and they were allowed to reallocate their floor area from the land that they owned, the park that they were dedicating elsewhere in the project site. The city could extend that right to schools, but the projects would need to be significantly larger. These projects would be analyzed on a case by case basis for their capacity to dedicate land for schools. It would be limited. We would want to limit that analysis to projects that are part of master plans, which are often used to allocate public resources over multiple properties, or bonus FAR and gatekeeper projects over 10 acres. The council would then determine whether the land should be dedicated, using factors like usefulness to the school districts, the effect on the project, and other city needs, such as parkland from the properties. Developers would then be able to keep some or most of the development rights associated with the dedicated land. Staff estimates that the land strategy could provide about 43% of the total school district cost. Note that this isn't a goal or a required percentage. It's just a reasonable amount that staff assumed can be achieved through this program, and it will be used later on in the contribution analysis as well. It also provides multiple opportunities for the school districts to acquire land from development projects rather than seeking out and acquiring land through condemnation or other means. So the 1st question for city council tonight is, does the city council support the proposed school land strategy, including city and developer contributions in the form of shared open space, land dedication, and offsite TDR? To help support the conversation by the city council about the amount of contributions to school districts from these developments, staff is proposing two options. One is based on the 1255 pair Avenue project. This is the amount that they agreed to pay, net of Parkland dedication fee, the fee reduction that they received. It's a data point based on residential feasibility, and it would be about $6.30 per square foot. The 2nd option is based on a 33% share by the school districts using their projected student generation. This table shows the share of each responsible party and about how much they should be expected to contribute under 2 different projection scenarios, a scenario by the school districts and a scenario by a consultant that we hired to provide an independent analysis. Staff is not intending to undermine the school district analysis with this analysis, which was the result of significant work and expertise. The purpose of the independent analysis is scenario testing. We can't predict the future. And we want to ensure that, for example, there isn't a negative contribution by some party under some alternative scenario or possible future. Again, the school district numbers are the basis of the splits share option for the purpose of that option and that conversation. I'd like to note, one error in the staff report, footnote 4 did say that there were not any one bedroom units in the BMR project studied. There were, in fact, 11% of those were one bedroom units. And I'd also like to note an error in the table from the staff report. This is the corrected version, the underlined items are were changed from the staff report. So the question for council is which option does the city council prefer for the school district share and developer contribution? In addition, staff is seeking general city council direction on the citywide school strategy. I'd like to take a moment at the close of my presentation to thank the school districts. Their staff, including Superintendents, Rudolph and Meyer, and Jack Schrader for working with us on this, as well as our consultant, Richard Reck, with Schoolhouse Services, who's also available in the audience. Thank you very much.

[01:55:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So next, we have a presentation by the school districts. I'm not sure who's giving the presentation, but, uh, we're, uh, because you will have, uh, 10 minutes. Excuse me.

[01:55:34] Superintendent: Good evening, council members. First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I am the new superintendent of Mountain Bulos Altos High School District, so, um, hello, nice to see all of you. Last Friday, you may have received a letter from our district stating that we are interested in participating in the process of creating an educational strategy. We have been pleased with the collaboration, but we need to analyze further and ensure the feasibility of the plan to the service of our students. I want to say that we are thankful and grateful we've received the staff report, and we'd like to state that we do also welcome a strategy that would provide a consistent, reliable measure for future school support as we support the increase in our district's growth due to the commercial and residential growth in the area. We're excited about the approach that would also provide consistency for developers and the city in having one well-defined formula that we can use in the future applied uniformly to each of our developments. I want to say that we also want to emphasize that as a high school district, We will have different needs and considerations based on what we need to programmatically provide, and that we are working with our partner school districts, Los Altos and Mountain View Whisman, but we want that to be taken into consideration that we will have different needs in different places in the process. But that being said, it's critical to mention that we're very excited to be partners to the benefit of the community. We intend to participate tonight as needed, and to the extent that we can, but we respectfully ask for more time within the next two weeks, to ensure that we have all of the accurate information, and that this strategy is well thought out on our end, because we know it will impact way past all of our 10 years here. And in the interest of focusing our comments, I'll briefly share the most critical points that we have seen on behalf of MVLA. The first, as mentioned, from your staff, is land location. We are very appreciative of the creative approaches around the land permits that we've seen and that you are using and zoning. And we are open to investigating any possible locations for a school site adequately for our needs. Your support in this matter, as we've been having discussions has been appreciated. The next portion that was mentioned from a school perspective includes the funding. And options in the current staff proposal leave our students and district reliant on a state system of reimbursement to build for our future school sites. And this is an area where we have determined that we need more time and research on our part to make sure that we're certain of how that will work before we proceed. But we do have to share with you some early considerations. One, we recognize the need to contribute as part of a shared plan, and we are willing to continue to look at how we can partner with the district toward this end. Two, we do want to communicate to you, however, that our state funding systems, which we have to work with, are unreliable and subject to change. The one, the bond currently stated for voter approval that's coming up, has already put into effect a means test. And we believe that this will have a negative impact in that our district would be negatively impacted by this particular means test. The state funding systems that we have have been shown to consistently subject districts also to onerous delays. We have districts to the North who have waited up to four years for their reimbursements from the state, and we also see that it's an average of about three years to get the reimbursements for construction and growth costs. Regarding the numbers that were shared by staff were definitely in agreement with your staff report, and we want to just make sure that you're aware that the cost to create a high school and the size of the parcel needed, we recognized realistically, that we are not likely to find the state recommended 34 acres for a school of this size in Mountain View. And so we want you to know that we're aware of that restriction, and certainly willing to look at how we can find resolutions. We are currently reviewing opportunities and definitely want to explore that further. As far as a high school in general, one thing that we want you to know, we do need a large contiguous portion of land. And when we're building, we're building for the future, we are not able to do so incrementally. So it's critical to note that we are building likely all at once, and likely, before the students come. And we hope that this would be a building that would be in place for the next 50 to 100 years. So our timing is reversed. The students come slowly and the school builds, but we do have contributions that need to be made to build that campus prior to the arrival. We want you to be aware that MVLA does not hold extra land. We do not have alternative sites to consider, and our current sites are at full capacity. But that being said, we are very excited about the opportunity to partner. The split share concept is one that we could move forward and look at. But it would be premature for us to promise a funding source that we do not have a guarantee on, or we could possibly see a delay of many years with. So we are open to continuing to discuss sharing options of all kinds. We also face our land and construction costs upfront, as I mentioned previously. And presenting the funding at the outset is really will be a challenge, so we hope to problem solve with you. So wanting to share that we understand it's our duty as a school district, to prepare our students, and to make sure that we have provided a school that makes our community proud. We are experts in providing an educational program, and we have a variety of ideas on how we plan to move forward with this. We want to emphasize, however, that one thing that is critical to the beliefs of our district is that it is important to provide a robust curricular and extracurricular program, including arts and athletics. And this has been a successful model within our district. So we would not want to consider options that would provide less, particularly in an attendance area that may hold a larger number of our most challenged students, raising a larger question of equitable service and support. So we want to make sure that we provide our students with all of the things that they need to be competitive as they enter and apply for colleges. So lastly, I want to thank your staff for the collaboration. We're appreciative of the expertise in planning that you have provided and the willingness that you have had to partner with us. As we refine the description of our challenges and identify the best paths to meet our needs. So thank you very much. And with that, I would like to introduce Dr. Ayende Rudolph.

[02:04:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I hope you all coordinated this because the email you sent, excuse me, if you'll let me finish, the email you sent when you requested time, I responded that the districts had 10 minutes together. So.

[02:04:41] Dr. Ayinde Rudolph: Well, I think if we were 2 different developers, you would give us 10 minutes apiece. I mean, obviously,

[02:04:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But you're not an applicant. I know you're an important party to this.

[02:04:51] Dr. Ayinde Rudolph: Two separate entities. It's fine.

[02:04:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, if we could send a presentation, I'll make... I mean, I'll give you some time. Only one minute left. I will give you some time, but I just want to clarify that it was 10 minutes together.

[02:05:06] Unknown Speaker: I want to apologize on my timing, and just say that this, um, I believe, should not be negatively... It should not negatively impact Mountain View Whisman. So do you have your presentation?

[02:05:20] Dr. Ayinde Rudolph: I do. I do.

[02:05:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I was assuming you would split, so we'll give you how about five minutes?

[02:05:35] Dr. Ayinde Rudolph: Five minutes, it is. Oh, we are excited. Okay. So, one of the things I think that's important for us to consider about Mountain View Whistman, is that we actually provide the city with a considerable amount of cream space. And so this map right here overlays all of the property sites that we have, including the building rights that we have at Silver Park for up to 3 acres. But this map right here demonstrates the amount of growth that's actually taking place, and so it's not necessarily uniform. across the district, or across the city, which means that all of our schools are actually impacted in terms of the amount of growth, and you can see close to their cough elementary, not including the 2 master plans could be enveloped as already a property for 716 units. And then you put on top of that, the overlay of the master plans, which include 1930 units that are currently outside of the city's jurisdiction, that we have no idea about what the development looks like. There's clearly going to be a big boom here. If we were to stop, if you were to stop approving projects today, we would already experience a 1000 student growth in our district. That means all of the development has already been approved. It's already gonna net a 1000 kids in the coming years. And so the extra 2,000 will conservatively net us about 2,500 students, not including the students that are going to go to the high school district. So 1,500 elementary and 936 middle school students. About half of the district's population would be new. And 936 is currently bigger than any middle school that we have today. So when we look at school capacity, obviously, we have certain schools, which will be impacted by growth, huff bub, uh, and Castro, which are already overcapacity, um, in terms of the district, and if we were to spread all the kids out and redraw all of our boundary lines, we still wouldn't be able to accommodate all of the students who are going to attend these schools. We're short by 900. And then that doesn't include the deficit that we would have at the middle school, which is another 300 students. And so there's obviously 2 different needs here. There's a short term need, which means that we have to figure out a way to absorb students within the next 3 to 5 years, and then there's a long term need, which is a 10 to 15 year plan and requires for us to have a 3 to 5 year lead time. And so if you were to assume that we were only putting elementary schools in the 2 areas, East Westman and North Bay Shore, we would need additional capacity of 2 additional schools, assuming that those schools would be somewhere in the neighborhood of close to 700 students, which again would be larger than any elementary school that we currently have, and on a smaller footprint than any school that we have. The middle schools would need about a 1000 more seats, and we would have to redraw the boundary lines. One of the reasons that we were thinking of adding seats instead of looking for a school is because each one of our middle school sits at 16 acres. So if you add on the 16 to the 34, that's 50 acres in a city that doesn't have it. So there are some limitations here. You don't take into account when you're approving these projects that this has a cumulative effect on our school district. And I'm on speed up here. So funding options, we did not agree to the Sopato agreement. The Sopato agreement was mitigated by the city. And yes, they paid us $5 million, but if you looked at the original cost without the cost of land, They were actually supposed to pay us $13 million. Their total ass was actually 24 million, which means that they paid a quarter of what the actual mitigation fee was. But right after they hit the city with a $8 million deal, they turned around and purchased the building for $60 million in San Francisco after saying that they had issues in terms of money. And so, we obviously have a serious issue in terms of how we are calculating these numbers in order to get these credits. So there are a couple of things we can do. I have some friends who are developers back here. They're not gonna like any of these options. We can pass a bond, but our $1 billion need. Our current bonding capacity is $259 million. So we wouldn't be able to generate the $1 billion that we're gonna need. The second one is, we could turn into a school facilities improvement district. Uh, we could do one for East Westman, and we can do one, for North Bay Shore, and we can do one for Terabella. But obviously, that comes out of the $2590000 need that we have. And so that's not a viable option, which leaves us with the Melarus. We can institute Malarusis in each one of those areas and ask the voters to tax those, and that's probably our best one. I know that our developer friends will probably vehemently oppose that one. And so the last one is a certificate of participation, which means that the city, the district has to pay the loan for that one. You know, the net cost of $1 billion on the district's operating budget will bankrupt us. Thank you.

[02:11:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, since this is a study session, we will open it up for public comments. So if there's anyone who wants to address the council on this topic, if you could... line up over here, on the side, and be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk, either before or after you speak. And can I just see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak tonight? So, um, each speaker has 3 minutes.

[02:11:37] Dennis Martin: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Dennis Martin, speaking on behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area. BIA Bay Area urges the city council, in the strongest possible terms, to reject the so called citywide school strategy, as an inappropriate scheme, to circumvent the School Facilities Act of 1998, also known as SB 50, and to establish unlawful new development exactions and fees in conflict with state law. SB 50 prohibits city jurisdictions to deny, refuse to approve, or even consider the adequacy of school facilities in exercising its local police powers related to planning, zoning, and development of housing projects, including precise plans, general plan amendments, rezonings, or density bonus. BIA contends that the policies and actions outlined in the citywide school strategy violate controlling state law. Under the 1998 School Facilities Act, the legislature created a comprehensive school facility financing and mitigation regime that calls for developers, school community, and state to share in facility construction costs. It was a painstaking compromise that the building industry fiercely defends. A quarterstone of that regime is the complete preemption of local authority to consider and mitigate school facility impacts from new development. Moreover, the state has recently affirmed its commitment to the School Funding Act, because on October 7, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB48. The largest school construction bond in California history, a $15 billion bond on the March 2020 primary election ballot, benefiting students in preschools, K through 12 public schools, and institutions of higher education. I assure you that the California Building Industry Association will be fully backing passage of that bond. BIA urges you tonight, the Mountain View City Council, to act in accordance with state law, and abandon this illegal exaction of developer fees in the citywide school strategy. Thank you very much.

[02:13:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, Dr. Rudolph.

[02:13:55] Dr. Ayinde Rudolph: How's it going? I'm now commenting. I feel like Steve Nelson for a second. So, as far as I need to thank, I need to thank staff, 'cause I didn't have a chance to do that before, so they have been really nice in working with us, and it really has been a pleasure, and I really appreciate all the hard work that they've done. And I also appreciate the thought and effort that you have put into coming up with a school strategy across the board. And I know within the 5 minutes. I didn't have the opportunity to say that. But I am really happy that you guys are really thinking about this. I want to do 2 things. First one is I want to give a history lesson. The 2nd one, I just want to make it common. The 1st one is a history level, which happened in 1970s. So Quest to Park Annex, was when the park was built. Used to have 9 acres that actually belonged to the school. Three acres actually were owned by the Higgins family. And the Higgins actually sold it to the city, and the city landlocked the school with the intention of having the school district actually sell the annex, which eventually does happen 6 years later. From there, a developer was given the rights to build, and the developer ends up not building and the community gets upset. That land eventually turns back into a park, and the city paid 3 times its amount. At the time, it was 270 something $1,000. And then the city actually paid the school district $5 million over the course of 20 something years in order to pay off the property. I say that because the city had an exact plan to benefit a developer and not to benefit the students. And that's what my concern is. As a parent, I know several of you are parents. At the end of the day, we choose Mountain View because we appreciate the schools. That's what makes our property values go. That's why developers want to be in our area. Yes, we're closer to Shoreline. Yes, we're closer to regional parks. Yes, there are a lot of benefits that have come from living in a city. And all of us that are in here, as well if you appreciate those actual instances. But at the end of the day, what I want for Eli is for him to go to Crittinen, and then to go to either Mountain View, Los Altos, or Mountain View, or Los Altos, because they're 2 of the best schools in the nation. And so that is really the question that's here. It's not about what the developers are going to do. They're gonna make their money. They're going to sell their property. They're gonna do what they have to do in order to exact the profits that they need. We all know that the school fees are not adequate enough to fund the gaps that it exists. But at the end of the day, what's left is the community. In elementary schools, middle schools, high schools are the community. Today, before I came here, I was running on the track, and there were multiple people all throughout our community on the brand new track that we built together. And I think what we need to do is find a way to build schools for our community and not our developers. Thank you.

[02:16:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. A little shorter.

[02:16:57] Tamara Wilson: Good evening. My name is Tamara Wilson, I'm president of the Mountain View Westman Board of Trustees. I'm here on behalf of my board and the district, and when first, I'd like to thank staff for taking the time to delve into this extremely important issue, and look at the long view on the school strategy option. I'd also like to thank the mayor and the council for taking the time to explore this with us and the community. These are decisions that are going to shape our community for decades to come, the decisions that you make. I shouldn't have done this on my phone. As we all know, Mountain View is a wonderful place to live, to work, and to raise a family. The high quality of education our kids receive is one of the reasons people want to live here. Decisions the council will make this year will have reverberating consequences to our district's ability to continue to provide a world class education. Despite the short term event horizons, We all, as elected officials have, our decisions can have lasting impacts well beyond our terms. Taking the time to develop a thoughtful school strategy now. Now will ensure future development is done, right? and incorporates a balanced jobs, housing, and whole neighborhoods approach, which includes neighborhood schools. Such an approach also supports your initial 4 stated goals in the project packet, which was to substantially increase your housing stock, reduce vehicular traffic, and emissions, while also including a wide range of housing options, including affordable housing. With 20 year growth estimates, of upwards of 20,000 additional new units in our city, this will bring a deluge of students, likely concentrated in the northern part of our town. Our district does not have the financial resources to support the additional land and construction costs, as we all well know, to the equivalent of 2 new elementary schools and an additional middle school. Our district strongly supports the current presented option 2 of the split share option, as we feel this approach is the most equitable, most equitably spreads the costs of new schools across the entities involved. And I believe setting a standardized approach of this kind will help streamline the development process while also creating a new vision for new neighborhoods. These are whole neighborhoods in Mountain View, which meet everyone's goals, while also creating a strong sense of community among the 1000s of new residents that will be coming here. I want to thank you again for taking the initiative to help us preserve Mountain View Whisman's educational quality. I think every resident in our town believes that our residents' interests are way more important than those of developers, especially our youngest residents, who cannot yet themselves vote for representation. The split share proposal will reduce the financial strain on the education system upon which so many of our residents rely. Thank you very much for your time.

[02:19:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[02:19:50] Juju Thompson: Good evening, everyone. My name is Juju Thompson. I am here to support our school district and is speaking from just the average parent whose kids. I have 2 boys. They go to above school. Um, I think the school and the and even parents already, you know, this is from a parent point of view, already trying pretty hard to raise money. Like, we had just had a walk us on last Friday. My nine-year-old walked all 75 laps, which is equivalent to like 20 some miles because they think they're raising money for a school. So they're already, you know, trying pretty hard and as parents, I already, you know, donated what I could. I'm like after school teachers, so I donated to the school like my art classes, which raises like a few $100 funds. Um, I guess my point is, We as parents, as kids, as school district, we already are doing what we try pretty hard already. So, um, I feel like please consider not to put the financial burden even further on the school district, um, Oh, and just add one thing, um, this year, my son even didn't even get to, um, didn't even get to, um, enroll into the enrichment class because there was not enough, um, enough seats, I guess. So the funding is already short. Not every kid got to go to the after school in Richmond class, because I guess we didn't submit the form early enough, so only the early birds got the Point is that the funding is already short. So, um, I just like to say, um, thank you for considering not to burden the school district, you know, more financially and um, support, um, that no more than a 3rd of school development costs fall into the school district. Thank you very much.

[02:21:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:21:55] John Hickey: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. I'm John Hickey. I'm here on tonight on behalf of Summer Hill Housing Group. I want to start by saying that we really appreciate the effort that Eric and staff have put into trying to propose clear uniform expectations for the school contribution. That's something that's very important to the development community to be able to understand upfront and early, what the expectation is, and avoid the problems, obviously, that we're experienced in North Bay Shore. We also very much appreciate the city's decision to hire an independent outside consultant to help do a demographic analysis. We think that that was a very wise decision, and we also believe that the information that was prepared, the analysis that was prepared by schoolhouse services is considerably more accurate than the information that's been provided by the school districts. We recognize and appreciate the city's goal of supporting the school district through the local school strategy. But we do want to emphasize the inherent tradeoff that the city is facing tonight. As the study session memo explains, the higher the city sets the school contribution, the less the city will receive in other community benefits. And the simple fact is, there are a lot of other benefits that this community needs. It's not simply the schools. For that reason, we suggest instead of requiring developers to make a voluntary school contribution, we recommend the city allow developers to propose a voluntary school contribution as part of their overall community benefit package, which, of course, will be considered when the city, when the council considers the precise plan, at least in the context of East Wisman in November and then for future precise plans at the time that those are adopted. This would preserve the city's flexibility to balance the value of school contribution in cases where it may make sense against the value of other community benefits that the city could potentially receive. Thank you very much.

[02:23:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[02:24:01] Trustee Laura Blakely: Good evening, Mayor and Council members. I'm Laura Blakely, and I'm one of the trustees of the Mount View Westman School Board. First of all, I wanted to acknowledge that there is a great need for housing in our community. I think everybody recognizes that. However, schools are an integral part of any new community. They're not really just a community benefit. They're a fundamental piece. With 20,000 new units, and at least for Mountain View, Westman, 2500 new kids. I'm not quite sure what the number is for the high school. something like 11 or 12. 100 And those kids need to have schools to go to. And as Dr. Rudolph and Dr. Meyer already pointed out, the capacity just isn't there in our schools that we have now. So we very much need new schools. And towards the goal of accomplishing this process, we really appreciate the city's vision in articulating a school strategy. That was a creative approach that we appreciate. At the same time, we understand that developers are looking for more predictability in terms of what their contribution would be for the bonus FAR projects. So we acknowledge that tension there. Um, The city has also been creative in developing the job's housing linkage for the Terabella precise plan that I think you're going to be voting on in a few weeks. And toward that, um, the creative approach where the housing will need to be built at the same time as the office and commercial, so that the office and commercial doesn't just get all built out 1st and then with more environmental problems, more traffic, more congestion, that that notion of the job's housing linkage, um, will allow the housing to be will ensure that housing gets developed alongside. I would encourage you to look at that same approach and extend it towards schools and do a job's housing schools linkage so that as the housing gets built, the schools get built at the same time, we acknowledge the process is going to take, you know, many years before the full 20,000 units get spilled out. But we'd encourage you to do whatever you can to facilitate that. And as Dr. Rudolph and others have pointed out, I know that it's perceived that the schools need to have more skin in the game and take more responsibility, but we just don't have that much skin. Our bonding capacity is tapped out. The ability to get state bond money is very, um, unclear whether we would even be able to do that with this new bond that's getting put on the ballot because, um, it's the $15 million state bond because there's priorities for um, impacted districts and rural districts and low-income districts. So the likelihood of our getting money from that is very questionable. And finally, if we were to take out a loan with a new certificate of participation, that's just a straight loan and we'd be taking money away from sources that we could use to educate our kids in order to service that debt. So please support the split option and come down on the percentage. Thank you.

[02:27:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:27:13] Trustee Devon Connolly: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. My name is Devon Connolly, and I am also a trustee on the Mountain View Wisman School Board. I'd like to Accio my colleagues who have spoken here tonight and thank you for your work on this issue. We all agree that schools are a vital part of the infrastructure of our city, and they're not gonna happen by accident. They are going to have to take a lot of planning and a lot of strategy and working together. Um, I don't want to repeat what my colleagues already said. They're wonderful, they're brilliant. I really appreciate their comments. I would like to address the state bond and just kind of put some perspective on how unique Mountain View is in this area. So the state bond that's coming up in March is for $15000000000 for the full state. And we are looking at a projected cost of almost $1000000000 just for Mountain View schools based on the growth that we're going to have. I understand the need for housing. I desperately want more housing. And I want to make sure it happens. But when we have that housing, we need a place for children to go, and there is just no way that our school district can support the expense that's going to happen. We have lots going, you know, it's $15 million an acre. We can't, we just can't do that. So, we all support the split share option. Developers don't live in our community. They are partners. They are trying to make a profit. They have to make their business work. But they are not our residents, and they are certainly not our children, and we need to support the schools and have enough money to move forward and meet the growth that we're planning. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:28:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else who wants to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none. We'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any questions of staff, and then we'll get into discussion. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:29:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I just had one question. I couldn't find it in the staff report, and I'm assuming it is, but will these fees suggested fees increase with CPI?

[02:29:33] City Staff: Yes, we can, um, include, uh, as part of the the ongoing implementation of the school strategy, uh, an increase over time.

[02:29:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[02:29:46] City Staff: production cost increase.

[02:29:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[02:30:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So just a quick clarification. So the community benefit contribution right now is assessed on net new square feet above base FAR, is that right?

[02:30:19] City Staff: That's right. But this the school contribution is assessed on the entire project.

[02:30:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. Why is that?

[02:30:30] City Staff: Because in these places like North Bay Shore and East Wisman, where a significant portion of the new housing will actually be under that base level, right? I mean, it'll be almost half. And we could, if council directs us, we could adjust the numbers to account for that. The numbers would be much higher per square foot. But staff is recommending that it just be a single amount per square foot on the total net new residential, and obviously in most cases, it's going to be 100% of the residential project.

[02:31:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Another way of thinking about this. If we could have assessed the community benefit contribution on 100% of the project, even the portion in under base base FAR, if we had wanted to for various precise plans.

[02:31:36] City Staff: Yes, we could have, yeah.

[02:31:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Is there a reason why we didn't?

[02:31:39] City Staff: Uh, to avoid the kind of, um, uh, discontinuity at the base where you go from a very, uh, you know, a non-existing contribution to a large contribution at a small amount. Um, uh, you know, different, uh, different scale projects, you know, a smaller scale project that's only uh, asking for a small amount over the base, uh, it, the the intent of the community benefits calculation is that that project wouldn't pay uh, a significant amount. as opposed to a project that's asking for a lot over the base. We could adjust the calculation of community benefits as well. But this is the school strategy is closer tied to the question of need, and the community benefits and analysis is closer tied to the question of ability to pay.

[02:32:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, That's helpful. Thank you. So do we plan to subject publicly funded affordable housing to the school strategy?

[02:33:06] City Staff: If council directs us not to, we could, they are potentially a significant source of students, and so that would have to be something that we would, you know, we'd have to consider in a kind of recalculation if, for example, council directs us to exempt a certain amount of affordable units, but to maintain the 33% school district share, we'd have to calculate that and figure out what that means. for other developments. But at the moment, it is those affordable units are included in the denominator in the group of projects.

[02:33:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And that would be for projects that require discretionary review, just to be very clear, right?

[02:33:57] City Staff: That would be for any projects requesting bonus FAR or gatekeeper.

[02:34:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. If a project just went up to the base FAR or was code compliant, you know, not requesting bonus FAR, there would be no obligation to participate in this program.

[02:34:13] City Staff: That's right.

[02:34:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got it. Thank you. Vice mayor, Abbe Coco?

[02:34:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry, I came up with some other questions. So, um, I was reading through our council questions, and there's one about the potential for the school strategy to affect the city's compliance with Rena and, um, housing element law. And I was hoping you could explain that. And in addition, we've just seen a number of housing legislation signed by the governor just the other day, specifically, I think it's SP 330. There's a few that limit the ability to put more fees on or cap the fees. Can any of that potentially affect the school strategy?

[02:35:05] City Staff: So as a voluntary program, the base FAR or the bonus FAR, uh, you know, is, um, uh, wouldn't be, wouldn't necessarily be subject to, uh, the fee, the fee, limits and things like that. I think the what your 1st question about the relationship with Rina, you know, we haven't gotten to our housing element yet, and so we don't know how the state would view these kinds of voluntary bonus FAR projects in terms of our assumptions about our housing capacity. So that's a big unknown at this point.

[02:35:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right, thank you.

[02:35:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:36:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, the big question we're looking at right now is the trade off between making it easier to produce more housing versus funding new schools. And one of the questions, yet all of this is the cause of all of this is really the large amount of office space and jobs that we've created, which is why we're creating the housing, which is why we need the schools. So, one of the questions that I asked is if, if we could, instead, have a voluntary school strategy that was more linked to office creation, since that's a part of the, in essence, it would be an office housing school's linkage. Could you provide some details on that?

[02:36:50] City Staff: Yeah, so, um, certainly part of East Wisman and Terabella is the expectation that the office developments contribute. Taking that in mind. We are also applying the school strategy to office projects in North Bay Shore that are built as part of mixed use, master plans, mixed use projects. So in this sense, we are broadening the set of projects that would be providing this contribution, and hopefully using that to reduce somewhat the amount that residential projects would be expected to provide. As I said, or as we answered in the responses to council questions, There is a risk that if only residential projects get built, like if there's a change in the economics, and the envisioned office doesn't get built. There's a risk that the school districts would be left with more costs, more students, with less funding from the office projects. So the relationship between the student generation and the office generation is less tight, right? There's less of a relationship there. So that, in our recommendation, should moderate the extent, that office projects provide, the bulk of the contribution.

[02:38:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark.

[02:38:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: I had 2 questions. The 1st is, um, Council, Ramirez, and or you touched on this a little bit in the answer to the council, remember Ramirez's question, but you talked about, um, You know, at a certain point, you don't apply the entire community benefit formula to the whole project. You only apply it to the bonus of AR portion to avoid creating a discontinuity. But it sounds like we're creating discontinuity here by applying the entire residential formula to a project as soon as it hits that bonus FIR.

[02:39:02] City Staff: That's right.

[02:39:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: I understand the 2 different, like, based on need to pay versus need, but there's the discontinuity.

[02:39:08] City Staff: It is there, yeah.

[02:39:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. And then the 2nd question is, do we have examples from any other communities where this level of this percentage of cost share is borne by, um, developers, basically. Are there other communities with school strategies like this where we have some guidance as to what percentages work and don't work or are we treading new territory here?

[02:39:40] City Staff: We don't have any other examples that use specific percentages, but there are certainly other communities that for certain large projects, they go out and they meet with the school districts to try to determine how much they can provide to support the school district's expansion and facility needs. Um, I don't know if RTU have any more background on that.

[02:40:09] City Staff: No, I think the only example that I think is in the area is Santa Clara, which is the Agnews area, that, um, the developer, I'm not entirely sure if the FAR, I mean, I assume the FAR was sort of moved to the rest of the site, but there's a large school site and a park. So in large master plans, that's able, we're able to do that, um, in nearby, you know, where you've got built out communities. It's much harder.

[02:40:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Is it an amount per square foot, or?

[02:40:40] City Staff: No, in that case, it was a land dedication.

[02:40:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, land, that's right. Right. No, I remember.

[02:40:45] City Staff: If you're asking for a mount per square foot, I would say, I don't know of any.

[02:40:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I remember the way I'm going to vacation. Thank you.

[02:40:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:40:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. So, I got more than a few. So I'm just trying to understand the whole... calculations in who got involved in how it came about and the ability to fund. So when you came up with your formula, the 33%, Was there active participation from the school districts in working in this, this percentage?

[02:41:21] City Staff: So we had worked with them on kind of our land strategy. We worked with them on the assumptions that went into their expected student generation. The number 33% came from staff.

[02:41:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Did you back into that 33? Or did you go start with the 33?

[02:41:45] City Staff: We started with the 33, and it was really based on a number that was a shared, you know, the kind of 3 parties in the program, the school districts, the city, and the developer, that the city is facilitating these land opportunities, the developers providing contribution, and the 33% is a 3rd of that for the school districts.

[02:42:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you know the school districts have done any type of strategic strategy?

[02:42:20] City Staff: Uh, I mean, they do, they do long term planning. You know, we're trying to help them solve, you know, the next 20,000 units. That's really the task that we have for us right now. And so as Dr. Rudolph said, you know, they also have, you know, a few projects in the pipeline that they have to work to try to incorporate in their long term planning. But we're trying to work on that next step.

[02:42:52] City Staff: I'd like to add that when we looked at the developer contribution at the 33%, we actually used the school district's numbers. So we did use their numbers to come up with the contribution.

[02:43:08] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you came up with your numbers, and maybe this is better for the school districts, but did you look at their timeline of when schools might come on, the population, the type of funding. I mean, a deep analysis, or...

[02:43:20] City Staff: It's certainly their expertise to understand, you know, how to allocate funding, to specific school projects, and bring schools online. We don't presume to know those details of implementation. We're here to provide the opportunities that come from development review and the development review process.

[02:43:55] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I mean, we did a lot of analysis, and that's why I'm trying to understand that, as our analysis, their solution,

[02:44:06] City Staff: What do you mean by that?

[02:44:08] Councilmember John McAlister: I know what I mean by that is, okay, the 33%, so therefore, this is their game plan, this is their strategic strategy going forward.

[02:44:18] City Staff: Well, just to, um, if I understand a question correctly, um, I think we all agreed, um, including the school districts that they, that they will share in this, in this strategy. And so we came up with, well, if we use the school district's numbers, in terms of their own projections, from the current units, from the new units, what it would cost to buy land, what would it cost to build, how many schools do they need? How much land do they need? We use those schools, numbers. And then we said, if the city does a land strategy, that will cover X percent of it. If the school district, you know, shares 33% of the cost, then how much would the developers have to pay? So we backed into the developer payment, based on, we already know what the land strategy would pay, you know, that school paid 33%, what's left for the developers to pay. So we did sort of use the school's numbers. We assumed that because it was a three party sharing, which we all agreed, that the schools would be one third of the share. And again, these are options for the council to look at. It's a study session, and we'd like to hear from you about what you think.

[02:45:39] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you said we decided it was all share, did the developers buy into 33%?

[02:45:46] City Staff: No, this is the... this is basically staff coming up with a strategy for the council. The developers have said they understand they have to pay a share, but they want to make their developments feasible. And yes, the city does want to see housing. The school districts understand they have a share, but they've got their own issues with trying to get funding. And the city is trying to sort of bring all these issues together, and try to figure out what's the best way forward. So we have a couple of options for the council to look at, that are what we would consider bookends, and we can do something in between, or something outside of it.

[02:46:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, doesn't the city have some of its own unknowns? Like, when we were saying, well, we're gonna donate some land. I mean, I'm all for sharing land, but we don't know if we're gonna have development money down the road. We don't know where that land's going to be available. So, I mean, I got a cripple with quite a few emails saying give the districts more time to analyze it. So how can we go about saying, well, we can do this one. We don't know so many unknowns for ourselves down the road from 10 years from now, we might not,

[02:46:56] City Staff: I mean, the land is really hard to get, and our first job is to sort of make sure we follow the council goals.

[02:47:04] Councilmember John McAlister: So how do we know that we're gonna have that money to...

[02:47:09] City Staff: Well, we don't. As you say, you know, there are a lot of unknowns. This is a, in a lot of ways, a temporary strategy, and a dynamic, you know, a dynamic environment. And we do expect that as the development environment changes, the, uh, economic environment changes, land prices change. You know, maybe the school districts are able to acquire a site that's going to change a bunch of inputs to this whole thing. So as all of these inputs change, we should come back and revise the strategy as the knowns become known. Unknowns become known.

[02:47:51] City Staff: What I will add is, we don't think land is gonna get any cheaper. We know that. We don't think there's gonna be more land made, right? And so what we're looking at is trying to implement a strategy as soon as possible so that we can take advantage, as developers come in with large master plans, to work with them. And I shouldn't say that word, but the good part, I was gonna say genius, but that's probably not the right word, of the strategy is, that really, we're trying to make sure that neither the city nor the school district actually has to pay, because it'll be a land dedication, where whatever development you could have built on that land that you dedicate, you can build on the rest of your site. So that's really the land strategy. You dedicate land. If you could build 100,000 square feet on that land, you can now build it somewhere else on an extra floor. So when you dedicate the land, you really haven't lost those rights. The other part of the strategy is, if the school district says, you know, I've found 12 acres, and I'm fine with those 12 acres, I just need the city's help. Then this land strategy allows the council to do a TDR approach again, where the school district can sell development rights. So the idea is for to reduce the costs or to take away the cost of acquiring land. And that covers about close to 50% of the one point whatever billion. And that's really kind of the crux of how do you get land, because we can see that it's very hard to go. fine land and compete on the market for land. So this is using the city's ability with master planning to do something different.

[02:49:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, isn't it possible that within continuing cost of land and the continuing cost of construction, that development might just come to a small halt here and do, like, Facebook and said, Well, you can't expand in the Bay Area, and they're gonna move in elsewhere, and then your expectations don't generate the funds needed?

[02:50:06] City Staff: Yes, which is why we're also careful about making sure the developments continue to be feasible, right? Because if then they built at the base FAR, then we're not gonna get a lot of that. So, I think the school district understand that. And I think they've expressed their willingness to stay at the table with all of us so that we can continue working on the strategy. So it needs all three parties to continue to stay at the table.

[02:50:31] Councilmember John McAlister: And I guess the kids should also go to the school districts, but had you talked to them about their strategies to start putting reserves aside or developing financial strategies that are 10, 20 years down the road, or...?

[02:50:46] City Staff: Well, I think they are fairly careful, so we haven't told them how to plan their funding, but I think the good part about the land strategy is, you're not saying that I'm counting on 10 million an acre today. The land strategy, the value of the land, can change over time, and by providing TDRs, you're not, you know, you're not kind of short, because you've collected the money today, and you've invested it at 3%, and now you have to go buy land, right? As the land becomes available, you can employ this strategy. And then you only need to pay a percentage, a fraction of the cost for that. So that's really where the, where the strategy works. Say land's much more expensive. But with on site dedication, and you'll let the developer build somewhere else on this site, you still get the land for free. So you're not paying for it in the long run.

[02:51:48] Councilmember John McAlister: In your staff report, you said those large plots of land and the potential of doing TDRs is limited, or could be nonexistent.

[02:51:58] City Staff: It is limited. And I think it's gonna be focused on a few sites where the school districts are looking for schools. So we're not going to be looking for it with every project. And that's why when we tell the council about master planning or recommend master plans. It's with that very intent.

[02:52:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I have a few questions for the school district, so if anybody, either high school, I got them for both. So. Thank you. So you had a screen up here that said, you need two schools. So you have Whisman, and you have Slater. Now, we know land is very hard to get, but you have land there to convert to schools. Is there any strategy to convert those sites into schools as needed?

[02:52:48] School District Representative: So that's part of our overall strategy, but those sites are not adequate enough to hold the capacity, and they are not up to, well, Whisman is partially up to code, because the German school has been required to, but the Google school, the Google preschool has actually went through the cities process, and not through DSA. So as part of their agreement with the school district, they would actually have to bring it back to his original state. And then we would have to pay to bring it up to code. And it's actually cheaper for us to tear down the whole building and then build a new one. So we're estimating that the costs are around $60000000 just to do that. Other piece of this is that we use out of the $5500000 that we receive, 2.7 or 2.8 actually go to our own operating costs. And so one of the reasons why our board is looking at the possibility of going for a bond is to pay off the certificate of participation and to free up our dependency on the lease revenue so that we could possibly reacquire those sites for growth. But it won't accomplish the true need of growth. Because if you look at the map, the growth is all over the city, with the exception of near Huff. So we would have to figure out a strategy to increase the number of sites, our seats at, Huff, and Lando, or Bob and Lando's, Castro. And then we would have to address the other issues, which are, we still need a site in North Bay Shore, which we have worked on a plan to develop an urban school, which is twice as large and on half of the size. And then we'd have to do something similar in East Westman.

[02:54:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So you could possibly do a land swap then with Wisman, with somebody over in that area, then?

[02:54:35] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: I mean, So I don't, I don't, so part of the issue, the tricky part about land swaps, which we realized with Cooper, is that as, as the city manager told us, if the, I don't want to paraphrase, but essentially, it is zoned for one particular use, and switching it over from that use to something else would be precarious, and would dissuade any developers from actually looking at it. And so I think that's also part of our issue, is that, and we don't want to give up our land. Obviously, we want to utilize those to its maximum capacity, but it does create an issue for us. We also readjusted our strategy for the middle schools, knowing that the high school district needs one. And it's just, it was a, you know, it's compromise. We originally sent a letter in for possibly looking at Shanador as a as a viable middle school option. It fits the land requirement that we currently have. But knowing, take into account the high school district's needs that they need a 3rd school. We, I mean, they haven't voted on yet, but I presented to the board that it would make more sense for us to build the middle schools up and to redesign them so that we accommodate growth and take into account the needs of the high school district, which is an important aspect of this whole approach. And I think that's one of the trade-offs that we're willing to do, or at least that I'm proposing that we're willing to do in the event to address all of the city's needs for schools.

[02:56:03] Councilmember John McAlister: How big is the Wisman school site?

[02:56:06] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Westman School site is... 11 acres.

[02:56:11] Councilmember John McAlister: And when does the lease end?

[02:56:13] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Lease ends. So the 1st option to end the lease is 2030, and that gives you a five-year lead time. And then if we break the lease before it ends in 2042. We actually have to make a good faith effort to find them a new spot within the district. If we do not, then there is a penalty that we have to pay, um, and there is a pro rating amount for any improvements that they have that they have done, that we would have to reimburse them for. So it's and that deal was written before I got here, so I can't really... No, no, I can't really comment on that one, but I would just say it's that, unlike the Google Preschool and action day plus, those lease are favorable towards the district in the event that we need growth. I think the German school at the time, 5 years ago, was acknowledgement that the school district needed the financing to continue operations. And so that deal was struck with that in mind. And that's literally how we are paying for a brand new school that we just opened to address growth that no one in the district, or no one in the city is paying for as a taxpayer. The district is bearing the cost. And so we leverage that revenue to open Vargas on a 5.5 acre lot. So the German school is actually providing a benefit to the community. And then the city kicked in and said, well, since you're tearing down green space, let's put an astral turf field so that the community could use it. And I think that is an illustrative of understanding that all of us are sort of tied together to address this issue.

[02:57:57] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I mean, if land is very valuable, somewhere along the line, Wisman, it could be on the redevelopment, then, right? For school?

[02:58:07] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Yeah. It's a possibility.

[02:58:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Public school. Okay. Has your board? Have you guys sat down to look at long-term financing?

[02:58:16] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Oh, yeah.

[02:58:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and the bonding, parcel tax, more.

[02:58:21] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So we actually, in our last meeting last week, we just had polling results for both for parcel tax as well as a bond. Um, and then previous meetings. We've had our bonding advisors come, our capital advisors come in to talk about the difference between actually those last 4 slides on that presentation came from our capital advisors to tell us what are our options in order to use different funding options. Um, is how I, I know a little bit more about real estate and Malaruses than what I probably should, but, That's, that's a, that's a result of, essentially, what is it, 3 years worth of, of dialogue about this, this topic?

[02:59:03] Councilmember John McAlister: So, have you, there's always a concern that the state's not giving you enough money. But what action is the board or the high school board advocated to try to work with their legislators to increase the funding to the schools?

[02:59:20] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So I think the... I think the previous, so we have applied, to move up to develop level 2 developer fees, level 3 developer fees, a current under, last I checked. They were in arbitration. And so we nobody can move to the level three. We're not eligible for level two, but we continue. We actually just employ Jack Shrader to do it again. So every year we are looking at our availability to move up to level two. I believe the high school district may have the ability to go to level two, but we don't. So we do explore that. The previous bond that was never signed or never issued, was a lot more favorable towards the school district. This one is not. And the $1000000000 need is actually just our need that does not take into account the high school districts need. So you're closer to one. 5 to $2000000 when it's all said and done if you take both of us together.

[03:00:15] Councilmember John McAlister: What I was asking about the going to your legislators to change the whole structure of the development fee and not just the $3, but say, hey, we need $20 ahead. We need $30 ahead. So what movement has the district done to advocate for changing the whole structure and getting of more fair share?

[03:00:37] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: I don't think I think we, none of us have really looked at that as an avenue because I think there are so many competing forces in terms of changing it. Obviously, you have developers who are going to argue that it's a fair deal in paying ¢43 uh, as part of their development fee is acceptable. And I think there's also the plight of districts like ours, which are in places of rapid growth, and where the costs are going up, and there are districts that are in the Central Valley, where the cost per acre is completely different, and developer fees generate that type of revenue. And so I think our state is really in an interesting and sort of perplexing place where all of us are grappling with different issues that are trying to be addressed across the whole state. So I can't say, I know for a fact, our board hasn't instructed me to send anything, but I think it's hard for, it's hard for the Mark Berman's of the world to advocate for the needs of Silicon Valley when you have different types of needs that exist in Fresno.

[03:01:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you have a timeline of when you need those schools to go online?

[03:01:53] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So the maturation of any property is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 years.

[03:01:58] Councilmember John McAlister: 10 years from now?

[03:01:59] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: No, no? 10 years from when it's actually built.

[03:02:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh.

[03:02:02] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: And that's assuming a very conservative approach. And when I say when it matures, it means when it's going to actually produce the kids. And so, I, you know, it takes us 5 years, 3 to 5 years to build an actual school, lead time, not include, that's assuming that you actually have land. So if we start now, by the time the developers finish, we should meet the need.

[03:02:27] Councilmember John McAlister: So have you started a strategy to start building up reserves and worst case scenario that?

[03:02:32] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So we no longer use developer fees to pay off our certificate of participation. So we are now banking those in. Unfortunately, the last couple years with developer fees have not been as generous as the previous ones. Last year, we received $600,000 in developer fees, 2 years ago, we received $2500000 in developer fees, that $2500000 was used to pay off the certificate of participation for creating a brand new school for Vargas. And so we now have reverse that approach. Um, But we do, the soprato agreement will go into a restricted account. The bond is a restricted account. So all of those go towards building school, building the school's general fund.

[03:03:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I'm glad to hear. Okay, I know the schools in the past, I really haven't started thinking about building up the reserves, but that's great to hear. But I have a question for the superintendent from the high school. Thank you, sir.

[03:03:31] High School District Superintendent: Yes, ma'am.

[03:03:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you came up and spoke, you said you needed more time to analyze.. So what did you mean by that?

[03:03:41] High School District Superintendent: We wanted to look at particular options that would contribute to the split share, but we also wanted to evaluate possible locations, to really think about if there were other ways that we could get to that 33%, because there was a great concern that, if we came and said we're willing to go there and we could not deliver on that, that, you know, we would be committed to something. that we couldn't pay for.

[03:04:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[03:04:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, both. Thank you. Council member committee.

[03:04:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I wanted to thank staff on all the discussion about the land strategy that was really helpful. Um, and I had 2 questions that, um, uh, I had um, Thanks to all of Council member Callister's questions. So as one of my biggest concerns is site location. And, um, you know, what is required of the state in terms of acreage that's allocated for a certain school type. And so as we're going forward with our land strategy, are we trying to adhere towards what the state acreage is or are we trying to move more in what we're doing in North Bay Shore in terms of the urban school site and trying to kind of think of the denser, taller, um, spaces and being more creative kind of, Is that the path of the future?

[03:05:17] Eric Anderson: So the 10 acre threshold does assume smaller than 10 acre school? I think that's just a fundamental assumption. You know, we have to kind of find a balance between opportunity sites, right? Because there may be 10 acre opportunity sites that we can take advantage of, and the school district wants to take advantage of based on location, but is willing to build a smaller school. You know, I mean, we, so, so really that's and and the size of the school, right? And so really, the intent of the 10 acres is not to prescribe a particular school size, because again, the school districts are the experts on how big a school, the design of the school, and what fits with their educational goals. The goal of the 10 acres is really to find that line where, you know, the sites that we know can't accommodate a school, we don't even bother with. But the sites that maybe we can have that conversation around.

[03:06:23] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, and then kind of sort of tied to that is, I know that many of the schools in both districts have looked at trying to expand capacity by, um, creating more classrooms and doing, um, kind of redeveloping the current sites that they have. You know, one of the things I thought of, especially when I saw your map, Dr. Rudolph, is, you know, how much is our capability to redevelop and invest in the sites we already have, you know, before, um, whereas, as we're also trying to do the approach of the land strategy. You know, I am not knowledgeable as the superintendents are in terms of how much we're already at capacity, which was discussed and what investigation there's been in terms of using some of perhaps that bomb money on the other sites that you have. And I think that could be helpful for us as well to know what that capability is or everything is at capacity. I think that's helpful.

[03:07:29] Eric Anderson: So I don't. Well, I'll just start off by saying clearly North Bay Shore is in need. Right. You know, if we're going to have residents out there, we need to have a school out there. Beyond that, I would defer to the school districts about what suits their future goals best in terms of acquiring additional sites or building up. If you have a question for them, yeah. If they want to answer.

[03:08:00] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: I think each planned community has a different need. North Bay Shore, as Eric said, is its own need within itself. It technically needs two schools, are we have explored the option of building one school that's twice as big, goes up 3 to 4 levels. So it's on a very compacted site. Terabella, I think, is about absorption into Therakov. We know nothing about the Moffat Field project. And so without knowing any information about it, I can't tell you how we can absorb that. And once we get information, we'll plug it in. East Whisman is really going to be up to the board to determine whether or not they want to use an absorption strategy by redirecting kids. And there's a couple options there. Or if, because it sort of gets past the one. 5 mile threshold that we currently have in all of our schools. Um, and so the, the edge of the east of the East Westmin territory reaches 2 to 2.5 miles away from a particular campus. And so it's really about what is a board's preference over there. So each one has a different one. In terms of the growth that exists across the rest of the, um, the city, that's why we're looking at expanding at the sites that are going to be impacted. Landau's only has an excess capacity of about 50 something kids currently today. And so to absorb additional kids. We are currently, and the board hasn't even seen this yet. We're currently working on a plan of action that would increase of capacity over about 100 seats. The same thing would happen at bub, which also has some significant growth. Huff, there are some safety issues over there, so we would do that on each one of those. And then there was a couple bat plans that in the event that growth hits X mark, we would have to do Y. And so those would take place. So we are exploring that. Crittin and Graham, our board weighed in last week about future growth. They all said why they would like to have an additional middle school. They are comfortable with crittin and graham, increasing the capacity and changing. We would have to change boundaries at some point. And they all said that Crittin would have to be the one that has to go 1st because Crittin is where most of the growth exists. And so we would have to fast track that one compared to what we would do at grams. So we are looking at the ability to expand capacity across our site, as well as looking for growth. Thank you.

[03:10:33] Associate Superintendent Mike Matheson: Hi, Mike Matheson, Associate Superintendent Business Services for the high school district, and just to speak to capacity, our 2 high schools are already at capacity, if not beyond capacity, our current bond measure passed almost a year and a half ago, is adding net about 30 classrooms across those 2 campuses to accommodate for the enrollment growth that is already coming, is in the pipeline, is in our partner districts that we know is coming. And so, and that's our challenge, right? Given those acreage, we're already going over that capacity, so we're trying to build to accommodate that. Thank you.

[03:11:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[03:11:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a question that applies to this item on the agenda, and also the next item on the agenda about scare shared school site and parks, and also pertains to the previous question. If you decide to reinvest in the current sites to some degree, or densify them, I'm wondering from both superintendents how that would affect the open space available on, since that's one of our major strategies. It's a large portion of our parks in the cities and in some of our neighborhoods, almost the only parks. So, would you play football on rooftops, or, you know, how would that affect our open space, and also, if you densify, do you use them for more hours, because I have some fear of space that we call city open space actually not being available to residents of the city very much.

[03:12:09] Superintendent: So, the new urban models take into account how do we maximize space, which includes rooftop play areas, that sort of go. And so earlier when I came here and I've talked about, look, it's a 3.5 acre plot. We really need to have access. The city says it doesn't really make a difference as to who gets the access as long as we all know that it's a shared benefit across the board. And that's because there are some design features that are needed in order to make that work. So I think any of our urban school designs will definitely take that into account. I think for our redevelopment on current sites, obviously, we just did a track over at Crittin. And yes, it didn't increase the capacity for green space, but what I can tell you is I drive by that track every day, going home, and every day that track is used till late at night, and unlike Graham, where there are no lights, that's a great example of us working with the city to say that we have a need, and we want to create open space and parity at both ends of our districts. And this is a way that the parks and recs can have access to it, almost, you know, until I don't know what time it close, maybe 10. Um, but it allows, it allows for that. And I think Vargas is another good example. There was a park that existed there as we redeveloped the site, which is well within our authority. The city came back and said, you know, why don't we find a way to make this field usable all year long, and that's why we're putting, it's the only elementary school that has astroturf field. And so we're amenable to using the park benefits. I also want to point out that, um, one of the community benefits that came out of building Vargas is that now there is a stoplight at, or there will be a stoplight at Pacific, and that's, again, a partnership between the city and the school district, and yes, the developments that come out of that area, um, probably needed to have a parking lot, but it, it took us, we revitalize in that area to actually recognize that we need a parking light. or stoplight at that intersection. And so I think those are examples of how we can leverage our current sites, to benefit the community, uh, on a longer basis, especially when, uh, the sun goes on earlier. That it?

[03:14:40] Unknown Speaker: I can share that as we're looking at, you know, the recommended 34 acre size. There's a reason it's so large, because of all of the requirements of the high school activities, but there are places where they have been creative, where they have a smaller footprint. So, for example, they share the, you know, the fields, the soccer, sometimes the softball, and the baseball share, but with title 9, they have to have consideration of schedules. And so there is a tightening that occurs when you have a smaller footprint. There are some creative approaches that we've seen where, um, they have big, um, multi-use rooms that can be used for theater, but also gym and basketball and other types of activities. But you're right. It would affect if there is a community, our partnership with youth sports, and some of the different things where we bring the K8 or we bring other organizations onto our campuses for shared activities.

[03:15:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So what I'm hearing is that we may be getting more lit ball fields and possibly interior spaces and a lot of organized sports, which serves a certain members of our community, but maybe green space and so forth may be cut back. But that's for our next item moment.

[03:16:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Between the ones I sent in and all the ones you guys have asked. You have covered my list of questions that I had for the meeting. So moving on to the discussion, staff, specifically ask us 3 questions that are on page, they're actually up here. But also on page 13 of the staff report. We are. Okay. Rice, marrow, white coca.

[03:16:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, I guess I will start then. So 1st of all, I just want to thank staff for your, as always, your hard work and coming up with creative strategies to answer to some of our challenges that we face as we grow. And I want to thank the school, the district members as well and I'm sure we did focus groups with the development community. So I appreciate the participation by everyone. Um, you know, I was thinking about how other cities, other communities deal with this topic, and frankly, they just don't allow any more development. And we're seeing that in our neighboring cities. So I appreciate the fact that, you know, our community, understanding the challenges, understands, you know, the need for housing, and we're just, we try to come up with, with ways to, um, creatively address the needs that come with that, the housing. I've always said, yes, you know, we need housing and I, and I know I, I think I see SV at home here. We're doing a lot, and we're doing, I'd say, more than our fair share in housing, but I have never believed that it should be housing at all costs. And I want to, I always said we need to maintain our community and our quality of life as we grow and build more housing. And that's really simply what we're trying to do here. Um, we have been looking at affordable housing strategies. Transportation strategies, sustainability strategies. And so to come up with a school strategy, to me, is just another, you know, another area that I think we should, it's natural that we look at how we're gonna solve these issues. I just wanted to say. And, you know, I spent a few years on the county school board, I think I'm the only one here that has a child in our public schools at Ellison's just graduated. And, you know, I go to the high school, help with pizza cart. It was on PTA. You know, we did the Walkathon. So I know firsthand how hard it is for the schools to fund all of the programs that they need. And, you know, we have kids who come to school without lunch, and the teachers have to figure out how to, you know, find snacks for them. So this whole thing of, well, you know, isn't there more school money for the schools? I don't, it's not, there isn't. And I can attest to that. And the difference between schools and the city is that the city has ways to generate funds. We raise fees. You know, we can do that. We can raise taxes. The schools really are dependent on what the state provides. And it's always been shorter, less than they need. And so, um, you know, they unfortunately don't have the ability to be as, um, entrepreneurial as if you, you know, want to use that word as like our city has. I think, you know, there's this question of, well, why don't we just have them take Wisman or, um, is it Slater, um, you know, we want them on one hand to be creative and come up with funding, and that's really what they've done by leasing those buildings or those spaces. And then now we're saying, well, but you have this land, so why don't you use it? And we just, you know, I think we can't, we can't expect both. So, I just, you know, wanted and I wanted to emphasize, emphasize the, and just try to describe the situation that's happening with our schools. We have top notch schools, very proud of them. But, you know, and I don't know the exact numbers, but at the high school, I think there was, like, the senior class was 450 students. My daughter's class, she's a sophomore. Now, they came in with, I think, 600, and then this year's freshman class, I believe, came in with 750. So, um, and I remember at Graham, her 6th grade class was the same size as the 7th and 8th grade class together. So that's the growth that they're seeing. And, you know, yes, you can build higher and whatnot, but the kids still need to pass between classes, and when you have that many more kids on campus, you can barely walk. And, I mean, that's what I experienced that. So I think we just, you know, there's, I guess I feel some skeptism from, from non-school folks about what's really going on in the schools. And I can just, you know, say I attest to what is being described. And so, you know, I hope that we can take that in good faith and work with our schools as partners to come up with some solution. So that's my little, Oh, and then I wanted to say, too, in terms of the state fees, Counselor McAllister, I've been, you know, on the city's association for several years now, and we've talked about this issue time and time again. Other cities like Cupertino have, you know, been very vocal about this. We ask our state legislators. Can you raise the fees? They say, sorry, we can't, because a developer, lobbyist, and, frankly, BIA, they won't, they're gonna fight it. So it's been discussed, but no one wants to touch it at the state level. So that's why we have to figure out how to do it locally. Regarding school reserves. There was a time when, I think it was Governor Brown who wanted to have schools spend down the reserves to 3%. So there's not a whole lot of reserve opportunity there either. So, um, you know, I agree with council number hicks. Like, schools are also joint use, open space. I remember when Monteloma was growing, and they added portables. We had neighbors complaining that they were losing their open space because that's the only park in that neighborhood. So I hope that we can really look at this as a, you know, joint effort in a partnership. So in that regard, I do support this school land strategy. And I do, I think this is a good way that each of us contribute to the strategy. I think some of these shared open space, land dedication, well, off-site TDRs and shared open space, we've done with the Los Altos school district. So I think we have a model there that we can continue to expand on. Do you want us to answer all 3 or just one at a time?

[03:23:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All three?

[03:23:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So two, I support the split option, I believe. That's what it's called, you know, Split Share. Split share option. So the residential feasibility option, if I'm correct, if I read correctly, that was based on the subbrado project. And, you know, I was very clear at that time that that was a one off just to get that 1st housing project in North Pasture going, and that was not to be used as a precedent. And, you know, I've said this time and time again. I'm very wary of doing these things because, you know, and I hear folks say, well, this is going to be the one off, and then things change later, but I want to be, you know, very clear and hold that line that that was in a one off situation. And I think the 33% school district scenario makes sense to me. 3rd each, city, school develop was the way I was looking at it. So, um, I support that strategy, and then I just lost my 3rd question, oats in here. Um, other direction. Um, I think, as it was mentioned, you know, it's, uh, it's a moving target, uh, where charting new territory. We have to be willing, flexible with, frankly, a lot of these cutting edge strategies that we're coming up with. You know, I think it would be helpful if we can identify or help look together, maybe identify parcels, you know, that I brought up Shenandoah, and there's some challenges there, but there are potential opportunities, I think. And so the sooner we can identify. And I was actually thinking, I know we can't actually pick a parcel, but maybe look at the precise plans and which ones we should put a school as the top priority when we talk about benefits. And, um, you know, I, I, I, like, I'll come in. Well, I don't know if Al Camino is the right place, but I imagine in the next few years, we will probably have to reopen some of these precise plans as we hit the limits on, you know, development in those areas. So perhaps at that time we can include the school strategy in them. So I'm going to stop, right? now, right there, for now. Thanks.

[03:26:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:26:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I want to start off by saying, I'll answer the three questions, but I wanted to start off by saying where I think we're at and why we're in this somewhat unique situation. I think that one of the things that's happened is that previous council zoned a great deal for offices, and then being in Silicon Valley, we got those offices. And then, along with offices, you eventually need to provide housing, and along with housing, you need to provide schools. And in the past, when we grew. So we're currently looking at growing something like 65 to 75% in terms of housing. In the past when we grew that much, it was immediately after World War II. And when you needed to provide new schools, you would go out and buy an orchard really cheap. We can't do that anymore. So, and I think we're in a fairly, so I think we owe the community a sort of a jobs housing school strategy. Um, and I think that we're in a fairly unique situation. We may not be the only city in the state like this, but I think we're one of the few that's growing this fast, growing using infill. We're fairly dense already. So I think we're doing some unique things. And I think I also think some of the state bonds, people I've been talking to have been saying their means tested. So I think the schools have less access than some schools would have in cities that are growing this fast. And I think that the road we're going down in terms of providing a school strategy is one that we have to do. So as, oh, and I was going to add, I also think that I would not, I don't see schools as one of many community benefits. I think it's something that we absolutely need to have. So that said, let's see, question number one, do I support the proposed school land strategy, including city and developer contributions, et cetera. The answer to that is yes. Number two, which option does city council prefer for the school district share and developer contribution? I would, I would go either, I feel that we don't really have enough information with, with further information, I might make a different choice, but given the information we have, I would go with the split share. And the last question, do we have any other direction on the citywide school strategy? I would also like to look at the possibility of linking some of the strategy to office development. Thank you.

[03:29:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[03:29:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, as those are done, I'll sort of start by sharing the framework through which I'm trying to think about this. And, um, and I'm trying to bring it back to, um, I think we absolutely, obviously, we're here tonight. We want to have a school strategy, and we want to help the school districts sort of fund their needs because I don't disagree that, you know, the state funding alone and all these other things. All these other things are in play, and I think we want to be, um, good partners as we have in the past and try and, um, as the vice mayor said, instead of just shutting down all growth and development, find ways to find ways to get to yes instead of find reasons to run to know. I have thought about that. I think the one thing where I might disagree with council member Hicks is I do think about, you know, this the school strategy came about as part of an important community benefit that we want associated with a community benefit strategy. And that's not, and so I, you know, I need to wear my community hat and think about, okay, if we're going to have bonus FAR applications and things that significantly impact the community, what are the benefits that the community wants, you know, we feel the community, especially in that particular area, wants to see from that. In some areas, it might be more important that we have the school strategy in the school contributions and perhaps land dedications in certain areas. And others, it might be, perhaps transportation is the bigger impact, or there may be, there may be other things. And so what I'm trying to think about here is, what is the overall sort of community benefits strategy that we want, where does the school strategy fit into that? And then, and then also, um, who is paying for that community benefit or that school strategy? And so here, the one qualm that I have with this is where we're basically saying, okay, high density residential, who are primarily going to be rental units, and primarily studios, one bedrooms, and some two bedrooms. And we're saying, you product type, you folks who are living in this development are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of a school strategy cost, even though you aren't the ones who are producing the most school kids. I mean, if we really wanted, and I'm not suggesting this, but if we really wanted to be equitable, we would be allocating these school strategy fees to, you know, condos, townhome developments, the, and, frankly, BMR developments that are producing the largest amount of children. And I'm not saying that we should do it that way. But I am saying that I think the way this is proposed and the discontinuity where, you know, there's no school strategy fee unless you cross that one threshold and then everything, everything applies and you're applying it to a product type that isn't necessarily directly generating the biggest need here, bothers me a little bit. But, um, But I'm on board with the overall strategies. So I absolutely answer yes to number one, I think the tricky part for me is number two. I agree with counsel member Hicks that I would be a lot more comfortable with this if we found a way to sort of split this cost. with commercial development in some way, shape, or form, so that we aren't, um, We have to remember that we aren't going to get any of these benefits if no one wants to develop to the level of bonus FAR. And so if we, if we, and it's a moving target, as the vice mayor said, and we can always adjust this in the future, but, um, I don't want everyone to get all excited that we found this strategy that we're going to be able to fund all these things, and then everyone just builds to base FAR or just goes a little bit above and beyond, and we ultimately don't get the land dedications and the things that we need long term, um, because we haven't structured this in a way where the where the fees or the fees are shared between commercial and residential. And so, I think where I'm going here is probably number three, with just, you know, thinking aloud and giving staff some thoughts about where I would be more comfortable is if we had, you know, we've done the feasibility analysis. We hired a demographer to compare the results. I read that study. You know, I would be much more comfortable if the, if we found a way to get, to get the school and stage share to 33% at, you know, the schoolhouse scenario. And if how we get there is, or you know, something not less than 33% there. And I think that's, I think that's more than fair. And if we can, you know, make residential, you know, make the make the odds that we're getting those bonus FAR applications for residential, more likely by getting to that number through some contribution or some shared strategy from commercial development, so that, so that there's some, basically, we aren't putting all of our eggs in the residential basket, even though I understand that that's where the direct, I think the more direct relationship is, but at least, if, if we're, at least in the current market, if this is a moving target, where we may get more bonus commercial FAR applications than we are bonus residential FAR applications, at least we're, at least we're getting something together, right? At least we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket, and we're able to get something close to this wet share option that I know the school districts were very much like. I just think I'm a little troubled by the discrepancy between the 20% share and the 33% share. And with all due respect, the school districts and their demographers, I have very rarely seen a school district, demographer, not just the school district, but other school districts, sort of end up on the right side of the predictions when it comes to these types of residential products, in terms of studios, one bedrooms, and rental that are primarily what's going to be built here. So, um, That's a long way of saying, if we could get to some sort of option where we're roughly, roughly the school district's sharing a 3rd there, and it's, um, you know, some middle ground in terms of demographics, or we're using the demographic data that our independent books provided or some combination of the two, and we can get there through a combination of both commercial, um, uh, commercial contributions and residential contributions so that we're a little bit more diversified, then I would be wholly on board with that. But I'm uncomfortable with sort of the split share option itself, as it's currently structured, where it's just all residential, and it's 33% based on demographic data that I think, frankly, is probably not quite accurate. But um, That's where that's where I would be comfortable ending up, but I may be in the minority. We'll see.

[03:36:52] Unknown Speaker: If I could just clarify or ask staff, too. This strategy does include office development, in East Westman, in Terabella, in master, play in sight. So basically everywhere we can, we do, where we don't, is where we legally can't without changing a precise plan. So, I mean, I just want to be clear. And also, I believe one of the answers to the council questions made clear that the square footage for residential is going to be significantly more than the square footage of office. So, you know, there's really only so much you can gain on the office side, no matter what. There's...

[03:37:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Side over here is kind of quiet. Okay. And some amber comet.

[03:37:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, so, um, I want to thank staff. I feel like this is a really creative approach, and trying to be flexible, which I think is what we're all trying to do in our response towards trying to meet the needs of the growth that's gonna be happening in the city. I want to thank the school districts and the superintendents, the school board members, residents for coming, and giving us your input. It's so important to hear directly from you and to get, um, the details and the information, um, firsthand. So, I really appreciate that. So, for me, when I'm thinking about this, it's the question of what's the path forward. And 2 weeks ago when we were discussing a different topic, I remember asking Superintendent Rudolph, that same question, how do we create a partnership? And tonight, that's my goal, that's my aim in terms of being able to move forward. Um, and there are certain limits um, within both school districts that don't allow them, I think, what they would like to do, which is, that sounds like be proactive, more proactive than they're currently able to do. So, um, I think that that is what we can help where we can help. So for question one, um, yes, um, I support the proposed schoolland strategy. And for the option in terms of the uh, preferred uh, split. Um, I do agree with the what the vice mayor said earlier in terms of, um, with the project on pair that we, I feel like the prior council and this current council discussed that it was not a precedent, and it was a, um, special case scenario, um, to help fuel residential development in that area. And so for me, I'm not, I don't feel comfortable with the 630 figure. Um, and would say, if there was council interest in something between the residential or the split share. Right now, I lean towards the split share. Um, but if there was something in the middle, I would say, for, for those who, um, are, are not comfortable with this picture, maybe it could be something like, I don't know, 950. That would be somewhere between the 6.30 and the 1360, But for right now, I don't have enough information, and on that, and it's just a number that I'm trying to kind of meet in the middle. So for me, at this point, I'm more comfortable with the Splitshare option, but would be amenable to staff coming back, maybe, with a number in between. Um, and then for the 3rd, um, question, I think it's just trying to continue to have those open lines of communication, um, the information that we were given, um, in terms of what the school districts are already doing. Um, in terms of you were asking reserve, what they're doing with their land, what the, um, what's already in progress, and the different avenues that have already been explored. I think, is helpful in me. moving in the direction of the split share because they have tried many different options and not been able to explore those. and not been able to move forward. And I think that's, you know, why we're discussing this tonight. So thank you.

[03:41:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[03:41:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so, first, um, to the Vice Mayor's point, you know, Mountain View, I think, is being very responsive and creative in addressing the challenge of how do you mitigate the impact of new residential development on the demand for school capacity. I'm not surprised to hear that nobody else is doing this. We tend to be very innovative in that regard. So thank you for the work that you've done on this issue. There are no good answers here. So first, question one. I support the proposed strategy. I'm inclined to think that, I think I mentioned this in a previous item that it's really not the fees that are going to get us there, but the land dedication and a TDR program that ultimately will. So that's, that's the component of the school strategy I'm most enthusiastic about. Because I think that's really how you unlock a lot of the value that you're going to need to acquire a school site and fund the construction of the school. We've talked a little bit about the LESD program. which I think does serve as a good role model for this. And, uh, to the best of my knowledge, that is, that's being achieved entirely through the TDR program, and then the school contribution, or the city contribution in, uh, Park and Luffy's, there isn't a development um, developer contribution component to that. because there's a lot of money available from other sources. So I'm personally inclined to think that that's really what will allow this strategy to be successful. So I have 2 concerns with the developer contribution component. The 1st is that it comes at the expense of community benefits. And I, you know, I absolutely agree that there will be a need for additional schools and school capacity. But the discretionary review processes that we've created were designed to help us achieve many different goals related to additional amenities and services, transportation improvements. And it's hard sort of this far into the development of those community benefit strategies to take a fairly big chunk of that and allocate it for one purpose. That means we have to figure out a way to backfill the funding that will be necessary to achieve the other goals that we have, that we said that we've that we want in the approval of the various precise plans. So that's one thing I think I'm sensitive to. And the other is building up to the base FAR is very profitable. And there's a point that I don't know where just going up to base FAR will be profitable enough. You have the advantage of an expedited review. You don't have to go through discretionary processes. You don't have to deal with community benefits or the school strategy. Um, And we've already seen in the redevelopment of the non-change areas of the city. you know, predominantly are 3 zoned properties that you can make a lot of money, you know, just within with the code compliant project. And I think, I would imagine, 100% of the redevelopment proposals we've seen, even those where we lose units, we see sometimes a significant increase in bedrooms. So those projects are going to increase the demand for school space and do nothing to mitigate that impact. And I think we have many more of those kinds of projects in the pipeline. And none of those will need to participate in this program. And, you know, if we're, um, I know we're going to be thoughtful about how we apply this moving forward, but there may be a point where developers just say, I would rather put in a, you know, a bonus FAR project and not have to do any of this. So we feel that impact and don't derive the benefit of what we can get with discretionary projects. So I don't know what that number is. And I'm not really prepared to say what the right solution is to that. I have a preference, though. I think several council members have said, you know, if there's an opportunity to shift the burden onto commercial development, that would be my preference and appreciating that there's not a lot of development capacity there. You know, that's not going to be the panacea, but, um, you know, to the extent we can, you know, shift a greater burden onto commercial development, that would be my preference. And it may be that we have different numbers for residential and commercial. then, you know, a council member may have suggested a compromise, you know, I'm interested in looking at other numbers, too. But I don't really have a good answer for question two. And then the only other, for question three, the only other recommendation I would make is to exempt, I'll say publicly funded affordable housing. If somebody comes forward with an affordable housing proposal that we have to fund, we're gonna use affordable housing funds to pay for this strategy. And I just have a philosophical concern with that. You know, we have affordable housing funds for affordable housing, and I'm not really comfortable with using those funds to achieve other goals. That's why we exempt the park dedication requirements. Because, you know, we don't, the subsidy will only be larger if we have a lot of other things that we're trying to cram into those kinds of projects. Every other development, I'm fine, but affordable publicly funded affordable housing. I think we should exempt from the strategy.

[03:47:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep. Council member McAllister.

[03:48:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, I have a lot of concerns. A lot of questions, but I think we have some time to work these out. The... The need for schools is very important, but the need for everything we have. It's gonna be a huge balancing act. I hear a lot of my concerns and my fellow council members, and they're all juggling, a couple balls, and three balls at a time, just trying to figure out how we're gonna do this. And so I'll just go out with my concerns, and we'll go from there. I support a schoolland strategy. I'm disappointed in the sense that the city's leading it, that the school district should be doing it sooner, but at least they're getting involved now. I think it's their major responsibility. It's their elected officials to deal with getting the answers. It's their constituents that they primary have, even though they're residents of Mountain View, and they are our constituents too. But it's their primary responsibility to educate our kids. And I am glad I've been doing council for seven and planning commission, and I'm starting to see that the school districts are getting more and more involved, and that's great. But a lot of times, but in the past, they've been sitting back, and I guess the circumstances of now, they realize that they got to get on board, but I would like to see the school districts drive this issue, and not the city. I agree that we should participate. But down at number three is direction, but I want the school districts to drive it, because they're the ones that are elected officials, that they need answer to their constituents, to take care of their students, with our help. The form of open space, I've always been a great believer of, you know, buying open space and sharing it with our schools, I think, the schools provide probably one of the best and best maintained grass fields in the area. I've always been proud of how the school or the city has maintained the open space and how the school district has allowed access to it. Land dedication. I don't know how that's going to work. And then I have a concern about offsite TDRs. Because right now, we're working on east, we're getting the TDRs from one school district, and we've already developed these precise plans, and now we're modifying them, and we're going to be moving them over to different areas. Right now, we can handle it because it's fairly early in the stage of development. But five, 10 years from now, where we've got general plans, we've got precise plans. We developed an area to particular specs, and all of a sudden now we're going to put something on it. Yes, the goal of trying to help the schools important, but it's impacting those neighborhoods that's impacting the residents of that area. And so, there's a tradeoff that I'm concerned about that we're going down. As the staff report, I also mentioned that TDRs down the road may not be there. And it goes back to where I want the school districts to start being more proactive in their turnerminating how they're going to fund. And so that's, but how we all do that, I'm fine with that. When it comes to this preferred development contribution, Again, I think it's the primary responsibility, the schools. There are a lot of unanswered out there. There's a lot of unknowns that will be going down for years to come. I don't think, I think the school district, should be having more skin in the game than 33%. I don't know what the exact number is, but I think they should be the driving force and not rely on the city, because we don't know what's going to happen. The next recession, we could be laying off people we will be able not to be able to provide the service they're responsible for. So, I'd still like to see the school district responsible. We don't know if development's coming down. I want to be a more conservative approach for the school districts so that as things move forward, They're not relying on 2 unknowns, which are the city and development. I want them to take the burden. And so that's why I want them to be more of the share because then they'll have more control over their future. than relying on 2 unknowns. So whatever the formula is, split share, but I just know I want that number to be higher. I'd rather see them have more skin in the game. And when it comes for other direction, that goes back to communication. I would like to see them come to us with a strategy, collectively or independently. I know, um, I always say, uh, my kids went through this. I went through the school district. Every school that was there, my kids went through the same school that I'm still involved with the schools for various other events, but I need the schools to look at a real hard look at their facilities and say, do we need to go up? I mean, I was at AWOLT, and for years, we had open space, and we went single story, single story, single story, single story. No one was looking about, Hey, let's go 2 stories. Let's go 3 stores. I give credit to the elementary school districts. They're going up. Finally. they're finally realizing that utilization. They have to go up. The school, you're doing Los Altos High School, you're going out. But Mountain View, I'm still seeing single story, single story. I'm talking about that. Two stories. Not everywhere. No. Well, vice mayor, this is over, like, 10, 20 years I've seen, that they took the open space and not gone up. And at the time, they didn't need to, but now, you need to start looking up. Two stories? Is that realistic? You know, if we're looking at constraints, Maybe three, four, five, I mean, you go to inner city cities, they're going up. So, I like to see the schools take a real hard look at their facilities, and then start coordinating with the city to say, here's what we have. What can we do to work together? So that's the direction I like to see. There is no easy answers to find that 10, 20 acres site out there. I don't see it happening unless somebody gets real generous or imminent domain has come down the pike before, and so the schools might have to do something like that. It's not new territory. So, there's a lot out there. I appreciate everybody working together. Again, I appreciate the school district stepping up. I sure like to see some solar over at the elementary schools districts to help some of those costs. But, you know, the assistant superintendent had a great job with it when he was putting in the solar systems, solar panels over there. So the high school is a great example of going with that energy thing. So, I mean, I know it's out of my territory, and it's getting into the weeds, but, you know, I want to see them saving every diamond dollar they can, and building for the future, and managing those things. Those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[03:55:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I'll take a turn here. In terms of question one. You know, we've talked about how the land, getting the land is the challenge here. And so I do support these tools that we can use to get the land. But I also think, as we've heard from the Mountain View Wisman School District, They also have a couple of sites that, um, I would like them to continue to work to see if they could use those because, uh, the Wisman school site is a very large site. And, um, you know, sometimes you have to, um, take a look at breaking leases and other things, um, because times have changed and you need to reevaluate what was done in the past. So, while I support all of these, I think they're going to be the most useful in North Bay Shore, to get school there, and maybe for a high school, but I think for the other elementary schools, we need to be creative. I don't think these are going to be the tools that'll be used there. In terms of the options that staff presented, um, I appreciate all that went into developing these. I also appreciate all the work that went into developing all of the precise plans, and how thoughtful staff and councils and planning commissions were about, we want communities. We want neighborhoods. We don't just want housing for housing's sake. So, obviously, we do want more housing or we wouldn't have approved those precise plans. But I also do want to make sure we get all that comes with having that housing, um, that would make for a nice place for people to live. The quality of life is really important to me. Yes, schools are really important aspect of that. But so are all the other things that we have the community benefits for. And so I really don't want to use the community benefits for schools. I think they're separate. And we do want to continue to improve the trails, the bike paths, the safety for pedestrians, you know, parks, and open space, and all the other things that we've said, you know, we want to have a nice community. So that's why I'm not in favor of using community benefits or lowering community benefits. for the school strategy. But I also will quickly add that I do not want to do something that will make it more challenging or stop residential development. We are a leader in the Bay Area, in putting plans in place and enabling residential. And I'd like to see that come to fruition. Um, and so I am concerned about the burden we would place on development, if we, um, added too much for the school strategy. So, I am leaning toward something that might be between, as has been mentioned, um, the residential feasibility and the split share, and, um, take another look at what that might be. Because again, I really, you know, we made the exception for the Sobrano project. And, um, You know, we've talked about we don't want that to be a precedent, but we also want to see residential development continue. So, for me, it's probably something between those 2 scenarios. And in terms of other, I think we other input, I do think we should look at amending the San Antonio precise plan. We would expect quite a bit of development to happen there. And, um, How much office space is there that's not part of is in the North Bay Shore area? It was only commercial in a master plan that would be subject to this. Is that correct?

[04:00:12] City Staff: That's right

[04:00:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So how much office outside of a master plan would we expect in North Bayshore?

[04:00:20] City Staff: Outside of a master plan? Well, we already have the landings project with a little over 500,000 net new, 5 to 600,000 net new.

[04:00:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anything beyond that?

[04:00:32] City Staff: Well, the gateway is a mixed use master plan. So that would be, and then whatever's left over after that. So Microsoft's already been approved. Broadreach has already been approved. You know, those... Linings is pretty far down the process. Landings is pretty far down the road. So if I had to put a number on what's left in North Bay Shore, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's probably something a little over a million, maybe between a million, million, five. That's just off the top of my head. I'm, you know, round.

[04:01:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's not in a master plan.

[04:01:12] City Staff: That would be in a master plan. That would be in a master plan.

[04:01:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Or, um, or shorebird or some other part of North Bay Shore. Okay.

[04:01:22] City Staff: But yeah, just to add on to that. There's basically one.5 million total office available in North Bay Shore. You'll be discussing the gateway master plan soon and come up with probably a preferred amount for there. But I think the expectation is really almost all of that, if not all of it will be master plan, either at the gateway or shore bird, or some other major, complete neighborhood. You recall, the precise plan requires a master plan for any of the neighborhoods.

[04:01:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Um, so I definitely would like to look at the San Antonio precise plan, but if there are others, um, as the vice mayor mentioned, uh, that we, that would make sense to Amanda, I'd be happy to do that as well. So, um, if there are no other comments, I will summarize what I think I heard, which is, we do support, um, the strategy for, um, open space, land dedication, and off site TDRs, and it sounds like we are, uh, the majority is looking at something between residential feasibility and and split share. And I think I did hear quite a bit of support for, um... Well, you know, this is another one of those instances where there's two or three comments, and not a clear majority, but it sounds like we should take another look at, Is there a creative way to, um, either include more commercial or shift any of the, a little bit more burden to commercial, and looking at additional areas within the city, they could potentially participate in a school strategy. And I do agree with the comment that council member Ramirez made about exempting publicly funded affordable housing, but he and I were the only two that talked about that. I was wondering how others.

[04:03:35] Unknown Speaker: I agree with that. I meant to come back to that.

[04:03:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.. So I think where the majority support that. Um, and did, I don't know if you had anything else in your notes, but that would be kind of my summary.

[04:03:50] Unknown Speaker: So, my counts were a little bit off. I had, um, two firm votes for a split, uh, formula and three, kind of, in the middle, and some that weren't real definitive on an option. And then I had three people say they'd like to see more on office, but unclear what that means.

[04:04:15] Unknown Speaker: I didn't speak, but I would support that as well.

[04:04:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so there's a majority for more office. I looked to Eric on...

[04:04:24] Eric: You're talking about...

[04:04:25] Unknown Speaker: Right now, I believe the fee would be the same for office and residential.

[04:04:30] Eric: Yeah, the staff report, presumes, that the contribution would be the same for office and residential.

[04:04:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It clearly sounds like maybe we should come back. with some additional analysis. along these lines. No? Do you disagree?

[04:04:49] Unknown Speaker: I like closure as much as possible. Especially before the end of the year. Or it could come back in Q1.

[04:04:58] Unknown Speaker: Well, again, just coming back to that, you know, we not likely that we would be able to come back this year, but there are, I think, two or three projects that are relying on this analysis that are expected to be coming before council in Q1. So at least having some direction to give to them, in case we can't come back before they come before you.

[04:05:27] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so I also had, to your point, three, I interpreted council member McAllister's as being somewhere between, even though he didn't say that. He said more than the split share, was he one of the ones?

[04:05:45] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I have him in the middle.

[04:05:47] Unknown Speaker: Yep. So maybe we can just get a straw pole, if there are a majority that want somewhere in the middle, then we can come back with a strategy, including how possibly to allocate more to office, that it would be helpful for both staff and the school districts and the developers to kind of have some boundaries on what we're talking about.

[04:06:10] Unknown Speaker: Since we do a show of hands, 'cause I had council member Ramirez, Kamet, McAllister, and me as somewhere in the middle.

[04:06:18] Unknown Speaker: I think I was, too... I was a little bit more prescriptive about how in the middle I would be, but, um, but it was, it was less than less than the 1316, and it was basically trying to, um, also seen if we could, you know, shift some of the burden to commercial as part of that.

[04:06:41] Unknown Speaker: The only thing that I would say is if we do bring that back, just sort of knowing, um, how, you know, in the, in the council questions, we had sort of what a, what a $31 office contribution would look like compared and how that would impact the residential in order to get to like the same, the same level. And so just knowing, so like a commercial linkage fee currently is it this, right? So we have some order of magnitude of what, $13 versus $31 on commercial square footage is just so we can have a sense of what all that would be. Sorry, that was only saying. I'm in the middle with you. It was in...

[04:07:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[04:07:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, um, a couple of parameters that may be helpful in thinking about this. One would be, um, if you want to start with the split share, um, contribution, then, you know, if you reduce the residential component, you could increase the office component proportionally. So the most important thing is getting the money and not so much where it comes from. So as long as it kind of nets out, maybe that's one way of thinking about this. So, you know, as you as we explore reducing the residential contribution, the proportional office space would make up for that. Another would be, there's, I think big chunks of this will be achieved through land dedication in TDRs. And it's kind of a mystery of how much of this strategy will be achieved by that. But I think the contribution is likely more of a dynamic figure. So if we end up, for instance, with a land dedication in North Bay Shore and maybe a substantial amount of funding available for a school, then, you know, I presume that that would affect the contribution component, because that's a lot of capital that is then freed up just from the land dedication and maybe whatever developer, you know, provided contribution for the construction of the school there. So, you know, it doesn't have to be set right now in perpetuity. I would imagine we'd do some check ins to see what, you know, what percentage of the strategy is is complete, right? So if we do, if we do get a contribution, you know, our dedication of land fairly early on, then, you know, would that have a material impact on the contribution moving forward?

[04:09:11] Unknown Speaker: Well, isn't the contribution citywide? And so it's not like park fees where you have to use it within a certain mile of where it's generated. It's city wide. Um, Eric can chime in, but our assumption was, um, the land dedication doesn't absolve a developer of paying the poor square foot fee.

[04:09:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, you're anticipating both.

[04:09:35] Unknown Speaker: Both. But the land dedication would make the developer or the property owner hold, because they would be able to put the square footage somewhere else on that land. So they're not really losing the value of that square footage.

[04:09:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, I mean, I don't want to belabor the point. So if you have, you know, a property, you know, where you could go up to eight stories, and you've maximized that, and you still have excess development capacity from the dedication, would you be able to go above whatever the development standards are, for the balance of the property?

[04:10:11] Unknown Speaker: Yes. By right, I guess. Well, that would be part of the decision, right? Which is, and it's part of the negotiation, which is if the schools are part of it. We try to figure it out. It's a site planning exercise. And it's not that we haven't done it before, right? And you're not gonna take half and half and make a, you know, something that's twice the size, which is why we say, we can only employ this in areas where there are large, you know, there aren't too many. But the good news is, we're not looking for a school in every area either. So we anticipate employing this, definitely in North Bay Shore, mostly there, and then the other high school site might have to be an actual TDR project, which will, again, make the developer whole.

[04:11:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member, Kumei.

[04:11:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. I just wanted to clarify. So, um, I think that I had said, um, at this time that I was most comfortable with the split share option, but, and that I wasn't comfortable with the residential feasibility option, but if staff evaluated something in the middle, that I would be interested in considering that, I just, so I just wanted to make sure that that was noted.

[04:11:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Yeah. That's what I wrote down that you were in the world. Thank you. So, I think we have enough to go move on. I think we're looking at a residential fee that comes down somewhere in the middle. and a office fee that goes up, and we'll try to balance those and bring something back early in Q1 with a final strategy for formal adoption by the city council. Okay, thank you. Uh, we will close items 7.2. Thank you so much. And we will move on. To item 7.3, which is the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Review.

[04:12:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I forgot. I forgot. I moved to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock.

[04:12:45] Unknown Speaker: I'll second it.

[04:12:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion to... continue with the meeting, or to start a new topic after 10 p.m., and we have a motion by council member Ramirez on second it, all those in favor. That's unanimous, sort of unanimous. Okay, so we will move on to items 7.3 Parkland dedication ordinance review. This is again a study session. And so we will. We'll start with the staff presentation, and then we'll open it up for public comment, and then bring it back to council for discussion.

[04:13:27] Community Services Director John Marchant: Great, thank you. My name's John Marchant. I am the community services director. And with me is Brady Rebush, our senior management analyst, and tonight, we're here to discuss and get input from you related to the review of the Parkland dedication ordinance. To provide quick background, chapter 41 of the city code allows the state's Quimby Act and sets forth the process for parkland dedication or in lieu fees for residential developments. Tonight we will be reviewing elements of the ordinance for discussion, of which are the five listed on the screen. As set forth in the Quinby Act, the city currently uses the goal of providing three acres of parkland to a 1000 residents. This goal is also referenced in the general plan and Park and Open Space Plan. Current calculations use the 2010 census data, and we'll talk a little bit more about that later. Staff plans to start updating the park and open space plan in fiscal year, 2020, 2021. This timeline will allow staff to analyze updated census data in relation to existing and future park space. And this update has been identified as a council goal. To date, the city, as a whole, provides 13.35 acres per 1000 residents, and if Shoreline Regional Park were taken out of the calculation, the city has 2.58 acres per 1000 residents. Each planning area of the city is tracked, and currently the lowest area is ringsdorf area at 0.31. And the highest is the grant area with 6.34 acres per 1000, So on the screen is a list of the planning areas and current ratios. And then we'll move on to the map of our planning areas. The 3 areas that are sufficient are at the north, and then at the opposite side of the south, and it's the 7 planning areas in the middle that are deficient. The following chart shows how staff uses the density formula to determine the acreage requirement per dwelling unit for development units. First, we determine the dwelling units per acre using all units in the development. That determines the density of persons per dwelling unit, and that's the middle column. That is multiplied by 3 and divided by 1000 to get your 3 acres per 1000 residents to determine the acreage requirement per dwelling unit, and that's on the far right. And then this is the 1st part of determining the parkland dedication requirements or in lieu fees, and we'll get to that in just a moment. In 2016, the companion units were added to the list and the calculation of 0016 was approved by city council. So how do we calculate land dedication? The first on the screen there is A equals the acreage requirement per dwelling unit from the previous page. B is the number of net new market rate dwelling units, and those multiplied get the land requirement for dedication for development. To calculate in Luffy, you take the 1st AB that we just discussed, and you multiply that by fair market value per acre of the development, and that provides you with the in lieu fee that is required for the development. In Loofies are collected when parkland dedication does not meet the requirement, and a developer can provide both dedicated parkland and in Loofy's to meet the requirements. When fees are collected, those fees are first considered to be used toward a project within one mile of the development, and as a second option, staff looks to community wide projects, such as the recent rehabilitation of the community center. In Loofies must be committed within 5 years of receipt, and the city has always committed fees within the 5 years. Council policy Cave 15 prioritizes use of the fees in the order provided of acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. And that is echoed in the Parks and Open Space Plan. So for context, I'm going to have Brady go through how a development calculation is created, in case there's questions later.

[04:18:00] Senior Management Analyst Brady Rebush: Good evening or good night. Um, so these are the examples that were in the council report, um, just to provide some context. So on the left, you have a 100 unit residential project, we are for simplicity's sake, assuming no affordable units. 100 unit residential project on a 5 acre project site. And then on the right, you have what we're seeing, what kind of brought this whole issue up is our higher density ones. So a 500 unit residential project on the same 5 acre site. As you see on the left, we do 1st is 100 units divided by 5 acres to get your dwelling units per acre, that establishes it as medium dwelling density, according to table 41.6. That means that we have 2 persons per dwelling unit, which, as John said, when multiplied by 3 acres, divided by a 1000 residents, you get your .006 acres per dwelling unit. On the right, we have 100 dwelling units per acre, which is medium high in high density, which is also assumed to have 2 persons per dwelling unit and uses the same ratio. So, um, that gives us our variable A, for the calculation. And so you have 0.006 acres for both calculations, one has 100 net new market rate, net new market rate dwelling units, and the other one has 500, assuming $12 million per acre, which we see at some of our recent developments. It comes out to either a $720000000 fee or $36000000 fee in lieu of providing either 0.6 acres or 3.0 acres painted which you're looking at. As was pointed out in the report, when you have 100 unit development, um, assuming 2 people per dwelling unit, that's only, um, 200 new residents and the .6 acres to meet the 3 acres per 1000 residents is only, I believe, 12% of the total space, whereas the 3 acres to meet the 1000 new residents would be 60% of the 5 acres site. Obviously making it harder to develop. So tonight, in relation to density formula, we have some options for further analysis, so we would like to hear from you. And that is looking at updating the persons per dwelling unit density levels, separate medium high, and then a separate high dwelling density is a possibility, adding a very high density is a possibility, and then density formula per bedroom. And you can see on attachment 3 to the staff report how the number of bedrooms could be impacted, if that was used as a variable. And so that takes us to council question number one, which is, does the council want us to further explore modifications to the calculations for the density formula, for Parkland dedication or inloof fees, and we'll go through all of the questions at the end of the presentation here?

[04:20:59] Community Services Director John Marchant: So that takes us to a park service area in size. And in 2015, Council updated this list to increase service areas of mini parks to one mile compared to a half mile. This update means that many parks and neighborhood parks are expected to serve residents within a one mile radius, and therefore, the fees can go toward one mile radius. The update in 2015 also lowered the desired area for parks. For example, mini park area from 3 acres in size to one acre in size, and similarly, the neighborhood park size was lowered from 3 to 5 to one to five. Staff believes that the existing policy is actually working, and we'll show you some examples of why we think that. So here's a list of some recently completed projects utilizing our fees. And here's another slide of some of our active projects that we're currently working on. And then we have finally some examples of some future projects that we are preparing for. So the 2nd council for the 2nd question for council tonight is does the city council want staff to explore modifying the service area and size thresholds of the city's park types to be less restrictive? Chapter 41 provides 2 opportunities for open space credits. One is private open space credit, and the 2nd is publicly accessible private open space, which is only available in the North Bay Shore. The private open space credit requires a development to provide at least one contiguous acre of open space does not require public access and must have 4 of the 7 elements shown. If the development meets these requirements, they are eligible for a maximum credit of 50% of the value of the land, which must be then approved by city council. And last April City Council updated chapter 41 to include a possible credit of up to 75% for publicly accessible private open space in the North Bay Shore only. Instead of providing private access, as in the previous slide, this provides public access to the property. This also requires a certain elements to be required of the development, to be eligible, and the project must have 3 of the 5 listed elements, and also must be approved by city council. As part of the same action, the council created an alternate proposal. The ultimate proposal, uh, would be reviewed on a case by case basis and must be approved by city council, so developers can come to city council with creative ideas or solutions to meet the open space necessary. And some options for analysis in regards to that is whether we should require all private open space to be publicly accessible. Should we expand publicly, accessible, private open space, credit citywide? Would city council like to change the percentage value of the land thresholds? Change the type of elements to be included for credits, change the size and specifications of elements to be included, and or the one contiguous acre requirement, and then also expand alternate proposals citywide. That is the question regarding the explorer modifying the credit section to chapter 41. And Steph, again, Steph will begin updating the parks and open space plan next year using updated census data that could be used to update the land requirement or the density formula. Council can direct staff to start addressing suggested changes to chapter 41 earlier or wait for the census data and the update of the parks and open space plan before future action. And so that's the question the city council wants to have to begin analysis on modifying chapter 41 or wait until the Parks and Open Space Plan. And this is your list of questions for you tonight and before we start discussing each of the questions. Staff is tentatively scheduled to come back to council in December this year, however, depending on how the answers go tonight in the direction provided, we may need a little more time than that. We were actually trying to beat Dennis' retirement date to complete this. But depending on the direction provided, We may need to extend that. So with us tonight is Dennis Drennan, real property manager, to help answer some questions. We also have Lindsay Hagan, deputy zoning administrator to help us out, and it definitely takes multiple departments to make all of these parts work. So with that, staff is prepared to answer questions. Thank you.

[04:26:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, this is a study session, so we will open this item up for a public comment. If there's anyone who would like to address the council on this topic. And don't forget to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk either before or after you speak.

[04:26:36] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, San Diego Villa, North Bay Shore Mountain View. For North Bay Shore, can we stop counting the less accessible, the technically green space, like the golf course, as park space? It's not a park. I can't walk through there. It's not nature. I can really enjoy it. I'd like more parks than I can get to. The trail is nice, but yeah, it's not there's not that much accessible park space in North Bajor for residents. Thanks.

[04:27:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[04:27:13] John Hickey: Good evening again, Mayor. Vice mayor, council members, John Hickey, with Summer Housing Group. Thanks for taking up this issue, as you are well aware, as we're well aware, park fees have increased drastically over the past decade and are now, as it says in the staff report, at a point where they're seriously impeding the city's goal of encouraging new housing. We support the city's goal of continuing to provide 3 acres of park per 1000 residents, but we believe there's some opportunities to make the Parkland dedication ordinance more uniform and predictable, so that it doesn't unnecessarily discourage new development. We outline these in a letter that we provided earlier, but I just want to run through them very quickly for those who haven't had the opportunity to hear. First, I think this is probably one of the most important items, is to establish uniform land values for purposes of the park fee. We would recommend basing that on the planning areas that are outlined in the, that were shown in the earlier slide. The, I believe it's 9 different, no, 10 different planning areas for, in the park and open space plan, and having a separate land value established for each one of those areas, and then obviously updating it regularly every 2 to 3 years to make sure that it remains current. Second, we'd ask, and this relates back to an issue that we've raised many times. We'd ask that the park fee be set at the time that the formal application is submitted for a project, because otherwise the lag time between when that application is submitted and actually when the building permits are pulled, which is when currently the fee is due, that can be 18, 24, even 36 months, and the the uncertainty associated with the potential fluctuation in land values over that time just causes increased risk, and the increased risk means that invest require a higher rate of return, which increases the cost of the project. Third, this relates to the open space, the privately owned publicly accessible pathways and other open space, when they're required by a policy or precise plan, we would ask that we be credited for those we believe that that's a fair way of approaching it, given that it's something that the city is requiring. We'd also recommend that the city, as suggested by staff, look at creating some new density categories, to take into account, as was discussed, the lower number of residents per unit in some of the higher density product. And we would also recommend that the city continue to use dwelling units rather than bedrooms, number of bedrooms as the basis for the calculation, so as not to discourage 3 and 4 bedroom units, the larger units, which I know the council, has as one of its goals. Thank you.

[04:30:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:30:11] Paul Donahue: Hi there, I'm Paul Donahue. Um, I appreciate that there's a balance between getting new housing, which we absolutely need, providing services to the new residents, and as the vice mayor pointed out in the last agenda item, maintaining quality of life for the existing residents and the new residents, really. As high density housing is built, the need for parks increases because they're not single family homes, with yards, people to engage in recreation and get access to open space need parks. So I think it's very important to uh, that's why the Quimby act and the Parks and Lou ordinance exist. The ordinance is designed to provide the parks for new residents, and I'm glad to see that the 3 acres per 1000 residents is not in question, that's still being maintained. The question is, how many residents will these developments bring to Mountain View? and how can we best determine the number of residents so that we can determine the required acreage? The numbers that I see in the existing ordinance and the numbers that were floated in the per bedroom and the reduced numbers in the staff report, didn't seem to... I wasn't sure where they came from. How were those numbers created? I think getting some data from recent developments that are completed, that actually have residents, and seeing how many units, how many bedrooms, and how many people actually live there would help inform what the actual requirements should be. As far as, well, I spoke back in 2015 or whenever the ordinance was changed, I spoke against changing the mini park service area from half a mile to a mile, and I want to say that I encourage the council to not further increase the service area. I mean, if there was a development built here at City Hall. It's a mile to middle field and Moffat. Now, would you put a mini park there and expect somebody to be able to walk? I mean, the whole point of a mini park? is that it's walkable. If a development is built at Castro School, would somebody walk to Mercy Bush Park? That doesn't really seem to serve the people of that development. So, thank you.

[04:33:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:33:05] Dave Hopkins: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Counsel, Dave Hopkins, of Saras Regis. Be very quick. I wanted to refer back to the staff table. You don't need to put it up. But the table on the hypothetical project, I thought it was actually very, very illustrative of the numbers, and I can actually cite a few, you know, real numbers about projects, we delivered at the harvest car wash, for example, 52 condos. It was about $28,000, a unit in park fees. I just went back and looked, not that long ago. The numbers that were just up there are $72,000 a unit. $12 million in land for 100 units, $120,000 a unit. So, you know, just very quick, simple math that was on the table, you about a $200,000 per unit cost before you get into anything else, provided that's the actual cost you paid for that land. It just is important to cite those numbers and I think see how this can get in the way of housing production. The parks are very important. Everything that the speaker before me said is true. I think the park fee credits are really, really important tool for development to look at where private, privately owned space is made accessible to the public and used by the private. It's deterring from people potentially using parkland and it's valuable space. So I think we hopefully can look at that as a strategy for, you know, crediting against that $72,000 number per unit as things move forward. Looking at a uniform land value that holds for some period of time, that, you know, the whole variable in the math I just cited was the value that was used in 2015 when an RP was paid on the harves project versus today at $12 million. That's 250% appreciation, you know, revenues and values are up, but they're not up that much. So I think looking at how we can balance these things to create a little more predictability, as was mentioned earlier. and just give people some certainty earlier on in the process would be great. Thank you.

[04:35:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, we'll close public input and bring it back to council for, if you have any additional questions. If, and if not, we can jump into the questions that Steph ask of us. Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[04:35:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um... My question has to do with private open space versus public open space. Since we are now looking at the potential crediting of publicly accessible, private open space. I guess it brought to my mind the question is, why do we, why do we require private open, like, should, could we, potentially just say, everything is public open space and have them dedicate that land? But that, I mean, these are rules that we set up, right? But can they not be changed?

[04:36:24] Staff Presenter: But for some developments, the private open space allows them an opportunity similar to what the gentleman just said, an opportunity to have recreation sites on their own property, and therefore would not be impacting some other recreational facilities. So I think that's part of the reason why there's the opportunity for that credit compared to not.

[04:36:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess my question is, a lot of these open spaces, I can understand if they're gated, but some are not. And so, um, it's just always brought to my mind, you know, what is the, you don't see the lines necessarily, right? So, um, why would it matter, frankly, like, if it's accessible, why not just make it public?

[04:37:12] Staff Presenter: Probably accessible to private office.

[04:37:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, and just take out the private part of it, just make it public, make them dedicate that as public open space.

[04:37:21] Staff Presenter: I'll make them dedicated, yes. maintain it.

[04:37:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I understand that, but we have to build more parks anyway, and we have to maintain those. So if we're getting that land within a development, I don't see the difference of that between versus us going out and, you know, purchasing more land that we end up making a public park.

[04:37:43] Staff Presenter: Right. And so also, one of the elements that's an option on the table is a private pool. And so, a developer does get the credit, may reduce the amount of people going to a public pool, but then you would not want the public to be accessing that area. So I do see what you're saying, it's just a matter of how, if you would like to see a change to that, how those elements would then change with the suggested changes from council. I also think there's a difference between publicly accessible and private open space and then an actual dedicated public park in terms of the design process, the city involvement in all of that. And so if we require them to make it a publicly accessible private open space where they maintain it, then it's more like the, what we're seeing with 1255 pair versus other developments like 400 San Antonio, which has 0.4 acres, which we are now going to take through our formal public park process. And so the process for developing it. And then I think what you're also seeing now with the credits, we haven't had a lot of credits, applications or approvals. And now we're seeing a couple come through. And what you're seeing, I think, more with it is also the mixed use development. So one of the things with 1255 pair was the office being right next to it and then the residential. And so, um, I don't know if they would be amicable to just giving us a public park and taking it through that process when it affects both sides of their development.

[04:39:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, yeah, that's, if we're seeing more of these requests for credit, I guess, to me, that just seems to push that point of, why don't we just make it, like, that they dedicate that land as public open space. And so then that, because land is really the value, right? The scarcity, and us taking fees, and having to go find land to buy, takes years as we've learned. So if they want the credit for it, then, you know, we just don't take the fee and just take the land dedication. Like, can we require that?

[04:39:43] Unknown Speaker: And that is something you can ask us to look further into and analyze and bring back to you, absolutely.

[04:39:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. And then, I just had a question about, um, the formula and, um, ADUs are on here. I know this is all new, but there was new ADA. legislation that's, again, trying to cap fees. So, um, will that affect that this formula at all?

[04:40:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we haven't had a chance to go through everything in great detail, but yes, we will have to assess how it impacts the current ordinance and its companion unit.

[04:40:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. And then, um, in terms of the 2 so is it 2.58 acres per thousand, we have citywide now. So, my senses we've up that acreage over time, um, If we ever hit three, what do we do at that point? Do we just maintain this formula or could it potentially be adjusted?

[04:40:44] Unknown Speaker: And that's going to be the interesting part with the updated census numbers, is to look at how we are really doing with the new numbers that come out next year. And so there may be, uh, a slight decrease in the overall, um, acres per 1000 residents because of updated numbers. So while we're creeping up, there may be a tick back based on an increased population that we're expecting. And so as we go through the process, we'll continue to update the parks and open space plan and continue to look at that. And so we'll see how that variable continues over time.

[04:41:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[04:41:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I asked the question about, what's the direction of the parks to population ratio going, going over the last five years? And I actually wanted this... And the answer was not what I was looking for. The answer I was trying to figure out, is that five years ago, we were at 2.6. How did it, what was the number each year to get to where we are? So, you guys have that information? I wanted to see if there was a trend going down. I wouldn't say comparison between five years ago and today.

[04:41:58] Unknown Speaker: I don't have that in front of me. We can get that for you. In short, really, the only new park that we brought online in last 5 years was Heritage Park, and then I would have to go back and look at the citywide census data for population, but I would expect that that number went down. We had expended a lot of our fees on rehabilitation projects, such as the community center. And Shoreline Athletic Field was one of our major projects, but that was on open space. Granted, it was landfill in a very intricate project, but it still didn't increase the actual acreage while providing a very important amenity to this.

[04:42:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's the point I was trying to figure out is, as the population goes, we're decreasing our park space. We're not maintaining or trying to achieve our goal of 3 acres.

[04:42:42] Unknown Speaker: Just to be clear, though, this is not linear. I mean, we've only had one park in the last five years and our population has grown. We have five parks in the works right now. So, you know, there's gonna be bounces up and down.

[04:42:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, that's the bouncing up and down. I want to see. Thank you.

[04:42:58] Unknown Speaker: Again, if you look at attachment two in the staff report, all the highlighted parks are, um, the ones that we're anticipating, um, as future parks, and how would that affect the ratio? So you can get back to me on that one, John, but it'll be taking us from, uh, it'll be taking us to 2.79.

[04:43:16] Councilmember John McAlister: And what did we have five years ago?

[04:43:18] Unknown Speaker: I don't know what it was five years ago, I'm sorry.

[04:43:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The other question I had, and this came up, there's two questions came up during the Rock Street development, and that went back to the bedrooms. How the units went from, see, 20 units to 19 townhouses, but the bedrooms went up, yet there was no net park fees. And you're trying to address that now.

[04:43:47] Unknown Speaker: Well, the new number of units is what we would be looking for the parkland P4. So if you were looking at bedrooms, as the preview speaker talked about going back to attachment for, depending on the type of development that you're looking at, utilizing a bedroom can either increase the cost for the Park and Luffy or it can decrease it. It can actually fluctuate up and down. And so, it's a matter of policy of do we want to have that fluctuation based on the number of bedrooms.

[04:44:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And, in your opinion, would the bedrooms give you a better reflection of the number of people versus units?

[04:44:35] Unknown Speaker: It's like. Well, whose lane is it?

[04:44:40] Unknown Speaker: I think the question, there's a couple of things. We couldn't find a similar situation that another city looks at the calculation that way. So we'd have to do some further analysis above and beyond what we've done in attachment for. And so, I think the easiest way for us is the way we have been doing it. It makes sense to us. It is something that others use as well. And so that's the best answer I can give you at the moment.

[04:45:09] Unknown Speaker: If I can just add to that. So, ultimately, the sense of status provides us information per household. So we're always gonna use that as a source, and whether we backtrack into the bedrooms or not, If we look into that, I mean, that's all kind of work we would have to look into if council's interested us in us looking at bedrooms. So it's not necessarily going to potentially increase the number of people per household. It really depends. We have to kind of get more data and analysis to really figure that out.

[04:45:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, the reason I think, because as we're seeing more and more of these replacement developments, you're getting more bedrooms, and therefore, I'm, you know, simpletons thinking, you're getting more people. But yet there's not paying any, we're getting more people, but we're not getting any more money to support the parks. Whereas the units could have been a one bedroom, or a two bedroom, now we're getting a three or four bedrooms, and was there a ratio of 1.5 to a bedroom or something like that?

[04:46:04] Unknown Speaker: That was if we were showing an example if there was a lower ratio, based on a studio or one bedroom here.

[04:46:10] Councilmember John McAlister: So that's why I'm saying we're getting more people, but we're not getting any money. So I'd like to see that study. And the other question I had is that I also noticed that the Rock Street is that our calculations maxed out at 26 plus. And then I asked that, I was the one that asked that question so forth and so forth. And then you gave a chart on that comparison. But if you boiled it down, do we, if we changed it and broke it down in the segments? Would we get the same amount of money, or I'm trying to figure out what you came up with there? If you add another... Now, if you add a bunch of different categories. Well, no, so if you go, they maximize the current dwellings at 26 plus per units per acre at 26 plus. But we're getting a lot of 400, 600, 700 units. And therefore, would you need to have those categories, or would that 26 plus be a realistic number to come with?

[04:47:10] Unknown Speaker: I think that's one of the things that we're asking for direction on tonight is whether you would like us to look into that further. I think that when you start seeing these larger developments and where you are anticipating higher one bedroom and studio counts, we would probably expect potentially a lower average than 2 people per dwelling unit. But at this point, we just really wanted to see if the density formula was something you guys were as a group interested in exploring. I don't have those numbers or what those densities should be or anything like that on hand, but that is something that we would definitely look into is how many levels should we have? Where should we cut the threshold for high and very high? Should we break out medium high, high, very high, and how we would do that? But we didn't dive that deep into the analysis yet. That would be part of the next step.

[04:47:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Any other cities, you know, that do it that way?

[04:47:58] Unknown Speaker: The more based off of the attachment for with the comparison to other cities, we actually have the most broken out, I believe, or were very similar to the most broken out. Other cities have just single family and multifamily. If you go further than the number of categories that we have.

[04:48:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[04:48:18] Unknown Speaker: Those are just the adjacent cities. If you want us to look further. I'm sure there's other examples out there.

[04:48:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[04:48:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: One of your questions is, does city council want staff to begin analysis on potential modifications now or wait until, um, the open space plan update in 2021, when you have more data, I'd actually like to do whatever works better for you. So I'd like to have an opinion, you know, is it more efficient to just do it all at once, or would you rather, or is it better to get started early?

[04:48:58] Unknown Speaker: So I think it's twofold. Number one, is whether council has a pressing desire for immediate action for whatever reason. From a staff standpoint, having the updated census numbers and being able to look at our ratios again, utilizing the new census data would actually be beneficial to us, I think. And then we'll be able to give a much more broad spectrum of options at that point. But if even through this process, we further understand the variables that you're interested in. It would help us prepare if it was delayed to that point to be able to come back with a more robust project.

[04:49:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: When will we have the census data?

[04:49:44] Unknown Speaker: 2021 It's been 10 years. to be released next year. I think late spring, early summer.

[04:49:54] Unknown Speaker: And just to add to that, really, the census data helps us with, uh, will help us with our populations by planning area. You can still go get the population of the whole city, but breaking it down by planning area. will help us understand how we're achieving our 3 acres per 1000 residents in those areas, and it'll also help with our dwelling unit calculations, but we don't necessarily need census data for modifications to the credit section, if that's something you would like us to look into. And so I think that there's parts of this that will be beneficial to do with the parks and open space plan, but others that if there's a pressing need due to other factors in the city that you'd like us to examine, we could do that.

[04:50:30] Unknown Speaker: Just add on on the census. I believe the actual census day is April one or something 2020, that's the day we all fill out the census, but it will take a considerable amount of time before the date is available, I think it might be a year or so before you actually get data, but I think, you know, there's a lot of preliminary work and analysis we can start, but we really can't complete the analysis and fully until we have the census data. So my suggestion is we time it. so that we do some prework, but we don't duplicate efforts or start, and then stop. So I just had one question, and that is, in a new development, the definition of private, open space, doesn't that also include things like balconies and other things like that?

[04:51:29] Unknown Speaker: Go ahead. So there's two different things at play. There's the private open space that we require per zoning or precise plan, and then there's the private open space credit through the parkland process. So, um, that would not include balconies. It needs to be accessible to everyone in that development.

[04:51:52] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so it would be a different definition.

[04:51:55] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's a different application.

[04:51:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay. Thanks. Oops. Got some of the Kome. Great, thanks. I just had a quick question about attachment. Four, I think. Is that what it is?

[04:52:12] Unknown Speaker: Yes, so attachment four. So, um, one of the columns talks about land value calculation, and we do each development similar to the city of Palo Alto, and then the others provided here, talk about how they do it annually. Can you just, um, maybe further explain a little bit about why you do things, each, we do things each development versus annually?

[04:52:36] Unknown Speaker: And I'm going to ask Dennis Dernan to come on up and speak. So glad you stayed, Dennis.

[04:52:43] Property Program Administrator Dennis Dernan: Dennis General Property program administrator. When I come up with the per acre land value, I've applied general appraisal principles, and I have a number of comparable sales, the low density residential to high density residential. And the two influencing factors, I can consider, is the location of the development, and then the density. A higher density development is going to command a higher land value than a lower density development, all other things being equal. So, I have seen a significant increase in land values. Developers are still paying a lot of money for property, but that's essentially the way I develop that fate. That's the one subjective variable in the formula is the per acre land value.

[04:53:44] Unknown Speaker: And if I can add to that, I think what we find, and Dennis can correct me if he disagrees, but what we find is that development by development after the development's built, you know, our number one priority for using that fees acquisition, and now the value of land immediately around that new development, in theory, has gone up as well. And so when you set one standard for a year, I mean, if you look at 400 San Antonio, we collected 24.900000 from that one, and they provided a .4 acre park, and I forget what the exact land requirement was, but we got 2 acres for 23 million. shared with the school district, and it's a lot more complicated than that. But, basically, we didn't get the full acreage because land cost went up and what we paid for from that that was required by that development.

[04:54:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Appreciate it. Council member Hicks.

[04:54:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Dennis, while you're up. one more question for you. So, while there was some talk of, let me see if I can get this right. Um, there was some talk of calculating in Luffy's at the time of application, not, uh, not permit issuing, and I think when that was being spoken about, I saw you shaking your head.

[04:55:03] Property Program Administrator Dennis Dernan: That is... That's incorrect.

[04:55:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[04:55:07] Property Program Administrator Dennis Dernan: The fees are actually collected. at the time the building permit is issued, but I calculate the fee very early on. In fact, I often, um, work with developers when they first come in with an idea of a development, and I understand that they're trying to develop a pro forma to see if their project pencils out. And they need to know what all their cost and fees are. And so I will give them, I will calculate the fee based on, and assume number of units, and so on. And I tell them that they can count on that fee for one year, as long as the scope and scale of their development doesn't change. If the number of units change, or there are BMR units that are dedicated, those things can change the fee. But I give that number to them very early on, and when they first submit a planning application, and oftentimes even before that. And then it stays the same.

[04:56:10] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And for a year.

[04:56:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Yes.

[04:56:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[04:56:15] Unknown Speaker: I don't want to surprise them. I, you know, I try and... those numbers out for them.

[04:56:20] Unknown Speaker: Dennis. Um, and so then you've given my gear, can they, do they have the option to pay the, that amount before that year is up, so that it's not, if the, the project's lagging longer, we would be, right, we would recalculate it, but if they want that set amount, can they pay prepay?

[04:56:45] Unknown Speaker: Suppose they could prepay. I can't imagine any of them would want to.

[04:56:50] Unknown Speaker: Just to keep that amount, right?

[04:56:53] Unknown Speaker: I mean, but that fee is pretty well locked in until, you know, as long as it's within one year, when they pay it at the time they pull their building permit, so...

[04:57:01] Unknown Speaker: If I can just interject? Uh, you'd be basically asking a developer to prepay a fee, hedging a bet that their project might be approved.

[04:57:08] Unknown Speaker: Right. Or that it remains the same.

[04:57:11] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so it'd be a huge at risk.

[04:57:14] Unknown Speaker: I guess it's, um, it's just alluding to the housing impact fee and how we've had some company, LinkedIn, for instance, pre-pay that fee. So my question was, could we do the same for park fees? If they're concerned about that fee changing.

[04:57:37] Unknown Speaker: I don't have Chapter 41 in front of me, but I believe that Chapter 41 says that those fees will be paid, uh, at the time, they pull permits. And part of it is to make sure we're consistent with the Quinby Act as well, or any other laws that relate to fee collection. So we'd have to look into that.

[04:57:56] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thanks.

[04:58:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, any other... Okay, so staff ask us some specific questions? And I think we can do all of them at once. Especially because the fifth one is anything else. Council member Clark.

[04:58:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll start. Um... So, for number one, I think this one, in particular, doesn't have to be done, um, necessarily ahead of, um, the census data, but, um, I do think we should explore, um, you've offered a few different options in the report about, you know, perhaps looking at different categories for, you know, very high density, um, medium density, high density. And so I think it would, um, And I think there was a, there was an example of 0.45 or there, you provide some example data for one particular case. And so I think as we, as we look at long-term, um, reevaluating this, I think it does make sense to sort of look at different thresholds for the different, um, different densities, um, instead of applying a single, um, a single formula to to all of those just because I think they do to have different um, different occupancy rates for those. I would. I would caution against, um, I feel pretty strongly, we shouldn't use bedrooms, for the reason that if I were in, if I cared a lot about, um, developers building more, you know, two, three, 4 bedroom units, it's a pretty significant disincentive, um, if they're, um, I mean, that's basically just giving them instead of, don't we do studios in one bedrooms. So I think, I would shy away from the bedroom calculation, especially since no one else does that, probably for good reason, because it creates a disincentive to build housing that would be, I think, for small families and folks with more than 2 bedrooms. So those are, so I think I would be interested in longer term in looking at different formulas for different densities. The service areas, I'm really not interested in the size specials. not that interested in changing at this point, but I'm open to what others have to say there, but that wasn't top of mind for me. I think, um, the things that I might want to look at modifying in the interim, sort of before, um, we have the census data backing can work on things would be a couple of things. One would be, um, coming up with a better way to the thing that I hear over and over again is certainty about, the fee, and whether that's, and I get that it's set for a year, but, you know, some of these projects have taken two, 3 years to go through the system. And so I think if we can find a way to just provide some assurance of what the liability will be upfront. I think that would be much more helpful. And whether that's moving to, like, a citywide annual amount, like other jurisdictions have done, or whether it's just saying, you know, we'll calculate it, sort of like we do today, when you file the around, roughly when you file the formal application. And, um, you know, as long as, as long as the application doesn't change significantly, we have to build in some safeguards so that, um, you know, they can't sort of find some way to use that grandfather the mound if something changes very um, significantly over time. But I don't have an issue with providing some certainty upfront as long as the application moves forward on both sides in good faith and doesn't change significant way to sort of state what what that, um, what that view would be. So that's one thing that I would be interested in doing upfront. And then, um, I would be open to applying some of the, um, some of the credit mechanisms, um, that we've come up with. I wouldn't make them more generous and they are, but I think, um, I think the one providing the option for them to provide an alternative that's may not necessarily meet all of these specific criteria, but that they and staff feel would ultimately be equal to or greater than in terms of value for the open space piece, the parks and open space requirement. Um. Like we did in North Bay Shore. I'd be open to proposals, just like we do with community benefits or affordable housing. And then, um, I would be open to exploring, um, So the private open space, uh, publicly accessible private open space issue, um, I would be open to looking at, you know, can that, can that just be a dedication? But I would only consider that if we can enter into an arrangement where it's maintained by them, and we can take it over at any point or we have some right to sort of take it over at some point if they're failing to maintain. it or whatever. But, um, I just don't want to I just don't want to be in a world where we're, one, having to go through the whole parks planning process for that narrow strip or whatever it happens to be, and I don't want to have to be obligated to maintain it either upfront. But if we want to look at, you know, having some mechanism by which we have the ability to sort of take that over, um, long term, I'm okay with that. But otherwise, in terms of credits, I would, I think we've done a good job in terms of providing the different thresholds, the 50% credit, which some other jurisdictions have done for the, for the, for private open space, but that meets these very specific criteria that, you know, has certain elements within it. It's a certain size, just like we do in North Bay Shore. And then, I don't mind doing the 75% for something that is, you know, 100% publicly accessible and meets these specific items. And I'd be open to, you know, if there's some way to make that a dedication in exchange for that, as long as we're not obligated to go through upfront the whole planning process and the maintenance and all that. But we have the right to go through that at some point if we need to. For example, if they're failing to maintain it in the way that we feel is the best way. And then, and then I would add just that, the ability for someone to propose something that's equal or greater, greater value, just like they can elsewhere. I think we've actually had pretty good luck with that in some cases. And we're not obligated. Obviously, we could just reject it. Those are those are the handful of things that I might do a little sooner rather than wait 2 years or so year and a half . Should I answer all the questions? I think that's it.

[05:05:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[05:05:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, and I think many of my comments will be substantially similar. So, for question, one, I agree with council member Clark, I'm also interested in considering changes to the density levels, and I think it makes sense to consider that in the context of the, the update, whether the census information that will get, it looks like in 2021 or thereabouts. I'm where I differ is I would be interested in exploring something other than the current calculation methodology. So whether that's bedrooms or based on square footage, some way to be able to mitigate the impact of the redevelopment that we're seeing. So, I mean, if you, you know, if you, just because you reduce unit count or even have unit parity doesn't mean that there isn't a net increase in the demand for park space. So in those developments where we are seeing a considerable increase in bedrooms or just livable square footage, maybe that's a way where we can partially mitigate that increased impact. So I would like to explore that a little bit further. For, uh, so I, there was a public comment about the service area that, that resonates with me. I mean, there's a certain point where, you know, a mini park is not really practical for an individual or a family. So I don't really have great parameters by which to evaluate what that might be, if it's a half a mile or something different. I'm interested in further exploring modifications, though. But, you know, a mile is pretty far. Um, I'm also interested.

[05:07:58] Unknown Speaker: Did you say you are interested in?

[05:08:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I am interested in potential modifications.

[05:08:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thanks.

[05:08:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But I don't have great direction to provide beyond that, unfortunately. I'm also interested in exploring modifications to the credit section. In my, in my mind, publicly accessible private open space is more valuable than just private open space. And I appreciate that having private open space, and, you know, one contiguous parcel does mitigate the impact because you can provide some on-site, um, you know, uh, open space, um, but I would, if we're going to give credit, and I would rather give credit for publicly accessible, um, open space with the parameters that council member Clark had described about, um, you know, the private property owner would be responsible for the maintenance. And maybe the credit could be proportional to the amenities that are provided. So just open space has some value, and maybe that's worth a 50% credit. But something that provides a lot of amenities like a publicly accessible swimming pool, which would be hard to get otherwise. It would be if they just dedicated land, it would be very expensive for the city to provide that amenities. So maybe a greater credit would be appropriate there. So, if there's a way to, you know, have the credit be proportional to the amenities that are provided. That's what I'm particularly interested in, but very broadly. I think a credit is appropriate for publicly accessible private open space. I think I partially answered question four. So if there are modifications that could be made sooner to address some of the concerns we've described. I'm comfortable with that. But if it's more appropriate or beneficial for staff to wait until the update, then I'm comfortable with that. Or question five. In my mind, you know, what we want more, 1st and foremost is parkland and open space. You know, it's not, you know, the fee can be valuable, especially if there isn't an opportunity to secure on-site open space, but really, if there are opportunities to incentivize or encourage dedication, that's what I'm most interested in. that may even require, you know, modifications to development and standards. So if there's, you know, we talked about transferring development rights, right? So if you have some amount of development capacity that's lost because of a dedication, being able to redistribute that to the developable site makes some sense and maybe having some, you know, relaxation of standards to enable that would be appropriate. So if you could only build 4 stories, and you have some excess development capacity, you know, going up to six, I'm comfortable with if it means we get dedicated land. So I don't know if that's really within the scope of chapter 41. But that's something that I would be interested in exploring. One other thing would be, there was a question about applying the fee to office or commercial space, I would be interested in exploring that. And if that requires a nexus study. I'm comfortable with doing one. You know, the point being, we need to maximize opportunities to secure open space and it's only going to be increasingly difficult. So if we open up opportunities with the development of office space. And I'm comfortable with that. And the last thing, I wasn't really sure if this, where this would apply, but the land value calculation, if it helps provide, you know, some certainty or predictability, I would be comfortable with sort of like an average land value. And I think it does make sense to keep that within the planning area, because different planning areas, I think we'll have different land values based on the land use and just whatever the price of the land is there. So I would be comfortable with exploring that as well if it helps with the predictability issue. And that's everything. Thank you.

[05:12:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:12:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, I like... So, the... I'm a big proponent of the bedrooms, because it does give us a more accurate count and impact. So, um, you know, I keep... been doing... I don't know all the answers, but when people say, Well, we can't do that. If you do that, this disincentivizes them. Well, we have department review. I mean, a development review, and they say, hey, we need three and four bedrooms. And so if somebody's putting in townhouses, and they're only going to put in two bedrooms. Um, and they have limited space there. They're going to maximize that space with what they can get in there. So that doesn't concern me that that's not, they're not going to put in as many bedrooms as possible or 3 or four. So I think we need to do, I get a formula that truly shows the impact, and I think the bedroom does it. As we all know that we keep constantly trying to buy park space, and it's getting harder and harder to do that. So I would go down that path. The service area, yeah, the...

[05:13:31] Unknown Speaker: So, were you referring to the service area that a mini park would be a mile away?

[05:13:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah.

[05:13:38] Unknown Speaker: And so is that what you were saying? Maybe modify that to a half a mile?

[05:13:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Used to be half mile. So this isn't the table 40, this table on slide 13, is that your proposal, or

[05:13:50] Unknown Speaker: that's what it is? That's what it is.

[05:13:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so if we went back to the mini park at one half a mile, that's what you're sort of looking at or...

[05:14:00] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, expanding. You want to make a mini park up to a mile away?

[05:14:03] Councilmember John McAlister: That's what it is correct. Or 2 miles or whatever.

[05:14:06] Unknown Speaker: You're saying just asking if that was something you would like to look at.

[05:14:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I would like to look at it, because we're getting more dense. And so, therefore, something that was a mile away, all of a sudden, you have twice as many people, then you probably would want, maybe another mini parking it. So I think I would like to go the other direction and start looking at putting in more mini parks as necessary. So, I guess the answer to your question is, to make it less restrictive, so I want it more restrictive.

[05:14:37] Unknown Speaker: I'm asking. So I'm just saying, so we already went from the half mile radius to a mile. to a mile radius. And so the question is, is another modification being requested by council?

[05:14:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I want to make it a half a mile because we're getting more dense, so we need to put more parks into there. So I want to review it the other way.

[05:14:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so the reason it went to the one mile, for context, was that it was, we were having difficulty being able to find property within the half mile, going to a mile radius gave us a little more flexibility to find available property to meet the requirement of a mini park.

[05:15:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Right. Well, that was them, within five years, when that little area got torn down in the 20 story building sitting there, so I like to go back the other way. And I also would probably give us more incentive to maybe try a little harder to buy property instead of just pushing it down the road. Well, we can't find it. Let's find something easier. So I think I'd rather have a park that's closer to a neighborhood then. further away. Explore modifying the credit section. You know, I wanted to get clarification from, uh, council member, Clark, is that when we were doing the, when you guys were doing the Sobrado, you were saying, Well, we're going to do 75%, and it's only for North Bay Shore, and that's the only thing that we were going to allow it to, don't want it to bleed into other parts of the city.

[05:15:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: That wasn't something I said.

[05:16:01] Councilmember John McAlister: No, that's why I'm, like, clarifying it.

[05:16:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: I definitely didn't say that. There were certain things about the Sobrado piece that I didn't think should be precedent setting.

[05:16:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, that's what I want to clarify.

[05:16:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: What was unique about the publicly accessible private open space is we hadn't seen that before, a lot of other cities hadn't either. And because of the size, and them maintaining it, there were just a lot of benefits that we hadn't seen that anyone else had. And I thought at the time that it was, it was worthy of a credit that was greater than our current 50% credit, which is just for private, that isn't even accessible. So I wanted to incentivize that. that sort of thing. And so if that can go up high citywide, in my mind, that's actually really...

[05:16:46] Councilmember John McAlister: To go up to 75%.

[05:16:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, because right now, there's a 50% credit for like 77 middle field, that large but private park, that gets a 50% credit, it's not even going to be publicly accessible. And so if we can get more of those publicly accessible and maintained privately, I think that's a big benefit to the city, especially considering. I mean, it's not as good as us going out in acquiring land or getting a full land dedication, but it's close enough to me that it's worthy of roughly 75% credit. So that's one thing that I didn't think should just be restricted to that one particular project.

[05:17:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Yeah, because I, for some reason, I thought you thought that was gonna be setting a precedent, and now, it has. Okay. So I'm not a thrill of... Well, I don't want to explain to loosen the credit section. I'm afraid that if we start going 75. We're really gonna be diluting of that critical mass, a size that we need to put in a field, or so exercise, or people can play a little bit of soccer, or throw the ball around, if it's in somebody's apartment complex. Does that mean that you...

[05:18:06] Unknown Speaker: They're very specific criteria, so it has to be a minimum of one acre, and it has to have at least three of five things. It has to have a children's playground, a game core, family picnic area, land, turf play field. So it's very specific about what, and you don't even have to approve it then. It's not an automatic credit.

[05:18:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I guess I'm... I think that things do have them to change, 'cause I asked the one question about, uh, and I guess I didn't understand the question. So when Serrano put in their continuous thing, and they had, one continuous thing, and they had three of the five items, and then down below, the next paragraphs, the shape and location, the open space must be conducive, conducive for public use, comply with the city guidelines for restrooms. And I asked the question about restrooms. So, you were saying a park has to be bigger than three acres to have a restroom? Is that what you were referring to?

[05:19:03] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so if... Yes, our guidelines for requirements are over 3 acres, um, if it's gonna be under 3 acres, but has specific amenities, um, we can council can require a restroom, but as policy setting, we only require a restroom over 3 acres.

[05:19:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, let's take the example of Sobrado, and you got continuous acre or whatever. And could we put the requirement of a restroom in there, because it is sort of a unique animal, as people go through there, it's not like it's, you're in your neighborhood, and you do something, or you're in a apartment complex or something. I mean, you're there, you could stay some time, but there's no restroom facilities nearby. Is that something that...

[05:19:52] Unknown Speaker: At this point, we haven't looked at that, uh, that is a need, or as part of that, um, as part of that policy.

[05:20:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well, I'm just okay. I'm no on credit, because I think it's going to lead down to a path of diminishing returns. Modifications to wait till the park. I think, uh, the reason for the potential modifications, I'd like to see some certainty for development development that's going to happen right now. You know, I hate to see somebody come down the pike, and all of a sudden, they're doing it and say, well, come back in a year, and we'll tell you what you owe. So in regards to current items in the pipeline, or about to be, or looked at, I would like to have a certainty for that they would have something to be able to pencil in for their pro forma, and direction in regard to the view park. Um, emphasizing trying to get our gold, it's three acres, and not keep, you know, because I noticed when I asked that one question, you guys were taking Park and Luffy, and you were going, uh, building and improving certain locations. I don't know what I did with the... Oh, there it is. So, in the pack, not increasing park and open space, acreage, community center renovations, shoreline athletic field, park restrooms, and all the, some other things that were going on, and if the cost of land is continually excessive, we're just sort of hurting ourselves to try to get that park land. So I think we should concentrate on getting the land, and then eventually build that out. So those are my remarks.

[05:21:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:21:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my main comments, I think my computer's dying, so I'll see if I can just remember them. Um, my main comments on, let's see, the, on the Parkland Dedication Ordinance Review are, um... So, some of my main concerns are on what qualifies as, uh, as Parkland. There's a list, if my computer's not dead. There's a list of things, actually, you have them right here. Thank you. that we need certain things on the, um, for them to qualify. This is, some of the things are turf playfield, landscape, park like quiet area, family picnic area, um, game court area, children's playground, or play structure. I would like to make it more flexible. I feel that we're going, since a large part of our, this is different than the list I just read off, but since a large portion of our parkland is school sites, and the school sites, generally, it's trending that the more usable part of the school sites are tracks and ball fields. I would like some flexibility with the other parkland we create to address other needs besides always the things that the school sites provide, which are the children's playground structure and the turf play field. So I would like to open up that list of things. I think that what we often lack in this city are things like greenways, walking and running, walking, like more natural areas, I know that parks in some surrounding cities, even small playgrounds have things that children of all ages can use together, such as water elements, tree trunks, climbing trees, hills, sort of more natural areas like that. I also liked very much, I guess it was Sylvan Park that just put in some exercise equipment that looked. I just read about it. It looked really nice. So I think I would like that list of things that some of these parks need to be expanded, and also the definition of game court, I've liked to see our civic center, the sort of pop up park there, how many people have engaged with that, and those aren't, I think, the typical games that you would consider a part of a game court, or maybe they are, you can tell me. So those are some of the, those are some of the kinds of things that I would like to see changed. Um, I'm also very interested in the, uh, the privately owned publicly accessible parks that we've been talking about. I guess I agree with the trend that other council members have talked about. I'd like to see how those play out, because I also think in terms of expanding what our parks offer, and who they offer, you know, I'm feeling like we're not offering enough to seniors and people of all genders and all abilities. And I think that that model in smaller parks might offer a greater variety. As for the rest of the list of questions, I can go through them quickly. Does, number one, do we want staff to further explore modifications of calculations for density, et cetera, et cetera? Yes, I would prefer, um, not to count bedrooms because I think it is a disincentive to build, uh, family sized units. Number two, do I want staff to explore modifying the service area and size thresholds, to be less restrictive? I think some of this we just modified, but if you're having trouble, you know, I think you would be the subject expert on this, if you're having trouble finding park areas, then I would like you to, if you feel that it's necessary to go further down that road, then yes. Do we want staff to explore modifying the credit section of chapter 41? Yes, um, And then the question of when to do it. I was leaning towards waiting until the census data came out, but it seems like that'll be a long time, so maybe start before that. And then number five, I answer.

[05:26:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Just to clarify, Ken, your opening comments about more flexibility and the criteria. I think, I want to clarify, I think you're referring to the criteria for the credit, is that correct?

[05:26:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:26:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[05:27:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, so regarding the first question. Originally, I thought maybe we should look at revisit the formula. But, um, I guess in looking at the chart of comparison cities, um, I noticed that our ratios are actually on par or even lower than some of the other cities around us. I don't know what Sunnyvales are, but they're also at 5 acres per thousand. So I guess I'm a little perplexed at why I've heard, I think we've all heard, you know, complaints about our fees are too high because looking at this chart, I think it's pretty comparable to, um, the others, and in terms of land values, I think, were comparable too. So I actually am fine with what we have right now. So in terms of modifying the service areas. I agree. I think like the mini parks should be lower, but if it's an issue of availability, then, um, you know, I leave that up to staff and status quo is probably where we should continue. But I guess that's where I go to the next question about credit. And, um, I think when we did the North Bay Shore project, that was the 1st time I guess I really looked at this. And, um, I didn't, or I learned about our credit for private open space. And I actually don't really support that. So I think, as I mentioned, you know, I just don't, I don't want our city to become more and more of these gated communities or these silos and, you know, we, we're talking about like North Bay Shore and even the office buildings being more permeable. And I guess, you know, having been someone who used parks a lot with my kids, like, I don't know what's open, like what's private and what's public all the time. If there's no gate around it, you know, I just think, okay, I can go in there and use it. And so that, and that's how I want, you know, the community to be is to be open and accessible for to as many people as possible. So, um, you know, I would stick with just publicly accessible private open space, and I would be open to doing that city wide, um, at 50%, not 75%, but I would also like to ask staff to look at whether we can just have that dedication as a public space. But I agree with Council member Clark, with some kind of agreement that, you know, I don't want our park staff to have to go to every little .2 acre piece of land, you know, to maintain it. If it's going to be part of the groundskeeping of a development anyway, I'd rather have the property owner, just take care of it. And maybe we can give them more credit then. So, yeah, the 50% I can be flexible on, but that's my hope is, and, you know, I just, I guess I get more and more concerned that a lot of our developments are becoming these private communities. And, you know, I don't want us to start out walling or so we can talk about walls, but walling, you know, walling ourselves off, I really want us to be able to access as much of the city as possible publicly. So, um, Let's see. Going to... Oh, um, I think those items. are things we could probably start now before the census data comes out. Um So looking at the private the credit issue, the public access of private open space or just having it dedicated. I'm not, you know, changing. I'm not saying change the formula here, so that doesn't need to be looked at. Yeah, so everything I've said that needs to be explored. And then I do agree with Councilman Ramirez, I think we could look at office space and applying the fee there. I was over at San Antonio shopping center the other day and right in front of the restaurants, Paul Martin. There's the green space. And there was like a, um, like a frisbee gang going on. And it's like, okay, these aren't, you know, it's the middle of the day. these aren't, I don't think they're the residents and they all knew each other. So it's like, oh, it must be maybe the employees of, you know, Facebook or the one of the businesses. So they're obviously using the space, which is totally fine. So I think they could definitely participate in acquiring and maintaining the open space. And I think that's it. Thanks.

[05:32:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kame.

[05:32:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So I just want to start by saying how excited I am about all of the completed parks, the active projects, and then our expected future projects. I mean, I'm excited about it. I think that there's a lot coming online and every time I'm walking, running, et cetera. I see a new open space of some sort and I get really excited that at least we're being creative where we can in terms of cultivating that and doing that. And I just want to thanks staff for all your efforts there. Um, So to go through the questions. Um, for one, um, I too feel, okay, with our current calculations, um, and don't necessarily, uh, feel like we need to, to look into that. Um, for question to for, um, I'm not interested in modifying the service area. I too would have wanted it to stay at the .5, but understand that we are trying to be more flexible. The one thing that I would be interested in is the size threshold, so I know, particularly, it needs to be the one acre contiguous piece, and I would be flexible in terms of if the size was, um, not necessarily contiguous, and again, to be created, to creative in terms of the size.

[05:33:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: For the credit or for definition of a mini park?

[05:34:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Both. Um, and then for question three, um, I, I actually am okay with the credits, and I think that the privately, accessible, privately own publicly accessible parks is a creative way of trying to create more open space opportunities, and, um, kind of similar to what staff was saying in terms of the processes. It sounds like, um, it might be able to be more streamlined. Um, if we're able to do that. And so I'm okay with that. I'm further exploring it. For question for, let's see, the suggestion by the city manager to kind of develop what we can now and then wait for the census data. I'm fine with. Um, and then for question five. Um, I am not comfortable looking at bedrooms. Um, I am okay calculating by the units, um, and I do feel like I'd like to create a little bit more framework in terms of predictive predictability. And while I feel fine by the, you know, development by development basis. Um, how can we create more certainty for the development community if we for not doing it on an, reviewing it on an annual basis. Those are my comments. Thanks.

[05:35:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I'm gonna take a turn. Okay, so, um, for me, I am interested in doing a very high density category, or other categories, if it makes sense to do that. So revisiting the categories. And, you know, I sort of have mixed feelings about... Do we do this by bedrooms or not? I was thinking we should, and then I saw the comparison, and it was different than I expected it to be, when you do it by the number of bedrooms. So I'm kind of torn on that one. Let's see, we've got, um... One, two, three... Three people who said, don't do bedrooms. And you were okay with it leaving, so I guess that is, we don't do bedrooms. Um Well, Margaret left her, she said, just leave it like it is. So that's a change. In terms of modifying the service area and the size thresholds, I'm okay with how they are now, so I would not look into changing those. I think I had a different take on what to do about the credits. And I actually would like to eliminate the private open space credit. And just do a credit for publicly accessible, private open space, but I would change it to a 50% credit rather than a 75 that's in North Bay Shore, because, as we said, many times when we discuss that one. We did not that want that one to set the standard for everything else. And so modifying it to a 50% credit, I think, would be better. And that eliminates the issue of if you don't have a credit for private open space that's not publicly accessible. I think that addresses the point where we say we want the city to be open. I do agree that we should look at how to provide greater certainty. And there are so many different ways to do that. I don't know that I have preference, but I think it's worth looking into, and I think we could do that now, as well as the credit section, and then I'm okay waiting for any changes to the modifications, to the calculations, until we have the census data. Did you have more comments? Vice mayor, by COVID.

[05:38:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I wanted to, I guess, address the certainty issue, and, um, I don't know if this would help, but, um, If the issue is, well, one project, what if we did the calculation at the time, the project is approved? Would that make a difference?

[05:39:16] City Staff: So you're kind of moving it back a bit. But... We could do the calculation at the time, the project is approved, but, um, that creates a big surprise for a developer. I mean, they're trying to develop their pro forma. very early on in their planning process, and if they wait until they get project entitlements, and then we calculate the fee at that time. There could be a big surprise for them.

[05:39:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, if you did an initial, and then did the final at approval, would that help? Or giving them two years? I just, yeah, trying to think of other ways to get around this.

[05:39:58] City Staff: Again, I've been giving them a park fee very early on in the process. Certainly, at the time they submit their planning application, that's generally when I get a question from planning staff or our land development staff, asking for the parking Luffy. But oftentimes I'll be approached by a developer very early on, and I'll give them what the fee is, you know, with assume development scheme.

[05:40:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is it the issue is just that these projects take longer than a year, so then the fee gets recalculated, is that the, I guess, the concern or the consternation that we're hearing about. Pizza?

[05:40:46] City Staff: So, we've heard this. I've heard it. I think many of us heard, I've heard, you know, often this issue, this problem, this concern, is that just because these projects take more than a year, usually for approval. Um, You know... Some of the discussion about, you know, having fees for land value in certain planning areas. Um, I think. It creates an imbalance of sorts because you have some projects that are high density, some are lower density. You know, if you try and get a one size fits all on that favors, one development over another. So, you know, I think still relying on market data and coming up with that value early on, like we do, something that should work. And I think for further exploration of certainty, We'll talk with the development community and see if they just need something more formal from Dennis, and if that would satisfy it. But the other side of that is when you are talking about certainty, are you looking for us to lock it in for longer than the year that Dennis typically gives them?

[05:42:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, maybe that I guess, yeah, I'm trying to find an alternative, so I agree about, um, I think, you know, each development is different, and setting it by planning area does create that imbalance. And I also think we need to collect the fees we need to be able to acquire the land we need. So I don't want to touch that, but if it's, you know, certainty, and we can give them six, you know, 18 months or, I don't know, or 24 months, whatever. I'm open to that flexibility. So if staff could maybe look at that, that would be great.

[05:42:46] City Staff: We'll definitely have Dennis help us look into that in the next month and a half, 2 months, 74 days.

[05:42:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Dan, how many days? Dan, how many days? Uh, Council member Komei?

[05:43:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Sorry, I forgot one thing. Councilman Ramirez and the vice mayor had mentioned support for the Nexus study on commercial and I just wanted to voice my support for that.

[05:43:24] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yeah, I would support that too.

[05:43:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, okay, so that's now more than four. doing a nexus study to potentially apply this to commercial.

[05:43:40] City Staff: We can certainly do that, but just keeping my nexus studies are big undertakings and expensive undertakings, so that will have to be built into a future work plan.

[05:43:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That was actually my comment, as I was gonna say, I'm supportive of that too, but I would do it as part of the census data process. So, and that's actually one reason why I wanted to look at the different calculations for, you know, perhaps very high or just just to sort of open all that up and look at it as all part of that with the next study for commercial and just, um, I think it'll be, but, um, anyway, I support that. I think, I think, but doing that process should be the longer term one is part of the sense of study. And then the only other thing I was going to suggest is one other path that you could explore in the next month and a half would be perhaps we use our current process, but there's also, there's an escalation, there's a maximum escalation factor. So it won't exceed X percent more than whatever value Dennis gives them, right? So if it takes 2 or 3 years, then yeah, it may go up, but it's not going to go above a certain amount. That could be one option.

[05:44:53] City Staff: And if I could just jump in, I would say there's probably other parameters we'd have to put in place in terms of them actively progressing, you know, their project forward, and that there's not a lot of changes to the density or type of construction or whatever.

[05:45:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so folks added some other comments to things that I thought we already kind of summarized. So in terms of adding or exploring other categories. Um, Council member Hicks, you just said you didn't want to do bedrooms. Are you okay with the current categories? Or did you want to explore others?

[05:45:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I would explore that, but I didn't want the bedrooms to be because I thought it would be a disincentive to develop family units.

[05:45:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So it looks like we do have, um... The majority is saying that we do want to explore some other categories there. The one area where we provided some, the majority provided some similar comment, but we also had a lot of other comments is in the area of credits. Um, so I feel like I did hear a majority support that Um, if the private space is publicly accessible. Let me see if I wrote this down correctly. They would get a credit, but we want them to maintain the property. And actually, there's several folks said a dedication, but if it's a dedication, that would mean it would be city property, right?

[05:46:42] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think what some council members were saying, to explore dedication, but they would still maintain it, so it's sort of... a hybrid.

[05:46:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So did the majority say that?

[05:46:58] Unknown Speaker: So that's too bad. I'm open to exploring it. I don't know how feasible it is, and it might end up being something that we have to explore as part of the longer term process, but I'm certainly open to exploring it. I think in terms of what we do initially, I'm open to sort of the way you summarized it, which is, you know, we'll provide a credit as long as it's publicly accessible, private open space that's maintained by them. And if we want to look longer term, it may be some other options where it's actually dedicated, but still. It might be an area where you just allow creativity or options, depending on the situation. I mean, frankly, you don't really want a dedication of a sliver through a development. But if it happens to be configured in a way or big enough in a way that it makes sense, sure, that's an option.

[05:47:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think it's not something you'd want to mandate, but you're open to the possibility of it. So on the credits, just to clarify there are a few people that said they wanted to eliminate the credit for pure private, but I didn't hear a majority, but not everyone. weighed in explicitly on that. So that might be helpful to get clarity on. So I had, um, at least I had two. I had two that said eliminated and reduced the publicly accessible private open space to 50%. But several people didn't weigh in one way or the other on that. You don't want to give credit for it. For private open space? So that's three.

[05:48:33] Unknown Speaker: I think we should leave the credit there. a big part of what made, like, 77 middle field work, where we had a whole bunch of other, um, things at play. So, I think there is some value to that in a really high density project where, um, where you're mitigating some of the need for a broader public area. And I totally get, you know, and we can still require pathways and other things, and I get the whole. want to wall everything off either, but I think there is some value in some of these larger, larger spaces and examples like triples have a middle field that I wouldn't want to eliminate. So just a thought.

[05:49:16] City Staff: Number one, both of these credits are at council's discretion. They're not mandatory, but if you're interested in reducing the privately accessible, whatever, privately owned, publicly accessible, one to 50%, you might want to think about lowering. Because the reason we set that at 75 is because we already have the 50% on the books. So you might want to think about possibly saying lowering the private only to 25% as a maximum, still at your discretion. And then, if you wanted to have 50% for the maximum, for the publicly accessible private open space.

[05:49:57] City Staff: And just for clarification, both of the credits are up to. So counsel has discretion not to go all the way, so it doesn't, it's not a full 75%. You can scale it to 50, depending on the amenities and all of that.

[05:50:12] Unknown Speaker: So are there any projects that are in the queue? There were several. Did they all come to council? Or would this force them to come to council or any approved by the zoning administrator?

[05:50:26] City Staff: So you're talking about any project that's asked for private open space? Because I think in the questions, or maybe in the Stanford Report, there were like 5 or 6. That, uh, so none in the current history that I'm aware of, zoning administrator project approved a private open space that wasn't either going to be publicly accessible through some kind of easement or agreement. So I think, um, they, if we start with just the private open space credit, um, I think there's only been one and then it said that there were several in the queue. But I'm not sure I can put my hands on that right now.

[05:51:12] Unknown Speaker: Right now, it's just being explored. I wouldn't say that they're in the queue or it's more just, we've had with a 1255 pair coming up. There's been a lot more excitement about the credit, for instance, 777 and all of that. I think when 77 was originally brought here, they weren't looking to apply for the credit. I don't have a list of the developments though, offhand.

[05:51:35] Unknown Speaker: Lindsay, would it be possible if somebody's asking for a credit that it would have to come to council? Is that kind of a criteria we could have? versus a ZA?

[05:51:45] Lindsay: I mean, that's definitely something that could be part of a discussion tonight and moving forward. I think ultimately the zoning administrator can defer any project to council. But, um,

[05:51:56] Unknown Speaker: So maybe we just say, um, as things we want you to look at, um, that would be included.

[05:52:03] Lindsay: Sure.

[05:52:05] Unknown Speaker: So I would be for reducing it to 25% looking at that in 50% if it's publicly accessible, private open space.

[05:52:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, look at that.

[05:52:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think we had four. Because you... Yeah. What? Yeah. Okay.

[05:52:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark. Are you in the queue?

[05:52:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, I was in there before, but I, um, I will just mention the one other thing that I mentioned that staff had asked that we should maybe get show of hands on is whether we want to, um, allow sort of like we do with affordable housing or a few other things where you can, you can propose something to equal or greater value, um, is part of, especially if we're, um, yeah. I don't know if folks are okay with that. But that was one question I think we got asked.

[05:53:01] Unknown Speaker: So, what's an example of something of equal or greater value?

[05:53:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Someone might propose some combination of a land dedication and some other things. Maybe there's, like, a really valuable, I don't know, greenway or path. It's hard to, it's hard to contemplate what it might be, but we've done it with affordable houses. It's something creative and of equal or greater value. Yeah.

[05:53:27] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, maybe it's a public accessible pool. don't know.

[05:53:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Were there for that? Okay. Okay. Council member Ramirez.

[05:53:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. No, not to beat a dead horse, but one more time on the bedrooms. Maybe one compromise may be the greater of in value, because I do want to capture the I want to mitigate the impact of projects that may not be required because there's a net reduction or unit parity, but still an increase in population. And that way, you know, if there's a project that has a lot of, you know, studios in one bedrooms, you would still capture what we would currently be able to capture. But for those projects that, um, that require demolition of existing units, you still mitigate that impact. But just one idea.

[05:54:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you're proposing that if the unit count results in nothing, then we look at the number of bedrooms. I'd be open to that. Are others open to that? Just looking at it, right?

[05:54:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[05:54:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If the unit count is the same, and therefore no parkland fees or dedication is required, then let's look at the number of bedrooms. Can you do something like that? Is that like...

[05:55:02] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we'll just have to check that against the laws in place.

[05:55:05] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Yeah, do you also have to jive that with the stated earlier desire for some certainty, if that's a determination that's not being made until time of entitlement, that could create less certainty?

[05:55:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, right. Okay, any other comments? Okay, we will close this item. And move on to item 8 with it, which is council, staff, and committee reports. Thank you. Thank you. Vice mayor, obbe coga?

[05:56:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, I just wanted to, uh, report that we had our CSFRA ad hoc subcommittee meeting number four yesterday, and, um, I think it's safe to say we've concluded our work, and, um, well, staff will be bringing the recommendations to council on, I believe November 12th. Um, although, uh, we will be up, I'll be looking at the staff report before it's posted to make sure that everything is in there, um, if we need to discuss, we will add that, we had a 5th committee a meeting on this November 6th scheduled, um, But if we don't need it, we won't do it. And that's the hope. Thanks.

[05:56:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council Amber Clark.

[05:56:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: I had remembered, um, this came up last year, and I just wanted to take council's temperature on it this year. Um, whether or not we, whether or not there's interest in, at one point when we looked at, um, minimum wage, we talked about aligning with the other, um, the other cities around us on the same schedule. And so, since that's, I think, set to come up in January or at some point. I just wanted to take council's temperature on whether or not we want to revisit that and try and all get on an aligned an aligned cycle and raise schedule or if folks just want to leave it as is. Because my state of preference at the time was to get everyone sort of on the same cycle and basically the same level going forward. And so, I'm still, um, I'd still like to do that, but I don't know if, um, you know, the council is very different. It's changed a number of times, 3 times, I guess, since then. So I just wanted to check and see if folks want to do that, because if we do want to do it, we should get a memo and talk about that before, to give folks plenty of time. And if not, then so be it, but I want to do, we spring it up and make sure that we had the opportunity to agendize it if we wanted to.

[05:58:22] Unknown Speaker: Do we have any idea what Sunnyvale's doing? Have we heard?

[05:58:25] City Manager Dan Rich: So, yeah, just a few comments on that. My recollection is, we in Sunnyvale are the two that are above everyone else, we are aligned with each other, both with a January, one CPI increase. I did check for the Sunnyvale City manager. They do not have anything agendaized at this point to change it. And they are using a November one kind of go date for notifying the public. Our staff is in preparations, similarly for November one, communications on what the new rate would be, just so everyone has advanced notice. So if you were going to make a change, we would want to know that and do that very soon.

[05:59:13] Unknown Speaker: Would it be, basically, would the change be, for example, who we wanted to align with, um, Sunnyvale and we wanted to align with others? Would it just be deferring the raise to like July? Is that essentially what it ends up being, or is it more complicated?

[05:59:26] City Manager Dan Rich: I believe everybody's a year behind us, essentially? Summer, January, summer, July, but I think most of them are one full year behind us. So if you wanted to align, we would have to double check, but I think essentially what you do is you would defer the cola for one year and then we would be on track with everybody else.

[05:59:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have a comment?

[05:59:50] Unknown Speaker: I spare, like, Coca? I guess I had a question. Do we have a sense of what the CPI increase will be for this coming year? And then could we just get a chart of where all the other cities are because I know they're not all at 15 either. There's some that are and some that are at 14. So before we decide, I'd like to see if an alignment can even happen at this point.

[06:00:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, the issue for tonight is whether or not to bring back an agenda item, we can certainly do that. My general understanding of CPI is coming in at about 2.5%. And I believe our rate is scheduled to go to, I believe, $16.04 an hour somewhere around there. Um, So if council wants us to provide either an agenda item or a memo, um, or that information. We can certainly do that if it's just a memo, though, frankly, you're not going to have the ability to act on it, and we really would need action in the next 2 weeks to stay on track.

[06:01:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so I would be open to having it on the agenda, um, with the information so that if we do want to do something, we could.

[06:01:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I could go along with that. Again, that ties back to the city's association. It was trying to get everybody on board. And so this could be an opportune time to get the forces all the same rate.

[06:01:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so I could see having a memo, but I, my understanding is that everybody's in a different place, so I don't see how we would, what we would be aligning with or how we would do that.

[06:01:41] Unknown Speaker: They would come up to our. So we kept going, so by deferring it for one year. And that would bring everybody closer to the $15 or so forth.

[06:01:50] Unknown Speaker: Well, I don't I'm willing to look at a memo, but I don't think that's how it would work out, because Sunnyvale's where we are, and the rest are all in different places, is my understanding. But maybe I don't understand it right. I am willing to look at a memo.

[06:02:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's the whole point of having the discussion is to let you understand... So we have the data. We have the data in front of us. And then, if we want to make that decision by agendizing, we can take it from there.

[06:02:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does anyone over here? have comments? Can we discuss this? Are there four nodding heads on that?

[06:02:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, my preference would be to have a memo and an agenda item that we can just choose to jettison. And we may decide that we may decide, you know, it's too soon now, but maybe we want to try and, um, we start the conversation with Sunnyvale and others for the following period. I don't know. We can discuss that at the time, but I think having the memo of where everyone is and then deciding, you know, we can jettison the agenda item, the majority can just vote to continue or the item or to table it, I guess they could just vote to table it if they're not interested. at the time.

[06:03:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, Can we have a show of hands on this one? Do agenda, sir? To have the data in a memo and put it on the agenda.

[06:03:22] Unknown Speaker: You don't want to look at it to think about it?

[06:03:24] Unknown Speaker: It's not gonna work. Because we lost one CPI here. Well, the holding it back won't work. Frankly, you know, my argument is, everyone else should go up one. They're not doing it. They didn't do it last. But holding us...

[06:03:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: not discussing the substance of the item tonight, we're simply discussing whether or not we're gonna agendize it.

[06:03:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, well, yeah, I don't think it's gonna work.

[06:03:53] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I don't have the data to know it's gonna work or not. So, um, I'd like to see the data.

[06:04:09] Unknown Speaker: I would support a memo. I mean, I feel like we've been out of sync for so long that I don't know what the value is, but if an informational memo is helpful, then I would support at least the information.

[06:04:22] City Manager Dan Rich: Just to be clear, the informational memo is an agenda item that, frankly, it would have to be next week, because looking at the agenda on the 29th, it's a nightmare. So we can bring you a one pager next week that says, this is what everyone else has, and this is what CPI is, and that's all it's going to say. And then you can discuss.

[06:04:46] Unknown Speaker: So it would say what the rate where everyone is and the date that they would change?

[06:04:52] City Manager Dan Rich: Would say whatever we currently have easily accessible.

[06:04:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yeah, I don't want to do, I don't want to add that as an agenda item next week, but... Okay.

[06:05:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I don't think we have four votes.

[06:05:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[06:05:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, so, moving on from that. Um... I'm in the queue. So we had a cities association meeting last week, and you know how in the past we had talked about forming a subregion arena subregion. And for various reasons, mostly having to do with timing, and, um, yeah, mostly timing. And what a bag is doing. It's really not going to be possible to form that subregion. So we looked at alternatives to that. And the board voted, and I'm going to use these words very carefully. The board voted to form a regional planning cooperative. And then we will get an MOU for our consideration to join that regional planning cooperative that the board agreed to form. So I was kind of concerned that, you know, I couldn't speak on behalf of our city, but I felt comfortable. Okay, if we want to form it, and then this council gets to decide if we join it. And we'll have, we will get more information on that, but there is one that already exists in San Mateo County. Yep. And they've got 21 I think they call it 21 elements. So you could, if you wanted to do a little bit of pre-research, you could look at that. But it would not be the arena subregion that we had originally discussed. Um, okay, and then the 2nd item is, uh, we had a VTA policy advisory committee, meeting, and we briefly discussed what happened with the criteria that would be used to allocate, measure B, bike ped, capital project grants, and the Technical advisory committee and the policy advisory committee agreed on the criteria, but when it got to the board, it was changed, and it was primarily changed to benefit, under served, and areas of concern. Thank you. Which basically skews the criteria a bit more towards San Jose. I'll be very blunt here. And, um, I can't say that I was happy about that. What's the point of having a tag and a pack if you are not going to take seriously their recommendations. But, um, we are gonna do another one of these for the measure B, innovative, transit, service, model, competitive grants, and we'll be, we saw a straw man for what the criteria might be, but we are gonna talk about it next time. So the tip of the tack and the pack. talk about it, and then it'll go to the board. I don't know if you want to add anything. Since you're on the board.

[06:08:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, so it was truly a political decision. Mayor Licardo actually said it was a political decision. They went against the staff report. It had been talked about, and the way the voting took place, it was, watched the video, just to see how things transpired, and how people came in and out, but it was, and we're trying to push for regional cooperation, and get away from the parochial decision making, and it was disappointing to see how blatant it was. Especially given the grand jury report that says, yes, San Jose dominates, and that's what happened. Yeah, San Jose and the two supervisors voted for the... That's all I have.

[06:09:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does anybody else have anything?

[06:09:26] Unknown Speaker: I have a question for the city manager. So we're gonna be having a topic about small business enhancements. Isn't that one of our agenda items coming up? What's it actually called?

[06:09:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Small business development. I think that was one of the council goals. I don't believe that schedule to come this year.

[06:10:00] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay. Yeah.

[06:10:02] City Manager Dan Rich: And speaking of which, I just want to let you all know in our vast viewing audience, we will be putting out an update to the calendar for the remainder of the year. There are several changes and movements. Most important for right now is the study session on the shuttle will not be next week. We're gonna give you a memo with an update, but we need more time to do some additional outreach and analysis. So stay tuned for some changes and we'll post it on the website as well.

[06:10:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anything else? Okay. So is there a closed session report?

[06:10:44] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is no closed session report.

[06:10:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So, we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, October 22nd, 2019 at 6:15 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →