November 5, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call this meeting to order, and we'll start with roll call.

[00:00:02] City Clerk: Let's see, um, Council member Hicks and Vice Mayor Abikoka are absent. All their council members are present.

[00:00:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Council member Hicks has just arrived. Thank you. The first item agenda is item 3.1, the gateway master plan, and we will start with a staff presentation, and since this is a study session, then we'll open it up for public input. And then we'll bring it back to the council for discussion and direction. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[00:00:33] Staff Presenter: Thank you, Mayor Matachek and council members. My presentation tonight will focus on these items, brief review of the gateway policy direction from our general plan, an overview of opportunities and constraints for the gateway master plan, and then the key strategies and questions, these five topics that are noted on the screen. Just in terms of an overview, the map here shows the location of the gateway area. It's in the North Bay Shore Precise Plan at the intersection of 101 in Shoreline Boulevard. And then the up close map here shows the gateway area and the parcel lines and property ownership and acreage. In terms of the general plan policy direction, the three policies on the screen really kind of set the foundation for a lot of this work. The first policy is regarding city gateways, that the general plan calls for emphasizing city gateways that create a distinct and positive impression. The second policy regarding Shoreline Boulevard, and the desire to see a mix of uses along that corridor. And the third policy, very specific to this site, is to encourage the redevelopment of the gateway area at 101 in Shoreline. On the screen is a list of the relevant precise plan and principles that have guided this work to date. We've used these principles, just to set the foundation, and in the development of the materials before you, attached to the staff report is a more complete list of these principles, as well as the urban design principles, with a notation on how the work to date is addressing these principles. The precise one has the opportunity to create complete neighborhoods in North Bajore, as the council is aware. It's an important goal for the city and for the area. And the idea is to have these three complete neighborhoods, Joaquin, Shorebird, and pair, and each of them have a broad mix of uses to, again, create this complete neighborhood environment. And just for reference, the gateway is located in the Joaquin neighborhood. Another key opportunity is linking jobs to housing. And I think we've said this before, but the bonus office FAR, that's present in the precise plan, is really the currency that would allow further residential development. So the idea is how can we link these two together to help us build out the vision of the precise plan. The table on the screen, as well as in your staff report, provides just some general housing to office ratios. Again, these are just a guide, just because we've had interest in this, but it just shows the housing units and office square footage and then the general ratio. Again, the gateway may very well have a different ultimate ratio because of the different land uses that we're seeking there. But this is just a conversation starting point. In terms of constraints, One of the major constraints of this gateway areas, the existing property lines, as shown on the screen, the area is controlled by SiWest and Google. The property line locations really create number of inefficiencies in terms of trying to have an integrative, cohesive master plan development. There's limited access to some of the parcels. Additionally, the landowners have different views on the land use locations that they want to put on their properties, and the property lines hinder that at some extent. And then another challenge is trying to build out this whole 30 acres and phase it with different public improvements in streets, again, becomes more complicated with the property line locations as they are. One of the major constraints to redevelopment of the gateway area is the limited vehicle capacity that we have, along the gateways into North Bay Shore, shown on the screen, the three arrows. Most notably, the lack of vehicle capacity on Shoreline Boulevard. The baseline scenario studies that we've been doing for this work, confirm what we've been noting in years past in our North Bay Shore monitoring that there really is just is a lack of vehicle capacity once you factor in all the planned improvements that were proposing, as well as some of the projects recently approved projects and future projects in the pipeline in North Bay Shore. So with that, we will need new strategies, and the North Bay Shore circulation study. Will be examining some of these strategies. They're listed on the screen. studying potential new gateways, all the way down to congestion pricing. These are just some ideas that will further iterate on throughout this process. Another constraint is the economic feasibility of redevelopment of the gateway. The team generated several alternatives, as shown on your screen. Again, different degrees of office square footage, housing, retail, and hotel, as well as parking. These were developed based on the broad mix of use is desired at the gateway site, and what could be accommodated at this location. The key finding is that, again, the land values and construction costs, as well as the city requirements, make redevelopment very economically challenging. So we took those alternatives, and analyzed these scenarios further, again, the different scenarios based on the amount of office, as shown on the top row, low office, 300,000, all the way up to high office, 900,000. And really looked at how each of these options will play out in terms of total project revenues, the total project costs, and then getting down to the bottom row, which is the residual land value per acre, is that once you add up and subtract all that, what you result, the result is a value lessen the current market value of about 10000000 per acre, which just shows you that redevelopment is very challenging in this environment. Again, with these alternatives, there are trade offs. I mean, the low office, it generates the less amount of revenue, but, again, has a less amount of traffic. The high office, again more revenue. But again, a lot more traffic impacts. So we ultimately decided on it. middle ground. The medium office, 500,000 square foot option, which we are proposing tonight, and we'll be doing further work on. One of the key strategies for the precise plan is really trying to create that great place that we all want to see out in North Bay Shore. And one of the initial ways we want to do that is to look at this large 30 acre site and how are we going to connect it to the surrounding areas. So as you see on the screen, what we propose to do is have strong connections to Joaquin Road, as well as Pear Avenue. So there's access and integration with those areas. We want to break up the site into smaller blocks, so it's a lot easier to walk throughout the site. We also want to have a variety of street types, main public streets, as well as neighborhood streets, and perhaps alleys. And then we also want to design all the streets within this area for all users, both vehicles as well as bikes and pedestrians. One key place making strategy involves the gateway building design. So as you enter North Bay Shore and the gateway area, buildings can be designed to be, you know, highly visible or iconic, as shown on the screen, to announce your arrival in North Bay Shore. And so that's one key strategy that we want to further iterate on. Another strategy is to include civic space within the gateway. Again, the precise plan has a conceptual location of a key civic space in this gateway area, a place to gather, socialize, and recreate. Another place making strategy, again, regards to open space, is using urban plazas, has open space. A place for conserve residents, employees of the area, and visitors. So here's a couple requisite images here. Another key place making strategy is, again, having active ground floor uses and encouraging a lot of pedestrian activity. And then, finally, different place types, mixed use all the way down to office, can help create that strong sense of place, having buildings out close to the street, again, to support those active uses on sidewalks. and open space areas. So, in terms of place making strategies, the first topic before you, the EPC considered this project in October, and their comments were overall support for the placemaking strategies in the report, and what I just referenced. and also wanting to cluster retail where possible. So the first question for counsel is, does this council support these placemaking strategies for the Gateway Master Plan? A second key strategy for you tonight is the general land use locations within this Gateway Master Plan area. Staff and the consultant team looked at different land use configurations, and ultimately decided on the land use plan before you, taking into account, general land use principles, The precise plan principles, the alignment of the new bridge, which I'll talk about shortly, and TDM strategies, as well as surrounding land uses. So, these are really just kind of common sense principles, really, but what we see here is locating the office and entertainment and nonresidential uses closer to the freeway here, to act as a buffer to the residential neighborhoods. We want to create closer to Plymouth Street, again, to shield from the noise and emissions of the freeway. We want to have retail be visible from shoreline, and have it complement the existing pear avenue retail area. We also want to have open space that's close to pedestrian activity within the site. And again, have that be accessible and visible from shoreline. And then we want to locate the parking towards the west and the south of the site. So here's a conceptual graphic showing this complete neighborhood, the Joaquin neighborhood, where the different land uses could be potentially located in how they relate to the gateway. Again, I just talked about general locations within the gateway, mixed use, residential and office, or non residential uses here. And this graphic just shows how the other land uses surrounding the gateway kind of interact with this area. The blue is office, yellow is residential, the tan or mixed use, and you can see how it kind of all blends together. Again, purple is institutional. This is a potential school site. We've been considering very conceptually, again, showing right across the street from a planned residential within the gateway. And then, of course, you have the bike pad bridge, as well as the greenway here. which kind of stitches it all together. So here's our more refined version of that graphic that I just showed you, just showing where all the blocks are located, and the different land uses, and again, some kind of images showing what a park, the main street, and the central plaza could look like. So, although this is kind of the recommended land use plan that we've come up with, again, this is shown here on the left of the screen, these are the land uses that I just showed you, we also realize that the property owners may want to develop without modifying the property lines and using the existing property lines. So we've been working on another island. to the right of the screen, which, again, shows the existing property lines, and generally, shows how this land use program would work if we just kept the property lines where they are. There's a few differences here. I mean, the recommended land use locations here, have smaller blocks, a few more connections, there's more efficient layout in parking, and there's about roughly 200 more units in this preferred land use option. The office is all on the Si West modified property location here. Whereas the existing splits at roughly 250,000 on each Google property in the SiWest property. So, the EPC considered this, and had comments on, again, the recommended land use program that I just showed. Had a comment to move the parking to the center and be accessible to retail. Some of the retail should have Shoreline Boulevard frontage or be directly visible from Shoreline, as well as some additional comments. So question number two is, does the council support the locations of land uses as shown in Map 4. The next strategy involves the land use program. Again, this land use program is very loosely based on the general plan and precise plan allowed uses for the gateway character area, as well as property owner interest. So what you see on the screen is the rough amount of square footage that we've been modeling and testing for this area. And again, as I mentioned earlier, moving forward with an option for about half a million square feet of office, and we'll be further testing this with additional transportation modeling in the coming months. So, with regards to the land use program, the EPC general support, for the mix of uses, and the 500,000 square foot office option, noting it would be ideal to have as close to 2,000 units as possible, and that office FAR currency, as I mentioned earlier, can potentially be used or traded to help implement the desired land use program. So question number three, is does council support this general land use program. And the fourth strategy is regarding parking. Again, the precise plan vision is really envisioning the North Bay Shore as a car light area. with the general reduced parking ratios from standard rates, using a shared parking district for nonresidential uses. and overall including an estimating a shared parking reduction for the site. And then also locating the parking away from Shoreline, and so it's accessed via Plymouth and the Rainstorf Gateway. In this chart, it's also in your staff report basically shows one column with typical suburban parking rates, and you see the total there, about 3,200 spaces, and the breakdown by use. And then the proposed gateway master plan standard, the second column, which shows, you know, roughly 1,000 spaces less. Again, North Bay Shore vision is to try to reduce parking, reduce trips, and focus on other modes of transportation, which is why we're proposing this reduced parking standard. So the EPC express support for the proposed standards, with some additional comments on the screen, and as well as in your staff report. So question number four, does the council support these proposed parking standards and parking strategies? And the last topic, as part of this, my presentation, is regarding the bicycle pedestrian bridge, which is currently in design right now. And that's shown in the yellow line here, starting off in the Terabella area, and then aligning along the freeway ramps, across 101, and then entering the gateway area, right along Shoreland Boulevard, and coming down to Pear Avenue. And I think as designed, this is the most direct and accessible route. And it links to the future improvements along Shoreline Boulevard where we'll have cycle tracks on Shoreline Boulevard. And also, the elevation of this bridge, as you come over 101, and when you land approximately at this location, La Venita. It's about 25 feet above grade, more or less. And this bridge alignment, and the height that it's shown will allow a potential spur into the gateway master plan area, if you'd like, as a potential option for bikes and peds. Also, that height allows a potential spur going down lavanita. So people can access this bridge without having to cross Shoreline Boulevard, which is extremely busy. So, again, allowing a safe and accessible way for bikes and pedestrians to get to the bridge and over to the rest of Mountain View. So, the EPC supported that a general bridge alignment, and having that potential for a future Lavanita design option, with some additional comments on the screen, as well as in the staff report. So the question number 5 is, does council support this bridge alignment, and a future potential option of, uh, connection to La Venita. So, in terms of the next steps for this project, based on council input tonight, the project team will revise and refine materials, and we'll do further transportation modeling, we'll also continue to dialogue with the two main property owners in the area, who we've been in touch with throughout this process. We'll also be working on the draft plan, finalizing that, and looking at some potential bonus FAR options, and we'll be returning to the Council and EPC in 2020, with the final plan, as well as bringing forward those bonus FAR options. So that concludes the presentation. Again, I'd like to introduce members of the team along with RT Shravastova, the community development director. We have with us tonight, Chris Sensenik, and Matt Ramey, from Ramey Associates, and Libby Seifel, our economic consultant, from Syphon Associates, as well as Jim Lightbody, our transportation consultant. Thank you. That concludes my presentation.

[00:20:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session, next, we'll open it up for public comment. Can I see a show of hand some how many folks want to address the council on this topic? Okay, each speaker will have three minutes. And if you could remember to fill out a blue card, either before or after you speak, I would appreciate it.

[00:20:44] Henry Whitfield: Um, women, and men of the council, I'm, uh, Henry Whitfield, have been resident, uh, here for eight years, and prior to that, uh, in Palo Alto since 19, uh, 79. Um, I just, you know, I've never come to one of these, and I should have. I'm just very fundamentally disappointed in what I see has happened in the Bay Area, and I see the same thing. going on. This cycle of companies wanting more offices, and they build the offices. They need more housing, then you, and all of this, there's no real addressing of the quality of life. And I can tell you, and I think anybody in Mountain View, most people would agree that have been here, that the quality of life in this city, in this whole area, has denigrated considerably. It's sad. Now, I noticed one, one good thing, Palo Alto had the fortitude to stand up to Stanford and Stanford withdrew their plan, which they wanted whatever 5,000 housing units you guys are sitting on, proposals right here for 7,000 units. This one, and Wisman. And where are those cars gonna go? You read these environmental impact reports, which I've read. And they're laughable. The gateway project down here with this monstrosity of a hotel, which the city owned a big chunk of that, had beautiful trees, and it could have been a nice park. And it was handed over to a developer, and the developers' association of Silicon Valley gave Mountain View the No Red Tape Award for putting that project through. It's disgusting. And I can't believe that you guys can't see it with your own eyes, the traffic. Where are all these cars gonna go? People are not gonna ride bicycles. You know, part of the environmental impact report for this hotel down here said, oh, the people will just walk to town on the bike trail. Now, you tell me if it really makes sense that somebody that's paying 3 or $400 a night for a hotel for, is gonna walk to town on a bike trail that's already overcrowded. I had to have I have had 2 wrecks because I ride bikes on that trail and there's so much traffic that it's dangerous now for everybody on that trail. You guys need to step back and get a clue about what you're rubber stamping with these plants. It's shameful. Shameful. And it's not what the people want. I guarantee you, if we put all of this on an agenda or vote, the people in this town in this area do not want this. They don't want this cycle of more offices, more housing, and then below my time. It is. Probably better that I sit down. Anyway. Thank you. That's what I have to say.

[00:23:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:24:03] Cliff Chambers: Hi, I'm Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View, and I'm representing the Mountain View Coalition for sustainable planning. We've been longtime proponents of a dynamic car light mixed use development in North Bay Shore. And we really do support what's on map 4 for the gateway and hope that you approve that. Martin did an excellent job of outlining the key constraints that the gateway is facing. And after going through all that on page 13, it says, staff also believes that 2 gateway property owners may be able to propose creative strategies or partnerships that could result in feasible redevelopment in the area. Well, we really don't share that optimism. For years, Google and SiOS have not been able to work out a workable plan that meets the vision of the North Bay Shore precise plan. And the widely varying goals and objectives that they each have are really the fatal flaw of the whole gateway master plan process. And we really recommend that you approve the land use configuration, the recommended configuration. But then you give 6 months, perhaps the staff's optimism is doable. Uh, and, and give, give SiOS and Google another 6 months. And if that's not the case, then I would really encourage you to reallocate the one.55 million square feet, to other areas, simply put the delays that we've been having for, um, in the gateway should not inhibit the development of the rest of the north base or precise plan. I'd really like to see the rest of it go forward because I don't see any solutions in the near term of getting through these key constraints that Mr. Alkir outlined. So, It would have been really helpful in the staff report to have some strategies and transportation to do it. I think, overall, if we're gonna, you're gonna need the kind of development to have the kind of transportation infrastructure that you're gonna need. You're going to need a much higher internalization rate than the EI hat, going from point to, um, to, um, You're just going to need a much higher internalization rate from, I think the EIR said 27%, it's going to need to be closer to 50%. And anything you could do to do that, would be mostly appreciated. Thank you.

[00:26:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:27:03] Public Speaker: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council members. Good to see you on a Tuesday evening. On behalf of the over 340 member companies of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We want to thank staff for their diligent work on creating the North Bay Shore precise plan, which we advocated for 2 years ago. And current city council members, and former and current city council members for the passage of that plan. In order to adequately and effectively plan for the future of both the gateway master plan and North Bay Shore and to that greater mountain view. I need to be able to plan for housing, transportation, infrastructure, retail, open space, entertainment, and more to see this vibrant area really come to life. At this time, we believe the success of the gateway master plan depends on the transportation analysis that has not yet been completed by the city. We respectfully ask the council to consider holding off on providing staff direction on any of the transportation elements of the master plan, until the transportation analysis has been completed. Further We'd like to see the ambitious housing goals of the North Bay Shore precise plan come to fruition, and we would like to encourage the city to keep financial feasibility of the master plan area in mind. Before making a final decision, we'd like to respectfully request that the council look at funding strategies to make residential development feasible in the plan area. With that, we believe it is worthwhile to hold off on making final decisions until you have further information. Thank you for the consideration of your comments, of our comments. Thank you.

[00:28:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:28:33] Laura Blakely: Good evening, Mayor Mata Chap, Vice Mayor Abikoga, Council members, um, manager Rich. Um, I'm here. I'm Laura Blakely. I'm on the Mountain View Westman School Board, and I'm coming on this particular item simply to ask you not to box in the school strategy and community benefits figures yet. There were some figures that were on attachment 3 of the staff report. We'd like to ask that you preserve flexibility. We do appreciate the higher figures that were estimated. And we are very pleased to see that there's still a site potentially for a school. Google has been very cooperative in working with the district. But there will be lots of ways that this gateway site interacts with other parts of the city in the future. Traffic, for example, it's not likely that there would be a middle school there. There's probably a middle school on the other side of the freeway. So I would just ask that you preserve some flexibility when you make these determinations now and appreciate the study session. Thank you.

[00:29:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[00:29:43] Helen Walter: Good evening, city council. Um, I am here, Helen Walter, uh, speaking, uh, on my own, uh, not for Committee for Greenput Hills, so I just wanted to be clear about that. Um, I read the report, uh, great job staff. Um, And I just wanted to mention, it's early in planning, that your gateway park. Um, you have a huge opportunity to put some sort of, um, play structure sculpture, and I love the 8 by 80 rule that you want an 8 year old to be able to use it in an 80 year old to use it. So I know it's early in the planning, but I thought I'd mention it. Thank you.

[00:30:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:30:24] B. Hansen: Hi, B. Hansen, North Bay Shore Resident. I've been following this gateway debate for as long as it's been going on. Uh, I really disliked the Saiwas plan. I really liked the Google Plan. I was disappointed when we had to go to a master plan, but now that I see it, I think it's a very thoughtful one. I think Mr. Alcair has really done something good here. I disagreed vehemently with the first gentleman. I think that this is workable. It looks like a good start. I particularly like the modified versus existing plan to give some smaller spaces there. And in general, I liked it, and I'd like to see this. Go forward. Thank you.

[00:31:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:31:19] Alex Brown: Hey, Alex Brown, North Asia President, Santiago. Yeah, no, this plan is, you know, not bad. It's fine. I want gold gym back. Um, it's not it was nice. I used to go there. I miss it. But no, I just don't think that it's holistic enough. I don't like treating the gateway as isolated. You talked about the pair connection, but there weren't any lines actually reaching over to the pair neighborhood or to our neighborhood. I have not seen a lot of consideration in the city's planning for Santiago Villa residents and the other North Asia residents that hopefully will be there soon. Yeah, I also disagree with the 1st guy. I bike and walk on Stevens Creek Trail all the time, never got an accent. It's nice. I walk downtown. It's just fine. I don't think a lot of people are going to do it, but I think it's feasible. I would rather have more bike pad connections. Yeah. Thanks.

[00:32:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? In case, saying none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for discussions, to have had some specific questions, but, yeah, you can also have other comments. And given that I still have this cough. Um, I'm trying to talk less. So, um, if I could ask the city manager or staff, if, um, one of you could summarize, at the end, I would greatly appreciate it. Council member Ramirez.

[00:33:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I don't have any questions, but I do want to... If no one else has questions, then I'll just power through the... the questions that staff has asked if that's okay. Um, so I'm, uh, I don't have too much to add, if that's okay. First, for question one, I support the place making strategies. For question two, so being very candid, I'm not terribly optimistic that the plan will be implemented as we would like. And that's primarily because we've talked about this in previous meetings, but if you have 2 property owners who have fundamental disagreements about the development of the site. I'm personally not confident that our imposition of a 3rd plan, will necessarily make, you know, any development more likely. So with that caveat. You know, the land uses that staff has proposed, I think, are fine. I don't have a lot to add there. But I do want to say, uh, that I don't support the um, the existing property line alternative. And that's primarily because I can't remember if it was the EPC responses to this item or East Wisman, but multiple times in the staff report, there were references to the planning commission, basically referring to San Antonio as a quintessential example of bad development of what we don't want to see. And in meetings I've had over the weekend, for this item and for East Wisman, members of the public use that opportunity also to reference the San Antonio area as, you know, precisely what we don't want to see. And so what I would encourage the council, if we're going to proceed with this, is that we be very firm in our expectations for the gateway site, and that we don't settle for suboptimal development simply because it's more feasible or more likely to happen. You know, so if we don't, if we don't want to see the existing property line alternative, if that is deemed to be a sub optimal outcome, then let's hold firm and not allow that. I don't, you know, it's, it's, you know, embarrassing and painful. I live within a 1000 feet of the quintessential example of bad development in Mountain View. I don't think we need a 2nd instance of that in North Bay Shore. So, um, that would be my feedback for question two. For question three, generally supportive of the staff recommendation. Again, I do have a preference for the reduced retail option. I mean, if the property owners would like to propose a fitness center or a theater or hotel, I'm, you know, I'm comfortable with entertaining that. I don't think we should be prescriptive about that, you know, understanding that there are detrimental impacts to the viability of the plan, both financially in terms of transportation. So, if the council wants to see that, I think, you know, we're welcome to, we would welcome, uh, in an offer, you know, of those kinds of uses, but I don't think they should be stipulated in the master plan. For question four, I say again, supportive of the parking strategies. But again, I want to be, I want to hold firm on, you know, district or shared parking. If we do have the existing properly property line alternative ultimately implemented, then I don't want to have, you know, shared parking just for the development within one, you know, within the portion of the property owned by SiWest, and then separate district parking for the portion of the property controlled by Google. We need to be efficient with our land use, we should not be encouraging, um, you know, given our aggressive trip cap, we shouldn't be encouraging additional, you know, SOV traffic. So, uh, requiring that we, if there's a, you know, a district parking site, parking garage that any, any, uh, portion of the site, regardless of ownership should be accessible from that parking lot. And for question five, I am comfortable with this, um, the bike, uh, ped bridge alignment. And just one other, it's not, we're not asked the question, but if we're invited to provide some other feedback, I'm very interested in the community benefit discussion. And the way I think of it is, office development in the gateway site has the same impact as office development outside of the gateway site. I don't want to, it would be hard for me to defend a community benefit value for the gateway site that is less than the maximum we could possibly get from office development outside of the gateway site. So maybe in staff's evaluation. One way we could explore sort of what the market value of community benefits might be, is look at the proposals that the city has received, identify the one, you know, on a per square foot basis, the one that has the highest community benefit proposal, and use that as the baseline here. I couldn't defend to the public, accepting less than that. If we're offered a community benefit package, that is, you know, significant, that allows the city to achieve, you know, a number of its goals, improve the amenities and services inside and outside of North Bay Shore, then, you know, accepting something short of that is very difficult for me. And particularly, if we have, you know, if I think this is in theory speculative office development, in practice, I'm not sure it's going to be. If Google ends up being the occupant or the tenant of that office space, you know, if it's on sidewest controlled land, it would be hard for me to say, well, you know, this office space, even though it's not controlled by, or it's not built on Google Land, should somehow provide less of a community benefit than office space on Google controlled land. So that's, that would be my strong preferences. We explore, you know, maximizing the community benefit obligation from this site. You know, I appreciate the importance. The council has made it very clear that this is a priority development area, so we want to make it happen, but I don't want to, I'm not prepared to sacrifice. community benefits to make that feasible. Thank you.

[00:39:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abby Coca.

[00:40:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and, um, thank you, Martin and Artie and staff for your hard work on this. Um, I'm really, um, very impressed by the and all of our consultants, um, by the work that's been done. Um, I, you know, I try to be an optimist. I feel like in this job, you have to be to survive. And, um, frankly, and, you know, to, and actually, um, you know, counter to Councilman Ramirez's comments about San Antonio Shopping Center, you know, I, I know not everybody knows the history, but, you know, that was the shopping center that had the Sears and the Burger King and it sat for 50 plus years. No one thought it would get redeveloped. And when we started talking about precise planning it, and that's when it, the discussion about redevelopment and what could be possible started happening. It wasn't perfect, really, frankly, to be honest and I agree. I wasn't happy with every single element of it. Um, but, um, overall, when you think of what it was and what it is now, um, and it's also frankly evolving. Um, you know, I think we have to look at it in that context. And so, um, that's why I felt very strongly that it was time for the city, um, you know, for us to take on the master planning of this project in light of the fact that it was very similar. There are many different property owners at San Antonio. They couldn't seem to get together to do something. So we got involved there. Here we are doing the same thing. And, you know, I appreciate the comments, um, by the gentleman. Yes, you know, this is a challenge. We're growing. We continue to grow. We're trying to do it in a thoughtful manner. You know, I do want to remind folks that, um, you know, before we are at this council, um, what was originally approved on this site was a 1400000 square foot office project. And so the fact that we, you know, we've done this analysis of, of economics, I know we have other, other analyses to do, um, but we're bringing it down to 500, you know, half a, or a 3rd of what was originally approved by the past council to make it something that's more, you know, reasonable, manageable, um, doable in this, uh, site. Um, I think is, you know, is us trying to be prudent. So, um, I also believe that um, this is the gateway site. And, um, frankly, I appreciate, um, there are some maps here about, you know, if we do gateway, where does this lead to, um, you can see, like, there's a cluster of residential starting, um, that would create a nice central, um, you know, central put together residential neighborhood neighborhood. And that's what I'm really looking for. If we said, okay, go ahead, you know, do whatever you want in North Bay Shore, wherever you want to develop. Um, that's when we start to get, you know, spot development and less cohesion. You know, there's the less connectivity. And so that's why we need to do this. We need to plan, we need to think about, um, you know, how things are are gonna come together. And, um, And, you know, I will say with San Antonio, the challenge there is that, um, you can't, you know, we can plan for it, but we can't determine when things are going to read to Bell up. Um, so, you know, we try to do our best to phase it out and so forth, but, um, you know, we can't determine the actual development. So that has to happen, but we certainly can plan for how we want to see things develop, and I think that's what we're trying to do here. So, in light of that. Um, I do support, um, place making, you know, this is a gateway site, and I just want to, you know, I appreciate the economic analysis, but, um, I also want to be respectful of the, the, the historic use of this site. And, you know, this was we have a theater there. The interest, it seems, is that the property owner wants to continue to run his theater. Um, you know, it's, I've read, and I read, and actually, I read this online. one of my favorite movies is Crazy Rich Asians. And I looked up on, you know, the 2nd highest grossing mini theater movie theater for that movie was Mountain View, California, in the country. So, you know, obviously is doing well or it has been doing well. And so if the property owner wants to maintain it, I say, you know, why not? Why we don't, we shouldn't try to, um, get rid of uses or, you know, especially if it's retail or entertainment. If it's, you know, if there's an interest to continue that. Then I think we should continue that. So I know maybe economically there's some questions and our comments about, well, you know, is it more feasible, if it's taken out, the fitness center too, if that's taken out. Um, perhaps it is by our analyses, but, you know, if there's an interest to maintain that. And I actually look at the theater or, you know, retail because it is becoming more and more challenging to maintain as a community benefit. So, um, if we look at it that way, you know, I think we should, um, do our best to try to support it, and we're always talking about wanting more retail. There's retail there. You know, how do we support that is my question. So, um, and that would that actually ties into the placemaking, to me, the strategy is there. We want it to be, you know, I've always visioned it as an entertainment zone. You know, you've got the theater, fitness center brings in folks. I mean, if you look at the Grant Road shopping center ever since the city sport came in, much more active and vital, and it's supporting a lot more of the other businesses there. So, I think there can be a really good synergy. So, um, I so it's definitely support maintaining that in the mix. Um, Question number 2 regarding, um, Map 4. Yes, I think, you know, ideally, the preferred map is definitely the preferred map. Um, I appreciate Council Ramirez's comments, um, And I guess I, uh, I'm still, I'm not totally decided on whether we continue the, um, existing property lines option or not. Um, you know, part of me is is, I guess, you know, the pessimist who says, oh, they're never going to be able to work it out. says, okay, maybe we should have this alternative, but then the optimist side of me says, and it's maybe not just being optimistic, but, you know, having a bit of a carrot or a hammer, perhaps, to say, okay, folks, let's get this, you know, get together and work this out. So if we just kept it with our own option, you know, would that be that impetus that, um, persuader to make something happen? So I'm not quite, um, yeah, I'll wait to hear what others have to say about that. But I do prefer the map that staff has created with the modified lines. Um, item number, question number three, sorry, keep going back and forth here. Um. The land use program in table four. That's the office square footage, and yes. I do agree with APC that if we can put more housing on this parcel. That would be my preference. as I've said many times. I always thought that if we were gonna put housing in North Bay Shore, this is the parcel that we should do it on. And I think it actually is working very well with creating that, you know, neighborhood that would go into the Joaquin area, as well. And then for parking standards, Yes. I'm fine. I think, you know, we can definitely, um, change our strategies, um, and so I'm, um, fine to be more flexible. I do like the idea of a district parking. If we can make that happen, that would be ideal. And part of that, part of trying to reduce parking has to do with alternative transportation mode. So, um, I'm fine with the bridge, the alignment looks good. Definitely hope that we can, you know, expand that into the cycle track and and really build connectivity for alternative uses. So, um, thank you again to staff. I think this is a great start. You know, I know that we have to be flexible as things happen and change. We thought we would have a school at the San Antonio shopping center, but it looks like that's what's happening. Um, so, you know, I think we just have to be mindful that things will change, but I do think this is a really good, um, the good bones for for a plan. Thank you.

[00:49:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:49:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'll start, also, by thanking staff for their obvious hard work on this, on this report, and the work behind the report, and then I'm gonna apologize. I thought we were gonna go through each question separately. So I have my notes on quite a number of pages, and I'll be scrolling down. But first, um, do we support place making strategies, as noted, um, I do, and I'm gonna call out a few that the EPC, call out and highlight a few that EPC mentioned. First, the PC mentioned, the Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge, and said it would be very visible at the gateway. I agree. It should be, um, both a bridge and a sculptural gateway featuring signaling entrance to the North Bay Shore, not just a, um, you know, functional, but also, uh, sculptural. I just went over Frank Gary's striking pedestrian bridge in Chicago's Millennial Park. Not that we have to hire Frank Gary, although I wouldn't be opposed. But I think something that notes that it's more than just a bridge, that it's an entrance to the area, and that a bridge can be more than a bridge, and there are a number of examples, you can just Google them and see a number of examples of sculptural bridges. Second is, I support complete streets. I think they need to be more than just safe. They need to be appealing, as well, with ample trees, and a new concept. I've heard mid story landscaping, which is higher than just groundcover, I think, adds a lot to, particularly to some of the areas that we've been disappointed in. My neighbors also, uh, register a lot of frustration with the San Antonio Center, and I think one of the things that they notice that there's, that there's not a lot of landscaping. It's not really flourishing. So another, EPC concern was the, um... The size and function of Shoreline Boulevard, that it'll become a mini 101. And I agree that we need to do better, and that, again, some of the things I said about landscaping, ample trees, mid story landscaping, buffering, pedestrians, from the larger streets, I think, would help a lot. And actually, I was, over the weekend, I was looking at the Landlese website, and it has some great examples also of building interfaces with larger streets. And I think that those could be referenced because I think they would have helped a lot along in San Antonio and for our developments along El Camino Real. And I hope that we can do things like that in North Bay Shore in general. Um, then the, uh, EPC mentioned, uh, parks and urban spaces, um, I completely agree with what the EPC said, they have to be age friendly, walking friendly, and what Ms. Walters said, when she spoke, uh, appealing to a large variety of ages, from 8 to 80. Those are most of my, um, place making comments. Question two, does city council support the recommended general locations of land uses as shown in map four? I do. Um, but I would not specifically, I am concerned, as the whole report is about, um, about traffic and transportation, and I would not, and I think we have to, uh, increase the internalization. I would not specifically call out the fitness center, and probably not the theater or hotel, either. I think that, you know, if the developer wants to and is able to develop those, I'm fine, but I wouldn't specify them because I do they bring people in regionally. And if we can't get them to work when we're doing our transportation studies, I would like to keep that more flexible. Um... Let's see, three, does council support the Draft Gateway Master Plan land use program in table four? I'm pretty much saying the same thing. Yes, but, um, we shouldn't specifically call out the fitness center in the theater and hotel. Number four, does the council support the proposed gateway master plan parking standards, I do, um, I also like the ideal idea of more regional parking or district parking, um, a shared parking district, and flexibility of parking garages so they can be converted later to different uses. Five, do I support the proposed highway, 101, bicycle pedestrian bridge, alignment, et cetera. I, I do. Thank you.

[00:55:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[00:55:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so, um, just, you know, at a high level, the reason, first of all, thank you to staff for turning this around so quickly, and everyone else who worked on this, this was a really quick turnaround, and I'm really glad that we were able to get to this this year, um, because, you know, one of the things, as much as we want the rest of North Bay Shore, to develop, we also didn't want to be in a position where, um, you know, this was sort of forgotten about, and everything else developed, and this was more of an afterthought. And so, since, this is uniquely difficult. with the different property ownerships. We wanted to make sure that, you know, before we, um, you know, allocate resources and really, um, sort of utilize all of the currency, so to speak, that we have in the rest of North Bay Shore, that we pay, you know, a sufficient amount of attention here and make sure that we aren't precluding, you know, a really solid gateway when it's ready to go. And you know, we can't force people to work together, and we can't force property owners to redevelop, but we wanted to make sure that we're at least thinking about this, and we have a plan that recognizes its importance as a part of the overall district. That said, I'm okay with the place making strategies, for question number one, you know, I think that is one of the things that we really wanted to call out in the gateway itself, that this was, you know, was a place where you, you enter, whether it's on bike, over the bridge, whether it's coming in by car, whether it's coming in on the reversible bus lanes, or whatever, whatever infrastructure happens to be there in the future, you know, the, how you interact with this particular area is gonna make a, you know, be a lot of people's first impression of it. So I think it's important that people enjoy the area and can, not just as they're coming in, but also, you know, want to hang out there too, and take advantage of whatever retail and other opportunities are there. The general locations of the land uses on the map. So, um, I'm okay with, uh, so I, obviously, I prefer the modified property lines in the way that you, and I like the way that you have that laid out. I'm certainly fine with theater and fitness uses. I mean, that's sort of what the, um, the current property owner is, it's sort of their bread and butter in some ways, but, um, I, um, so I want those to be allowed uses, but I also want, in the event that, you know, 20 years from now, something changes that, it's not this parcel shall be theater and fitness. You know, it certainly can be, and I think you've called out the right places where those things can be done. I just don't want to be so prescriptive that, you know, it's theater and fitness and never a hotel or never residential or some other mix that ends up working in Pennsylvania now. So, um, So I think it's fine to call those things out as, you know, given, given the ownership and what the interests are, you know, these are the areas that we think make the most sense for that. I also just don't want to preclude other uses there in the long run. And I just want to make sure that other options are there too, and that we're not just zoning it for theater and fitness and nothing else. Um, I'm open to, um, how my colleagues feel about the existing property lines option. You know, obviously, the modified property lines as far superior. I think any any project that we get where everyone's working together to get the best outcome for everyone involved is, obviously, I think, in my mind, going to be superior to something that develops piecemeal. and in a whole bunch of different phases, and may not ultimately provide the best experience for everyone. So, um, if we, if we want to stick to the modern, modified property lines or find some way to, um, just ensure that that, if this, um, develops that, that is the concept upon which, um, it's based, then, then I'm okay with, um, with having that discussion. The proposed parking standards and strategies, I'm okay with. I think the maximums that you've come up with make the most, especially if we're talking about a district parking strategy here, which I think makes the most sense. We want to, um, for those who are driving, you know, we want to get them in and get them out of their cars and, um, or get them into a central location that's accessible via, you know, a couple different gateways. And it looks like the place where you've located that is the most optimal for that because it's accessible from both ring store and shore wine. So, anyway, I'm okay with the table that you put together in the standards and the strategies. And then the bike head bridge. Yes, and I would, it's exciting that it's at the, it ends up being at a height where you could have a spur there. I would encourage us as is going through design now, I would encourage us to identify how those spurs would be laid out, given, and maybe you've already thought about this, but with the off-rap realignment, and hopefully connectivity through, you know, go away. I think the, I think the spur on either side. I mean, obviously the gateway itself is sort of TBD, how that all plays out exactly. But, um, the, I guess that's the, the east side there, um, at La Anita, that, that, uh, there's a little bit more certainty there, aside from, um, There's a little bit more certainty there in terms of, um, some of the housing that's going in the off ramp realignment, and, um, and a few more of the, uh, a little bit more connection. So I think to the extent that you have enough information there to start designing that spur. It would be great if we could, you know, have some sense of how that, and even, maybe we could do it when it's constructed, even. But anyway. I just, I want to make sure that we're, um, and I appreciate this staff is thinking about that now, but, um, I think we have more information maybe on the, on the east side than we do on the west right now and to the extent that we can go ahead and design that as part of the design phase. I think it would be helpful. So.

[01:02:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[01:02:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, for question number one, Yes, I support the place making strategies. Um, particularly, um, the efforts that staff has made to create circulation, um, making it more walkable and bikeable. The comments related to complete streets. Um, I really am, my hope is that, um, we will have ability to have a kind of mixed modal. You know, last week we were talking about the scooter share, right? So I think the more we can encourage, um, different uses, um, to create circulation to that area that it's not vehicular, I think is really important. And I guess in the framing of these, of answering these questions, Sorry, there was public comment about why we're going forward with looking at developing in North Bayshore. And I think both residents and stakeholders have communicated that they want a complete community. And so that's what's framing the answers to Mike with these questions. For number two, yes, I support the recommended general locations of land uses in Map 4. Um, I am interested in how we can build in kind of flexibility. Um, particularly if there's, um, uh, flexibility related to the hotel, um, you know, one of the things that we've looked at in this area is a pretty uh, aggressive housing goal. And so rather than having a hotel, could that be mixed in terms of, um, you know, putting more residential there. Um, and then in the staff report, there was, um, some discussion about, um, you know, how we can use the different currencies of the office allocation. And so, you know, hoping that for number two, um, it would have, um, that flexibility. For question three. Um, I do support the land use, program and table four. Um, for question for the proposed parking standards and strategies. Yes, I support them. Uh, I think that North Bay Shore is moving kind of in general to the district parking model. We looked at it at landings a couple weeks ago. We were looking at that project. Um, so, I think it makes sense to be consistent. Um, as we're talking about the totality of North Bay Shore, um, I also, um, council member Hicks was talking about the ability to convert to another future use, and I think that's what we need to be thinking about as well. Um, when we're looking at the district parking model and then the garage is. For five. Um, yes, I think it's, um, I support the Highway 101 bicycle and pedestrian bridge alignment design. I think it's important to find ways to offset, um, Stevens Creek Trail as the commuter artery, and I feel like this aligns well with the improvements that we're going to be making along Shoreline Boulevard anyways. And so, um, you know, having people have a dedicated way to make that crossing over the freeway safely is, um, of importance. Um, one of the things, I know that this is, I believe, included in the CIP, but, um, as cost for infrastructure, um, go up. I would be interested in the opportunity maybe for cost share. Um, for the, for the bridge. And when we're talking about, um, community benefit, is that something that can can be there as well? I wouldn't want us not to go forward with the bridge just because of a cost hindrance. So how could we be creative on a funding source to make that happen? Because I feel like that's really critical in terms of being able to meet or helping to meet the SOV target rate that we have imposed in the area. Thank you.

[01:06:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:06:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I have a few questions before I dig in. And I just want to get a better understanding of this feasibility study, and I'm just, uh, I know, Libby, you're here. Maybe you can answer her staff. Is this a snapshot in time, or is this... What is the parameters of this, uh, revenues and so forth? I would like to have a better understanding.

[01:07:00] Unknown Speaker: I might ask, uh, Ms. Cyphel, just to give a brief overview of that.

[01:07:03] Consultant Libby Seifel: Okay. Hi, thank you for the question. The numbers that are shown in the staff report are based on current 2019 numbers, but it is assuming that there's buildout which would occur over time in the gateway area.

[01:07:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you say revenue. or the project, yeah, total, you know, so that is sort of 2019. Does it look out cumulate? I mean, over five years, or potentially, or is it just right now?

[01:07:36] Consultant Libby Seifel: That's a great question. So the way that the analysis works is it's looking at the potential value of the buildings, um, and since most of them are rental buildings, it's looking at an income stream that would come out over a long period of time, and it's capitalizing that income stream and bringing it back to today's dollars, and saying, okay, what is that worth? So, it is taking into account future income, but it's doing it based on a capitalization rate.

[01:08:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Of what?

[01:08:06] Consultant Libby Seifel: Of, um, each land use is different. So the retail capitalization rate, the office capitalization rate, and the residential is different.

[01:08:16] Councilmember John McAlister: What do you have for office?

[01:08:18] Consultant Libby Seifel: For office, we're using 5.25%.

[01:08:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. Hopefully, I'm looking at my computer. Hopefully, I did it right. Yes, go ahead. That was the question I sent in, and I realized I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. What is the time frame for those revenues? Is it 20 years, 50 years?

[01:08:39] Consultant Libby Seifel: You know, typically, it's 30 years because that's about a mortgage period to 55 years, which is usually when you assume a building will be replaced. So it's usually in that long term time frame. that you're thinking about it.

[01:08:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that makes sense. Well what did you use in this analysis?

[01:08:57] Consultant Libby Seifel: Um, Well, I'm assuming a long term income flow, but I'm not assuming a particular 30 year or 55 year period, because the way that it's working is I'm taking a rental income, and I'm capitalizing that rental income. So the capitalization rate takes into account that long-term flow. In essence, it's taking into account that 30 year flow.

[01:09:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Do you... over your capitalization? So was it a constant return, or, as we know, rentals will continue to go up in price that you built in an inflation factor into this?

[01:09:39] Consultant Libby Seifel: So basically, I'm assuming that the inflation in revenues and the inflation in costs is very similar, over time.

[01:09:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well, once the costs are static, where the revenue continues to grow, so...

[01:09:53] Consultant Libby Seifel: Well, um, for this project, it would likely be done on phases, so I'm assuming I'm trying to bring all those dollars back to kind of constant today dollars for comparison purposes. But you are correct that once it stabilizes, you know, however many years it takes to stabilize. At that point, it will grow moving forward. But operating expenses will also grow as well.

[01:10:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. Um Then, also, the... Okay, answer something. Wasn't there some discussion, at one time, the Broad Reach Building, there was going to be an entry road on that site? Thank you, Libby. Oh, this is the first time. There was going to be an entrance for, uh, a frontage road coming in, long Broadridge to coming into this particular property?

[01:10:43] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[01:10:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Is that still proposed?

[01:10:46] Unknown Speaker: We still have that easement for that frontage road area. And that would come off a ring store. That's one route that...

[01:10:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Right. Can I get a better understanding? So we're doing a traffic study? I'm trying to figure that. So, did you... 'Cause a lot of reference was made. Well, this could happen, but we're gonna get a better detail from the traffic study. So, that, are you, these, uh, is conservative based on that we don't know what their traffic is gonna do?

[01:11:21] Unknown Speaker: So, once we get direction tonight from Council on the general land use program, then, um, uh, will be, or Jim Lightbody will be doing additional modeling, uh, that will be a little more refined information, that will, or analysis that will come back.

[01:11:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I do have a couple of representatives from Google, sounds good. an easy question. Are you still working with VTA on looking at a, some light of, and using the light rail or a study to get transportation into the east side of, uh, your properties?

[01:12:03] Michael Tymoff: Good evening, Mayor, vice mayor, and council members, Michael Timeoff, District Development Director for Google. We have been talking with the VTA about their site, but we've also been working with the city on the AGT, the above grade transit study that you all are going through right now. So I think there's a couple different conversations going there.

[01:12:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The reason I'm asking these questions, people who keep is talking about transportation constraints, and yet, down the future, I see a lot more options coming in, so thank you, Michael. Um, okay. Council member, Clarks are pointed on, but some of our, the newer council members may not be aware that Si West Fitness Center is one of their biggest, that's what they do. And so when we're talking about moving them out, it's sort of, we should allow them to do what they need to do. On the parking strategy, I noticed that restaurants were reduced. And if we're making this a real regional destination, or that's how I envision it, that people will be coming, they may want to come for the restaurants, go to the athen theater, there could be, and so forth. Why did you reduce parking for restaurants?

[01:13:26] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that's Chris, who probably know the more specific answer to that.

[01:13:31] Chris: Yeah, so restaurants were reduced from, like, an 18 space per 1,000 square feet down to 10, because that is a more urban number where we're assuming an internalization rate for a lot of the restaurants with the, you know, 3.4 million square feet of office and the 10,000, you know, roughly 10,000 units of housing. So it's assuming that more trips are coming from walking, and also there's more shared trips with people coming to the entertainment uses.

[01:14:03] Councilmember John McAlister: But yet you have. Where is that table? That shopping in retail, you're keeping it the same.

[01:14:14] Chris: Yep,

[01:14:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Mountain View seems to be quite no own towards restaurants. And so why would retail maintain its parking, and yet you'll say that the restaurants won't. If we're looking at the direction that this will be a regional area. Or Bay Area wide destination.

[01:14:39] Chris: We see it as a Bay Area wide destination, you know, for its, you know, open space and entertainment uses, but that, you know, retail and restaurants, um, while it will serve and benefit from the regional draw of the entertainment uses, that its primary, um, is serving the North Bay Shore neighborhood. If that makes sense.

[01:15:09] Councilmember John McAlister: I understand it. Okay. Then onto the bike lanes, or the bridge going over to La Venita. I mean, over 101. We're putting in bike lanes on shoreline, are we not? On both sides?

[01:15:25] Unknown Speaker: Uh, We'll have cycle tracks on one side and then bike lanes on both, yes. On shoreline.

[01:15:31] Councilmember John McAlister: So my question is, is, we're putting the money into putting these bike lanes yet, but we're gonna put an overpass over Shoreline at La Vanita. So, isn't that sort of adding a cost to a project that if these people want to, or people are riding their bikes, go upshoreline, and they're already there versus going down the bridge, and then crossing over?

[01:15:57] Unknown Speaker: Mr. Fuller will address the bridge comment.

[01:16:02] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: All right, Mike Fuller, public works director. Um, the, We are putting protected bike lanes on Shoreline Boulevard south of 101 and then, um, the 2 way, uh, pedestrian bike bridge over 101 at Tereb from Terabella North. And we see that as the primary bike commuting route. Um, but we recognize that some commuters don't want to go even a little bit out of their way. And so they're going to ride over that overpass. And so we are leaving bike lanes on the overpass. We're doing the best we can with green paint and conflict zones and so on. But we really, we're only doing that because we recognize that some people are going to continue to use the overpass despite the weaves with the cars and so on. But we really want to focus on um, the protected bike lanes, the cycle tracks in the bridge.

[01:17:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Isn't there quite a bit of expense to put those lanes in if we haven't altered it already?

[01:17:04] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: No. Not just the bike lanes over the bridge. It's green paint. We're doing it all over the city now. become pretty routine.

[01:17:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then, um... Had there been any, no, this is really getting interesting. As the carrot. That the one. 5 currency. could be declining over time, if these property owners don't work together to get something going? I mean, we...

[01:17:40] Unknown Speaker: This is really just the first phase of the work, and we'll be coming back with some options regarding that currency and that total amount, and different ways that we could, uh, the council may want to spend that currency or allocate it.

[01:17:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Would that be off the table, though, but slowly eliminating it, if things don't move?

[01:18:01] Unknown Speaker: I mean, that's something that certainly the council can talk about in 2020 when we bring it back.

[01:18:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, yeah. That could be a motivating factor, okay? Okay. And... Okay, so my comments are... does the place making strategy, since, um, I remember talking to Cliff about my idea of this particular gateway, and it's still back in 2015, the conversation, and one of the reasons linked and got the project, because it was a multifaceted entertainment, mixed use, housing, markets, theaters, parks, the whole deal, and so, I'm still sticking with that place making strategy, and I'd like to still continue to do that, because I think it is going to be something that I would hope to be spectacular, and would be beneficial for the whole area. So when we're looking at these various place macing strategies, I agree that going down that path continues. I like everything I see. And so I support the place making. and making it public art, open space, you know, I envision, you know, what I put down some stuff in there. You could have farmers markets, you could have outdoor concerts out there. You could have different events and open space, so it's very important that we can maintain some open space down there. The locations of the map, map 4, You know, this is good urban planning. I think this is the way to go. We had sort of discussed it before, but I think if we're going to do a project, let's do it correctly. And again, if residential, it's in general, to put it that way from the freeway, an office is forward, and the buffers, I think map 4 is a recommended way. And, again, I say the fitness center, that's what this people do, and let them do it. I think it's, I don't... You're not, this isn't prescriptive, though. This is what you see as an outline plant, correct?

[01:20:08] Unknown Speaker: This will set the general framework yet. Yes.

[01:20:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Theaters and fitness centers have an ability, probably, to morph into something else because of their structure. So, I support the... the map on table... map for. The table, uh, map table four. You know, I'm concerned that at one time we were gonna have, what, 2.one? Or was it one.4 million square feet, now we're down to 500, and this was based because of the economic feasibility, I still have my doubts about the economic feasibility study. going at the long term, because there are other factors that could be intangible, that will make people or developers do certain things. Maybe it's good for business. Maybe this is what they do, and this is their dream. So, uh, I'm not always, um, buying into this feasibility study, and the conclusion that it draws. I know that you pick the 500,000. Maybe there's something in between there that works, you know, putting in housing is good for Google. It's good for the community, and putting office space could be both. So, uh, that's thought on that. The parking standards. Again, I think, once our transportation, if it's fully used, it comes to fruition, the AGT, the various gateways coming in from a ring store, coming in from shoreline, coming off the light rail, possibly it'll be an entryway. I think we're getting... the thought that people aren't gonna need cars, but I still think... based on my belief that we're gonna have a nice super regional area. That parking, I don't want people to go and bypass our area because there's a lack of parking. Again, we want people that are across, you know, are this including, let's question. So let's say people want to park at Shoreline. You know, we have that big parking lot down the road, I don't know, hundreds of cars parking that for shoreline. And if we can entice them to go to this center and park and have a shuttle, would that be able to accommodate that kind of impact?

[01:22:33] Unknown Speaker: I mean, I could see that happening. I could see these businesses looking together and saying, Here, park here, shop here, eat here. We'll get you to the park.

[01:22:44] Unknown Speaker: Just off the bat, I think we were challenged and trying to get parking even for the reduced parking program, so to accommodate something. In addition to that would be extremely challenging. It would add to the structural parking garage costs. And we can certainly look at the economic feasibility, but it just makes for tolerant taller buildings with more parking.

[01:23:10] Councilmember John McAlister: So what's wrong with all their buildings?

[01:23:12] Unknown Speaker: It can work, but it depends on who's gonna build it, right? I mean, offices can go taller. The housing can go taller. I mean, this can go to 11, 13 stories. So. Yes. I mean, we could look at something like that, but then the other question is, um, who would fund that parking? And, you know, we could...

[01:23:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, the people who are building the housing and office might fund it. Okay. And can you gather the rents from that thing? Okay. So I would like to, that's a little concerned. And my comments about the bridge, I think the bridge is great, but I'm still concerned that if we're gonna have... When we came up and looked at the shoreline study years ago, and I had comments with the director, that we're spending, you know, getting right away and so forth, if we have a great bridge, then to duplicate the same route over, I'm concerned about the cost doing that. And, um, if it's the future bridge, definitely I want to be able to go into the shoreline area, and that, but having a bridge over Lava Anita. Again, let's look at the costs, you know, where everybody's talking about feasibility, and yet, here's, we're duplicating ability, and it's preferred, but there was talk about, that the bridge would be the preferred way to get in. That would be great. Also, you know, we have Stevens Creek, we have permanenti, we have this bridge. all gaining into that area. So, we might possibly have a Charleston underpass. So we're doing some other things. So I'd be interested as this transportation study comes about. I like this, see us having the flexibility to a, adjust and take a, you know, advantage if there is more capacity. I don't want to undersize this and make it smaller than what I think the Greek potential could be. Thank you.

[01:25:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, for question one, I think place making is one of the most important aspects of the gateway, and so we really need to focus on it, and make sure we get it right. I think this will be a really nice place for, or I want it to be a really nice place for the folks who live in North Bay Shore, but others who are also going there. I think it adds to the quality of life, if it is a nice place to go. So I like some of the comments, Council member Hicks said about making sure the landscaping. making sure the landscaping is really well done there. And that, um, the interface with Shoreline is good. I prefer Map 4, And, um, I appreciate the comment that Council member Clark made about, um, perhaps not saying on map 4 that it says theater and fitness, but, um, those are allowable uses, but we wouldn't preclude other uses there. Uh, that are similar, like entertainment kind of things. I do have some concerns, however, about the traffic. that some of the uses generate. Um, so I think we need to be mindful as we plan this. I do support table four. That's question three. And I also, um, let's see, Council member McAllister talked about the economic analysis, uh, and I think we need to remember that some of the property owners have, uh, acquired this property a very long time ago. And, um, so, I'm not sure how that's factored in, but, um, I don't think everyone has the same, uh, way of looking at this because their costs, their original costs are different. Just put it that way. Question four... I appreciate the comments that Council member Hicks made on this, the regional district parking, and the reuse of the parking garage, so we should plan ahead. Question five. I do like the idea of having the spur, and the reason I think that's important is because we will have residential on both sides of shoreline, but a school is only on one side. And so if there is a way to cross shoreline, that's safer on something that goes above shoreline, I think that's really important. So, the other comment I have about a bridge is, well, I do want a nice design. I also want to be very mindful of the location and the wildlife that is in this area. So, a low bridge, in terms of, um, not necessarily, you know, from the ground, uh, to where the bridge is, but how tall the bridge itself is, um, I think it should be on the shorter side, uh, so it doesn't conflict with, uh, birds. And I know some of the ones that go over 101 are good examples, and some are bad examples of ones that are bird safe, and ones that are not. And... I appreciate council member McAllister's comment about, um, you know, maybe over time we revisit the office allocation, um, that's a very interesting point. Thank you for bringing that up. Council member Ramirez.

[01:29:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and so, um, I heard of several good ideas, and I just wanted to provide support for some of them, so I heard several council members suggest reusing the, or repurposing the parking garage in the event that becomes, um, desirable, and so I want to share my support for that. And then I thought several council members had a good sort of elegant solution or compromise for the, um, the regional entertainment, and rather than maybe be. So just to clarify, I'm not saying that we do not have a fitness center or a theater, but allow for, you know, a variation of options. And so maybe, I think as the mayor had suggested, sort of just labeling that as entertainment. So we, you know, and the property owners are always welcome to recommend or to offer a specific use. And then appreciate the vice mayors, um, uh, point about, uh, you know, pessimism and optimism. That's something I do need to temper. But, um, maybe, maybe one way of thinking about this, if it's helpful, is, you know, I do want, I don't want to preclude the opportunity, as, as the property owners become familiar with what we're seeking, you know, as this work progresses, I don't necessarily want to preclude them the opportunity to submit, you know, a joint proposal. If they don't like this, you know, and they can work out something that I think that's the ultimate approach. So, I asked the question about the environmental review, and I was really happy to see that it's not nearly as costly as I was expecting it, but, um, rather than necessarily lock that in, you know, and then discover in the future that this isn't really where the property owners want to go, um, if we can maybe not, I don't necessarily want to pay for environmental review for something that's not going to happen. But then give the property owners an opportunity instead to, you know, confirm that they're comfortable with this with this master plan or say, this is not something that we want to do. and then allow for them to jointly submit a proposal. And I'm not really sure how to, if that, first, if that's, you know, something that the council is interested in. Well, but now they know what we want. And if they don't want to do it, I don't necessarily want that to mean nothing happens. You see what I'm saying? And so if we lock in the environmental review, if we pay the $60,000 for the review, and then discover on the back end that they're not interested in that, then we've sunk that cost into something that's not gonna happen. So, I don't know how to convey that. But if there's some way where we're not necessarily saying, you know, we're gonna pay $60,000, only to find that there isn't interest on the part of the property owners, but rather, you know, yes, they're comfortable with this, you know, we can recoup that cost as a city, or no, this is not something they're gonna do. And so they get to pay for the environmental review for whatever master plan they want to jointly propose. Just an idea.

[01:32:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, see, nobody else in the queue. Um... Would you like to summarize?

[01:33:01] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I think this is actually relatively easy, and RT and Martin can chime in, but basically, pretty much unanimous agreement on the issues on number one, place making. Everyone was supportive of it. A lot of comments about the importance of getting it right. The bike pedestrian experience, the landscaping, the interface. So, I think we're good there. And number two, and unanimous preference for Map 4, there were a few comments that they were willing to consider. The alternative, I didn't hear a majority, so I think the majority, clearly, everyone, all seven, want Map 4, and the majority were not interested in considering Map 5. On table, question three, about table four, and the programming, again. I think there was a general consensus for the arrangement there. There are a few comments about possibly being okay with more housing. There's one comment about, okay, with the reduced retail. But I think, overall, people were saying, be flexible on the uses at entertainment, however defined would be allowed, but not be prescriptive about it. On question four, on parking, again, unanimous support for the approach, emphasis on the district parking, as well as designing it in a way that's convertible, long term, into other uses. And then, finally, on question five, again, unanimous for the approach, to at least have the option, or explore the option of the Lavanita spur, some comments about doing some preliminary design on that. I don't think that is, the current plan is not to get into the design of that piece of it, but to design the overpass in a way that that spur can be added at a later date. comment about the bird implications. That's something that will always be a factor in what we do out in North Bay Shore. And comment about the duplication on Shoreline, although I don't think that was unanimous, and I think the intent, again, is very minor improvements on the overpass, but to spend the money and the time to get the bike pad bridge, right, and use that as the primary access point for most people. So I think, unless you guys disagree, we're good, and I think the intent would be come back sometime, next. Next year, there is discussion in reference to, you know, sort of being on a somewhat parallel track with looking at the rest of North Bay Shore, so there's some synergies between what happens in the gateway site, as well as the totality. And, again, that concept of the currency, and how is the council gonna allocate the totality, so we know what all of North Basia ultimately will look like.

[01:36:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Thanks so much. Okay, we will close this item, and we are just going to keep on going along. So I'll adjourn the study session and call to order the special session of the council, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. If you'll join me for that. Oh, that ends out the house.

[01:36:51] Unknown Speaker: There's allegiance to the flag. of the United States of America, and to the Republic, which just stands, one nation, one their God, indivisible, liberty, and just described.

[01:37:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next is roll call.

[01:37:13] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[01:37:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next is item. Uh, four, which is the consent calendar. 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 council member like to pull an item?

[01:37:42] Councilmember John McAlister: I want to comment on 4.3. Just a couple.

[01:37:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Anyone else? Do you want to provide your comment?

[01:37:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, on 4.3, I'm very concerned. That, uh, on this collaboration, the... Mount View is doing such a... great process of trying to meet all of its numbers and doing its more than fair share of housing, that somewhere along the line, I just have a feeling that some of these other cities want to say, Here, Mount View, you can use our money. for the short term, but in the long term, we're gonna be responsible for a lot of the impacts that it's gonna go through. And I rather not go down that road, because other councils may say, oh, yeah, let's do this. Not realizing that the quality of life in Mountain View is that a perilous point right now could be going one way or the other and trying to maintain it, so...

[01:38:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[01:38:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, thank you, Mayor. Yes, I wanted to comment on our respond to that. And I believe this is 4.3, the planning collaborative. I thought I heard 4.2s. So, um, this is, uh, it's, it's a modified version of what we discussed earlier. So originally the idea was to create a subregion for the whole arena allocation process and because of timing issues and other concerns. Um, that was not possible, but from the discussions and we met over, I, most of this year to talk about whether to do the subregion, um, I, we, we came to this, um, this, um, this collaborative idea that San, San Mateo County actually uses, and it's really about, um, you know, continuing the conversation, about how we can work better, um, to meet our housing needs. And the, I would say, I wanted to point out that, I think the biggest advantage I saw with this is that we would, you know, we are paying into the $50,000, but, and we would hire staff to, or consultant to help us with these, the facilitation of the conversations, but also to help us track legislation. And we've talked about this, you know, we talked about it last week about how are we going to be able to, should we be putting resources into tracking, you know, what's going on at the state legislature in light of how much is happening? And this part of this is to have resources to be able to help us track the legislation and analyze it, to see how it would affect us. So if nothing else comes out of it, except for that, to me personally, I think it's worth the effort to do this. So I was more concerned about this when it was to create a subregion. But since we're not gonna do that, a lot of my concerns were addressed, because it's a planning collaborative as opposed to a subregion. So I think the opportunity for mountain view to be viewed as... Mm hmm. I'm not sure how to describe it, a receptive candidate for more housing allocation is... My concerns have gone away.

[01:41:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Yeah. So the device mayor, say, $50,000?

[01:41:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's the total... We'd pay... $5,000.

[01:41:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. 5,000 max, it was $2,000.

[01:41:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Maximum of $5,000. $3,100 to $5,000 would be our cost.

[01:41:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, that's why. Okay. I just wanted to clarify one. She said $50,000, I'll go, Okay.

[01:41:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you both for the clarity. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none. Uh, we have a motion from council member Ramirez.

[01:41:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, so I moved to approve the consent calendar and adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager, or designate to apply for, and, if awarded, grant funding, execute a funding agreement, uh, with the, uh, Santa Clara Valley Water District through the 2019 Safe Clean Water Priority, B 7 grant program to restore wildlife habitat. along the Mountain View tidal marsh within Shoreline of Mount View, to be read entitled only further reading waived. and adopt a resolution endorsing the city of Mount View's participation with the city's association of Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative.

[01:42:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Ramirez, and a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. I'll call the question. That passes unanimously. Next is item five, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter and not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. Does anyone wish to address the council on items not on the agenda tonight? Be sure to fill out a blue card before or after, but...

[01:43:24] Cliff Chambers: Thank you. Cliff Chambers, resident of Mountain View. Like, how are you? I'm sure you read the Mountain View voice. And I just wanted to come and make a very brief comment that I really need to thank you. I think you're providing a great deal of leadership in this community, and we definitely have some quality of life issues, but you're really tackling some really difficult issues like displacement, affordable housing. mobility. And I really, in my professional life. I do a lot of work with different cities and counties. And this is really an incredible deliberative body that really cares for the community, and I just wanted to thank you.

[01:44:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And I'd like to thank you for that comment. So anyone else wishes to address the council? Yes.

[01:44:11] B Hanson: Hi, uh, B Hanson, Santiago Villa, and Mountain View, mobile home alliance. I just wanted to briefly, um, reflect on last night's rental housing committee. where they are recommending language for the ballot measure for the CSFRA amendments. Um, and as I was listening to that, I realized the whole history of the thing started coming back, starting helping the tenants unan gathering signatures for the, um, the ballot measure that was passed as CSFRA. And all of the all of the conversations I've had with my neighbors over the years about, what's happening now? And having constantly very disappointing things to, uh, report, um, and especially there's, B, you know, our rents are higher now, not lower, what the hell? So, um, I just wanted to observe that now we have a crossroads where the, uh, Mountain View rental protections are actually being cemented as not, uh, part of S CSFRA, and that's kind of disappointing. Uh, we understand the reason why that we're hopefully going to have an ordinance. Uh, but it's, uh, it's another battle to be, um, fought and won. And I know that all of my neighbors are very tired of it. We are reaching out to other, um, the other parks. We've been at sunset estates who are working with Sahara Village. Um, and, uh, I understand that this item is going to be, uh, from what rental housing committee said it will be on the agenda for next week, uh, next week's meeting, uh, November 12th. And I guess I'll save any further reflections for that time.

[01:46:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Others?

[01:46:21] Public Speaker: What she said?

[01:46:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on items not on the agenda? Do you have a call?

[01:46:31] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'd like to make a sad announcement that a longtime advocate, Michael Fassetti, Dr. Michael Fassetti passed away. And so he was always a well respected individual, and his thoughts were always in the right place, and so I just want to let people know that he will be sorely missed.

[01:46:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, um, actually, that is, uh, we were gonna talk about that a little bit later in the agenda.

[01:46:58] Unknown Speaker: Well, I know, but... but that's okay. I like to bring it up now when we have people that will hear it.

[01:47:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, uh... Okay, what goes this portion of the meeting? And move on to item 6.1, which is the public hearing on the downtown business improvement areas number one and two, an allocation of 2020 business improvement area revenues. And we'll start with a staff presentation. And then if there's any council questions, then we'll open it up to public comment. before we bring it back to the council for deliberation.

[01:47:42] City Staff: Good evening, city council. Tonight, we are holding the second public hearing in the annual renewal process of the downtown business improvement areas. The 1st meeting was held on October 1st, 2019, to review and preliminarily approved the BIAs. As a reminder, there are two business improvement areas in our downtown. BIA number one within the red boundary includes all businesses along Castle Street and side streets. BIA number 2, highlighted in blue, includes businesses in the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street. The BIA fee structure and assessments are used for specific programming and services to support the central Business Association and downtown businesses. Any changes to the areas, including the fee structure and boundaries require a majority vote by the BIA participants. In the BIA annual report prepared by the CBA, they project revenues from both areas will generate approximately $41,000 for 2020. Tonight, there are three recommendations for city council. Adopt a resolution to levee assessments for BIA's number one and two, authorize the allocation of 2020 revenues from both BIAs to the CBA, and 3 authorize the city manager to execute a contract with the CBA. If counsel approves the recommendations, the business license renewal notices with the BIA amounts will be sent out. Staff is available for any comments or questions you may have.

[01:49:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. That was quick. Thank you. Any questions from council members? Council member McAllister?

[01:49:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Remind me why this couldn't be on the consent calendar.

[01:49:32] City Staff: I believe there's actually legal requirements by law that we have to renew this in a public hearing.

[01:49:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[01:49:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, see no other folks in the queue. We'll open this up for public input. Did anyone want to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion. and bring it back to council. Council member McAllister.

[01:50:00] Councilmember John McAlister: I like to make a motion. That we... Okay, is there any special reading, or can I go off? Yes. One, I'd adopt a resolution living the annual benefit assessment for fiscal year 201920 for downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area, number one, to be read in title only for the Reading Wave. Adopt a resolution living the annual benefit assessment for fiscal year 20, 1920, for downtown Mountain View Business Improvement area. Number two, to be read in title only for the Reading Wave. Authorize the sitting manager to execute a contract for services with the Central Business Association for 2020 and authorized allocation of 2020 revenue for business improvement area, number one, and business improvement, number two, to the Central Business Association.

[01:50:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, so we have a motion by Council member McAllister, and a second by Council member Hicks. It's called the question. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Next is item 6.2. Minor amendments to chapter 36, which is our zoning ordinance. of the city code, and the R for multifamily standards handout. And we will... Oh wait, Council member Komei.

[01:51:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I am recusing myself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest related to source of income.

[01:51:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll start with the staff presentation.

[01:51:54] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Good evening, Mayor Matachek and Council members. The item before you tonight. Our proposed minor text amendments to chapter 36 of the city code, also known as the zoning ordinance, and amendments to the R4 multifamily standards handout. My name is Lindsay Hagan. deputy zoning administrator with the planning division, and I'm here tonight with Stephanie Williams, the planning manager and zoning administrator. So periodically, planning staff present to the city council, a series of minor text amendments to the zoning code to align with other city code updates that have occurred, to remain consistent with state and federal legislation changes, and to improve clarity and consistency within chapter 36. So these updates are also intended to improve the user experience in finding information and having clear direction on what regulations are applicable to what they're looking for. So jumping into the proposed text amendments tonight. The city adopted a short term rental ordinance in November of 2018 with new regulations for short term rentals, which now live in chapter 44 of the city code. So as part of these minor code amendments, staff proposes to add reference to the short-term rentals as permitted uses, that they do not require zoning permits, and to refer interested parties to chapter 44 of the code for specific requirements. Additionally, for the user ease, staff is also proposing to add a definition for short-term rental, which is the same definition that exists in chapter 44. Another recent update in September of 2018, the Federal Communication Commission, or FCC, provided a ruling or order that effectively restricted local municipalities abilities to require discretionary, um, review process for communication facilities proposed in the public right away, or um, on public property, and instead, treat them like other public utility providers in the right of way. So as a result, city staff is proposing to amend the zoning code to replace the word include with the word exclude, um, for these facilities proposed in the public right away, and just to clarify these facilities, um, proposing the public right away are still subject to excavation permits with our public works department. So there are still city staff that would be reviewing these proposals to ensure they comply with local requirements. Another recent city update was to the R4 zoning district development standards to modify the density from 60 units per acre to 80 units per acre, consistent with the general plan. This amendment was done in coordination with the Flower Mart project at 555 East Evelyn Avenue, which was approved by council in April of this year. Um, along with the R4 district development standards in chapter 36, is this accompanying handout um, that we're talking about tonight. And as part of these amendments, staff is proposing to update the R4 handout to reflect the 80 units per acre, as well as update references to chapter 36 so that they are current and up to date. Moving on to proposed amendments that clarify current practice or requirements or address frequent questions that we receive from the public. Starting off with the parking section of chapter 36, staff is proposing 2 specific amendments. One is to clarify that no zoning permit is required to install an EV charging facility per assembly bill 1236, which basically required cities to expedite their permitting for EV charging. So the city currently requires building permits for those units to be installed, and that would still remain with this code amendment. We just clarifying that a zoning permit's not required. The 2nd is to clarify that EV charging spaces and accessible parking spaces, that are required per the building code or chapter 8 of our city code, are included in the total parking count that are required for a particular site. In addition to those parking related amendments, staff proposes to modify a parking graphic in the zoning code that is intended to visually display the double striping requirement that we have for parking spaces. Unfortunately, the graphic displace dimensions that are not mathematically feasible, or accurate. So staff is proposing to amend the graphic to basically maintain the 4 inch wide stripes that are required, but it's 10 inches that should be between them instead of 12. Looking at rooftop screening, currently a parapet wall is allowed to exceed the maximum building height of a zoning district by up to 4 feet. A parapet wall is essentially a low wall that is an extension of the building exterior wall, which can be utilized to screen equipment, or add kind of an architectural detail or termination of a building. Um, So alternative to, and it's, sorry, displayed here at the top of your screen. It's the top graphic. Alternative to a parapet wall is a rooftop screen. So the zoning code does not currently account separately for rooftop screening. So a rooftop screen is an accessory, um, element to the building that is fastened onto the roof structure, and it's placed typically interior to the building the exterior building wall. And so the bottom graphic here is an example of that. With the types of new construction and major renovations, projects that are coming online in the city that include kind of these large HVAC equipment, or elevator or staircase penthouses or other rooftop telecommunication facilities. We do see a need to allow flexibility for rooftop screening. So, this is to ensure that various rooftop systems will continue to be screened from view and you can maintain the aesthetic integrity of the building, the architecture that you're trying to maintain with the building. Therefore, staff is proposing to allow rooftop screens to extend above the maximum building height in a zoning district, by the least amount necessary to appropriately screen the equipment up to a maximum of 10 feet. We are proposing to exclude um, this rooftop exception, um, in the R1 and R2 zones. So those would still be required to comply with the maximum height in those 2 specific zones. Staff would continue to review these rooftop screening requests through project plans. We would still continue to ask for cross sections of buildings or specs on different equipment, or line of site drawings from adjacent properties to ensure that what they're proposing is the least amount of height that they need to screen the equipment. Another clarification to the code is for mechanical equipment in the R1, single family zoning district. Staff is proposing to add a separate mechanical equipment section to the accessory structures and uses section, to make it easier for users to identify the setbacks applicable for common equipment we see like AC units. So this graphic on your screen is just a visual reference of what the proposed amendments state. Basically, the amendments identify that no AC unit could be proposed in the front yard setback or any area visible from the public right away. that they must maintain the same setbacks as other equipment, such as pool equipment, which is a minimum of 3 feet from the property line. And also allows houses on corner lots, where you have 2 street frontages, to place the AC unit behind a fenced side yard, as long as it's consistent with the minimum fence setbacks, which is 5 feet, and also is out of the traffic visibility areas. Another clarification proposed is to relocate the definition for administrative office. Um, to the O section of our definition so that it can be there with the other office definitions. This is, for obvious reasons, to make it easier to find all the office definitions. Additionally, in the industrial land use table, staff is proposing to replace the name that's listed as financial with the name banks and financial services because that's consistent with how it's referenced in other sections of our code and is also consistent with the definition section. Um, In addition, um, to renaming it, uh, it's also relocating it from the office as an office subcategory to its own line item under services, um, which is again consistent with how it's represented in other land use tables in our code. And then, lastly, to add an office subcategory that's also consistent with how it's referenced in other areas of our code. Overall, this is really a renaming and relocating exercise in terms of the land use table. All of the permit requirements that exist today would continue to exist. So it's not actually changing any permit requirements. And then the last set of amendments is related to the sign regulations. Currently, there are duplicative sign requirements for building mounted and monument or site signs for the public facilities, the limited industrial and our general industrial zoning districts. So the idea with these text amendments is to simply remove what's duplicative, it's pretty clear when reading them, what applies to something being mounted on a building versus something that's standalone. So we wanted to remove some of that duplicative language that doesn't really apply. So what will remain are the sign requirements that are applicable to each type of sign. Um, So with that, uh, staff did present these amendments to the environmental planning commission on October 2nd. At a public hearing, the EPC did unanimously unanimously, um, recommend counsel approve the amendments to chapter 36 and the R4 multifamily, uh, standards handout. So, with that staff, and APC both recommend that council move forward in adopting the amendments as proposed. That concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for questions.

[02:02:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Council member of McAllister?

[02:02:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have a question on number, uh, eight, uh, slide eight. I was reading something, I guess maybe it was an East Whisman precise plan, that 20 feet came into play. that somebody was asking something to move from 10 to 20 feet. And I can't recall where I saw that, but I thought it was an east Westman study. But you're saying a max of ten feet. So once I find that.

[02:02:58] Planner Lindsay: Yeah, so the difference would be that chapter 36 applies to our standard zoning districts. So anything, I mean, the precise plans can be more specific to what applies to those.

[02:03:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so precisely...

[02:03:10] Planner Lindsay: Correct.

[02:03:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. So that explains that one. Also, then, on slide... Ten? So, the air conditioning. Let's say if somebody had an air conditioning unit, I guess that's what we're referring to. And they're on a side street, and they don't have a fence, but would they be allowed to put an AC unit on next to the house and put a small fence around it, or does it have to be a... such something that blocks it from a view?

[02:03:40] Planner Lindsay: So, there's kind of two pieces to your question. The first is, uh, it would require some kind of fence or screening around it.

[02:03:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Screening. Okay.

[02:03:48] Planner Lindsay: It doesn't mean that they necessarily have to build a six foot fence if they don't want to. As long as it's consistent with the setbacks of our fence requirements, so it meets the minimum 5 foot setback.

[02:03:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:03:58] Planner Lindsay: Then they could build a shorter fence if you choose. It just has to at least cover the equipment.

[02:04:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's okay. That gives more options. And then, um, I remember we were talking about 5G coming down when it does come down, and I was talking about the, uh, requirements of the, the equipment being put up. And so, is that what you're referring to when you were talking about antennas, communication facilities, unless prohibited by law, the federal law and state law? Was that what you were gathering, that when this comes, we can't exclude it?

[02:04:33] Planner Lindsay: So there's two things. There are current legislation or acts orders, whatever you want to call them, that are in place, that limit local municipalities authority to review these under discretionary permits like we used to. But at the same time, the proposed amendments that were, you know, on the table tonight, the reason we use the language kind of and consistent with state or federal is because the laws are always changing. So we're trying to kind of still be consistent with what could happen.

[02:05:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Because Palo Alto is fighting this, and I thought something from, I mean, Los Altos is really concerned about people putting their little modes, mods, or whatever, on telephone poles, or along throughout the city. Like you had in your photo that there were some smaller ones, and people were concerned of the health. Are we having any discretion on where these are going?

[02:05:24] Planner Lindsay: So we can only treat them like we would any other public utility in the right of way. So we can't require more permanent requirements than we would other utility providers in the right way. The other thing is, we do have specifically small cell requirements, so, and I, um, I think I shared a link with you guys, of what we do require, if somebody does come in with a proposal for small cell facilities, specifically in the right away, there is particular requirements in terms of what they need to provide and what they're agreeing to do.

[02:05:56] Councilmember John McAlister: So I remember, I thought I heard, I brought this question up once, and I remember the public works director saying that we're working with people or talking with people.

[02:06:06] Planner Lindsay: We do, we are in the process of reviewing three packages for small cell facilities in the right of way.

[02:06:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, so we weren't, we were talking to applicants we weren't talking to. Government agencies that would help us define what's allowed and not aligned.

[02:06:21] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Maybe I can shut some light on this. I think what Lindsay was referring to is one efficient way for these carriers to deploy in the right of way, or what's called a master license agreement, where they essentially package up their locations, where they want to go, and work with staff to deploy those efficiently. And then getting back to the earlier topic of legal standard of review, the public utilities code gives the city legal authority over the time, place, and manner of these installations, so we still do have some control over how they go in the right of way. But Lindsay's correct. The federal law is still rapidly evolving, but going in the direction of eroding cities power. So, I think these amendments are the best effort to keep up with those FCC orders, but also preserve some city control over those right away installations.

[02:07:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So if some cities had put in some kind of restrictions, the new laws would supersede those prior restrictions that some cities had put in place.

[02:07:35] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That's correct, yeah.

[02:07:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:07:37] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Cities are extremely limited in what they can do around telecommunications due to federal law.

[02:07:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[02:07:45] Unknown Speaker: Just to bring some clarity here, these code amendments are to clarify that the public works department will process permits in the public right of way, similar to they do every other permit in the public right of way, and the community development department will continue to do permitting on private property. So this is just clarifying that.

[02:08:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, but I know this is an issue that's coming about, so I just wanted clarity. Thank you.

[02:08:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Uh, any other questions?

[02:08:17] Unknown Speaker: Nope.

[02:08:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, seeing no other questions, we'll open this up for public comment. Did anyone in the audience... want to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none. We'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. Uh, Council member Hicks.

[02:08:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm going to make an emotion to introduce an ordinance, amending chapter 36 of the Mountain View city code, related to minor code amendments, to be read in title only, for the reading waived, and set a second reading for December 10th, 2019, and 2, to adopt a resolution amending the R4 multifamily standards handout to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[02:09:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, this. We have a motion by Council member Hicks, and a second by Council member, McAllister, and we can call the question. So that passes six, zero, one with council member, Kamei, recused. Thank you.

[02:09:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I hear a couple folks saying, uh, we could use a little bit of a break here since we started quite some time ago. So we'll come back at 720? Is that work? on this clock?

[02:10:16] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order, and the next item. Well, actually, uh, well, the next item on the agenda is 6.3, a Swissman precise plan. And, uh, council member Hicks.

[02:10:33] (archive recording) Councilmember Alison Hicks: Watch. So, I am going to recuse myself due to a financial interest in the area.

[02:10:46] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will start with the staff presentation, and then we'll go to council questions, and we'll open it up for public comment. Take it away, Mr. Anderson.

[02:23:13] Eric Anderson: Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you, city council. This is the public hearing for the East Wisman precise plan. My name is Eric Anderson. I'm also joined by the Community Development Director, Artis Shavastova. So here we are. This has been a more than three year process, developing the precise plan. And here we are at the end at the adoption hearings, the last bubble in our diagram. So the precise plan before you includes a lot of innovative characteristics and new land use direction for the area that was developed with the benefit of outreach, and a lot of council, EPC, and stakeholder input, and input from our wonderful precise plan team. It includes a new mixed use core around the middle field light rail station, with up to 5,000 units, 20% of which will be affordable. It includes a new jobs housing linkage program, which is the intent of which is to ensure that housing actually gets built, either in line with or before office development, to ensure that these new employees have someplace to live, and to support trip internalization, and all these other benefits of housing. It includes neighborhood transitions, lower intensity buildings, along North Wisman Road, and in the village center. It includes mobility improvements, new public paths throughout the area, and connecting the area to surrounding neighborhoods, 30 acres of open space to support the 5,000 units, and a revitalized and coordinated village center. at the corner of Middlefield and Wisman. The agenda for tonight, we have two questions for counsel, one of which is to verify the, or to confirm or approve the community benefits value, the second of which is to review recommended incentives for the Los Altos School District TDR projects. I will also describe 5 key changes from the public draft. For key changes from the public draft, the high rise standards for projects in your middle field station, jobs housing linkage guidelines, the office TDM requirements, revisions, and open area standards revisions. There are other minor changes that we put in attachment 10. Those are changes based on clear council direction, and so I won't be presenting those specifically, but can answer questions about those. In addition, we will talk a little bit about the general plan and zoning amendments and the EIR. So the first topic for council deliberation is the community benefits value. In El Camino Real, in San Antonio, we had precise plan areas, we adopted specific community benefits values to set expectations for how much community benefits a project should provide. This value is separate from and does not include school strategy contributions. So this is a totally separate bucket of contributions from bonus FAR projects, and we will be addressing school strategy contributions in Q1, 2020. The Office recommendation of $25 per bonus square foot was developed based on a kind of a standard community benefits analysis of the value uplift of the bonus FAR. The residential analysis, we couldn't do that because we were finding, in our pro forma models, that residential is not currently feasible, under that specific model. So we developed a $5 per bonus square foot as a recommendation, which is a reasonably low number that also preserves some stake in community benefits for residential projects. Staff is recommending that we come back and reevaluate community benefits if costs and revenues change. We can do that without opening up the precise plan. So the 1st question is, does council support the community benefits values as proposed in attachment seven? The 2nd question for council deliberation tonight is about the Los Altos school district TDR projects. These are the projects that were moving concurrently with the precise plan process, based on their purchase of floor area from a site in San Antonio in order to facilitate construction of a school there. So, these six projects are going concurrently with the precise plan, and with the exception of this future office project, the 291 to 339 North Bernardo Project, they are roughly in balance in terms of their jobs and housing, uh, generation, consistent with the job's housing linkage program. So based on that, council direction in May was to treat these as a group for the purpose of the job's housing linkage, and that 291 to 339 Bernardo may be allowed to have any remainder office that might come from the residential projects being larger than the office projects. It came to our attention that this creates some incentives that are not beneficial to either the TDR program or the jobs housing linkage. If the city lets the residential projects, Miramar and Summerhill, apply the job's housing linkage benefits that they would be entitled to under the precise plan, then Sobrano and Sandhill, the office projects would effectively not have a balancing residential set of projects. So the growth in East Swizman would be out of balance. If not, if the city does not let Miramar and Summerhill take advantage of the job's housing linkage program, then they would have an incentive to withdraw from the TDR program reapply, and then we would not only lose out on the TDR, but we would also lose out on the job's housing balance. So that a double loss there. However, if the city forces Sobrado and Sandhill to work together with Miramar and Summerhill, you run the risk that the office projects may decide that that's too much uncertainty, and they may withdraw from the TDR program, which is also not part of the city goals in terms of generating that school over in San Antonio. So staff has developed several incentives to encourage the residential projects to stay in the TDR program. The 1st is allow Summerhill and Miramar to sell their demolished floor area through the floor area transfer program. This is probably the most significant portion of the jobs housing linkage program in terms of value. In addition, staff is proposing that both Miramar and Summerhill be allowed to take advantage of the BMR program, that council supported for Summerhill, which is more moderate BMR units and all of the BMR units applied to rental units as opposed to ownership units. And this program is slightly financially better for the residential projects than the standard, which would apply both to ownership and have a larger spread of moderate and low income in very low income units. In addition, staff has presented several alternatives in the staff report. These include losing the job's housing balance and allowing the office projects to advance without partnership, forcing the office projects to partner, and again, potentially losing the TDR there. or reducing the community benefits or potentially other incentives. And if this is something that council is interested in, basically adding onto the incentives that are proposed in the staff report, either by reducing community benefits for these projects or some other incentive, the council can give that direction to staff, and we can continue to work on those, additional incentives with the specific projects. If the residential withdraws from the TDR anyway, if Summerhill and Miramar withdraw from the TDR anyway. Staff is recommending to allow the office projects to proceed without the job's housing linkage in order to try to preserve that TDR program. So, EPC did review this topic, and their recommendation was to try to give as much support, try to give support for trying to keep the TDR projects moving forward and preserving the transfer of development rights. So the first precise plan topic for tonight is these high rise standards that were developed after the last study session. The staff developed these standards in order to focus these high rise buildings close to the middle field stations, so 750 feet, they are further limited by the airport height limit, so it really can't go very much higher than the, and in some cases, maybe further limited than the 135 feet additional height, or total height that's in the draft precise plan. And staff feels that we can use this additional height as an incentive to try to get more open space neighborhood commercial and other high quality design from project applicants. And so that's ingrained into the high rise standards as well. EPC reviewed these standards, and recommended approving them, in addition, extending the boundary 250 feet north, so that's the notch that you see to the north here, including these parcels. In addition, they recommended that we provide some language that makes the height exception proportional with the neighborhood commercial that's provided, so that's been integrated into the standards, an additional high quality design. And these images show an idea of what these standards would generate, closer to them along Middlefield Road, and then further away from them, along Middlefield Road, near the village center. As directed at the last study session, staff removed some of the procedural detail from the jobs housing linkage program, and put that detail into an attached document, the administrative guidelines. These administrative guidelines maintain the overall goals, including building residential first and or providing certainty that the residential happen, and then, of course, the balance of jobs in housing, eliminating opportunities for double counting office, and protection of the development reserve. It also responds to certain developer feedback, including requests for additional time after residential gets developed that they can take advantage of the program. Another key idea that staff wanted to introduce to council is revisions to the office TDM program. Instead of a each development standard, which previously was 0.9 trips per 1000 square feet near term and 0.7 trips per 1000 square feet, long term, staff is recommending that we modify the precise plan to have an area wide average, which would be an average between what new development builds and what the legacy development is currently generating. This has several advantages. It ensures consistency with the EIR. It is an incentive for legacy buildings to join, so if a new development needs to reduce their trips, they can actually go out to legacy development and reduce that legacy development trips in lieu of their own trips, giving them more flexible ways to provide trip reductions. It also gives the city an opportunity to respond if the legacy development actually increases their trips over time. We can actually decrease the trip, required trip generation from new development to respond. And it would result in fewer trips than the draft precise plan if there are fewer larger developments. On the other hand, it would result in more complex implementation. We are planning on developing some guidelines to help determine what the right project specific trip generation would need to be in order to comply with this. And in addition, it could result in more trips than the draft plan, if more smaller developments. But as I said, this recommended program does ensure consistency with the EIR, while the draft precise plan is less insured, that consistency. Lastly, we are recommending a reduction in the open area standards, the 100 to 150 square feet per unit standard for the highest density areas in the precise plan does create a disincentive for density. We ran the calculation and found that putting that standard on the highest density developments that we might expect would result in roughly 50% of the lot area being devoted to open area, which is an unfeasible development program, given the types of development that we're seeing. And, for example, this is kind of a similar intensity building that's under construction right now on San Antonio, and we've highlighted in this image, the area that East Wisman Precise Plan would consider open area. And it is significantly less than 50%. So the new standard would be 80 to 120 feet square feet per unit. It would also provide flexibility for mixed use to share open area under specific circumstances, providing opportunities to count some emergency access areas to open area, and it also provide, the revisions also provide a hotel open areas. standard standard Other changes from the public draft are shown in Attachment 10. Here's a list of the topics that are in that document. In addition, minor changes are in the track changes document and attachment four. So the next question for council is does the city council wish to modify any other parts of the draft precise plan. As part of this precise plan process, we need a new general plan designation, which is the East Wisman mixed use designation, in addition to some new policies for the general plan, amendments are included as attachment 1, attachment 2, excuse me. In addition, we need a new zoning district for the precise plan. And this zoning district would replace all the existing T zones or transit floating zones that exist out there. They were used in the last couple of decades to encourage, or to allow development, above 0.35. And so the use was a precise plan, really, is redundant to the T zone. And so staff is recommending removal of the T zone and the TOD permit from the zoning ordinance. Lastly, this project did include an environmental impact report. Several impacts were identified to transportation, including vehicle miles traveled, and transit delay. The draft EIR was released in early June. And we did receive letters from eight individuals, agencies, and organizations, and responses are provided in attachment one, pursuant to state law. So the next few slides here are all the recommendation language. I do want to introduce our great precise plant team, who's been with us through this whole process. We have Troy Reinhalter from Ramian Associates. Libby Seifel and Sujata Suvosteva. We have Dan Rubens and Alan Wang with transportation, and we have Amy Ashton, our E.I.R. consultant, who's out there, as well. So thank you all very much for all your support in this process. And so in summary, staff is recommending approval of all of these actions, and as well as the EPC, recommended approval of all of these actions, with the exception of the Community Benefits Action, which they didn't see. So here are your alternatives, and the summary of the questions before you, and staff is available with any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

[02:40:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We'll start with Council Questions, Council Marble Clark.

[02:40:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, I just wanted to confirm, so we received a small flood of emails, um, this afternoon. You know, we're not, in any way, codifying the school strategy tonight. That'll be a separate discussion, but in order to come up with a community benefit amount. You needed to make certain assumptions, and as you said, we can change that community benefit amount outside the precise point. If we need to, once we finalize the school strategy. We just needed an assumption tonight.

[02:41:14] Eric Anderson: That's absolutely right. Yeah.

[02:41:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: And then at that time, I think this is one of the council questions, too. At that time, if we want to say, you know, the two combined shouldn't exceed a certain amount, we could make that decision at that time, too, probably when we revisit the school strategy, if we wanted to adjust the community benefits fee, we could.

[02:41:34] Eric Anderson: Yes, that's possible. We would have to notice it specifically as being about fees generally, but that could be something that we could consider looking at. Currently, we were just planning on talking about the school strategy, um, as a separate item, 'cause I think there's gonna be a lot. talk about that night. But we can discuss, and see if a more general fee or contribution discussion could be about.

[02:42:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: But nothing we're doing tonight locks us into anything on the trip.

[02:42:05] Eric Anderson: No. Other than the community benefits value for the near term, until it gets changed.

[02:42:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Understood. Thanks.

[02:42:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Ramirez.

[02:42:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick questions. So, first, for... I can't recall. So do we have, what are the thresholds for a significant impact for VMT that we're using now in the ER?

[02:42:37] Unknown Speaker: So, the threshold we're using is 15 percent below the countywide, or citywide, uh, whichever is lower, um, uh, per capita, VMT.

[02:42:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then, are we going to stick with that, or is the intention ultimately for the council to weigh in on what threshold we would like to use for future environmental review?

[02:43:01] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so early next year. Um, we're, uh, the department's gonna bring forward, um, revisions to thresholds based on SB 743.

[02:43:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then 4 significant impacts. What are the, how do we value, the mitigations that are required to address those impacts? Is there a standard for that? So how do we... So just to use an example, I know San Jose adopted thresholds some time ago, and I believe there's a value, if there's a statement of overriding considerations, if you can't mitigate the impact with some identified improvements, then there's some value that has to be paid to the city. of, you know, to offset the impact that can't be mitigated. Do we have something like that, or is there a standard that BTA is proposing for something like that?

[02:43:59] Unknown Speaker: Nothing formalized, but...

[02:44:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Is that something we could look into?

[02:44:06] Unknown Speaker: I'm gonna have to come back to you with a response. I do remember having a conversation as we look at thresholds of significance, um, in terms of if you can't improve in one category. How do you increase a multimodal or something else? So I think that's on the list of issues to be studied, but I'm gonna have to confirm that.

[02:44:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. App appreciate it. And then, um, there was a letter, I think, from Summerhill regarding the TMA and residential membership, and I asked a couple of questions about that. So, has, I don't know if Summerhill is aware of that, has the information that was shared with the council and the written response has been conveyed to the residential developers who are interested, that there are now, that there's now a membership available for residential, and then there are programs and services that the TMA is providing.

[02:45:06] Unknown Speaker: I'm gonna defer to Don Cameron.

[02:45:08] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you. On Cameron Assistant Public Works director, I know that TMAs, I mean, conversation with the existing residential members and the ones that they know are pending, but I can follow up with them to ensure they reach out to all the other residential developers that the city's been talking to about joining the TMA to make sure they're aware that the TMA now does have a separate fee structure for residential developers, as well as they're bringing online different services to help more directly serve residential development.

[02:45:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you so much. App appreciate it. And then the last, um, questions regarding community benefits. So, um, I think you, you, the staff address this, and the written response is just, but just so there's absolute clarity, that this, right now, the community benefit obligation stacks with the school strategy contribution. So the aggregate value for residential would be approximately $15 per square foot, and then the aggregate value for office would be approximately $45 per square foot.

[02:46:21] Unknown Speaker: If counsel ends up adopting the placeholder values that we included on our analysis of $10 and $20, then yes, that would be true.

[02:46:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, and then just to be clear. So if there weren't a school strategy, would those be the numbers that we would likely be adopting for community benefits tonight? approximately?

[02:46:45] Unknown Speaker: If there was no school strategy, then council would likely be adopting $5 for residential in 45 for office.

[02:46:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Okay, thank you very much.

[02:46:59] Unknown Speaker: Or staff would be recommending. I don't know what counts.

[02:47:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Do you have some? Council member McAllister?

[02:47:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Um... There are numerous mentions of a feasibility in here, and sometimes I don't know if it's financial feasibility or structural feasibility. So, um, yeah, I guess you, are you using that word in or changeably a lot in this, for particular?

[02:47:34] Unknown Speaker: It could be interchangeable, yeah. In some cases, it could be a structural feasibility question.

[02:47:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Talking about that, again, like what I brought up earlier, there's... mention in here, reasonable development, developer returns, or using a pro forma model. There is a footnote on page 14, too, about residual value and making these projects financial, infeasible. Again, I want to get more information about that, we are making our own determination that these projects are not feasible, based on a model that we're using, or how are we determining this feasibility study that comes about? How is it developed?

[02:48:21] Unknown Speaker: Well, I can give a short answer, and then I can defer to our economic consultants for more detail, but we do generate kind of a model development that complies with all the standards, and pays all the fees, and everything, and then we also input some kind of generally accepted values for things like construction costs, and financing costs, and expected returns. And so once we put all of those things together, in a way that, I presume, is similar to the way private developers would do, although they may have some different values in their performas. We come out with an unexpected number for how profitable a development might be.

[02:49:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, but so we're determining our idea of what's profitable. Or are you going with, you know, what's...

[02:49:19] Unknown Speaker: It's generally accepted, kind of developer expected returns.

[02:49:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Is that consistent throughout the state, nation, or just Santa Clara County?

[02:49:29] Unknown Speaker: I mean... Yeah, I'll defer to my consultants on that. And I'll be because...

[02:49:36] Councilmember John McAlister: And again, I also, like, earlier, could you explain your pro forma, how far it goes out? Is it one year, two years, three years?

[02:49:52] Consultant: So, in the residential pro forma, again, we're assuming, and actually, I think this is true for the commercial, for the office perform as well. We're assuming that there's a stream of revenue that's occurring over time, and we're capitalizing that up front, um, into 2019 using a capitalization rate that's based on current market conditions now.

[02:50:11] Councilmember John McAlister: But if you took a pro forma to a bank, How long does a bank usually for funding? How far out does a bank usually request a pro forma for? Would you, I mean, I know it's not what you do, but maybe you have an answer.

[02:50:27] Consultant: Yeah, it depends on the property, and it's a great question. Um, uh, so depends on the loan that you're seeking, what they're looking for and how they're analyzing it. And we're looking at a range of capital providers, including equity providers as well as banks. But a lot of them use a standard return on cost or yield on cost threshold that they also they use to evaluate the economics along with doing a cash flow projection. So they typically do both.

[02:51:00] Councilmember John McAlister: And how far out is that Castro flow projection?

[02:51:04] Consultant: Usually at least 10 to 15 years, but they, for a bank, they might want to look at the life of the loan, which is 30 years.

[02:51:11] Councilmember John McAlister: So, when you do your projections? You use a different model. So, could we get two different results using pro forma that a bank requires versus your model?

[02:51:27] Consultant: Um, when they're being used for different purposes. So I just want to make that clear. Um, in terms of, if you're trying to understand the return threshold, the general return threshold, which is, I think, where your question was coming from, I think they would, they would come up with a similar assessment. But they would look at it differently.

[02:51:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, well, my intent is trying to figure out, is, a bank's looking at to make sure that this thing will be productive over time, and therefore, it's feasible.

[02:52:01] Consultant: Right.

[02:52:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Where the sense I'm getting from what you're doing is maybe different, and I think a bank would be more conservative over a while versus yours. And so.

[02:52:11] Consultant: And that's true, they might be. I mean, typically the way a longer term cash flow would look is they would say, okay, here's what we expect our income to be over time. And at some point in the future, the building will sell at some point in the future. And at that point in the future, there's a risk as to what it would sell for. So the capitalization rate is going to be adjusted for the risk because it's going to be looking out over time. What we're doing is we're looking at capitalization rates today, which are at all time historical lows, and that, and that means that values are higher today relative to long term values. So, typically a bank will factor that in, they'll factor in a risk assessment into the fact that the property's going to sell 10 to 15 years from now. So I think in your sense that in some ways our analysis might be a little more optimistic because of that, than a bank that's looking at a long-term sale of a property. Okay. Did that answer your question?

[02:53:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I think, but, okay, I'm still processing it for myself. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then. Um... If a company or one of our developers pulled out of the TDR program, what kind of consequences could that occur for that project?

[02:53:36] Unknown Speaker: So if the residential developers were to pull out of the TDR program, they would have to resubmit a new application, and they could only do so after the precise plan is adopted, there may be ramifications to their project design, and so they would have to go back through, kind of, a new staff review, DRC review process. And so there could be ramifications on the time of their approval. And there could also be ramifications on the incentives that are, so the BMR incentive and for them if they were to pull out of the TDR programs.

[02:54:21] Councilmember John McAlister: What kind of a timely... What kind of a delay would they might incur?

[02:54:26] Unknown Speaker: It's difficult to know exactly. I think on a, you know, going back through a couple of rounds of staff review and a DRC process generally takes, you know, six to eight months, but if there are additional challenges in terms of reviewing the project and project design, that could extend longer.

[02:54:46] Councilmember John McAlister: And if would there be any subsequent, like, BMR units or school strategy that they initially applied for, but now they have changed, because we've gone through some things, that the cost of BMRs could be more expensive, or that the income level has lowered? And so there's new guidelines for VMRs and so forth like that.

[02:55:09] Unknown Speaker: Uh, well, so we are, uh, so we're proposing that the benefits to the TDR program be associated with or the incentives be associated with this revised BMR, um, uh, incentive. So that's part of the proposal. We are, um, so, in effect, if they did resubmit, they'd have to comply with the citywide.

[02:55:31] Councilmember John McAlister: The new market.

[02:55:32] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[02:55:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Which are much more, could be more expensive.

[02:55:35] Unknown Speaker: More expensive, yes. Much more expensive.

[02:55:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then on... one of the questions on... the... resolutions. Number seven. I'm reading, it's number seven. There is a phrase which is in here, which says, whereas, yada, yada, yada. Hit the phrase, and which maintains a reasonable developer return for a range of products. Why is that in this resolution? That the phrase, which maintains a reasonable developer return for a range of projects. Why are we trying to determine what's reasonable for a developer?

[02:56:17] Unknown Speaker: So when you adopt a community benefits value, you want to make sure that a developer has an incentive to actually pursue the community benefits program, so that way you can actually capture those community benefits. And so, if you don't, uh, set your community benefits value at a point where, uh, there's still kind of a reasonable return on the development from going through the community benefits program, nobody's going to take advantage of it, and everybody's just going to do the base FAR project. So that's why that's a kind of a fundamental input to the community benefits process.

[02:56:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The reduced office alternative came up. And you put in here, the reduced, the reduced office alternative would meet project objectives relating to creating a mixed use transit oriented development, which I guess, well, that's what one of our goals is. And then it says, for all these reasons, the reduced alternative is considered infeasible and not adaptable. Is the word in feasible financial, or there are other constraints. Was that we're supposed to refer to?

[02:57:26] Unknown Speaker: Uh, it's it's less feasible than the proposed project. So the office development really is kind of helping to support a lot of the community benefits that are actually implementing the plan, a lot of the housing, that's coming into the area. And so, in order to kind of find that balance between not too much office to exacerbate the job's housing imbalance, and not so little office that we can't generate these community benefits and these improvements in the housing that we need. Council settled on this TDR bonus alternative at the last study session, which is kind of a moderate amount of office, the 2 million square feet of office instead of the reduced office alternative.

[02:58:13] Councilmember John McAlister: So the phrase is a financial infeasibility.

[02:58:17] Unknown Speaker: That's a big part of it, yeah.

[02:58:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And... um... That's it for now. Thank you.

[02:58:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else have any questions? I have just a couple. And I want to make sure I'm looking at the most recent material. So when it comes to the mix of units.

[02:58:45] Unknown Speaker: Um, that would be an attachment 10. The table there that has...

[02:58:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was mostly concerned about the three bedrooms. So the most recent, the, what,

[02:58:58] Unknown Speaker: you know, if council adopts resolution 4, attachment 4, that resolution includes amendments to the precise plan that would overrule the public draft of the precise plan. So, really, the latest, greatest information would be in attachment for on page three. The, um, showing two bedroom, 30 to 50% and 3 plus bedroom, 10 to 30%.

[02:59:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. And then the other question is... In attachment four, it talks about connecting green spaces, and... I was wondering, why are we making that a requirement, and how... Well, I can see where you could do that if you had one property owner that had, um, many parcels to connect those, but will we be able to do that, or are we really requiring that throughout the entire area?

[02:59:59] Unknown Speaker: It is a guideline. It's a guideline. And so it would apply as, uh, as it would be relevant. So you're talking about the new guideline that was included in the, um, on page...

[03:00:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It was on page four.

[03:00:15] Unknown Speaker: Page four, yeah. So those are guidelines that are used to kind of help design site plans. We would use that to try to encourage large properties to kind of interconnect green spaces together, as a guideline.

[03:00:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, because... So, is it because it says should, rather than shall, that is the guideline?

[03:00:40] Unknown Speaker: It's also in the guidelines chapter. Chapter 4 is the guidelines chapter.

[03:00:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Uh, no other council questions. Before I open this up for public comment. Um, I just want to reiterate, uh, some of what council member Clark said. We did receive quite a few letters and emails from folks, and, um, we certainly appreciate that the school districts are interested in a school strategy to address, uh, student growth. And I would say if you looked at the council's actions, um, over, gosh, many years now, uh, we're also interested in a school strategy, and working with the school districts, uh, the fact that we have the TDR program for LASD, and we're working on the school strategy.

[03:01:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And we're not done with that. We had a good discussion on that. I can't remember when that was. Is that just last week or no, it was October. And we'll continue with that discussion, you know, obviously schools are very important to the community, to the city, the council. I think we can all agree on that. Um, but what we didn't say is that we were gonna hold up any adoption of this plan, if we do that tonight, um, because in here, it says that, um, you know, the skill strategy is included in this, and we will finalize the skill strategy. First quarter? And then that is part of this plan. So, it's separate, but an important part of this. And so I just want to reiterate that we're not fixing any sort of number tonight in terms of the school strategy. And so, I don't personally think there's any reason to, at least we shouldn't hold up this plan because of the school strategy, because it's subject to it. There might be other issues that people have. But it's not the school strategy. So I just wanted to make that clear, because I do think there might have been some confusion based upon the emails that we received. Okay, so, public input. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to provide input tonight? Okay, there's quite a few. And each speaker will have a minute and a half. And if you can be sure to fill out a blue card before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk. That would be great. And I'm glad I'm not the only one coughing tonight. Hi there.

[03:03:42] Jessica Spizer: May I matter check? Uh, Vice Mayor Abai Koga. I'm Jessica Spizer, for President of Los Altos School District, Board of Trustees, and I'm here with Brian Johnson, our Vice President Jeff Bam, our superintendent of schools, and Randy Kenyon. I'm here to speak on behalf of LSD Board of Trustees and want to express how incredibly grateful we are a four-year partnership over the last 3 years as we have pursued a 10th school site. Without this partnership, we would not be where we are today. LSD is on the cusp of purchasing a property at California and showers drives having already signed a purchase agreement with a closing date just around the corner. We are thrilled that we have worked together to not only bring a school, but also community park and recreation facilities to Mountain View residents, young and old, to enjoy for generations to come. As you very likely know, the TDR program that we created together for this project is critical to our ability to purchase the property, which is why I'm here tonight. 55% of the TDRs are to be placed, um, are located in the East West Med Precise Plan. The success of our partnership and our ability to bring a school and recreational opportunities to mountain view depend upon the decisions you make regarding the East West Pend precise plan and the impact of those decisions on the feasibility of the TDR purchases. Um, We have been keeping close tabs on your, on these discussions, um, and we will be following up with our developers after tonight to make sure that they will be completing those purchases. Thank you very much.

[03:05:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:05:18] Colleen Farley: Hi, good evening, council members. My name is Colleen Farley, and I'm a homeowner and resident of the crossings neighborhood, and LASD parent and teacher, and my family and neighbors are overjoyed at the news of a local school. Having a local school in the NEC area will be a welcome site. Establishing. A local school allows families to walk and bike to school. Additionally, a local school will bring a park to our neighborhood. Having an open space to enjoy would enhance any sea sense of community. And we are grateful for the prospect of a school in the San Antonio Center area. I understand the school district has significant concerns about what might happen with the East Miss Whisman precise plan. Since a large number of their TDR buyers have projects in that area of the city. And I know the school district is sharing their concerns with you, and I just want to emphasize my family's support of the jointly established TDR program. It is my hope that whatever decisions you make regarding the East Westman precise plan, that it still allows the school's district's ability to purchase the coal site. And I do understand that you all have a difficult job balancing the needs across an entire city, and I appreciate all of the support, that you have provided by creating the partnership with the Los Altos school district, to enable the very real possibility of a school and park within our section of the city. Thank you.

[03:06:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:06:46] Mitch Manikin: Thank you. Hi. Mitch Manikin, speaking for SV at home, and I'll try to move fast here. Um, so we'll be excited about my overall, 5000 homes. 1000 of them scheduled to be affordable. It could be a big thing. Um, we've been working this a long time. You've been working this a long time. We want to thank the city council for previous action, the staff. And we do have a few things, a few tweaks we'd suggest. So, 1st of all, on the job's house and linkage, This is a really innovative program. We haven't seen like something like this anywhere else yet. I'm really excited for it to go forward and happy about it. Um, but it is sort of unpressive. So the staff and council should be prepared to update or provide additional flexibility as needed to make sure the housing actually gets built. Um, secondly, on the community benefits value. This is question three. Uh, we support the $25 per square foot commute benefits be on, um, bonus office FAR, but as been has been mentioned already, the feasibility analysis done in the staff report, shows that the residential fee is not feasible. And so we would recommend setting that fee at zero, at least initially, until it can be shown that fee is feasible. It sounds small, but, um, if you look at, say, a 1000 square foot development with FAR 3.5, that would be an additional $2800000 in cost. So it is significant. If that revenue is determined to be absolutely indispensable. Council should consider transferring extra cost to office space right in housing. It's more important to not risk housing in this housing crisis spirit in. And finally, we support the staff recommendations on the ETDRs. Thank you.

[03:08:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member McAllister has questions for you.

[03:08:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, good to see you again.

[03:08:25] Mitch Manikin: Hello.

[03:08:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, you know, how many organizations are members of your support team?

[03:08:33] Mitch Manikin: Ah, that's a great question. I don't know, but it's not our website. It's in the 100s. Something like that. We have a lot of individuals for members, so, yeah.

[03:08:42] Councilmember John McAlister: So, you praise this for our innovation of the job linkage. Will you be taking that message back to your members and saying, jobs and housing is very important so that when you build all this housing and offices that they took in consideration, the job housing linkage?

[03:09:02] Mitch Manikin: I don't quite understand the question since the,

[03:09:07] Councilmember John McAlister: what do you take? concept of job housing. to your members to say, Mountain View is doing, this is great. It's keeping a housing job balance, it's helping it. So, will you take that message back to your memberships and say, hey, do what they're doing is if you're going to build, make sure the housing is there.

[03:09:25] Mitch Manikin: Yeah, if their members of best be at home, they've definitely heard about the jobs housing balance, because we talk about it all the time, and presumably want to do something about it if they've supported us.

[03:09:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I was just hoping one of these times, after we've discussed a few times that when you tweet or Facebook, that we see Silicon Valley at home has donated X amount of dollars for it. So that would be great to be surprised, but that would be a nice addition to your communication.

[03:09:54] Mitch Manikin: We're a very small nonprofit, and we don't really make donations. We have to...

[03:10:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Or ask for some of your Oh, no, but you may not, but some of your corporate partners may do that. So that would be a great thing to see some days.

[03:10:08] Mitch Manikin: Silicon Valley's corporate partners donate. Sort of.

[03:10:12] Councilmember John McAlister: So that's just something that we're hoping for. Okay. I remember it was primarily affordable housing, nonprofits. So, but anyway.

[03:10:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Questions?

[03:10:23] Unknown Speaker: No, I think that's it.

[03:10:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:10:30] Laura Blakely: Good evening again, mayor vice mayor council members. Laura Blakely. Speaking again. Um, I'm a trustee of the Miami Western School District. I'm really glad to get clarification this evening that the school strategy will be treated separately from community benefits. However, school strategy should still be expressly referenced in a precise plan. It is not in any of the documents that were part of the staff report. It discussed it a little, but then it just dropped to the community benefits numbers of 5 and 25 dollars. So I would feel really strongly that that be incorporated in the plan itself. Um, I also, I know the decisions you're making are going to have great ramifications for years to come, and I'm hoping that you will listen to the voices of all stay holders, including current Mountain View community members who are just really beginning to be aware of the impact of your decision about community benefits that we'll have in the future. And I want to know how many people here. I am hoping that the audience can raise their hands if they are here in support of schools this evening. Thank you very, thank you very much. So I would just encourage you to be thoughtful about all this. You're going to be hearing from us again in the future. Ensure that the communities are thoughtfully planned. Don't pull the trigger on a low knee jerk $5 benefit. Just because the consultants and the developers think that's all they can afford this evening. Thank you.

[03:12:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:12:07] Anya Mitros: Hi, my name is Anya Mitros, and I'm here because I'm a Mountain View resident, a mom, and an MVF board member, and my plan was to sit in the audience like my husband is, and like some of my friends are. And the reason I got up to speak is because I'm also an engineer. And when I heard the mayor say that we are going to consider one key component of this design separately, that's when I felt like I need to get up here, because I've seen a lot of designs. And there are multiple constraints, just like you're juggling. juggling green space and housing density and a lot of these important things, finances. But schools are also a really important part of a healthy community. And when I see designs where someone says, oh, this key thing, we're going to deal with that later and they lock down part of the design early, it consistently blows up, something goes wrong, it goes over budget, it goes over schedule, the constraints aren't met, something goes wrong. And what I saw here, sitting for the last, I don't know, 15, 20 minutes, is a large design project. And in the end, the leader said, and one key component, we're gonna do later. And that was when I had to get up and say, no, when you have something that's really key to your community, when you have something that's really key to a design, You have to consider it, along with the other constraints, because you all have, you have to weigh it all together, at the same time. So, I don't know. So I really do believe you should include schools now and not lock down some parts of it and assume you can squeeze in the schools later. Thank you.

[03:13:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I will respond to that. We've been working on the school strategy for quite some time. And, uh, we had a great discussion um, on the school strategy, it applies to more than just the East Wisman area. And so, in the East, was my precise plan, in this large document, um, It says it's subject to the school strategy. So, I guess I respectfully disagree. I think because it's a citywide program, or it's actually maybe not citywide, but it applies to more areas than just the East Westman area. And we've made great progress on it. And this is subject to it. Thank you. Thank you. Next place.

[03:14:18] Hafsa Mirza: Good evening. My name is Hafsa Mirza. I am a parent in Mountain Mew, Los Altos, high school district, and Mountain Museum School District. I'm also resident of Mountain View for 2 decades, and I know some of you from schools. So um, I've been involved in the schools and that's why I'm here to speak on behalf of the schools. The community of the school community. I know you guys have been working on for a long time, but the school community is actually just learning about it, so we are still educating ourselves about what this whole project is going to look like later on. Um, it's very important that you take the time to get the school strategy and community benefits contributions right. Um, again, please take time. Please be thoughtful and get it right. Let's not taste like we have done in the past and we had to redo certain issues this year. So let's just do it right one time. And, um, that's it. Let's be partners. That's all I want to say. Thank you.

[03:15:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:15:19] Serge Bond: Good evening, Serge Bond, Mountain View resident. Sorry, I'll be talking about schools. So, 1st of all, I wanted to thank you for all the work you've been doing to support schools, you know, and I wanted to wake up, you know, and thank you for, you know, the school strategy. Um, that we start to put in place, um, you know, citywide or or multi areas wide. When the sundown on your precise plan was adopted, the one strategy that was there was to maybe try to get a school there using transfer development rights. That was a long journey, thanks to you and to the district and to the developers to to kind of teaming together. I think we are inches away from making it successful. And I want you to do all you can to make sure that it goes through. I think it's important for the Santan on your precise plan that was the only strategy if it fails. Um, you know, we won't have a school there. They won't be parks, they won't be athletic fields, and no chance ever to get that. So this is one in a forever chance to, to, to, to seize. I think if it were to fail, it would be a bad omen also for the future school strategy because I think that TDR also in a part of, you know, how high school may be built in Genoa Square or things like this. And I think that it's very important to make it work for all of Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:16:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:16:55] Public Speaker: All right, good evening, everyone. I'll keep it brief. I had a fiery speech, but I'm gonna keep that in the back pocket. I think all of us have really engaged in a theory of escalation, meaning that we are all weighing our cost to see what the tolerance level is. Developers are saying how much they can afford. City is saying what they need, school district is saying what they need. And at the end of the day, because all of us are engaged in this, somebody is going to be the loser, and most likely it's going to be the community. And it's a very unhealthy approach that we've been engaging in. So here's here's what my recommendations are. Each of us, developers, city staff, as well as the school district, really needs to sit down and have a meeting and figure out what really works for us. Not the city saying, this is what we believe, not the school district saying, this is what we believe, not the developers saying it. All 3 of us working collaboratively to figure it out. The 2nd thing is, I think, um, if you're not going to allow for that to happen, then at least allow, um, and assist developers in the school districts to sort of come up what they believe is a common vision. Now, lock us in a room and tell us to get it figured out, but simply assist us with the mediation. Um, At 1st I was going to say delayed and precise plan, but actually just delayed the community benefits. If it hasn't been seen, and I think if you're going to add on top of it, then it only makes sense for us to figure out what the total cost is so that the developers, as well as the school district, understand what needs to take place. And the final thing I would ask is I would request that the public has an opportunity to hear from each governing board, through a joint session, to review all the materials, so that all the information is out there, so that we're not working in pieces. Thank you.

[03:18:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Have a question for you? Councilman McAllister.

[03:18:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So, we have many communities working on something, and so, you phrased, the community is gonna lose. What was it, the school community? Was it the community of the whole, what community was going to lose?

[03:18:45] Dr. Rudolph: I don't think there's a winner in any of our, in our stakes. I think if we continue, if all of us continue to posture, developers will say, this project isn't feasible. We've already heard that from them. school districts will say, we can't afford to purchase a school. Um, and the city will say, well, we won't get the green space or anything else that we need. And so I think the true losers will be the residents of Mountain View and not city staff, not the school district or anything else. I mean, we all have tools that are available to us to get what we want. But the true benefit should be about the residents of Mountain View.

[03:19:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. I agree.

[03:19:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think Council member Commé has a question for you.

[03:19:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Dr. Rudolph, you mentioned a joint meeting. My understanding is that a small cohort, or is gonna be going forward with the joint meeting. So, would that be the venue to discuss things or are you looking for a separate meeting?

[03:19:45] Dr. Rudolph: Um, from what the one that's already scheduled? I think one of the files of the process that we've been engaging in is that there, we've been working on this for 3 years also. And there is a wealth of information that exists out there. Um, and city staff has been working on it. And so every time we talk to city staff, like, you don't understand this one little piece, and so let's try to catch you up as quickly as possible. And then we try to convey it to the developers and the developers get overwhelmed by it. It's just a massive amount of information, and then we expect the people who are behind us to sort of understand the bits and pieces of it. And I think each of us is engaged in the process of sharing what our interpretation of the matter, and I think we owe it to the public to simply get it all, all the information out there. And it's going to be messy. It's going to take a little bit longer. But I really think that's what that is what will benefit everyone. And yes, I know we have a meeting set up. Um, I just, and I said this when we, originally that, I just do not believe that that is good enough for a community that is used to in digesting large amounts of information in help and making an informed decision.

[03:21:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you.

[03:21:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:21:08] Cliff Chambers: Club Chambers, Resident of Mountain View, and representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We submitted a letter, so I'll go into detail. I just do the headlines of what we would like to recommend. Certainly recommend adoption of the precise plan. I think staff has done a wonderful job. There's been a lot of opportunity for community engagement during the entire process. Our goal, really, is to make sure that we have housing take place the same time as office development, and we really support the job's housing linkage program. I think it's really innovative. The cycle economic feasibility analysis was a real eye opener to us. And I think it's really sobering, and I think it's really difficult to understand in the community, and I echo Dr. Rudolph's comments in terms of the need for better understanding engagement. And I think we, last thing we want is this to be a paper plan and not being able to be financially feasible. So specific recommendations would be. So I really think if we're going to have 20% affordable housing and and the residential developers have a lot at stake, we need to shift some of the cost from residential to commercial, the parkland in-lu fee of $60,000 is a lot, and I think it should be more shared and shifted to the commercial compared to residential. Thank you.

[03:22:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:22:47] Katya Kamengar: Good evening, council members, Mayor and Vice Mayor Katya Kamengar with Summerhill Housing Group, where TDR residential participant. So I want to start out by thanking staff for all the tremendous efforts they put into this plan. It's a long time in making. I think it's very innovative. In particular, we appreciated staff's efforts in evaluating the challenges for residential developers, and trying to come up with compromises and looking at the trade-offs. So, as you know, from the staff report, residential projects are especially challenging at the current time, and it's mainly because of the high cost of land, the high cost of construction costs. And we are also trending downwards on the out sale prices. So in fact, the city's own analysis indicated, and I'll quote it, it said, many residential developments may not be financially feasible, without significant reductions in project costs or with some financial assistance. So with that in mind, I did want to say we submitted a letter, which we drafted before we saw the staff report, but I tonight want to express our support for 3 things. One is the allowing the residential TDR projects to participate in the jobs, housing linkage program. That's extremely important. The 2nd is we support the community benefit resolution that's in your attachment, 7, which would allow us to work with the city to create a project specific benefits package. And we also support the partial credit for open spaces. So thank you.

[03:24:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:24:29] Tamara Wilson: Good evening. My name is Tamara Wilson. I'm board president of the Mountain View Westman School District, and I thank you for the opportunity to address the council, mayor and vice mayor. I concur with what Dr. Rudolph proposed, which is delaying the community benefits. I do realize that you had a discussion on October 15th on school strategy. But I don't think that has been fully fleshed out. And since a large swath that the school community is here. I'd like to share with them that Mountain View Whistman did reach out last April. to ask for a 3 body joint session of MVLA, Mountain View Westman, and the city council. On May 1st, we did have a meeting with the mayor, the city manager, and 2 trustees from each district and those associated superintendents. We were instructed that a joint session would probably be too unruly and too challenging to schedule and that maybe the next meeting would be held sometime after the summer break. And the school strategy item appeared in your October agenda. And we asked in late September to have additional time to speak at that school strategy agenda item and we were given 10 minutes to share between our 2 school districts. So I'd like our community to be aware of our efforts. Our efforts also extend to the last 2.5 years. We've done urban school visits. We've hired architects to try to plan for the most minimal amount of footprint size, to put in all of our areas and all of the potential development areas in our, in these budding growing communities. And I just, I'm really concerned that without some kind of a school strategy. From what I see in the legal language that was presented tonight, is your only lever is if the cost or revenues change, and only then can you add to this benefit. So that gives me a little bit of reason for pause. Thank you.

[03:26:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:26:17] Mona Singh: Good evening. My name is Mona Singh. I'm a long time resident of Mountain View with two kids in the district. I'm also an active parent volunteer in our schools. Um, I'm here to just say that I hope you consider all 10,000 families um, in the 2 school districts as part of your constituency. I was here last month. It just certainly didn't feel like that. I did not go away with the good feeling. Strong and safe schools are so integral to a strong city and community, strong schools provide benefits for the entire city. We live in one of the most prosperous regions in the world, with some of the biggest corporations down the street, turning out record profits. Yet we don't have enough funds to educate our kids. Parents and even kids have to band together and work overtime to come up with money, for essentials such as teacher supplies, and student software and music classes and art classes. We have to bake cookies and walk in walkathons. And organize school auctions and phonathons to pool money together so that our schools can provide what many other schools and other communities and states already have provided for them. I don't get it. I think developers will make a tidy profit, otherwise they would not be here. They don't have to bake cookies or do walkathons. The schools did not create the housing issues, and I hope were not left holding the bag. We all talk about how educating our youth is so important and the kids are our future and so on. But I think we often fall short when it comes to action on um, putting money. putting money where our mouth is. And tonight, I hope you will do right by all families and kids in our constituency. Thank you.

[03:27:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:27:59] Catworth: Good evening, counsel. Catworth, I'm with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Senior Associate of Health and Housing Policies. Since I have a minute and a half, I'll be quick. Um, we do appreciate city staff and council for all of your work on this plan. Overall, we think it's fantastic. We really appreciate you working with landowners and stakeholders, especially over the last few months. We understand that this has been quite a process, so we do appreciate it. Um, I think our one point of concern is over the community benefits fee on residential development for those 2 projects that are in the LASD TDR program. We just like to see you work with those to see those come to fruition. And for that, thank you.

[03:28:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:28:45] Debbie Chin: Good evening. Thank you, um, everyone, on the council and the commission for letting us have an opportunity to speak. My name is Debbie Chin. I'm a 17 year resident, and I've been, has children in the school district for nine years. Many of the other parents said it so much better than I can about what we have to do as parents, to support our schools and our teachers. And what I keep seeing over and over again, with all the recent changes, construction, the way funds are being spent, the school district is always in reaction mode. They seem like they're always having to catch up. They're in this vicious cycle of, the city has approved this. The people have moved here, and now you guys figure out how you're gonna deal with all that. And well, let's, oh, and that's why I have two years of reboundary drawing and all this kind of stuff. It always seems like it's, figure out how to do it. afterward, instead of, which never ever works out better, then let's think about it proactively. Let's plan it out ahead of time. Um, so again, as many people have already said, I'm glad that you're a lot more mindful of the impact on the school district this time. I feel like all the other impacted groups are, um, brought into the discussion earlier, fire, transportation, traffic, all those kind of things are thought about, and the school district is always a little bit separate. So thank you for being willing to spend more time and giving them more stake at the table to begin with. Thank you so much.

[03:30:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:30:26] Public Speaker: Good evening. I'm speaking for myself, with the experience of 22 years on a school board. 13 on the Whisman District before it merged, and 9 on the high school district, so I know both districts quite well. When I was on the board, what was happening was just exactly the opposite of what's happening now. We, in both school districts, we ended up closing schools. Now, because of, past, city council, who brought in millions of square feet of office space, which meant thousands of employees, we have a housing crisis, and we have a school capacity crisis. As I read the staff report, which was very comprehensive. And quite complete. I kept having this nagging feeling that there's something missing, and I finally realized what it was. It was that looking at community benefits, only from the city's point of view, without looking at the additional costs, didn't make sense. I urge you to pass everything, accept the community benefits. Hold off, please. Thank you.

[03:32:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:32:05] Mason Ndi: Hi, I'm Mason NDI, with working partnerships in Silicon Valley Rising, we're a community labor coalition, working to build an economy that works for everyone. I'm Mayor Matachek, Vice Mayor Abikoda, members and council. Um, I think both for both the gateway uh, planning process and for the East Swisman project. I think there are some common goals and some common values. I think we all want to be able to live in an affordable and healthy community, where children can attend good schools, where seniors can take strolls around neighborhood parks, and where working people live in stable and safe homes close to where they work. Um, we know the community benefits are part of that solution. Uh, Mountain View should continue its tradition of, um, making sure that community benefits process and land use decisions lead to outcomes that do the most good for the most people in this, uh, community. We know that that has to include adequate open park space. adequate classroom and play spaces for children, and adequate affordable housing to address the displacement of working people, uh, to far off places like Hollister and Lathrop. Um, that is what a complete community looks like. Um, as we hope, as both the gateway uh, process and the East Whisman uh, process moves forward, council will prioritize, maximizing community benefits in a way that does the most to benefit all of us in the mountain view and Silicon Valley community. Thank you so much.

[03:33:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Sarah. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing a hand will close the public input portion. and bring it back to council for any further questions or discussion. Council member Ramirez.

[03:33:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Just one question. So there were many, uh, concerns expressed about the financial feasibility of development, and, for my benefit, and perhaps the public's benefit. Uh, can you share with us how the job's housing linkage program can help make financial residential development financially feasible?

[03:34:12] Eric: I can't speak for kind of affirmatively saying it will make residential development financially feasible, but it could help reduce that gap for a lot of residential developers. So we've set up a number of different kind of procedures and programs to allow residential development to, in effect, sell the office floor area that they are unlocking from both the development reserve and from demolishing existing office and industrial floor area that's there. And so, we worked very hard to develop a program that would allow kind of a private market between residential and office developers to have the office developers, in a way, subsidize any of those shortfalls to make the residential development happen, because it is a precondition for the office to happen at the residential.

[03:35:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. That's not explicitly spelled out in the administrative guidelines right now, but do you think it may be helpful to provide in more explicit terms, as you've used here, how the program could help residential developers pencil out their projects?

[03:35:34] Eric: Yeah, so our number one goal in getting the guidelines before the council was to have the procedures laid out, specifically the any procedures that the community or developers would want to object to or have additional comments on, or the council might want to consider, things like the five-year timeline between when a residential project starts construction and when they might be able to actually sell that floor area. So those were the details that we wanted to make sure it gets in front of the council. We do plan on, you know, as part of the resolution, it says, councils granting the staff the authority to, kind of, additional detail to these guidelines, as long as it doesn't fundamentally change the policy, and that's something that we can add in terms of, kind of, fleshing out that story of, really, this is about reducing any of that residential feasibility shortfall, on a larger scale, and using the private market of, office and residential developer agreements.

[03:36:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much.

[03:36:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:36:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you have a diagram or a chart that would sort of indicate that once these TDR items are allocated or entitled what we would be looking at at the end?

[03:36:58] Eric: Uh, yeah. In terms of total floor area?

[03:37:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, just what we have.

[03:37:04] Eric: Yeah, so I have that... excuse me. I have that for the office projects. Let me see. What page do I have that on?

[03:37:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Is that in a staff report, or you have a slide for that?

[03:37:13] Eric: I have a slide for it. Okay. So here it is for the office projects. The development reserve has 2 million square feet, so remaining after LinkedIn is a little under $1.4 million. And then we have about, um, 35,000 square feet of net new floor area in the 3 office projects that are, um, uh, under review, the Sobrado and 2 sandhill projects. That would be under the precise plan growth. And then they are also purchasing about 150,000 square feet of office floor area on top of that from LASD. And so then after that, we have the 291 to 339 Bernardo Avenue project, which may develop up to 272,000 square feet under the .75 FAR that they would be allowed under the TDR program if they can find a residential partner. So it can give us about 900,000 square feet.

[03:38:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Could that be divided? So that's just office space, but... Is that a constraint that could also say, housing would be dipping into that, or if more housing goes in, this reserve will be diminished?

[03:38:39] Eric: No, so if more housing goes in, that could actually increase the reserve, because the housing would demolish floor area. And if the housing does not partner with an office developer, that demolished floor area would go back into the reserve. So that's housing is on a is a kind of separate tally.

[03:39:04] Councilmember John McAlister: There is no tally. I mean, housing could be unlimited, then.

[03:39:07] Eric: Theoretically, it's not specifically limited by the precise plan. We did study 5,000 units, and so there may be some additional environmental analysis that may occur if we go over the 5,000 mark.

[03:39:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, I was just gonna make a quick comment, and then I want to listen to you guys. I'm normally not a guy that likes incentives. And, uh... this was a very complicated convergence of a lot of material for me. So, I'm looking at a lot of different things trying to achieve. So I'm just saying that as I progress through this, I want the TDR to work. I want the six projects to go forward, and how you meaning, six of you figure it out, I'll support. But this is, this is, it's sort of a global experiment for Mountain View, trying to figure out how we're gonna get this to work. So if we can get, definitely get the TDR skunks, because that works, that gets their housing, that's good office, we'll get our school strategy resolved. I'm willing to compromise. So, um, this is where normally I'm pretty adamant about it, but I'd like to see it work, and so I hope you guys come up with a great strategy that I can go forward with. So, um, I'm just so, um, I'm in favor of doing it.

[03:40:29] Unknown Speaker: Well, I want to quickly add, that I think this is an incredibly complicated, complex, very connected plan, and I appreciate staff, when issues have been brought to you, taking a look at them, and coming up with modifications to it. I'm a little bit concerned that if any of us make changes to this. We really haven't thought it through, and we'll have unintended consequences. I trust staff that has thought this through, and they will listen to others. If they come forward and say, hey, you know what? This is actually resulting in you know, something else. I'm sure they'll bring it back to us. But yeah, this is an incredibly, uh, interrelated, complex plan. And I appreciate staff thinking it through.

[03:41:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Bye, Samara, I'll be Koga.

[03:41:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I would echo those comments. Um, I'm really impressed. by this, and I think this is also an accumulation of our other precise plans and lessons learned from those. Um, so, um, and someone said, it is our council member, my college said, it is somewhat of an experiment. And, um, so, you know, I think the key there is that we have to be flexible. And, um, and just see how things go. But I did have a question. I didn't I wasn't going to go right into comments. It sounds like the biggest issue still somewhat on the table, or on the table based on public comment, is the community benefits number. Um, I was trying to recall when we did, um, El Camino or maybe even San Antonio precise plans. I don't recall us coming to a number when we adopted the precise plans. I think it may have come in later. Was that how it was?

[03:42:32] Eric: it was the night of the adoption. We... It was. We also did a community benefits value.

[03:42:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So reading the recommendation for emotions, it just says a minimum value for the community benefits. So, um, and you know, like, I think the challenge, and I know the challenge is, is that we don't really know what's going to happen, right? Um, this is today's values, but things can change. I bring this off up often. There was a time when housing was more valuable than office. And so at some point in time, that could possibly happen. So my question is, how do we adjust accordingly, because you, and I'm, I would be comfortable with this, you know, wording of minimum value, but how do we ensure that, you know, it escalates with cost of living or it adjusts based on the changes in the market. Um, like, are we gonna be putting in periodic checkpoints? If you can explain that.

[03:43:44] Eric: That would be very hard. Yeah, so the resolution does include an automatic inflation based on cost of construction. So there's that. But the, um, if the council finds that, uh, uh, you know, as we continue to, uh, continue to review more development projects that, um, we're not seeing as many applications and we're hearing from the development community, the community benefits are a major constraint, that would be a signal to open this back up again and, uh, modify if council wants to see that development. Alternately, you know, we are often working on gatekeepers and other projects where we are seeing these kinds of pro formas and getting messages about, oh, construction costs are going down, or the market is shifting. Again, those are signals that, uh, again, council may want to, um, modify these in order to take advantage of of new economic conditions. It's very difficult, and I would say, probably impossible to bake into a community benefits value. some kind of automatic change based on kind of all possible market conditions. I don't think we could do that.

[03:44:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I appreciate that. Um, I think my concern is from past experiences that is that it's, you know, oftentimes it takes, frankly, I mean, staff, but also maybe council to realize, oh, things have changed. And then from there, you know, get it on our priority list and blah, blah. And it just takes a long time to make that happen. And I guess when I'm looking for, is there a mechanism to maybe do it more periodically so that, you know, there's no lag. So just having it built in, I don't know, I don't know if yearly is too much, but some kind of just automatic check-in strategy. Because to be honest with you, you know, I'm looking at, like, the other precise plans and what the dollar amount we put in, and I know there was a time when I was gone, but I don't, I mean, it's not, it's not covering the costs that we are incurring to, you know, build the infrastructure that we need to sustain those developments. Um, I think it was $21. I have that number in my head at El Camino, and that wasn't nearly enough, to be honest. And I understand there's the feasibility issue, but there's also the like real cost issue. And I think that's also what the school folks are talking about. So how do we capture that? How do we, you know, yeah, check in, adjust for that is my question.

[03:46:32] Eric: So that's one of the big differences between a community benefits analysis and a nexus-based analysis. So next space analysis really is need based. You set a standard for the city, about how many improvements you want, and how those improvements will serve the community, and then you put a price tag on it, and you have to pay the, you know, the developers have to pay to implement that vision. So...

[03:46:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Did you say we need to do that next, or...?

[03:47:02] Eric: Well, we do have an action item in the precise plan to look at the infrastructure improvements that are proposed in the plan and do a nexus study for that. So that could be coming back to council in the next year or so. Um... So that is a possibility. But again, to go back to your original question of putting in automatic, kind of, time, check in times, or update times, that is something that I think, you know, I would encourage counsel to prioritize when necessary, it may not be a priority in three years, or five years, when count, you know, if it is baked in as something to... to do. I don't know if, RT, you have any other thoughts on...

[03:47:53] RT: I would imagine, as Eric said, usually with economic cycles, we do get, you know, feelers of one sort or the other, and we can bring them in, we've talked about, you know, every couple of years, we could take a look at it. Every time we update or add a new fee, you know, we can come back and look at it. So we have multiple opportunities, and I'm sure it'll be a much talked about issue over the years, so I don't think anyone's gonna forget that.

[03:48:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, going back to then the next study. And this was, I've been, I guess I was thinking, is there a way to maybe delay the community benefits discussion until after the Nexus study?

[03:48:41] RT: That's... if counsel wants to do that, you certainly can, you run the risk that, um, the developers currently in the pipeline would have less certainty.

[03:48:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Okay, so then the minimum, that might be the, or that's what you're saying.

[03:48:59] RT: I think we wanted to say tonight, we wanted to put a placeholder to provide some certainty, and as we bring back things like school strategy or other things, we can take a look at all of that together. Um, if that's what the council wishes, um, at least for the school strategy, we can take that back as homework. But we didn't want, you know, I think with a precise plan, you want to build a certain amount of certainty, going in, um, and then have a place alone. for minimums, and then you can change it over time, as opposed to not having anything. So...

[03:49:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you.

[03:49:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else in the queue? So, um, Steph, ask us some specific questions. Are we okay with the four areas where some changes have been proposed, and then is there anything else we wanted to discuss, um, in terms of potential changes to what's in the draft? Um, so I guess I'd like to know, uh, if we could respond to questions one and two, at least to start with. And it would be good if folks had other areas they wanted to discuss, if you could maybe just say that now, so that, um, whoever takes a turn can comment on those. Um... Yeah, if you want to do that, if... is, uh... except we just lost a council member. Well, she stepped out, um, are there any other topics that folks want to talk about for potential tweaks versus what's in the precise plan? Council member Ramirez.

[03:50:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wasn't sure if to, if these would be wrapped up in one, or if they count as other things, but, um, I did ask a question about whether, um, it would be possible for, um, a commercial developer to work with, specifically, an affordable housing developer outside of the East West precise plan, so I'd be curious to know if, if there'd be interested in providing that flexibility. And we could set parameters to that, you know, if it guarantees more units than we otherwise would have gotten, but that was one thing I was interested in looking at. And then, um, the other was, there was, um, and I'm not sure I fully understand this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no, there's no guarantee of, um, of an allocation from the development reserve, if you, if you put in, like, a master plan concept or mixed use or something like, or partner with somebody. And I was wondering if if we could provide a mechanism to allow for that kind of a guarantee with something like a development agreement where we would negotiate the parameters of that, but you could get a guarantee or some certainty of an allocation from the reserve, but you have to meet certain requirements of parameters.

[03:52:15] Eric: Yeah, so, um, there is a revision to the, uh, the, uh, draft that was on line that's in the resolution, uh, that allows, uh, applicants with an approved master plan to hold onto those development reserve rights for a period of two years to submit their, uh, uh, application, uh, that could be associated with the development agreement, if necessary, if they wanted to extend that. Well, that's something that they can request, and we would then consider whether that's appropriate or not.

[03:52:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so then I guess it would just be whether we would want to allow commercial developers to partner with affordable housing developers outside the precise plan area. Would any precise plans or the zoning have to change to allow that?

[03:53:08] Unknown Speaker: Um, only if the affordable housing site didn't already allow residential at that site. Um, but it wouldn't, it wouldn't affect the, um... Currently, there are no other jobs housing linkage programs, although, I believe it's in the Terabella visioning draft. And so if that were adopted as part of Terabella, you might have some risk of double counting if the affordable project went into Terabella, and they tried to partner with somebody in Terabella, too. You know, that could get a little complicated.

[03:53:49] Unknown Speaker: I was just gonna say that it starts becoming extremely complicated. And the precise mind does have some goals of having sort of, I think, that was in the response. So, in an extreme circumstance, I could see that, but as a matter of course, I would, we would suggest it stay in the plan.

[03:54:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, we can... So, folks don't have other items they want to add. Doesn't sound like it. So we were just gonna do a show of hands if you want. If everyone's in favor of, uh, the changes to question that are listed in question one. Go ahead.

[03:54:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I already said I'm not a fan of... incentives are compromise, so I'm gonna stick to my original thing, so...

[03:54:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'm good looking. So questions one and two. Actually, I'm supportive of everything, 'cause I'm for it, but I just wanted to make comments, is that, normally, I don't like lowering the community, minimum common, usable and private, open space standards, but I'm going with it. That's one area I'm always concerned about. One item that we have, I know you want to go one by one, but that's the only one I wanted to talk about is open space. And then on number seven, on number three, I was hoping to get the words.

[03:55:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, okay. So we're just gonna do questions one and two right now. And nobody had anything they wanted to add. So, really, we're answering question one. Yes. So, um... Okay, show hands that we're okay with what staff is proposing. I will say I had a little bit of concern about, um, the high rise standards and expanding that north because I want to make sure we have, um, a concentration of commercial retail. And I'm a little bit concerned that if we spread out the area where it could be, that it spreads out, and it's not concentrated, and, as we've heard many, many times, retail loves retail. So if it's too spread out, probably not gonna work. But I will go along with this. Okay, so for question one and two, we've got that. Question three, Council member McAllister.

[03:56:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I, again, I'm always concerned about the word reasonable, and as time changes, the phrasing on this one, it's aware as, and it's located in the third and the seventh paragraph. Whereas the East Wisman precise plan includes direction to adopt a minimum value for community benefits, proportional to the project's building, square footage, in excess of four, and or one point for residential. I would like to put a period, because the part I would like to be removed is where it says, which maintains reasonable developer return for a range of parcel and project sizes, resulting in an overall development cost, consistent with other nearby communities. It's, to me, it's pretty vague. I don't think we can quantify it. And when we say consistent with other nearby communities, I don't think it's applicable. So, it's, I'd like to see that phrase removed there, and then on the last paragraph, where it says, again, maintains a reasonable development return, because we don't know what is, I still have concerns about what we consider a reasonable development return. The developer will determine what's reasonable to them. I don't think it's sort of vague for us to determine that. So I would like to see those two phrases removed from that particular item. It's on page one of Attachment 7. It's in the one, two, third paragraph.

[03:57:53] Unknown Speaker: Third paragraph. And then the last paragraph.

[03:57:55] Councilmember John McAlister: The last paragraph of page one. Just the two references about developer returns.

[03:58:04] Unknown Speaker: I don't think that... I'm fine taking those out. You see where I'm done? I mean, the only question I have is, are they in there for a reason? Like, is there... Are we talking about, you know, we're applying fees, and they have to be reasonable, and we're deeming them reasonable, because they're tied to a reasonable return? Um, I just... My guess is it's in there for a reason, but if not, then that's fine, but...

[03:58:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it is the kind of the fundamental justification for the community benefits analysis, which is that, again, we're preserving a reasonable developer, return, even with the community benefits, based on the value uplift of the bonus FAR. So that's really the fundamental way that community benefits are calculated. You know, we might be able to... I don't know. I mean, I think that that's an important idea to the resolution. I don't know if Christian has a thought.

[03:59:10] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I have some just general legal concepts, as you all probably know, the recitals or whereas is in resolutions or not, legally binding, they're, really, they tell the story of what you're doing, whatever matter it might be. So here, these are really aspirational or statements of intention, they're not legally binding. Although I can see how you might focus on the language, but recitals are not legally binding statements. I read this as aspirational or backing up the philosophy of what a community benefit payment is for, and then the legally operative terms are on page two, the one, two, three, four. So, certainly, if it's counsel's desire to amend this, you can amend the recitals, but they do not have legal impact.

[04:00:09] Councilmember John McAlister: People sometimes have, not with your clarification, they don't understand that, and there can be future councils down the road, and so, I'm just trying to say that, to me, it's vague, and I think that interpretation could change as time goes along. So if we remove it, then there is the main intent is still there in the warehouses, and the other stuff is...

[04:00:34] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And certainly, that is council's discretion to amend the recitals as well, so...

[04:00:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, pecoca.

[04:00:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I'm comfortable. I'd actually like to take that out, um, because, as we just discussed, if we're gonna do this nexus study next, um, that, to me, that needs to be taken into consideration. So, you know, I don't think it's our job to make sure the developers, like Council McAllister said, it's up to the developer to decide what's reasonable to them. It's not up to us. And frankly, my concern, really, would be more making sure that we have community benefits, resources to put in the community benefits that we need to make these developments sustainable. So, um, and that's gonna, you know, change based on the market. So I think I would agree that maybe we just stay silent and take that out.

[04:01:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:01:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Good question, maybe, for the city attorney. I'm not really sure, but so I know that the state is increasingly, I think you, somebody used the word eroding our ability to make certain kinds of exactions of private development, and I wonder if, even though there's no, this isn't legally binding language, it could have a protective value, if, for instance, there were future legislation, restricting our ability to levy fees. So if we could use this, perhaps to say we've done a physical analysis to justify this, and that may help shield us from potential legislation in the future.

[04:02:19] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Well, I think there should be a clarification that these types of fees, community benefits are for projects above the base FAR. So, you brought up a couple points. The general rule for impact fees, as you know, is the fee needs to be based on the nexus between the impacts of a project, that's for a zoning compliant project. Here, you're out above that. So there, I wouldn't anticipate legislation, and the nexus concept is established well established in case law, so I don't think we're in that neighborhood here legally. So I don't think legislation would, uh, we can't predict everything, but here you're not in a straight nexus relationship. I hope that answers your question.

[04:03:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, because it's purely discretionary, then unless there were some really aggressive legislation attacking even... because it's voluntary, right? The applicant is choosing to ask for additional FAR. Okay, got it. Thank you. That's helpful.

[04:03:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so any other comments on three, other than, um, removing those two areas? So I guess are folks comfortable adopting a minimum community benefits, valued tonight? Council member Clark?

[04:03:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I I'm fine with the warehouse changes as long as we'll just have to remember those when we get to the motions, um, to specify exactly what language we're changing. The minimum value. I think, um, I think as long as we all understand that this will be revisited, I think it's better to have a minimum value in there at the outset than nothing, and to be silent, um, because some projects, frankly, may move forward. before we get back to it. And I think that it's better to have something in there than nothing in the interim, and I think staff has obviously thought this through, and that's why they're recommending that. So I think we should adopt a minimum, until such time that we're able to revisit that, and...

[04:04:43] Unknown Speaker: But any projects that are submitted are subject to the school strategy once it is finalized, right?

[04:04:53] Unknown Speaker: So the general standard in the precise plan for the school strategy will apply as soon as you adopt the precise plan. So even our goal is to get projects, get the school strategy back in front of council before any projects, come before council. If, on the, you know, if that doesn't work out for some potential reason, they would still be subject to that general school strategy language in the precise plan. And we would have to work out some kind of condition of approval that would address whatever the ultimate school strategy the council adopts would be.

[04:05:30] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[04:05:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Nice mayor, by Kogan.

[04:05:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so, it sounds like now it's a timing issue, and who, um, so, is there a way that we can actually say we will not accept new project proposals until we adopt these fees, fees schedules, and... like the school set?

[04:05:50] Unknown Speaker: If you adopt the precise plan, then projects coming in under the precise plan would be subject to permit streamlining under state law, so we can't refuse to review those projects. including bonus FAA options.

[04:06:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So how does an, let's say, we adopt this today, project comes in tomorrow. But we haven't figured out the school strategy. What do we do in that case?

[04:06:16] Unknown Speaker: Then they would be required to work directly with the school district. Sort of what happened with this broader project last year. That's the default. What we're trying to get is that certainty to narrow down the value that council would accept.

[04:06:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I would say that we've done a little more research into Sorado projects, so we might have a little more information to inform.

[04:06:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. All right. Council member McAllister.

[04:06:45] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm getting a little concerned that... The process is going to delay the six applicants that have the TDR. So are they, so the six projects with the TDR exempt from the school strategy is what we're saying?

[04:07:04] Unknown Speaker: Because if it takes us a while to get there, they're not exempt from the school strategy.

[04:07:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But if we don't know what it is, and they're already having concerns about the feasibility of a project, then they're gonna say, well, now we got this edit. If they already have concerns right now. and added another additional. So, I get them for compromise, and I'm willing to go a direction, but I'm just concerned about how much is this gonna delay the six projects going forward to get the TDRs going so that they get their funding, they get that building, and our projects get going.

[04:07:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so our goal is, as I said, to get the school strategy finalized in front of council before they have their public hearings for their developments. We still have some time before they're gonna come back for their public hearings. So that's our goal. If that doesn't happen, then we will work to develop conditions of approval, so that they can still comply with the school strategy, and council's expectation of the school strategy, even if we don't necessarily know that all the detail of that contribution at the time of the public hearing.

[04:08:18] Councilmember John McAlister: So how will this affect the timing of Los Altos School District, getting those developers to say, We're going to commit or sign? what the process is that, you know, they'll sign an agreement. We'll give you the money now, or is that still gonna have to wait down the road?

[04:08:34] Unknown Speaker: We're not going to hold up the LACTDR projects. because of the school strategy, if that's what you were asking. But they may come back.

[04:08:41] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I know you're not. Okay, if you're not holding it up, but they may balk at, we want more concessions. And that concessions won't come about until we review the school strategy. Is that a fair timeline?

[04:08:55] Unknown Speaker: Uh, you mean more more incentives based on being part of the team?

[04:08:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, okay, look, we can solve this. I don't like the word incentives, just say package. Yeah, here's the package. So go with it. So, if we're going to push, if we're going to put a school strategy down later, and you're saying in the 1st quarter, so that would mean then those developers aren't willing to commit until they know for certainty what their dollar amount's going to be. So therefore, the TDR, regardless if you're going to streamline it, those developers are still going to say, well, I'm going to hold on until I know what's going to happen.

[04:09:31] Unknown Speaker: That's a possibility, and we can't force the developers to sign anything. or make any commitments to LASD. So there's, there is a possible risk that the fact that we haven't established a school strategy value yet, could be an issue for the LASTKVR program. But the question before council tonight is really about community benefits, and providing those, that certainty on, in that category, right? So doing the best that we can to provide the information that we can, in that category, to flush out as much information as we can at this public hearing.

[04:10:10] Councilmember John McAlister: I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but that doesn't stop me before. Does Superintendent Bear have any thoughts on what I was going on with this, or your...

[04:10:22] Unknown Speaker: Well, he's coming up, let me just add a thought, as we tried to outline in the report, there are risk to any TDR participants to pull out. Yes, there's risk with uncertainty, and my understanding and the superintendent can speak to it, is they're not going to pay school district until they have their entitlements, which is a long way off. So, yes, there's some uncertainty, they don't know what the fee is yet, but there's also risks and class associated with pulling out and not getting the benefit of being a gatekeeper and having some exceptions to the rules. If they pull out, they have to comply with every word of the precise plan and reapply under those terms. So...

[04:11:01] Unknown Speaker: No, that's what I asked earlier. Just a question of timing, how your timeline, based on how we come up with this, and when these developers are going to have to commit themselves.

[04:11:15] Superintendent Bear: Sure. Our, um, we have signed a purchase sale agreement. We are, we are in the process of acquiring, escrow will close in, in early December, on that, and I know we as a district, our board is looking for, um, some, a certain degree, a reasonable degree of certainty, right? That the developers with whom we've engaged are going to continue down this path, right? The greater, or the more uncertainty there is, the, the more risk there is, and we're talking about a significant amount of money here in acquiring that land, right? North of $150 million.

[04:12:01] Unknown Speaker: So when were you anticipating these developers to sign up and give you money?

[04:12:07] Superintendent Bear: So at entitlement?

[04:12:09] Unknown Speaker: And so did you have an expected timeline on that?

[04:12:12] Superintendent Bear: So it varies by developer, I don't have those memory.

[04:12:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so this was built into your financing. then. So if it's 6 months, 8 months a year that's built into how you're going to...

[04:12:25] Superintendent Bear: Sure. Yes. But what I'll add to that is, um, that each of those developers with whom we have engaged has a, um, a level of understanding or a set of expectations that they've engaged with us in, in partnership with, in this triad we have with the city. Right?

[04:12:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

[04:12:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we're still on three, yes. Any other comments on that? So, do we support having a minimum community benefits now? Right. Please open your hands. That is unanimous with council member Hicks recused. And four. Everyone, if you're okay with that? Is that raising your hand, Ellen? Okay. Uh, okay, so that is also...

[04:13:45] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, was that on number four?

[04:13:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That was.

[04:13:47] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, did counsel want to add any other, um, incentives, such as community benefit reductions, or anything, or just, this is just the staff recommendation of the two, two items in the staff report?

[04:14:05] Unknown Speaker: From my perspective, it was the staff report. Yeah.

[04:14:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: But let's be really clear on that. Um, so I think it was just, um, yeah, the staff recommendation, did anybody have, uh, something other than that in mind when they just raise their hand?

[04:14:21] Unknown Speaker: Nope.

[04:14:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, staff recommendation.

[04:14:26] Unknown Speaker: Okay I'm sorry, Adam Mayor, just to get clarity on item three, attachment seven. The specific amendment that there's support for, I just want to read that into the record, so everybody has an awareness of that. It would be in recital 3 and 7 of Attachment 7 to strike the phrase, which maintains reasonable developer, return for a range of parcel and project sizes, resulting in overall development costs consistent with other nearby communities. It's the same phrase in each recital. And whenever we get to a maker of emotion, we can just say as amended.

[04:15:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So I think we have a motion in the works from Vice Mayor Abi Koga. Thank you.

[04:15:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, is China... Is there a change in the, one of the slide language versus what we have on our script, or is it all the same?

[04:15:32] Unknown Speaker: Well, I copied off of the, um... off of the staff report. So if the staff report is the same as the script, I hope it's the same.

[04:15:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Then, um, I will go ahead and make emotion. Uh, to, one, adopt a resolution certifying the East Wisman precise plan, final environmental impact report, and adopting the sequel findings, including statement of overriding considerations and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program to be read entitled only for the reading waived, to adopt resolution approving a general plan, map, and text amendment for the East Wisman mixed use designation, consistent with the East Wisman precise plan, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Three, introduce an ordinance amending the zoning map for parcels located in the East Wisman precise plan, from ML, Limited Industrial, ML, T, limited industrial, with transit floating, CN, commercial, neighborhood, CO, commercial office, R 3 dash 2, residential, multifamily, and P plan community to P dash 41 East Wisman precise plan, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for December 10th, 2019. For, adopt a resolution adopting the East Wisman precise plan to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Five, introduce an ordinance amending chapter 36 of the Mountain View city code to remove the transit dash T district and transit oriented development permit from chapter 36 of the city code to be riddled, read entitled only for the reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for December 10, 2019. Six, adopt resolution approving draft administrative guidelines for the East Wisman precise plan. Jobs housing linkage program should be read entitled only for the reading waived. Seven, adopt a resolution approving a minimum value for community benefits provided by East Wisman precise plan bonus FAR development. But removing the language in the 3rd paragraph, as...

[04:17:44] Unknown Speaker: You can just say as a minute with the revisions to recital 3 and seven.

[04:17:49] Unknown Speaker: If I could, if I could just add one more thing that I forgot to mention, um, item 4 in that resolution was included, in case counsel wanted to add any additional community benefit, um, incentives or concessions for the LASD TDR programs, so if you, if you want to strike number four, you can strike number four.

[04:18:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I will strike item four, then. And then, um, I'm going to add an item eight, um, maybe it's not necessarily, but I'd like to codify it, that we direct staff to return to the council with a school strategy in quarter one of 2020.

[04:18:42] Unknown Speaker: I love things that are in Q1.

[04:18:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I believe staff thinks that's doable. Council member Komei.

[04:18:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, um, I want to thank the vice mayor for adding that in. I think that we've heard a lot of public comment today about how, um, we can work together more productively, um, as we're trying to both accommodate the needs of addressing the housing crisis while also making sure that we're adequately supporting the residents, children, their families, our educators. Um, and so, I really appreciate that. And I just wanted to communicate that I heard that message loud and clearly. I think the other part of why I will be supporting this motion is, you know, wanting to move forward with the LASD TDRs. I think that's also the other component, right? So, we are, you know, as a council need to be thinking about addressing that need for that, for the 10 school site there, and then also addressing the needs in terms of working together and collaborating with our school districts on a school strategy that works. Um, and so I appreciate the the school district, um, following up on that meeting. I am going to be one of the representatives, um, attending that meeting, and today earlier today, Um, I chaired the uh, youth uh, committee that the council has. And so I'm really hoping to bring in the perspective that I'm getting directly from youth, as well as working with the school district, in terms of educators and administrators, to find something that will truly support our community. Um, you know, I want as much as possible for it to be wins for everybody. So thank you.

[04:20:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Bye, Smirabay Koga.

[04:20:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Sorry, I had to catch my breath after reading all that, but I did have some final comments. Just echoing what council member Kame said. Um, you know, I have heard loud and clear and I appreciate um, our education, uh, community, leaders, community members for being here and engaging in this dialogue. Um, I actually, you know, think that it should it could have happened much sooner, but it's happening now. Clearly, uh, and, but clearly there's room for more communication, and, um, that's clearly, that's what we talked about at our youth services committee meeting earlier. Yeah, there was, I mentioned, brought this up way back when my 1st tour tour. I was on the committee for all 8 years and towards the end. We had invited a representative from every school district to come to our meetings and we also met more regularly. That kind of got lost somewhere a few years back while I was gone. But that's something that we talked about maybe we implement. And so we have that ongoing communication and forum to discuss these issues more in detail. So that's just an idea that, um, as counselor recommend to bring up when you meet in a few weeks. But definitely, we do need to communicate more. And I hope that together, um, you know, I, I, I, again, bringing back the optismism, I think that we have all of the stakeholders here, you know, my interest, my hope is that it's gonna be, maybe not, we don't get everything, we all want, but it will be a win-win-win situation, and that's what I'm gonna hope for. Thanks.

[04:22:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you want to comment on that? Council member McAllister.

[04:22:32] Councilmember John McAlister: As we go into the motion, I'm going to, uh, there's a recommendation to adopt a resolution certifying the East Westman environmental impact report. I'm going to vote no on that. I feel that, uh, we're not doing enough to mitigate the impacts, and I think there could have been, uh, some better solutions. So, I will vote, yes, for everything. But I will not accept the environmental impact, 'cause there's too many unavoidable, significant issues on that one that can be addressed. Can we section it out like that?

[04:23:09] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Just give me one, one minute. We're just thinking that through. Okay. I would recommend a separate motion for number one, and just have a clean vote on that, and then you could have the body of two through seven in your remaining motion, but you don't have to repeat that. So... And bite for yourself.

[04:23:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I can just make a motion on item number one.

[04:23:35] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes.

[04:23:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so moved.

[04:23:37] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Well, so, wouldn't... so, uh... she'd have to modify the original motion, right? Because, um... one was included. It's a good real notion. So, do you do, just do one, and then change...

[04:23:56] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I would say you can... I would just retract your original motion, and...

[04:24:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, without having to... Can I make a motion to bifurcate item one from the rest of the items two through eight?

[04:24:11] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, yes. I think that's

[04:24:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Except for four. So, my motion would be to bifurcate, um, item one from item two, three, five, seven, five, six, seven, and eight.

[04:24:24] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes.

[04:24:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Get a second or...?

[04:24:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That, Lucas. Great. So, um, I will add that I also had concerns, not necessarily about the analysis, but, um, whenever we do a statement of overriding considerations, It concerns me because I am very concerned about the traffic impact in the Wisman area. And, um, while we've switched to VMT, um, and we've got programs in place to monitor, um, trips, and, you know, joining the TMA, and all kinds of... TDM programs. Uh, I'm concerned that it isn't enough to address traffic in the area, and, um, while the internalization rate, yeah, I don't, I don't know how we predict what that is gonna be, and what the impact will be, um, but I am very concerned about the, uh, statement of overriding considerations.

[04:25:40] Unknown Speaker: Just to be clear, this upcoming vote is on just item number one for the clerk's benefit.

[04:25:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, just item one. And we have motion by the vice mayor, second by Council member Ramirez. Call the question? it helps to get it? Uh, so that passes for two with, uh, one recusal. Council member Hicks. And then we have another motion, Vice Mayor Abikoga.

[04:26:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I would like to make a motion that includes item two, three, five, six, seven, and the added item eight, with changes or the amendments on item seven.

[04:26:33] Unknown Speaker: Including number four?

[04:26:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: What...? Excluding four. Two, three. Yes, I took out four. I didn't mention four. Oh, nope. The four was, um, if we were to add anything to the LASD, DDRs. No,

[04:26:49] Unknown Speaker: no. No, I think that was, um, just to be clear, I think that was item four, an attachment seven.

[04:26:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I'm just reading, in the, the script, it says, it's four. So the fourth item is adopt a resolution adopting the East wisdom precise plan to be read entitled only for the reading wave, so I'm striking that item, right? Is that's not it?

[04:27:13] Unknown Speaker: No, I think that still needs to be adopted.

[04:27:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So which one do I strike?

[04:27:17] Unknown Speaker: That was that was Section 4 in Resolution 7 in Attachment 7, which allows the council to have a different community benefits value for the LASD TDR project. Those were the, uh, provisions... within...... Correct. And we've already... Including the language that we struck... struck.

[04:27:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, so I should adopt items two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight.

[04:27:48] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:27:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. That's fine. Motion. Seven with amendments, striking the language, and no other additional LASD, TDR concessions.

[04:28:03] Unknown Speaker: Which is section 4 of that resolution.

[04:28:06] Unknown Speaker: Which is section 4 of the resolution.

[04:28:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by vice mayor and a second by council member Ramirez. Any further discussion? I'll call the question. That passes 601 with council member Hicks recused. Thank you. Can you believe it? After years of work. So thank you very much, Eric and RT, for all of the work on this. Much appreciated. Cupertino.

[04:28:50] Unknown Speaker: I just want to add my thanks to staff. This is an incredible multi year effort, and, Eric, is not an incredible job of shepherding it through, as was not at all. This is a very creative, innovated, and integrated, precise plan, so kudos to everybody on the team. Thank you.

[04:29:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, thank you again. So we have a couple more items that will give folks a moment to leave if they want to. Okay, so onto item seven, which is council, staff, and committee reports. Council member McAllister.

[04:29:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just... Like to notify our, not our community, you know, and our council know that starting as soon as November 11th, Caltrain will be installing foundations along the railroad quarter in Mountain View as part of the Caltrain Electrification. Foundation work will consist of... Placement of rebar, concrete fill, electrical grounding, crews will be conducting work during the day, and at night, with night work occurring between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. To mitigate noise and other impacts during night and weekend activities, the field team will use acoustical noise barriers, blankets, and will position lights away from residential business areas. Caltrain staff, hosting, hosted a community meeting in 20, well, they did it to give people information. And so I just want to let everybody know. There was a project hotline at 650-399-9659 if you have concerns during the construction. So that's going to be starting soon. and people be aware of it.

[04:30:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nice mayor, I'll be coca.

[04:30:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. A few items to report from Silicon Valley Clean Energy. This morning, we had a press conference to release our RFP for, um, install, or encouraging solar plus battery storage systems. Um, so it's, um, it's a little technical, but, um, we're trying to encourage individuals and businesses to, um, build these systems and their facilities, um, and, uh, it was like, it's actually a partnership between SPCE, East Bay Clean Energy, and, um, Silicon Valley Power, which is the city of Santa Clara. Um, doing sort of like a group purchasing so that the cost would be lower. And the idea is, and it's really the long term goal is that, um, you know, we have our autonomy and, um, backup power in light of all of the, um, power outages. If you have your solar panels and that goes right into a battery storage system, then you can use that as an alternative during power shutoffs or what, and also if we create this network, SVCE and the other agencies can access some of that power as needed. So, um, yeah, the RFP is out and it's available, the details are available on our website, if any businesses are interested in bidding for that. I'll be heading down tomorrow to Southern California for the annual Cal CCA conference. And, of course, the big discussion is, um, PG&E and so forth, as well as how we can better advocate, um, with our state legislature, legislators, on just ever changing, um, arena that we're dealing with. Um, and finally, um, you may have read that San Jose Mayor Licardo, um, has called for, um, the CP has asked the CPUC to look at converting PG&E into a customer owned utility, and, um, I, as well as the, the board members of SVCE, were asked to sign onto that letter in our individual capacity, um, which I have done. Um, so, um, the letter has been sent. It's a coalition of, um, the Oakland Mayor, Sacramento Mayor, quite a few mayors from Northern California cities and council members. So, um, I did sign on to that as an individual. This may come back later to the councils for more support. But I just wanted to inform you all of that. So lots is going on in the energy world.

[04:34:03] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So, the storage, you said, for, you're gonna send an RFP to business, to supply our storage units, to individual homes, and so there's gonna be a, so, group buy, so that we can really get a discounted?

[04:34:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so individual homes or businesses. We had the press conference at a fire station in Fremont that actually has the battery storage and solar panels. You know, it might be something the city looks at doing down the road, too.

[04:34:33] Unknown Speaker: So, it's for, yeah, business to be able to offer that system and that sort. Is there potential rebates?

[04:34:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, so it'll be a discounted cost because it'll be like a bulk purchase.

[04:34:48] Unknown Speaker: I know, but still.

[04:34:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And eventually, yeah, solar, even now, if you have solar panels, you can actually get credit and get money back for the solar that you're, you're.

[04:35:00] Unknown Speaker: No, no, I know, but.

[04:35:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so it'd be the same thing with the bat.

[04:35:03] Unknown Speaker: But I just want storage. That's, we have it, so I want some storage.

[04:35:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, oh, yes. So yes, it is for existing storage systems as well, but we want to encourage more, but if you have one, you could apply to.

[04:35:16] Unknown Speaker: But we don't have one. We want to buy one.

[04:35:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, well, good. Yeah. Well, stay tuned.

[04:35:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's okay. I was talking. Council member, Kameh.

[04:35:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So at our last check board meeting, I let them know about the discussion that council will be having, I guess, in the near future, near future, about youth mental health, and just shared with them. They're interested in engaging with us. as a community partner, but just wanted to bring that up. Thanks.

[04:35:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We had the investment review committee meeting. Uh, last week. Yeah, last week, uh, after the council meeting sometime. And, uh, our everything about our portfolio is in compliance with policy, and we also had a council appointment review committee meeting yesterday, and it's a two parter, because we are interviewing all of the candidates for vacancies on our committees, commissions, and boards. And we had quite a few interviews yesterday. And the next meeting is Thursday. is Thursday, and then those will come to council for, um, review and action. Anything else? Is there a... close session report?

[04:36:47] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is no close session report.

[04:36:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, as you heard earlier, um, from Council member McAllister, um, and I'm sure many folks have heard by now that, um, Dr. Michael Fusketti, um, passed this past week. And I've known Mike and his wife, Marilyn, for many years, and we often got together to talk about issues in the community, and how we might address those. They're both very involved in our community. Founders of Hope's Corner, and on the board of the Mayview community clinics. And I know both Mike and Marilyn care very deeply about our community and the people who live here, and they've always been looking for ways to help. I know, um, he will be sorely missed, um, not only by his family, um, but also by the community. He was a real presence here. Um, and there will be a memorial service, or a, although, um, gosh, I asked if I, if they wanted me to share, the information, and come to think of it, I didn't hear back. Um, so I'll, I'll keep that to myself. But, uh... Yeah, yeah, I will absolutely let folks know if it's okay to spread the word. Um, so we would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in, um, Dr. Fusketti's honor, and, um, again, reiterate that he'll be sorely missed. So, the next council meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 12th, at 2019, at 4 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street.

[04:38:50] Unknown Speaker: Is Dan gonna be the...

• ← Previous
• Next →