November 18, 2019 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:01:38] (archive recording) City Clerk: It's his roll call? All council members are present.

[00:01:42] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Um... Next item is the consent calendar, and... I want to note that item 4.2, which is the East Wisman area, transit oriented development improvements, phase one, Middlefield Road improvements, project 1648, accept construction. Staff is recommending that we pull that one from the consent calendar tonight, and it will be discussed at a future meeting. So we're pulling, we're removing 4.2. Would any council member like to pull an item? Council member McAllister.

[00:02:35] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.1?

[00:02:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else? Um, okay. Before we get to that one, that might be a little bit of a discussion. Are there any members of the audience who wish to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none. Council member McAllister.

[00:02:58] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.1 is our proposed calendar of meetings for next year, and I was looking at... I mean, we have been going pretty full steam for the last couple of years, and Chris and I have probably been going full stream for eight years now, so we'd like to sort of ease into our retirement, maybe. But I was looking at the month of June. There are five meetings in a row, and I was hoping that we might consider pulling the June 16th off, to give us a break, to recoup, and then go forward. I was also thinking, so that's one of the things I would like our council to consider. And then I've always thought, following having a city council meeting after a three-day awaken was always pressed. We're trying to get questions and staff is trying to get things ahead and it makes it harder for people who want to speak with council members on a particular item harder to get to make contact with us. And I was looking at September 8. But then I looked at the option that they were giving us to us as September 1st and I go, September 8 doesn't look so bad. But maybe maybe a September ninth date or a Wednesday or something like that, just to give us a little extra breathing time, because I know we're hard pressed. And I also was thinking of November the 24th, it's the week of Thanksgiving, and I know a lot of schools are taking that time off. And that one, I'm just bringing, throwing that out there to see how people are thinking about if they, if their own personal lives are affected by that particular date and if they take Thanksgiving off.

[00:04:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, okay, cook?

[00:04:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Never, I would say, goes full steam and head into retirement, but I actually was looking at the similar, um, the schedule too, and, um, my thought with June is that, I don't know how often we have five Tuesdays in June, I think it's been a while, so this would actually, I guess in my mind I was looking at it as an extra meeting. So we could probably take one off. And then for November, My suggestion was gonna be similar to tonight. What if we did November 16th, Monday, for the council meeting, and then those going to the conference could go, then we can take off Tuesday the 24th because I do think a lot of people take that whole week off. And so, um, it might be easier if we just moved it to the 16th. And then if we, yeah. So that was my suggestion. That would have been my suggestion.

[00:06:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:06:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Those particular dates are not a problem for me, but the January 7th is the one that's a problem for me. That's it? So, I would be open to not having five meetings in a row. Um, that's, uh, really a challenge to do. And I think staff recommended. Um, which one in June would be a good one. Um, let's see, they said June 2nd or 16, so I think 16, we're kind of circling in on. And then, um, I would be fine with moving the November 24th to November. 16th. And then, um, John, you had another one.

[00:07:03] Councilmember John McAlister: September 8th.

[00:07:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yep. is to move it to September 9th.

[00:07:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, because it's a Labor Day weekend.

[00:07:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah. I just... Yeah, that's also tough, yeah. I'm fine moving that one to September 9th, if other folks are okay with that.

[00:07:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor will be coca.

[00:07:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I would just note that that's the second Wednesday of each month is the Silicon Valley Clean Energy board meeting day. So that would be the conflict.

[00:07:29] Unknown Speaker: Ah. Okay. Oh, I school on the 16th, so we still get away on the 17th.

[00:07:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, it sounds like, um, June 16th, we would remove... and then move the November 24th to November 16th. Okay. Okay, any other comments on that?

[00:07:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Mayor, if I may, just make one comment about the November 16th potential special meeting date, so we do have the Veterans Day holiday the week before on November 11th. We have a council meeting on November 10th. So, just to know, the time frame staff would work on the time frame for the agenda packet for that special meeting on the 16th.

[00:08:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Would that even be possible?

[00:08:30] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, we could make it work.

[00:08:33] Unknown Speaker: I was looking at the city manager, our assistant city manager. He's gonna be gone. Very well. Are you? He didn't even look up when you were asking that. That's true. He didn't, did he? He didn't.

[00:08:44] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I would note that in these past two weeks, we've had some things that were, um, different schedules plus the, um, Veterans Day holiday, and it made the packet very challenging. It is, and not just with regard to preparing and posting the reports, but also managing the questions and keeping to our, you know, normal expected process, is not to say that it can't be done. It's just very challenging. Given a year in advance, I think we would maybe work out a way to make it work.

[00:09:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I would suggest as we do the, um... the long term agenda, that we look to make that meeting a very light one. Um, if possible.

[00:09:34] City Manager Dan Rich: That's certainly an admiral goal. I will just note that the schedule in front of you already has seven less meetings than this year, and, frankly, I don't anticipate the workload next year being a whole lot lighter, so just keep that in mind. You know, there's a lot to do.

[00:09:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So motion would be in order if you if somebody wants to put one forward. Council member McAllister?

[00:10:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I move that we, uh, suspend... I don't know if the words suspend, but, uh, cancel the June 16th meeting and take the November 24th meeting to be held on November, so the 16th. And except the rest of the meeting date. Yeah, except everything else would stay the same.

[00:10:32] Unknown Speaker: Do you want to hit that? I thought I should do that. So we don't have a button to hit, um, motion, right? Now we do. I got it.

[00:10:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member McAllister in a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. Um... Actually, okay. Um, any further comment on this? Okay, let's vote on just this part of the consent calendar. That passes unanimously. And then we have the balance of the consent calendar. Council member McAllister.

[00:11:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, now I'll withdraw.

[00:11:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, Council member Clark.

[00:11:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I will move the balance of the consent calendar, which, um... as stated previously, doesn't include 4.2 tonight. Um, so, so, items 4.3, 4.4, um, and 4. 4.5 and 4.6. And 4.5 is to adopt a resolution, reappointing Phyllis Bismanowski to the library board, reappointing Joe Minchner to the Parks and Recreation Commission, appointing Renee Bryant, and Steve Phyllis to the Parks and Recreation Commission, to be read entitled only for the reading wave.

[00:12:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion written by Council member Clark and a second by Council member Ramirez. Any further discussion? Okay, let's call the question. And that passes unanimously. Next is item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to adjust the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak. It never occurred to me that this cough would still be here for four meetings in a row. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. All right, so I'll go I'll finish up... We are... Where are we? Oh, state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. Are there any members of the public wishing this week? Please fill out a blue card, uh, after his fine, and how much time do you want to give? How many folks would like to speak if you can give me a show of hands? On an agenda, item, sorry. So, just one? This line is not... Okay, see you. Three minutes.

[00:13:37] Jill McDonald: Good evening. I'm Jill McDonald, and I'm here to correct the public record. Last meeting. I had a flashback as I heard about not having the full text available with the balance measure. I had a flashback to an item that occurred in the '60s before some of you were born, and was a balance measure that was before computer, before social media, before the web sites. And so it was really imperative that full disclosure, full transparency, included having all of the text of the balance measure in the information booklet. Clearly. I skipped that part of the staff report as I was studying it, and so it didn't really resonate until I heard it again. My apologies for saying that it was only good government to have that text in the voter information booklet. Today, it's not needed. Thank you.

[00:14:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda tonight? Okay, seeing none will close this portion of the agenda. Uh, and I do want to just make one announcements while we have lots of folks here, and hopefully lots of folks watching, um, that the city, uh, is recruiting for two seats on the environmental planning commission for terms ending December 31st, 2023. The application deadline is December 19th, 2019, and interviews with the city council will be scheduled in early January. And if anyone is interested, You can contact our city clerk, and information will also be on the city's website. Okay, on to item 6.1, which is the Terra Bella vision plan adoption. We'll start with a staff presentation, and then we'll have council questions, and then we'll open it up for public comment. before bringing it back to council for deliberation and action. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[00:16:08] Senior Planner Diana Bancholi: Sure. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. My name is Diana Bancholi, senior planner, with the city's community development department, and I have with me tonight, our assistant city manager and our community development director, Arti Shravastiva. The item in front of you tonight is the Terabala Vision plan. We are here to tonight to consider adoption of the plan that we've been working on for a couple of months now. So, diving right into it. This is a 1084 acre industrial zone area in the north of city of Mountain View. It is located around Shoreline Boulevard, directly south of 101 and also south of recently adopted North Bay Shore Precise Clan area. The project site is also adjacent to Crittendon Middle School, to the west, and Turbala Avenue runs through the middle of the project area. As I said earlier, the predominant land use over there remains office and R&D and small businesses, which are surrounded with existing single-family residential uses. Back in 2012, city adopted a 2030 general plan after a comprehensive community outreach process. As part of that process, city identified growth areas for future development. And Teraba area, as we are discussing today, was not identified as a change area where future development was envisioned. However, after several years of interest from developers and property owners for developing housing and high intensity office. Seticon for directed staff to do a study to understand the existing conditions in the area and to see what kind of vision do, you know, the community members have and the city has for future of this area. So based on that, um, we started this visioning process back in April 2018. And since then, as part of the process, we have done targeted community outreach. This consists of 3 community workshops, stakeholder interviews, various meetings with property owners, business owners. We also did EPC and city council study session, and the last one was EPC's review of this draft vision plan at the October 23rd public hearing. And tonight, we are presenting the EPC recommendation to the city council. So far, as part of the study sessions and the process, we have received input from council and EPC regarding the visioning statement, the guiding principles, future development strategies, land use, and building height. Before we dive deeper into this whole discussion and what the draft vision plan is, I would just like to make a statement that this is a vision plan. We have discussed this many times. It is not a precise plan. We are not proposing any change to the underlying zoning or journal plan land use as part of this adoption. This is a guiding document for guiding future development in the area. So a little bit of a recap of what we heard from city council at our last study session, we presented the um, land use development alternatives to cancel in April 2nd 2019 meeting. The council supported a lower intensity land use alternative, based on which staff has refined the land use vision further. There were specific interest in allowing higher intensity residential along middle field, provided some TDR and school strategies were adopted in the area as well. This is the land use vision plan that was refined based on council direction at the last study session. This is also included in chapter number 3, page 21, um, in the draft vision plan document. The other things discussed at the last study session were regarding development strategies such as schools, job housing, linkage, neighborhood transitions, affordable housing, TDM, and small business preservation. At the last study session, there was also um, very good discussion regarding the need for a precise plan versus reviewing individual gatekeeper projects. As a summary to that study session, we received um, good support from the council members regarding a need for a precise plan. But later on at a the council goal setting session and the um, work plan items, a precise plan for the area was not prioritized at this point of time. And that will be discussed further as well in when we discuss implementation measures for this plan. So today if you're presenting the draft vision plan, the vision plan is actually divided into 5 chapters. The 1st one talks about introduction to the area, the key considerations in the area as well. Chapter 2 types further into guiding principles, which have been endorsed by the city council at the previous study session, and discusses a little bit about what was the out community outreach process involved in this process. Chapter 3 is where we start talking about the land use vision that I showed you earlier, and it also talks about development character, and discusses the neighborhood transition strategies. Chapter 4 is where we are discussing development principles and strategies for future development, including the development strategies that I just discussed regarding schools, job housing, linkage, TDM, small business preservation. Chapter 5 talks about transportation, network vision, and provides some schematic conceptual streets sections in the area. So now I'm just going to dive into the implementation measure. There are some key factors which are discussed in the vision plan, which I would like to bring to your attention before we move forward to the recommendation. The 1st one is the implementation framework. As I mentioned earlier, at the last council study session, we did receive support, clear support for a precise plan for more organized development in the area, which is required in order to achieve the guiding principles that we have supported, such as achieving, you know, where are going to be the parks, the school sites, the pedestrian and bicycle connections, the trail connections, that the community envisions having in order to have a complete neighborhood. In view of not prioritizing a precise plan at this point of time, we also looked at the ideas for a master planning process. At the last council meeting, we did hear council support for a master plan for the west side of Shoreline Boulevard in the project area. And this idea was considered even further, and at this point of time, the vision plan is just proposing one implementation measure. There are no options. The vision plan says, for any new development to come in, which does not comply with the underlying zoning, the property owners will have to come in for a master plan development. One master plan for the east side and one master plan for the west side. And we are, we are recommending just one master plan for the entire east and the entire west area. In order to achieve the guiding principles that we are supporting and we are endorsing with this vision plan. We have received several inquiries regarding, um, you know, um, more than one master plans for East or minor master plans within the area. And, uh, we just would like to clarify this at the stylist that we're just supporting one master plan for East and one master plan for West. The master plan implementation section in chapter number 4, uh, does talk about what are the components of a master plan, or the key development strategies that needs to be considered when someone comes in for a project master planning project. It should also be very clear that a master plan is also a project which requires council authorization before we can start work on it. And um, the way it has been um, uh, recommended in the plan, now gatekeeper projects will be entertained on a case by case basis. They will have to come in after the master plan is completed. The other important stuff that we have provided in chapter 4 is regarding future development strategies. The neighborhood transitions. This was the major concern that we have heard throughout the process, from the community, and what staff has provided as part of neighborhood transitions is all the possible strategies that we would like to see that we need to see, we need to use when we are reviewing individual projects. As I mentioned earlier, this is not a precise plan. We have not done a lot of technical studies that we will do otherwise in a precise plan, such as sequor review, transportation impact review, utilities impacts. We have not done those studies as part of vision plan. This is just a guiding document. These are conceptual standards that we are saying for development like this should have. So based on that, what we're doing here is that we're proposing a lot of tools that needs to be revealed and needs to be looked into when considering a development in the area and they have been summarized in the neighborhood transition areas. The other important part is about parks and open spaces. Again, a reminder at the last council study session, council supported a lower intensity development or land use alternative, based on this land use intensities, staff is proposing in order to make the development feasible. One needs to have at least 4 acres of parkland dedication onto the east side and 4 acres of parkland dedication to the west side. The remaining 4 acres of parkland on east and west sites will come through other tools and mechanisms, such as privately owned publicly accessible spaces, uh, sharing the amenities with other institutions and park in-law fees. Again, small business preservation also remains a key concern and also a future development strategy, which we would like to use for future developments going in there. Regarding the transportation demand management guidelines, the vision plan says that all the new developments will have to comply with the city's stadium guidelines, just a reminder, staff, and the city is going to embark upon a new project starting 2020 regarding our new citywide TDM ordinance. So that would be in the books as well. And in the meantime, a specific recommendation in the vision plan is to have, um, non-residential employment generating uses, such as office and R&D, to maintain uh, net new trips. This is compared with the existing conditions. Affordable housing is a 20% requirement we are proposing and jobs and school strategies similar to what we have endorsed in East Westman precise plan area. In conclusion, this is a targeted community outreach effort, we have summarized the public input entities vision for the area. We have guiding principles to support review of future developments in the area. And in my closing remark, I will just remind you once again, this is just a vision plan. It is not a precise plan. It is not a specific plan. We have not done a lot of technical studies. These are conceptual guiding principles for future development considerations. With that, staff recommends adopting a resolution, approving the terrible vision plan in front of you. Alternatively, city council can also consider modifications to the vision plan, can consider not accepting the vision plan or providing any other instruction to the staff. Thank you.

[00:28:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[00:28:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have a few. Um... So under this master plan, as we go forward, I ask the question, there's any studies to determine the impact, and you said a sequel is required. Is that a full sequel? Is there mini sequa, or exactly... How does that go?

[00:29:18] Diana: It will be a programmatic EIR.

[00:29:20] Councilmember John McAlister: It's a what?

[00:29:21] Diana: E I R. It will be a full EIR.

[00:29:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, 4 ER. Okay. Okay. And so that would address, okay, that's one question there. The other question I had is on the light industrial. You gave me, I asked the question of, is there a good ratio, or how much light industrial we're having in Mountain View? Because over the years, I seem, it seems to be one of those areas that is slowly disappearing. And we started out... I guess he gave me a chart, and it said at one time, there was 799 acres for light industrial and general manufacturing. And now we're down to 570, and that, it says, industrial zone land left after adoption of these Wisman Provice plan, and based on the terror bill visioning plan. So, where are there any, I'm concerned that we're losing this? Are there any other areas that will be expanding for light industrial or for manufacturing light?

[00:30:33] Diana: We do not have any projects or any plans, which consider that at this point of time. But that can definitely be considered if there's market demand, need in the city, and specific direction from council on any future work items.

[00:30:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there a market demand for this particular product? Where do the... That's one question. And is there an area where the startups or small companies, do they use this particular type of buildings?

[00:31:07] Diana: There's definitely demand for that, but at this point of time, a hard demand is for more of residential uses. The small sort of spaces. People use a lot of areas in RCS zoning district, along old mill field. There are some sort of spaces in here as well along Terabella, which are existing. And, um, as I said earlier, at this point of time, we are not proposing any zoning changes. So this remains as this unless we decide to change zoning by reviewing and authorizing a gatekeeper process.

[00:31:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. That's just where you limit it. Until the 3rd quarter for gatekeepers process. So, if somebody comes up with a, as I described it as a world class example of innovation of a master plan, and what the council deems it worthy, how could that move forward?

[00:32:03] Unknown Speaker: I'll try to answer that. Are the staff recommendation is that we look at the east and west sides, as a whole, because, as you know, a lot of the vision plan on the west side depends on some increased development on a parcel that's different from a parcel that's going to give up some land to a school. And that can't be achieved until the property owners get together. In addition, as Diana noted, we have, you know, paths going through properties, we have parks that have to be planned, and typically, you would be able to do that with a precise plan. We understand that we're trying to, maybe, you know, keep the workload a little bit lower than a precise plan would require. But I think it's gonna have to be a choice between coordinated development or quick development. It does take a little time to coordinate it and get to the vision. But this is being envisioned as a complete neighborhood. So, I think this is a long way of saying that I don't think we can achieve it with individual projects.

[00:33:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, I'm just saying. So, master plan. If there was an entire masterpiece.

[00:33:16] Unknown Speaker: Tire master plan, yeah. On the west side, we would say that the vision plan actually says that's what's required to implement. Yes.

[00:33:24] Councilmember John McAlister: So, but the question was, can how would that project move forward?

[00:33:29] Unknown Speaker: Oh, they would apply for a gatekeeper, because it would require a change.

[00:33:34] Unknown Speaker: Right. So they would come in with a master plan and a gatekeeper, to request that the council authorize it based on the vision, and we would process it based on that. And we are recommending the fall 2020 in order to manage workload.

[00:33:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay and... Are there any exceptions to that acceptance of a gatekeeper other than the October 2020?

[00:34:00] Unknown Speaker: Not that staff is recommending, but the gatekeeper ordinance itself has some exceptions. Which, of course, would apply.

[00:34:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[00:34:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Coco?

[00:34:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um... Along those lines, um, regarding the master planning, um, if a master plan is approved, like, it goes through gatekeeper, and it's ultimately approved, with the projects that are a part that part of that master plan, still have to go through gatekeeper, or are they automatic, or as long as they conform to the master plan, do they get to move forward without a gatekeeper?

[00:34:40] Unknown Speaker: So a gatekeeper is required for any legislative action. that the council has to make regarding land use. So if there's a zoning change or a general plan change, it needs to be a gatekeeper. If, as part of a master plan, the council does make that change, and does make the changes, then the projects would not require separate gatekeepers, they would just come in and be processed, you know, some people may choose to move forward with detailed projects, but we think we'll see more master plans, because not everything will be decided at that time. So, they would come in with a separate project after that, but those wouldn't have to be gatekeepers.

[00:35:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, keep it. So, I guess I'm trying to compare this to, for instance, the gateway parcels. So on that one, we have a precise plan, and we're now master planning it according to the precise plan. On this one, is it, we're sort of doing the backwards or opposite of that? Is that accurate to?

[00:35:39] Unknown Speaker: So in the case of the gateway master plan? There is zoning already. And this was more about how the bonus FAR could be allocated and the vision achieved on that site specifically. So it's a little bit different. And it was precisely because the property owners couldn't come together on an agreement that the council asked staff to look at it. I don't know if the city manager has any.

[00:36:06] City Manager Dan Rich: I think that's it.

[00:36:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, was there some thought, I think this is what Council member McAllister was getting at, what, what, um, was there some thoughts about phasing and, um, let's say, you know, I don't know, some, um, over a majority of the parcels and one of the sides could get together and meet all of the criteria, the Jobs housing linkage, open space school strategy, that, that could potentially be phased, to move forward, or would that be...

[00:36:43] Unknown Speaker: Well, let's look an example of the East Side, which we've had a few questions on. What we had mentioned to the property owners is if there are entire areas that are not expected to be changed out, those don't have to be part of the master plan, because no change is envisioned in zoning for them. So the change areas would come in. They show us where the parks are. As part of the master plan, They would have to be approved for the phasing. So the council would have to approve how the parks were phased in, because all the conditions of approval would be tied to that phasing. So it's a little complex. But the idea is everybody knows when they're going to get the parks when this project's built or that project's built. Everybody knows if Parkland's given up here, who gets the density, where does that go? So that's why we're recommending that. So yes, a master plan can include phasing. In fact, the division does say that it needs to include phasing as part of it. So the council, when it approves a master plan, understands how these, you know, amenities or projects are going to be linked because we have the jobs, housing linkage, we have the park requirement.

[00:37:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so if it's master plan, we can phase, it can be phased, so let's say phase one moves forward, even though maybe there's still some, and I'm trying to liken it to San Antonio shopping center where we, it was phased. Um, there's still phases to be built, but to try. I guess I'm trying to find that balance of how do we allow for some movement forward, but in a, you know, planned, organized fashion. So, would that be possible?

[00:38:33] Unknown Speaker: It is, it is possible, and I think, I think the critical thinking on that will have to be if a certain phase doesn't move forward for a while. What's that area going to look like? And how are we going to plan for that to look? Are the new project or transition towards the older one and have to pay a lot of attention to that part of the phasing?

[00:38:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Could we, then, looking at, and I remember we used to do this. We did this when we were working on the general plan update, but we had these P districts, and there were projects that were coming, came in, and we were... We were kind of using those projects as our prototype for moving a precise planner, the general plan forward. Is there some thought about doing something like that, or... If I'm trying to remember, South Wisman was an example, I think, where, but you had a few developers who were actually willing to run prototypes.

[00:39:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes. And then they brought in projects that were pretty comparable to that. It always helps because then both sides can see what a project could look like. Right. So we wouldn't be opposed to looking at a little more detail. But we usually look at we talk about the minimum level of detail we need.

[00:39:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yeah. Okay. And then I wanted to go to the setbacks, this issue. is that's probably one of the most of interest. Um, and I, I, you know, I sent you, um, the, what, the suggestions that, um, the Terabella neighbors had, um, I think we all probably got a copy of that, but would you be able to comment on this, um, in particular, um, there's a diagram, if I don't know if I can find it, but, um, the issue of 90 feet versus 160 feet, if the, uh, building is higher than 35 and, like, what would that do potentially due to this vision?

[00:40:40] Unknown Speaker: Within the time frame, we had to respond to it. actually, and I actually discussed a couple of things. One is comparing the vision plan with our existing standards. So if you look at the R3 standards, for example, and the R4, the proposed transition standards are more than double that, if, in the Rojas example. It also, I think the only difference with the R3 is that you have, and the R4 is you could potentially have a little more height, with the fifth story, but it's not clear, right, until the project comes in. You don't know. And because this is a precise plan, we don't have the exact standards. So we feel pretty comfortable that with the, with the fact that the proposed transitions in Terabella, or twice that of R3. Many of which are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and we're still able to review those projects and make sure that they are respectful. We also looked at the Madeira. And if you look at that, the Madeira has four stories, but it has another half story because of the underground garage. And I think our requirements, it's a little bit different because it has a whole street in between, right? Right. So you can't quite compare a backyard to a street. But even if you took it, I think it's fairly comparable. When you look at the row house example, and you assume that the two stories is like a row house. I think the only difference is Madeira's four story is Terabella allows a fifth story, where Madeira has four. Four and a half, more than anything else. But we still feel pretty comfortable with that the standards in the precise plan, with landscaping, with the fact that we're requiring lower heights, and the taller heights to be set back, twice that of R3, We're trying to balance that with feasibility and being able to achieve units on the sites. I think the jobs housing linkage, as well as the fact that this needs to be a complete neighborhood, requires that units be feasible. So we believe that it's a good balance between transitions, feasibility, and allowing for little creativity and development patterns. So we're not pushing everything to one type of building.

[00:43:20] Unknown Speaker: So, I appreciate that. You know, I know it's subjective, but one of the photos, I think, the images, um, that was shown was that 801 Castro and the single family home and then the apartments and the step backs, um, you know, for me personally, I didn't think that was enough. So if we were to push, yeah, where could we look at maybe increasing those types of step backs as we go higher up?

[00:43:50] City Staff: Yeah, and I could, I don't know what exactly the step backs were, but Diana might have one. So I just wanted to bring it back to the idea that, you know, the vision plan is actually showing conceptual examples of what it could be. These are not all the possibilities. We really can put all the possibilities in diagrams over here. It's just a starting point, and every development will definitely come into council for an initial study session, and if we find,

[00:44:18] City Staff: Definitely staff is always going to be very sensitive about this because this has been a very clear community, our input on the process. So when we will bring it for a study session, we can definitely say this is where the developer needs to work for additional setbacks and if council can support staff on that, that is the direction we will give for future development.

[00:44:38] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think the challenge is, well, you know, and I'm one of seven, of course, but if that image is not something that we want, then we should not have that show, that image, right?

[00:44:50] City Staff: Good point. And actually, there's another slide, I think, that shows the Madeira. This is another example along the Bush Street S curve. And if you look at that, um, That's actually a little bit taller than our recommendation. Um, it's interesting.

[00:45:10] Unknown Speaker: Design is such a big feature.

[00:45:12] City Staff: I agree. That numbers never tell the story. And so I think paying a lot of attention and making sure that the design of the buildings is broken up in such a way that it's a better neighbor to the neighborhood is good. And I think we've tailored a lot of our diagrams to try to achieve something like Madeira. Because I think we want to push things. And we could also take another look at the picture and swapping that out if the council directs us to do that.

[00:45:41] Unknown Speaker: I don't think we're really changing a whole lot. I just want to make sure those setbacks and step backs.

[00:45:45] City Staff: Yeah, we could show we could show this as an example, right? These 2 and just say these are good examples of how you might design a good transition.

[00:45:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:46:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I want to go back to a question about master planning and phasing, and make sure that I understand that. So I had heard some comments from developers that, um, that getting every, uh, every property owner within an area to, um, sign on within a, a master plan would be difficult. Now, if we were to do a master plan and phase it, would it just be every property owner within the phase that would have to sign on? How does that work with phasing?

[00:46:39] City Staff: So staff is actually recommending that every property owner on the West Side be involved in a master plan, and every property on the East Side be involved in a master plan. Of course, on the East Side, not including the areas that are, the areas that are proposed to be changed in the vision. So that's, I just wanted to put that out there. So an example of, say, the west side would be where the applicant would show you the parcels that would be built in the beginning, or the properties, or the buildings that would be built in the beginning, how they would achieve the jobs, housing linkage, the division plan asks for, how the parks would be phased in, in concert with the residential units that were going to be built. And that entire phasing plan would be approved by the council. Once that phasing plan's approved, then that kind of sets the time frame and the conditions of approval for each project. So let's say, you know, half the units go, one time, then it may be that you would just need a two acre park. And the 2nd phase would have the 2nd 2 acres. So, but I'm just, again, not knowing exactly what the master plan would look like. I'm giving you an example. I think what the council may not endorse is having all the office built in the 1st phase, and the residential not being built. That's an example of a phasing plan the council would not endorse. So, really, the idea is to say, here is all the development that's gonna happen. By the time everything gets built out. And here are the phases, we'd go. This would be the first phase. We bring the parks with that, we can then build this office. And part of our job, as we review the project, would be to look at, how does the area look while it's still unfinished? All the phases are not done. And how are those pieces knitted together in the interim? Does that help?

[00:48:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, my question is, at what point do you have to get the signatures from all the property owners? Can you do it within? So if you were doing, say, the west side in two phases? Could you get all the property owners in phase one to sign and not into, or does it have to be done all together when the master plan is done? Which seems with many small landowners, that seems prohibitively difficult.

[00:49:07] City Staff: Based on, based on staff's recommendation, we would say that the entire West Side has to be master planned at the same time, in which case, you would need the signatures of all the property owners. Um, you know, we, we never accept applications where property owners have not either signed on or authorized people, because we don't want people representing property owners without their consent. But the council may wish to discuss, again, I can't speak to, based on where the vision plan is located, parks and where the density is going to be located, based on some dedication for the school, it's hard to imagine, properties that could not be included. I think the only ones that need not be included on the back office parcels. if they don't take part in any of the residential or the park land.

[00:50:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that gives me more clarity, thank you.

[00:50:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Kamee.

[00:50:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I have a question about small business preservation. So, um, I was wondering, you know, noting that this is a vision plan and we're very high level. I was just curious if staffs could expand a little bit more upon what, they see as the vision giving. We talk about preserving small businesses, but we also have the land use of vision map, which made overlay over existing small business and their property uses. So, I think, kind of, given what was in the plan, it sounds as if the small business sites would be redeveloped with the small business going into the new building. Is that kind of what staff is intimating in the vision plan, or if you could expand a little bit more, that would be helpful.

[00:51:07] City Staff: So there are two things. I think the 1st thing is, I'll go back to our step one where we presented 5 land use alternatives to the city council. One of the land use alternative actually had a higher percentage of light industrial uses preserved. And then we looked at balancing the type of future uses we might like to use and this is where we have landed. So there are sections of the um, on the east side of shoreline where we are saying these um, parcels needs to be light industrial office type of uses in the future. That's what we are envisioning. The other thing is that as a development strategy for small business preservation, when a future development comes in, there can be, you know, spaces that might be developed, which might help either relocate the existing small businesses into the area, might help them to expand or might create additional spaces where light industrial type of uses can be accommodated. Now that is also seen as a benefit. That might come out, as a community benefit that might come out, when we will be reviewing a project which does not comply with an existing the underlying zoning.

[00:52:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. In the North Bay Shore precise plan, in the East Wisman precise plan. I know we have the goal of 20% affordable housing, but it's not a requirement, is it?

[00:52:40] City Staff: It's 15% requirement, and then 20% the goal. That's citywide. Sorry, the area wide goal for East Wismin.

[00:52:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, but in this one in the vision, it's 20% required.

[00:52:53] City Staff: So because this is visioning, we are starting with that, for consideration, yes.

[00:52:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Are there any other questions from council members? Okay. Okay, can I see a show of hands of how many folks would like to speak to the council on this topic? Okay, we're gonna have a lot of good input here. Each speaker will have a minute and a half. And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, and leave it with our city clerk, we would appreciate it. And, um, I'm not sure I need to say it to this group, but, uh, the practice here is, you know, we listen to each other, and, um, we don't show any, uh, demonstrations of agreement or disagreement with what folks have. We're just gonna listen. Uh, so if folks could get ready to uh, speak with the council, and the 1st person, come on up. First person, come on forward. Be sure to, you can move the microphone, yeah.

[00:54:19] Public Speaker: Okay, can you hear me? Okay, let me know when I can start.

[00:54:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, you can start.

[00:54:25] Public Speaker: Okay. I work on Linda Vista Avenue. And I'm here tonight to dispute some issues that people don't might not even understand. One, when you put in parkways or pathways, you're physically taking people's property. And these people here probably don't understand that. Two, when you ask to put in parks of 4 acres. You're also taking people's property. And these people here might not understand that yet. Because they are not listening. Three, the lady here who spoke, who actually spoke, claimed that there was no studies done on environmental impact, no studies done on PG&E usage or anything else, and there's definitely no studies done on safety. Health and safety of the neighborhood of what you're trying to do. There are only 3 entrances and exits on. Whatever you call the east side, I guess, because it's actually the south side, not the east side. I don't know where you guys got that idea. Shoreline. There's only 3 entrances and exits. That's it. There's power lines all over the place and they're hanging up above our heads. They're not underneath the ground. They're up And the fact that you guys don't even have a consideration or even wanting to consider those items, in any form or fashion, is very disconcerting that you are willing to put the public safety behind Google and everybody else that you are supporting. Thank you. So don't do it.

[00:56:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:56:08] Robert Murphy: Thank you for the opportunity to speak, counsel.

[00:56:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could speak a little louder.

[00:56:13] Robert Murphy: My name is Robert Murphy. My wife and I live on San Pablo Drive, and the Terabella. neighborhoods. I work in Mountain View, and I vote. We've been going to meetings about this for about a year. We feel the city planner's offices, mostly ignored the community's input, kind of pushing their agenda for high density through each phase. Refuel this plan, ignores the well being of the existing residents, some of which have been there for 40 years. The intersections are already gridlocked in the mornings. Pouring another 4000 people into this intersection will severely impact our quality of life and anybody working there. The multi-story buildings proposal literally overshadow the single family homes in the neighborhood. There is no street behind the homes on San Pablo Drive. We prefer the single story light industry and offices to multi-story apartments. At the very least, please consider the setback plan that our colleagues have offered. We consciously moved to Mountain View for the quality of life and not San Francisco. Please don't bring it to our backyards. Thank you.

[00:57:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. So, I'm gonna mind, folks, that, um, we're just gonna listen.

[00:57:35] Fang Fang: Good evening. My name is Fang Fang. I'm a resident in the East Terabella side. So, one issue I keep racing during the entire planning process is the childcare problem. So I don't know whether it's for under schools, but then, uh, like, for instance, for, uh, families that come in with, you know, uh, young children's and infants. They are definitely in high demand for childcare facilities. And using my personal case, I line up my sons, you know, preschool, uh, 2.5 years in months in order to get a sport, uh, at the wonder years, uh, near shoreline. So this is just to illustrate how difficult it is to get, you know, a spot for any, you know, young childcare, and live in the influx of, you know, 1000s of different, um, like household into the neighborhood, would definitely, you know, pledge, uh, city council to consider, uh, sort of, like say, set aside, sufficient resources to accommodate the needs. So currently I don't feel that it's like fully reflected in the plan. So, thank you for the consideration.

[00:58:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:58:47] Richard Spillane: Hello? My name is Richard Spillane. I live on San Pablo and Terabella. I support the community, and Albert Jean's larger transition distances, and I would like to say that I am against this and any vision plan with such recklessly optimistic estimates for low traffic and parking impact on surrounding pre-existing neighboring communities and such short transitions. I want to also implore town council to consider what councils are remembered for generally. Nobody gratefully remembers mayors of New York City for all of the apartment buildings in Manhattan. They are thankful instead for Central Park, for the high line, for the Met, the public library, and so on. When people think of urban planning, respectfully consider that they think of all the vegetation, transitions, wide paths, large parks and community benefits that make urban living enjoyable and healthy. Similarly, Mountain View Council will be remembered for the limits they place on developers, and the lushness and beautiful views that were protected, not thanked for an extra story of apartments. Apartments will happen due to simple market forces. I see renovations of lots all over town, and are aware there are more to come. But public benefits commensurate with new development will not happen without council stewardship and foresight. Please do not consider any plan, vision plan, gateway project, or sign that doesn't replenish and protect mountain view stock of beautiful parks, peaceful parking, and traffic, and private transitions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[01:00:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:00:36] Eric Stabelle: Well, console, my name is Eric Stabelle. I am a president in the Terabella neighborhood, and I'm also representing many of my neighbors who back up to the Terabella property. Due to a lack of progress with the neighborhood transitions and a multitude of other unresolved issues, we recommend not going forward with a vision plan at this time. If it does move forward anyway, I want to show some recommended transition improvements that we'd like to see. This shows one of the pages from the current vision plan, and it's off to a decent start, but it lacks an adequate two story transition on the three story townhomes, and also the five story residential, we feel, is just too tall and too close at 160 feet from the property line. We'd like to see an increase of the 2 story step back from 10 feet to 30 feet. Use the vision diagram, B, 160 foot setback as the minimum, for 4 story buildings, at 52 feet high, and to use at least 220 feet property lines setback before going to a 5 story building at 65 feet. And uh, this is just the short version of what I just mentioned, uh, that would also just involve a few changes of a few numbers on the, uh, transition standards on page 29. And this is the office areas, which would, we'd like to see the same standards put on those. Thank you.

[01:02:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counselor McAllister has a question for you before you leave.

[01:02:13] Eric Stabelle: Yes.

[01:02:17] Councilmember John McAlister: to the screen that proposes, uh, propose a change, ABC goes, and you have the 220 on that one?

[01:02:26] Eric Stabelle: Okay, right there. This one, okay.

[01:02:28] Councilmember John McAlister: What are you envisioning in that 40 minimum foot there?

[01:02:34] Eric Stabelle: Well, the 40 foot, I'm not proposing any changes to that from the current vision plan. So they had 40 feet in there. Um, it did mention things like driveways, trails, um, uh, planning areas, that sort of thing. So it didn't sound like there would be any buildings there. Although I would think one story buildings would probably be acceptable, but I felt that 40 foot in the vision plan was sufficient.

[01:03:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so it's not a green belt, but just anything that's...

[01:03:05] Eric Stabelle: Um, basically, I'm basically just saying no 2 story. I would like to not see anything 2 story or higher in those in that 1st 40 feet. Um, you know, keep in mind all the homes around Terabella that are R one. Although they can be 2 story, 100% of them are actually one story at this time. And we do have a scattering of a few people in the neighborhood who have had 2nd stories, but not there. Okay, thank you. Okay?

[01:03:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:03:42] Alex: Hi, my name is Alex. My wife and I are owners of a townhome at the Staten Place Down Homes, at the corner of Middlefield and Linda Vista, across from Sterling Estates. Uh, we... Yeah, so I'm against the division plan for three main reasons that basically all have to do with the proposed increase in density, traffic, parking, and just neighborhood quality of life would be significantly decreased. Currently, there's only 2 ways out of the neighborhood, either Linda Vista or Terabella, and it's already greatly impacted in the morning. There's a lot of traffic. It's really difficult to get out. Um, the parking is insufficient as it already is. The city is asking people to pass parking permit programs. I think that's an acknowledgement that there are parking issues that need to be addressed and the increased density is only gonna exacerbate that problem. And then finally, to build 5 and 7 story residential structures next to single level and 2 level townhomes just doesn't really seem to fit with the current neighborhood character. So, in some, I'm against the plan. Thank you.

[01:04:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:05:02] Vishal: Hello, everyone. I'm Vishal. My wife and I will live on Stanton Place Community on Linda Vista and Middlefield. I am against this vision plan. There are multiple regions I would like to cite some. First of all, the transition near Linda Vista. What we are proposing is 5 to 7 story buildings, which is gonna look like the San Antonio Center, which is really like an ugly concrete jungle. We don't want something like that immediately next to uh, one story and 2 story town homes uh, that we have. So that would be a very ugly site. And then I think traffic, I think the city acknowledges that there would be a big problem of traffic. Currently the shoreline, middle field intersections. It's like horrible during the work hours. So it would the amount of people living there would get quadrupled easily with the more density and more housing that we are proposing. And then, uh, about a character, when I moved to Mountain View, uh, a couple of years back, it was about a green vegetation and and uh, and all the nice trees that we have around, but I think with this plant, we're just going to build more and more concrete around, and I'm not sure how ugly that would be like. So that would be a bad site. So I'm totally against this plan, but if at all the city plans to move ahead with this, I would really strongly suggest to move with Albert's and Eric's recommend it transitions and a setback. Thank you.

[01:06:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:06:54] Charles: I'm Charles, I've been on Linda Vista Avenue for 40 years, and we're very much against these interior trails, pathways that go through the interior of the blocks. And I've met with some of the city council members, met with other neighbors. And we think that that's a very bad idea. So please do not implement at least that portion. In general, we're not excited about the Terabella plan, the vision plan, but please do not allow these pathways to go through the interiors of the block. Thank you.

[01:07:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:07:39] Alex: My name is Alex. I'm an owner over at San Pablo Drive, and as we consider the options for this possible vision plan, I think it's important that we all remember the basic laws of physics, and we ask ourselves not so much about the specific design style, or what the housing is going to look like, but how high it's going to be, and what the view from your backyard is going to be. I think it's of tremendous importance for all of us to consider. Would you want this in your backyard? And I completely agree. We need housing. We need more residential, more commercial, but we also need our backyard privacy. Um, there's talk about adding a pedestrian or a bike way path in there. Maybe the right answer is to get everybody in that single row of houses on San Pablo out of there. Um, if people are open to that, maybe that's an option, but it seems strange to separate one story residential homes with yards from larger developments. I don't think anybody would want that in their backyard. And we should find a compromise that makes everyone happy. Thank you so much.

[01:08:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:08:42] Katya Kamangar: Good evening, Mayor Matachek, and council members, Katya Kamangar with Summerhill Housing Group. We've been following the process along with great interest. We have 4 acres in the east of Shoreline area of Terabella. And I think staff has done a great job with the direction you've given them in terms of coming up with a vision plan, if staff doesn't have the resources and the ability to do a precise plan at this time. Um, so we recommend, um, you approve it. But I did want to talk a little bit about Commissioner Hicks brings up a very good point in that. The terrible areas over 100 acres, about 50 of it on the west side, 50 on the east side, on the west side, there's only about a dozen owners on the east side. There's 42 owners. So in order to get, do you think that 42 owners would sign on to a master plan? I think is a little unrealistic expectation. So, we would encourage you to think about some flexibility to the phase in question. Maybe it's allowing 8 to 10 acres to move forward together, so long as it brings along the requisite park space and those kinds of things. So we've had some conversations with Prometheus, who also has some land and some other landowners, and we think we could work within the confines of the master planning process, but we would just recommend some flexibility into that process to accommodate. Thank you.

[01:10:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Anybody ask for extra time?

[01:10:37] City Clerk: Not that I'm aware of the clips. Thank you.

[01:10:42] Albert James: My name's Albert James. I've been a 30 year plus just resident of Sterling Estate, since I don't have much time, I'm gonna jump ahead here. Yeah, I've been involved since the very beginning, year and a half ago, there I am, and I still don't like the way it turned out, so I urge you not to pass this vision plan, but if you do, as others have said, I strongly want to have our transitions included. This is just a diagram of the staff's recommendations, current standard drawn to scale, perfectly to scale. And the main limiting factor here is the 45 daylight plane. I want to show you how steep that is. From where you're sitting, that's 45 degrees. Okay. That's the limit of they're putting on pillows. This is the view from my backyard right now standing 30 feet from the rear fence. My dog there? This is what the current transition standards allow. This is the dean at San Antonio. Oh, okay, you can put some three story townhouse. That any better? I don't think anybody wants this in their backyard, particularly if you've been living through a long time, you're used to seeing the sky. And you have no privacy left. This is, again, our transitions, which Eric went over, and that turns that into this. It's a little better, okay? We expect 2 story in our backyard. That's what R1 has. But certainly not what we had before. So again, all you have to do is change a few things in on page 29 and you're done. And again, don't let this happen. Thank you.

[01:12:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:12:21] Andres Friedman: Hi, good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Andres Friedman, and I represent public storage. Public storage in Palo Alto Housing, on adjacent lands at Terabella. And over the last 6 months, we've been discussing back and forth about a contribution bland donation to Palo Alto housing that will allow them to increase their existing development from 656 units to over 100, which is about an 80% increase to what they can build. We believe that this is an extraordinary opportunity to add affordable housing to the community. The challenge is timing, because Palo Alto housing needs to move forward with the development, and we're trying to figure out alternatives to be able to allow them to do that by us allowing to donate the land. So we are seeking for an opportunity to look for implementation of alternative ways to move forward with the proposed master plan and being able to move this forward. The contribution is not only the benefit of adding units, but also we're replacing the land that allows for a more pedestrian, friendly development, for the residential, by putting public storage property in the back. This will also allow to reduce the cost of each unit by about $80,000. In addition, the lab will be much better for the community. And this new additional land will allow Palo Alto housing to be able to grow 100% family housing one, 2, and 3 units. So, uh, with that said, I think we provided a letter that provides more detail and happy to answer questions you would like to discuss. Thank you.

[01:14:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:14:07] Randy Sudo: Good evening, mayor and members of the council, Randy Sudo Palo Alto Housing, as you know, we are an affordable housing developer that owns 2 sites in Terabella area. Wanted to acknowledge and thank public storage for their, their offer, their generous offer of donating, uh, over 6 tenths of an acre, free of charge to Palo Alto housing to support our project. This more than doubles the size of the site and would allow us to potentially build over 100 affordable housing units that would contain a range of units, one, 2, and 3 bedrooms. We'd submitted some letters requesting some modifications to the vision plan at the risk of being admonished by Ms. Pancholi. I would ask that in particular, no matter how you view the public storage and pal out the housing proposal, regardless that you would consider 2 changes. One is to be, make it clear and exempt, affordable, 100% affordable housing projects from the, from the master planning requirement. And that secondly, you would consider allowing 7 stories on our 2 properties on the north side of Terabella. They are more than 660 feet away from the single family neighborhood, I think, well outside that any of the transition proposal. So we would ask consideration of those 2 modifications. Thank you.

[01:15:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:15:39] Patrick Nashlava: Hi, Patrick Nashlava, Mountain View resident, and we live on Morgan Street, very close to this proposed vision area. I just want to be clear, we strongly support the setback changes that have already been discussed today by our neighbors and wish you consider them and make clear changes to this plan and not leave it ambiguous as staff seems to be suggesting. My main reason to speak tonight is about schools. There are many open questions as to how Mountain View will manage its land use in a way that allows for affordable expansion of schools and sports facilities to support the growing population without having to redo the recent construction that was supported by measure G. Uh, Tarbell's proximity to Crittan in middle school and the shoreline overpass connecting it to the North Bay Shore development. Make it an interesting location to consider for school expansion. The current vision plan makes a small allocation for this, but a bolder vision, looking at significant expansion of the Criden campus needs to be considered. It's simply too soon to move forward until that happens. Otherwise, we may all find ourselves boxed into options that we stumble into by default, and there'll be another neighborhood or perhaps an entire school's worth of families here to discuss that with you. I served on the board and district facilities committees for the measure G, uh, school improvements, and the school facilities learnings, uh, for measure G or any guide. We need a comprehensive plan that looks at the next wave of interest across the city. I strongly urge you to enter into a much stronger collaboration with the Mountain View Wisbon school district on this before you approve any visions for land use changes in Mountain View. Thank you.

[01:17:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:17:14] Lilo Carbonell: My name is Lilo Carbonell, and I live in San Pablo, Coro San Pablo, San Rafael, where you have the borderline of the vision plan. I live there for maybe 40, 50 years, right? It used to be my dad's home, but I seen, I lived this, uh, uh, where there's traffic, right? There's always traffic in Sanfrail. If you go there every day. You're gonna see a lot of cars. And if you're gonna put housing and business together, you gotta have parking space. Because if not, it's gonna, uh, if you, if it's gonna go over through our streets. And right now, quality of life is, is, uh, for me, is restricted to the inside my house and my backyard. I'm gonna put a 2 stories house in the, in the, uh, behind my, my, uh, backyard. You're gonna take away my privacy. And that's, that's the only thing I, so I'm totally against this vision plan. Um, and I hope, hopefully you guys, uh, um, you know, fix it. Thank you.

[01:18:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:18:37] Public Speaker: All right, Alex, I definitely want to say, I appreciate the transitions that staff has included already. I definitely would say that I am sensitive and I can understand some of the concerns around privacy. Um, unfortunately, you know, we are in an emergency, uh, as it pertains to housing, and I think that, uh, the current uh, vision plan uh, gets us further than we otherwise would have been. Um, you know, however, I do also appreciate the uh, original, I think, the EPC uh, proposed alternative that allowed for a greater density in the area. You know, if there was a way to potentially, uh, you know, transition a little bit further back, um, and make up for that. I don't know, like with greater stories instead of the seven, maybe eight, but further back, whatever that may be. Um, you know, I think that the more units that we can actually get in there would be better. Also, with regards to some of the transportation concerns, the no net increase to the trips out of the area is definitely good and positive. It's actually not that far to ride a bike from Tarabella to Castro Street, and it's also pretty close by to that shoreline middlefield intersection. So it is an opportunity to also lower some parking requirements, maybe put permit parking in place to keep some of the other, you know, concerns from the area for the parking spillover. Yeah, thanks.

[01:20:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:20:16] Shoji Guada: Hi, my name is Shoji Guada. I live on San Cruziaway for about 50 plus years. I never realized that something like this, going to impact our little community, our community. And looking at Albert's images, photographs. It clearly shows a good illustration of what our community is gonna look like, and proportion wise, it's not, it is out of whack in so many ways. And it's going to be an unfortunate situation for all of us, in terms of the aesthetic design of it, but also the impact that it's going to have, in terms of the amount of resonance, amount of increase in population, that's going to, that we are going to see. Now let me give you an analogy. You're thinking about, like, taking a small goldfish bowl, and it only accommodates one goldfish, and you're trying to stuff, 200, 300 goldfishes, and a small bowl. It's not gonna work. Um, I am, I mean, I am so concerned about, again, the population that, like me...

[01:21:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, thank you.

[01:21:52] Shoji Guada: I opposed to this. Thank you.

[01:21:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:22:00] Trustee Laura Blakely: Good evening, Mayor Assistant Mayor, council members, staff. I'm Laura Blakely, a trustee of the Mountain View Westman School District. And I wanted to thank you for including school strategy in the vision plan. We really do appreciate that. Wherever there's going to be new development that has housing. There's going to be new kids and the projections, estimate there are going to be many, many new school children that will attend our schools, and we need to make sure that we have the ability to build more facilities to house those kids. Um, The planning process takes time and coordination. And so I wanted to advocate for any of the options that include a plan, approval process, be it a master plan, a precise plan, or even the general plan for the renewal, although that will take probably too long and housing is imperative that we get that built. Um, So I just really wanted to say in closing, please don't approve anything that would allow for unlimited willy-nilly gatekeepers. We really need there to be a process to allow the conversation with the schools to take place. Thank you.

[01:23:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:23:12] Superintendent Rudolph: And, you know, Rudolph, Superintendent Mountain View, Whisman School District. Good evening, everyone. I know you expect me to hear me today, so I just want to thank staff for, um, including us in a conversation for, uh, future schools. It's great to see that there is a dedication and it's more encouraging to be part of the conversation early, as opposed to when the precise plan. is about to be adopted. I also appreciate the conversations that we've had with developers, to sort of discuss school needs. But I also want to encourage council to allow for staff to develop a precise plan. This will allow further conversations to identify strategies to address the school needs. For instance, Crittan is uh, middle school is expected to receive over 900 students in the next 10 to 20 years. In the next 3 to 5 years, they are off, the closest elementary school, is expected to receive 220 students. So, continuing the conversation to a precise plan that adequately takes into account the variables that will impact its communities essential and important to every resident as well as every student in the community. Thank you.

[01:24:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:24:20] Craig Noah: Good evening. I'm Craig Noah from the Sterling Estates neighborhood, and I've put a handout in front of you that I'm going to abbreviate. There are problems with the land use plan that have been highlighted. part of which will be a traffic brought on by the bus lane, part of which is an overlay of development on property owners who do not desire that to be done. Solutions. Um, I have spoken with my neighbors, and we are, uh, encouraged that there is a master plan consideration for the East Side and for the West Side, because we believe that there needs to be a more comprehensive look at the impact of development rather than simple gatekeepers. There are gatekeepers that will have no impact on either parking, transportation or really population, and perhaps they should be allowed to go forward. The most important thing to our neighbors is reasonable transitions and the work that Eric and Albert have done to develop what appears to us to be acceptable transitions, we would like to have some assurance that those transitions will be enabled and preserved, no matter what happens. Finally, I'm out of time. Thank you very much.

[01:25:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:25:55] Public Speaker: Hi, I am a resident of the Safety Ireland Estates neighborhood in on the San Pablo Street, backing up to the transition area. And I'd like to mention that the photos we saw earlier of the Madeira properties are rather misleading given that they are across the street and not backing up to the back of the property as we have in the entire Terabella area. There's a pretty dramatic difference in the level of privacy one expects and receives from a building on the street as opposed to what is typically available on the rear of a property. Now, we've seen some proposals for a green wall in the transitions, and we're delighted to see that, but the height of that green wall is going to be nearly have to be nearly the height of whatever buildings are there to adequately provide privacy for the neighborhood, in which case we're talking 50 feet. And so we'd like to, or I'd like to voice my opposition and to the vision plan and my support for the transition proposed by Albert. Thank you.

[01:27:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:27:15] Kelly Viet: Hi, my name is Kelly Viet. I lived in Mountain View for 8 years. I live on San Pablo. My backyard is adjacent to the Tarabella Project. Um, and I do not approve of the vision plan that was proposed today because it does not attempt to integrate with the current community and designs in a vacuum. Of course, I do think that we need to be building more housing in the Bay Area. I think this council probably talks about Terabella during, uh, when you talk about RVs on the street. You know, it's a crisis in the Bay Area. And I know that there's some pro housing members on this council. So I wanted to separate the concept of good, respectful transitions and building more housing in the Bay Area. I think that you can have both. I've attended many of these workshops and community meetings. And each option seems to have more or less housing, but it never seems to talk about the transitions. When Margaret asked about transitions today. The conversation wasn't even entertained. It was said, well, the transitions are sufficient. Um, If you look at the Sterling neighborhood today. Three of the sides actually have apartments adjacent to Sterling, and no one cares. And that's because all of those apartment buildings are across streets. If you look at the photos of Madera, Um, the apartment buildings are across the street. It's actually very typical to have a front yard, a street, and then a density change. And I would like to propose to the council that they consider putting density changes across streets in the Terabella Vision plan. Thank you.

[01:28:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:28:48] Barbara Hartford: Hi. Good evening, city council members, and thank you for listening to all the comments this evening. I'm Barbara Hartford, me, and I'm a resident of Mountain View and live on Morgan Street. Um, I am looking at the Terabella uh, development that will be going up. I agree with Eric and Albert's presentations on the transitions and the setbacks that have been requested. I participated in each vision plan workshop, and the various discussions for the last one.5 years. I'm truly disappointed that the revised vision plan doesn't reflect what the Morgan Rock Street and Sterling Estates residents have communicated in these various workshops and in ongoing discussions. I and my neighbors still have significant concerns, and yes, fears, regarding proposed building heights, the setbacks, and the transitions. We also have concerns about resulting development impacts to the environment, safety, general infrastructure, and traffic congestion in this area. For these reasons, I request the city council not approve the vision plan as proposed. Thank you.

[01:30:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:30:12] Debbie Beauchain: Hi, my name is Debbie Beauchain. I actually live on Morgan Court. My home would be directly impacted on the West Side, Terabella. If you know the Morgan Court area, There's only two streets. One court, and then there's this street where the school is on. We are surrounded by Highway 101. Middlefield, and then old Middlefield on the other side. If you build up Terabella, the west side with current heights, you will literally enclose this neighborhood. It's not like we're opened up and there's other places we would become enclosed. So I'm highly recommending that you listen to Eric and Albert and their transitions to keep the heights of those buildings as far away as possible from our court. Thank you very much for your time.

[01:31:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:31:10] Bill Baumgartner: Hi, I'm Bill Baumgartner. I live in the Sterling Estates area. I have lived in Mountain View for 35 years now. Well, actually, 38. I rented for a while. And I came to Mountain New. I chose Mountain View based on the transition plan, or the plan that Mountain View had for the vision. And it was just wonderful. I looked at all the other towns up and down, and Mountain View was where I wanted to live. And this plan is not it. Please raise the bar. And vote no for this. Thank you.

[01:31:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:31:50] Nancy Weade: Hi, I'm Nancy Weade from Stanton Place Townhomes in Linda Vista, and I'm against this plan. City documents show an interest in basing a precise plan upon the vision plan for the East Side, that it's the only way to guarantee that benefits are included, and concerns like traffic is addressed, since the ownership makes a master plan unlikely. But you only have to look at San Antonio to know that a precise plan won't guarantee good outcomes. Unlike some residents, you know that developers can negotiate away open spaces within fees or increasing affordable housing, like at 777 west middle field. The retail won't happen either because area residents can't support it and traffic issues limit other customers. You know that, like in San Antonio, 5 story buildings can become 7 if affordable housing is increased. The traffic studies don't reflect reality, so those problems aren't addressed. So, you know, with the vision plan, the East Side will likely have no real parks and no retail, have not 5 but 7 story buildings on a residential block of Linda Vista, and towering behind townhomes. That by letting quadruple existing residents, drivers will be stuck on Linda Vista and Terabella unable to get out in the morning, and parked cars will be everywhere, that the neighborhood character will not be maintained, but instead changed into San Antonio, but next to existing housing, not trader Joe's. If passed, this poorly designed vision plan is likely to lead to a poorly designed precise plan. Your... Oh, thank you. Please don't pass it. Thank you.

[01:33:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:33:34] Jill Bonitez: Good evening. My name is Jill Bonitez. I represent the owner of a commercial property at 909 San Rafael. And, uh, in answer to a question that was brought up earlier at the council. Yes, there is very high demand for light industrial and small incubator office space in this location. You are, after all, we are, after all, right in the shadow of some of the biggest world's biggest IT companies, incubator spaces in high demand. I have a building that, in fact, is one of those properties. Unfortunately, the vision plan, while it addresses a number of needs, manages to eliminate my property altogether. And certainly myself, the owner I represent, I'm not happy about that at all. When I 1st spoke to this group a few months ago, at the time, there was contemplated a bike path that would go along between my property and the residences on San Pablo. And that was disturbing enough, since there's no land on my little property to accommodate a bike path. But since then, I have found that no, there's also a green belt that has been put in between my property. and the property on, I think it's, uh, Linda Vista, the property behind us.

[01:34:49] Public Speaker: Any rate, I would strongly urge you not to pass the vision plan at this point. Thank you very much.

[01:34:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:35:02] Kati: Just read it. Hi, I'm Kati. I live on San Pablo. It's Terland Estate. Um, okay. There are so many opinions. It is so hard to please everyone, but I just want to remind that we, the neighbors, are not against the development of Terabella, if done properly. I know, 'cause you looked at us before. We are asking for better transition from existing homes than what is proposed in the vision, and to be aware of traffic, since we are already surrounded by middle field and shoreline. And yes, just because we were there first, our best interests should be considered as a high priority. We are not the ones who are doing three, four, five, six, 7 story buildings behind anyone's property. Anyone who wants to come and say they want to have a small city behind their 5 foot tall, wooden fence, then built there. But I live in Southern States, and I am saying that I don't want anything behind my backyard and my neighbor's yard that going to affect our privacy and overall quality of life in our own home. Not a whole month of view, just in our own home. Please increase the current transition and limit building height behind existing residents or put a big field of grass as transition. I'm sure the future residents will be glad to have it too, instead of looking into my backyard. Thank you.

[01:36:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:36:33] Public Speaker: Hello, Mayor, Manachek, and Mirza City Council. Come to you tonight. I want to kind of be at least a different voice from most people here. I'm a resident of Mountain View. I have lived here for 11 years, say for one year in Sunnyvale. And in that time, I've seen lots of my friends have to basically move away, move out of the area because it's just too expensive to live here, traffic's bad. This is common issues. And I think we have a great opportunity here with the Terabella development area. You know, I think city staff has done a great job, kind of trying to find possible ways to integrate with community. I know people are complaining or discussing the transition things. I mean, I know also the staff mentioned they already have above and beyond the existing R3 and R 4 transitions. So I think it's, you know, I feel like they've already done a great job. I think, um, you know, this area is very close to, uh, it's pretty close to downtown. very close to North Bay Shore, we expect the new gateway center. We're going to have residential and more things. going to have a lot of jobs coming up there. I think it's a great opportunity The new bus lane, with new bike lanes for everything, people don't have to drive to get there. So I think there's a great opportunity to build more. We have the jobs, we'll have retail, where people don't have to drive rather than kind of forcing them to live further and further away. I live near San Antonio. I think it's been great as it's been going on there. I'm really excited to actually see some retail happening soon because I would love to walk there. I want to walk there to go to things and, you know, be able to take transit and all those great things. I actually had, there was a townhouse that was built literally in my backyard, a bunch of units. They overlook me. It's great. I have new neighbors. There's more people who can live around me and it's not just an old industrial zone that's been abandoned. So I encourage you to adopt this plan. Thank you.

[01:38:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:38:08] Public Speaker: Love being lost. Hey, uh, Alex, are there? I also want to go in his direction, but further, I think this plan is not ambitious enough. I think it could be a lot more interesting. I think you could have a cool district there. that is walkable, that has groundful retail, that has like cool things to do and places to go. I want bigger. I want denser. Yeah. So yeah, prove it, don't prove it. It's boring. Thank you.

[01:38:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, saying none will close the public input portion, and bring it back to council for any further questions and discussion, and then action. Council member McAllister.

[01:38:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, before we get into the real discussion, I just had some general thoughts on this property, and then I will yield my time to the next speaker, Lucas, whatever time. Yeah. Um... So, you know, this was initially a change, a no change area, and there was a reason for that, because we were considering that there will be a lot of growth. We are probably experiing a lot more growth than we anticipated. In fact, if you look along El Camino, the number of housing units that were built were a lot quicker, because this general plan was supposed to go to 2030, and we were really doing a lot of develop along the lines. I look at this area. Terabella as our last chance to get everything right. This is the last large area. that hasn't been touched, and we have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes we've done in our other precise plants, and all the compromises we made to achieve a goal that, I think some will say, wasn't worth it. And so that's why I was looking at this area, and I go, my gosh, we need to hold tight on our vision and our goals on this particular area. And I don't think a precise plan will do it. I don't think a visioning plan will do it. I think that we got to do some real outside the box, and a commitment from this council to really hold strictly with what they want to accomplish to get this area developed. I have similar concerns. So I have similar concerns about light industrial. I've been talking about that for years that Martin knows that when I was on the planning commission, I kept saying, what's the ratio? How much were we doing it? We're slowly chipping away at smaller areas for jobs, and, you know, if you're looking for diversity of jobs, Maybe people haven't thought about this, but the light industrial might have, or manufacturing, would have jobs that don't require a degree, but are very highly paid. I was looking thinking about the parking. And when I heard that there was three ways in and out of this particular neighborhood, it reminded me of North Bay Shore and how the traffic that we're involved with that. I was also looking when they were talking about, let's reduce parking, which therefore will make it harder for cars to park, and we already have people sit parking in a street. And then when we have came across a community benefit of permanent parking, I go, well, isn't that interesting how it's sort of a full circle. We cause a problem. So therefore, we have to do another problem to resolve it. I'm also concerned about the parks. And I like the idea of master plans for this particular area. If it moves forward. That's great. If it doesn't, this whole area. But I think, last time this came up, I was talking about, over on the west side, a master plan that would be unique, innovative, and world class. And I still think if we hold to our guns and to our visions, we can accomplish that goal, and we can make that a very successful area. A lot of people are talking about we need housing. Let's stop for a moment and look about what we're doing right now. We have over 1,900 units in construction right now. We have close to 2900 units approved. And we have over 1800s under review. So for a total of 66 I should say 6,638 units. And we don't even know what the full impact of all those units are going to be for us. And so people say, we need to build housing now. Well, let's take a little breath. Take relax, and look about what happens when these 6600 units come on board. Staff is mentioned many times that they are stressed. And this is an opportunity to pull back, let's concentrate on the areas that we voted and had 4 years of community input on the general plan as our change areas, and develop those, and not make a situation worse with traffic congestion, greenhouse gases, overimpacting our schools, and just to diminish the quality of life. So, I would hope that, as I listen to you, fellow council members, that you start considering what nugget, we would have a diamond in the rough in this area. Let's, let's make sure we cut it correctly and not rush into any particular item. So, I will listen to what you guys have to say, and then we'll go from there, but, Chairman, I yield my time to Lucas Ramirez.

[01:43:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I'm not sure his staff said they were stressed, but I do know they have a lot on their plate. They were smiling over there when I came live. Council member Ramirez.

[01:43:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Marin. Thank you, Council member McAllister, for yielding your time. So I don't actually plan to take too much, and I'm not sure I'm going to be terribly helpful in this conversation, because my position has not changed, and it is inflexible, unfortunately. I don't support the vision plan for two primary reasons. First is, I don't support the land use vision plan. So this, you know, Council member of McAllister's comments, I think, provides some helpful context, and I don't disagree with some of your fundamental premises. And one is, you know, industrial land is, um, useful as it has specific utility, and it's the kind of land that, once you lose, you're not going to get back. And so if we're going to convert, you know, sort of one of the few remaining large chunks of industrial land we have in the city, then we should have a very good reason for doing so. And I'm not convinced yet that we have that. If I don't want to rehash arguments that, you know, we were made in the previous discussion we had about this, but if someone were to ask me, what is the Terabella area, what are we trying to achieve here? I'm not sure that I have a good response to that question. And I'm, you know, I don't know what a transformational gatekeeper would look like or, you know, innovative master planning. I'm not sure what that would look like. I'm not opposed to consideration of it, but I'm not sure that this plan necessarily reflects that. So, um, I would like to take some more time to think about what is it that we want to achieve here. And, you know, get some community buy in for them before we proceed with the land use vision for the area. And then the other reason I'm not supportive of the vision plan is because of the process. The vision plan has no environmental clearance. It doesn't actually provide any certainty to any stakeholder. The council still would have the discretion to deny a master plan, that is consistent with the vision plan, because there's no obligation for us to accept it. And we would retain the discretion to accept a master plan that is inconsistent with the vision plan, which means it has no value. I think, you know, it can be misleading to approve the plan with no intention of adhering to. it. And the next council could say, well, this is a great vision plan, but it doesn't represent what we're interested in. And so, I don't think it provides a lot of value in any, you know, using any metric I could think of. I don't know what the what value ad this has. Um, I guess there's a separate set of questions about, you know, next steps. I do think at some point we will want to consider a precise plan to provide that environmental clearance and the certainty that I think every stakeholder would benefit from. So that the neighbors who live in the area, the development community, you know, staff, you know, so that way we know what we're really trying to achieve. I don't think we need to start working on that right away. And I'm not sure I would use this as the basis for a precise plan either. So, that's my position. I don't think there I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to change the colors on the map because I'm not sure we're going to improve anything doing that. But I guess the only other remaining comment I have is I am supportive of, and this is, I want to, because it's not the agendaized discussion, but I am interested in the Palo Alto housing, public storage partnership, and I would like to explore how, you know, what process would make sense for entertaining that proposal. That's, you know, one of the very few proposals that I think I would be interested in entertaining without a more holistic vision for the area. But, you know, that's sort of separate from the vision plan. Those are my thoughts. I hope they're helpful. Thank you.

[01:48:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[01:48:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: My thoughts are somewhat similar to the previous to council people. I, um, lean towards what council member McAllister stead, that the, the, um, the vision plan will, I commend staff for the, the time they put into it, and I think it comes up with some valuable information, in terms of, you know, what the various landowners and residents there are, you know, what they're thinking. I feel that it's not visionary enough, and that I probably, unless you convince me otherwise, will not be voting to approve it. I do, though, think that I would be open to master planning. I'm certainly open to the Palo Alto housing and public storage proposal, and I've also seen some creative and and inspiring proposals from some of the property owners, so I think that, um, I think that master planning, one side or the other was some flexibility, may be a way to move forward. But at this point, I am not in favor of, um, of the vision itself.

[01:49:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be coga.

[01:49:37] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I appreciate, uh, first of all, thank you to the public for all of your um, participation in this process. And I do want to thank staff. I think, um, you've done a great job in light of, um, some of the challenges here, I don't think we've actually, at least in my time we've ever really done something in this way. And so here again, we're trying something new, which, you know, is always, I think, great because that's how we learn things and we move forward. Um, But as you're, you know, you can guess what I mean to say, um, as a member of the original council that approved the general plan update. Um, gosh, 2012. Counselor McAllister mentioned this was not identified as a change area. And, you know, I feel very strongly that we should respect the public process. And in that process, we had the community come together. And they helped us pick out what the change areas were. This was not one of them, and I think that's why, and I appreciate council member Ramirez's comments, like, what are we trying to achieve here? I don't think we've really had the chance to think it through. Um, you know, I, I, I'm not sure how we got here. It was the council before me, before I came back. decide to move forward on this. I'm not blaming the 2 dinner, still here on the head, but, um, I, I, you know, I, I'm not really sure. Yeah, what we're trying to achieve here, especially in light of the comments that we've received, the input we've received from the public. You know, my sense, my, and, you know, there was some talk about maybe allowing development, redevelopment to happen in this area, but I knew, I remember, I said it somewhere that, you know, that if we're gonna do that, we have to be very, very sensitive to the transition into the current single family, existing neighborhood, which are, you know, yes, one story, mostly one story. Um, I, you know, I can understand going 2 stories maybe three, but, um, because in light of like redevelopment. The Rex Manor neighborhood, where I used to live, is starting to go up. So, you know, to match that is understandable. Um, but, you know, I'm living this situation where, and I'm, you know, I'm in downtown and I, I, I get it and that's fine because I'm in downtown. Um, but there's really some challenges we're facing here with transitions and, you know, all of the other issues, the traffic parking, whatnot. And so I think I've become just much more sensitive to, you know, how we can do these developments, um, in a thoughtful enough way that it doesn't impact existing neighbors enough. So, you know, I appreciate this. I'm not sure the genesis of how we came to all of these parcels and how they're, you know, color coded, um, but in light of what I've heard, I don't think this really satisfies the, um, interests and, and the desires of the community enough. You know, my thought was, like, if we were gonna go with this plan, um, you know, the, the, the parcels that are closest to the, um, Sterling Estates, you know, they're split 3 to five. I mean, I would just say all 3 on those parcels, if we're gonna do that. But I think there's some really, you know, good points that were brought up. If there's a street, there's a difference if your front porches are facing each other with the street in the middle. That's very different from whether if it's like your backyard. Um, facing, you know, another. Well, I mean, I'm assuming it would be backyards facing each other, but I'm not really clear based on this. It doesn't show that. So either we become more specific with a precise plan process. Or my thought was, do we, you know, if do we just leave it and say, you know, residential. Yeah, lower the heights around the existing neighborhoods and not even go into the transitions and just say, you know, 2 story matching or one story at the most and just leave it at that. So, um, I'm kind of, you know, I, right now I can go, I can maybe go either way, although I really think that, um, moving forward, it probably makes sense to move with towards a precise plan process. I mean, I was trying to think of how we could master plan this. And, you know, perhaps, like, if, yeah, one side came in with an overall plan, we could look at that. But at some point in time, I think we do need to look at precise planning this, and it's a question of when. I will say, to be frank, you know, I didn't really even think about offices. I thought, you know, this is gonna be housing. It would be an extension of the existing single family neighborhoods, and it could be all housing with, you know, townhomes and row homes, to be frank. So this is very, yeah, it's not really what I think I envision. And I would say too, if we're gonna go here and start looking at new change areas, we may have to think about, you know, redoing, right, doing another general plan update. My feeling, I think I've said this before, is, you know, places like El Camino, we could do more, actually, but what we have in our precise plan has pretty much, there's a cap there. And, you know, in terms of housing, I think we could look at building more in those areas, and maybe that's worth looking at too. So, um, you know, I, yeah, so, um, I don't know, but hear everyone else out too, to see where we might go with this. I will say I do support the public storage, um, power to housing development. And I guess that's what I'm thinking is like maybe the Terabella north of Terabella, there's a little bit more flexibility or I feel there's more flexibility on the east side. Is it? Um, frankly, a lot of those parcels are getting developed, so I don't know if there's much left. Um, So, and so, yeah, Palo Alto housing, I could support that. And I do want to commend both the palate housing and pure storage for working together. You know, I did tell them, or not with them, and I told, well, pure storage, that, you know, if you want to get through the gatekeeper, public storage, sorry, public storage, if you want to get through gatekeeper, you have to do something significant, and I think going from the 56 to 100, I told them I want to see over 100 units. So they came back with that. So, you know, I commend them for working on that. Um, sorry, I could move forward with that project. But, yeah, I'm, I'm, either we don't go into too much detail and leave it, and then let, you know, gatekeepers come in with the general sense, or we move towards the, a precise plan and become more specific as where I am right now.

[01:57:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[01:57:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I feel somewhat similarly, but I can, but I can, and I will, for everyone's benefit for the empty of time, explain how we got here, and sort of what the impetus, in my mind, or at least when I voted to start this process, why I was voting to start it. Um, and that was, it was actually out of respect for the fact that this wasn't a change area in the general plan originally. And in change areas before that, um, you know, just because of the market, what we've done is, uh, in a few areas was, okay, it's a change area, we really need to precise plan it. But we also want to experiment with some of these projects and these partners who are coming in with projects that we think would fit under a precise plan, so let's do them simultaneously, work together, make them come out. This wasn't a change area. And so we were really uncomfortable, and we were getting a lot of gatekeeper applications back when we were doing gatekeepers. And we didn't feel it was fair to the neighborhood to sort of treat this as a change area and do a lot of one off development. And so, and there was a divide about, you know, do we do a precise plan or not. But we all agreed that, you know, in the meantime, at minimum, we should have a conversation with the community, with property owners, um, with residents, and figure out, um, and, frankly, um, and figure out sort of, okay, how might this look and develop over time in different ways, in terms of ensuring that we have green space, and looking at transitions, um, whether you agree with the ones that came out of it or not? We wanted to have that conversation before we decided, do we move to a precise plan or do we allow some of these gatekeepers to proceed in some of these, especially the more sensitive areas, not just the areas right along, you know, 101. And so I think mostly what we've heard tonight, you know, I hear a lot from Mr. Irwin states, folks, and I hear a lot from the folks over on, you know, Spring Street, Morgan Street, you know, that, that, on, on Clay War there, that is truly sort of surrounded on many sides by different areas. And I think those are the areas where we need to be especially sensitive in transitions. where I probably disagree with some folks is, you know, I know it's not there today, but your neighbor can build a 2 story building and look into your yard, right? Right now, and I know that may not happen immediately, but it's starting to happen throughout the community because what's happening is a lot of those singles family homes are hitting the 50, 60 year mark. They're nearing the end of their useful lives. And when they're getting sold, in a lot of cases, you know, they might go down to the studs, but a lot of people are opting to add that 2nd story. And so from our perspective, you know, we are charged with big picture, long term, um, thinking, and, you know, we don't necessarily make transition and planning decisions, um, based on what will be there for the next 10 or 20 years, we think about, okay, these things that are being built are going to be there for 50, 60, 70 years. And so we need to think about, yes, it's good to think about what things look like today and what the current occupants of those homes experience, but we also need to think about what is the right, what are things going to look like 10, 20, 30 years from now when that single family home becomes a two-story home. And, um, you know, just ensuring that, um, um, just ensuring that we're thinking about those things instead of just what the present conditions are. And that's what we've done in every other part of the city. Um, I, um, the parcel right next to me is a, you know, there's a 4 story building and a single, uh, and a one story thing with, with no street in between. It's just some green space, and that was done because that single story building is nearing the end of a useful, useful life, and they can build up to 3 or 4 stories and match and probably end up blocking the views of the people in the 4 story building today, right? So, um, it was, it's based on what's possible through the zoning, not what the existing conditions are, because we, the existing conditions aren't going to be there forever. Anyway, that's along, that probably doesn't really matter at the end of the day at this point. I think what, what's important here is, you know, whether we, whether we proceed with this and we're extra sensitive in certain areas, than we are today. I mean, I, you know, even if we were to approve this visioning document, what the, the images that we saw of San Antonio next to, um, you know, Morgan Street or wherever it was, I don't think there's anyone in this council who would approve a project like that. And accepting a visioning that allows certain transitions in certain areas, doesn't necessarily mean that those will come to fruition or that we would ever approve some of those. They're just general guidelines, and I don't think they're actually more sensitive than they are in most of the rest of the city. So anyway, that's, I would like to get to a place where we respect the work and the outreach that's been done, agree that it's not perfect. But what we, but the input that we receive was valuable in this process was valuable in and of itself. And if that means that this ultimately guides, that we ultimately proceed with a precise plan long term, which I think the community deserves. Like, they deserve that level of certainty at some point. They deserve the traffic analyses and all the studies and everything that people have been scolding us for not having, and we didn't do those because people scolded us for wanting to do those a year ago. They told us they didn't want a precise plan. They didn't want to do all those studies. So, but I, but for the long term good of the city, I think we need to do those. And so if what we have here tonight is, you know, a rough start where we know that we need to be extra sensitive in certain areas. It guides us as to what gatekeepers we may or may not allow, and what strategies we need to make sure that we're taking an account, whether it's a school strategy, whether it's where it may make the most sense for parks and connectivity to go all of those things. Then I think there's some value in it. I just, I don't think it is in anyone's interest, is me personally, to just sort of scrap this and do a one off gatekeeper here and there, where we end up with, um, you know, a tall residential structure here, maybe a more intense office over here, and 10, 15 years from now, there's no, there's no space for parks, um, or no one wants to make a land dedication for um, an extra school site. And I just don't want to end up in that situation either. I think there's probably a happy medium there, but I don't think just sort of setting all this aside and not at least utilizing the input that we received as we move forward is the right way to proceed.

[02:04:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh?

[02:04:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I want to go the thanks to staff, as well as all the community members who came out and let us know how you feel. I think that that's really important to this process. Um, and so, for me, I just wanted to kind of, uh, touch on, like, this, the process through which I've been trying to make, um, this decision. Um, so the staff, staff mention the staff report that, um, council was interested in a precise plan, and, um, I continue for myself to believe that the precise plan is a way to go. Um, I think that many of the concerns that were brought up tonight, it's best to get that deep dive and analyses, um, through the precise plan process, and I think that's probably 6 years of EPC and for precise plans, one of which we did again, that make me feel like, uh, I really wanted to do the due dilgence and take the time. Um, to address a lot of the concerns. This is 104 acres, which I think is going to be one of the largest areas left in the city that we're going to look at. And I really do think there's some outstanding concerns, particularly for myself, the change in existing land uses. I do think we need to take into account property owners and the existing use. And rather than putting an overlay, even if they a visionary overlay that is flexible on an existing property use. I think it doesn't necessarily integrate into the community, which I think I was hoping for when we were looking at a vision plan, is if something exists as an industrial. How do we create the community around that existing light industrial versus doing a change of use to a residential? Um, I do also, um, as we discussed a couple weeks ago when we were looking at the Swissman precise plan talking about the school strategy. The superintendent did mention a couple numbers related to generation rate, and I would like more information, and more collaboration with the school district as we're talking about what those generation rates could be, and perhaps, how much land may be necessary coming into the future. I think that's one of the lessons learned for, um, looking at other areas. Um, and in particular, I feel that a precise plan could help address some of the traffic and congestion concerns with, um, the analysis related to, um, uh, sequa and, and I know that Shoreline Boulevard, um, is going to be changing very soon. And that is the gateway into the gateway. And I really want to make sure where we are. thoughtful, um, as we are, um, looking at the tarabella to make sure that we are, um, creating, uh, successful mitigation to the to the traffic congestion, um, in that area. So that's why I tend to leave or why I'm leaning precise plans. So I'm not sure if a path forward is including a precise plan requirement for implementation, or how we can build off the existing work as council member Clark was saying, that staff has put forward. Thank you.

[02:08:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, I'm really pleased with the discussion that we've had here tonight about this. Um, I want to add a couple things. When council member McAllister was talking about the 6,638 units that are already either under construction or in the pipeline or being evaluated. That does not include a lot of units that we have rezoned property for in North Bay Shore and East Wisman. So very few applications have been submitted, um, against the close to 15,000 units that we've enabled in North Bay Shore and East Wisman. So in addition to the 6,638, there's a lot more that we have enabled. I think my biggest concern here tonight is that, and many council members have mentioned this, this really wasn't a change area, and yet this vision is quite a bit of change, and the more we've talked about this, the more reservation I have about it. And so tonight, I'm not prepared to move forward with it. There's quite a few areas that I'm concerned about, um, transitions is certainly one of them. But I'm also concerned about some of the mobility that we're showing here, the loss of light industrial. Um, I know I've said in the past. I'm not, I don't think having retail along Shoreline is the right place for that. Um, if there were, you know, cafes there. I don't think I'd want to sit outside on shoreline. I'd much rather sit outside on, say, Terabella, or a new street in there. So, I feel like I have enough concerns about this, that I don't want to move forward with this vision, but I do appreciate all the work that has gone into this. And I don't think we throw it all away. But there's still a lot that I would like to discuss about it. One of the areas I don't want to forget to mention is, I did have the opportunity to meet with one of the Mountain View Wisman school district trustees. And I actually, although they didn't say it here tonight, I think that it would behove us to look at potentially more property for the school district in this area. This might be a good location to enable TDRs for the school district, so they could raise some funds for building a new school, and maybe it's an expansion of Crittenden, or maybe it's another elementary school in this area, by having more property right next to Crittenden. So I want to explore that. So for me, I've come around to, I think, our precise plan is the way to go. I get that that is a challenge, though, because of limited staff resources. So, uh, I think we can discuss this when we take a look at our goals and the projects to support those goals, and, um, we get an annual update, and I think what we throw into the mix is, you know, how do we, do we prioritize a precise plan or not for this area? I'm uncomfortable having just a vision without all the technical analysis that goes behind it. And I get that you would get that with a master plan. Um, and so, I am actually okay if there's a, uh, master plan, as council member McAllister would say that is so spectacular. We have to at least take a look at it. I'm okay with that, because it would come with the analysis behind it. Um, I'm guessing that would happen on the west side and not the east side, because there's, um, a larger property owner on that side. Um So I guess, um, since there's nobody in the queue, I will, um, I'm just gonna throw out emotion there, but I'm happy to discuss it, but to get the ball rolling here. that we don't accept this vision plan, and that in Q1, when we talk about priorities and projects to support the council goals and how we're doing on those, that we discuss prioritizing or not, a terra bella precise plan, that we allow a spectacular class. Precise, I'm sorry, at master plan, to be considered, um, if there is one out there, and then, um... I think those are them. And then, um, that we don't necessarily, um, discard this vision plan, but there are elements that we can, um, move we can look at. And there's other elements that we probably want to have a good discussion about and take a second look at, before we leverage this into a precise plan. And I did hear some other folks say, allow the public storage and Palo Alto housing project to move forward. And those are the things I feel like I've heard. I did make a motion. Oh, sorry, but I didn't push the button. Um, Council member Komei.

[02:13:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, just a quick question. So, really, for the power to housing in public storage, so is that part of your motion to move forward in Q1, then?

[02:13:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That is to move forward. I don't know about the timing of it.

[02:13:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Sorry. Well, I just, I was curious, 'cause I think there was a question of the gatekeeper, and we're not looking at gatekeepers till Q3, so I was just curious.

[02:14:03] City Staff: I think staff would like to have 2 clarifications in the motion that was just proposed. The 1st qualification is, uh, regarding allowing a spectacular master plan, as I mentioned in my... Straff report, and also in my presentation, any kind of master plan will be a gatekeeper project because it will be proposing zone change. And at this point of time, um, all the gatekeepers have been different till Q3 2020. So would like to get some clarification on timing of that, considering there has been no change to available staffing.

[02:14:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And why don't we talk about that? Because I think at a previous council meeting, Council member McAllister asked, was there a way for a spectacular master plan to be considered? And I thought the answer was, if a council member brings it up, independent of the gatekeeper process, we could talk about it, and potentially let it move forward.

[02:15:05] City Staff: We would just need to reconsider the work plan and prioritization items to see what can be balanced. Depending upon staffing availability.

[02:15:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Okay. And then you had another,

[02:15:21] City Staff: so I would say, you know, it would, we could consider it, but we would have to consider it in light of staff capacity. and priorities.

[02:15:29] City Manager Dan Rich: Just to clarify that, if I could, with four votes of the council on an item eight, you can direct us to take up anything. But the bottom line here is staff resources. So if you want to take up something as significant as a master plan, there will obviously be implications. The question, really, for tonight is, are you willing to accept or encourage that prior to Q3 of 2020. And I think what I'm hearing, the council saying, is you're open to it.

[02:16:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I actually don't think anyone would be ready. Maybe before then, but if they are, I consider it, but we might not be able to start on it. I don't know how others feel about that.

[02:16:18] Unknown Speaker: Could I... Could we speak to that item? Um, I really want to respect, um, staff time and staff recommendation. They were the ones who came with the Q3 2020 timeline, and, um, you know, I actually don't think anyone's gonna come in before that anyway. So I'd like to just, you know, draw the line and say, wait, not until fall 2020. Um, I think we really do need to next year, early next year, look at our priorities and reshuffle things, if we're gonna do the precise plan. Um, you know, I still question whether or not it's really, you know, that urgent, to be frank. Um, I go back to, you know, Counselor and Verm McAllister. Oh, both of you mentioned, you know, what we have in the pipeline, the 6500 units, we've zoned for 6600 units. We've zoned for at least 15,000. And, you know, part of it is, and I've heard that I said this, like, we've planned for it. We've zoned for it. Now I want to see them constructed. So before we continue to keep planning and planning and planning, you know, we need to get our staff, the time and resources to actually work on these projects, that hopefully come in. I mean, I'm still waiting for somewhere projects in North Bay Shore. But, you know, the onus now is on, frankly, the development community. And this is, yeah, we've talked about this before. We've done our part, I think. You know, I know we're getting our arena numbers, and where we can then compare where we are, and where we need to go, or, but my sense is with 15,000 units stone. I think we're going to be okay. I don't know for sure you might have better ideas, but, you know, now it's time to actually build those units. So, um, I'm fine with where we are and and so I yeah, I don't really, I'm not really interested in moving up the timeline at this point. So I'm okay with leaving it at full 2020.

[02:18:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you counseling member? Okay. So I made the motion and council member Romero seconded, so that's why I'm asking him if he's okay with any modifications. Um, so, council member, where marriage, you're in the queue?

[02:18:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, I did want to suggest one thing. So, as the city manager had suggested, I guess, we have the discretion at any time to prioritize a precise plan or not. So whether we want to do that, I think, you know, we'll have that opportunity. I'm not familiar with the revisiting goal setting or priorities. session, but I did want to suggest that if a precise plan potentially could be under consideration, I'm very interested in a general plan update. So we should also evaluate whether that's something that we could look at too. So, because I think that allows for a lot of creative.

[02:19:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: From the amendment?

[02:19:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, so I, so I, what I'm not certain about is, is there, does the motion include an opportunity to evaluate a precise plan Q one next year? And if it does, then I would also want to allow us the opportunity to explore what a general plan update might look like.

[02:19:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, typically, oh, did you want to go through what usually happens one year into the two-year cycle?

[02:19:45] Unknown Speaker: I'm looking forward to Q1. It takes six years.

[02:19:49] City Manager Dan Rich: So just to clarify, you adopted your two year goals this year. In fact, you just formally adopted them as part of the budget in June. Normally, what we do is in the off year of the two year cycle, with the mid year, which is generally towards the end of February, will provide you an update with, you know, what's the status of all those things, which ones are completed, which ones are underway, which ones haven't been started. So at that point, you can certainly look at that list and rejuggle the priorities, you can drop out items, you can delay items, you can add new items. But staff will obviously have to go through an assessment of what the implications are, something like a precise plan or a general plan are massive, multi year, expensive, undertakings in a specific division of a specific department. That particular division, as I recall, was already overtaxed by this year's goals in advanced planning. So, you know, at the end of the day, you're just gonna have to decide what's most important and understand the tradeoffs.

[02:20:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Guess member, McAllister.

[02:21:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you, Mr. Ramirez, for your time. So, you know, thank you for... Council members. I appreciate your thought. I mean, as the mayor said, there was some real soul searching and some deep, great discussion and input. So, uh, I'm gonna go back. People want to go precise plan. It does give certainty, but I think, and I was trying to get clarity from the vice mayor, when she said, Let's do it, but put it on rest for a while, and I, or not moved towards, and I think, uh, council member, remember, also mentioned that he's not in a rush to do a precise plan. So, I think, um, the mayor suggestion of, Let's look at it in Q1, or Q2, and just really get a sense, Do we want to move down that path? We still have the downtown precise plan that we got to do. We got the East Westman. So we got some other things to get done before we get there. So, and, you know, thank you for bringing up the 15th or 10,000 over in North Bay Shore of Units in the East Wizman. So, you know, that is a town in itself. And we don't have any infrastructure to support that town at this time. So to try to do something, it's complicated for transportation in the east side of Terabella, and we can't even get it right for the others, I think, would be a wise, prudent move to wait for it and reconsider our process down the road, so I could support the motion.

[02:22:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[02:22:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think some of us were just expressing that, in the long run, the precise plan is the right way to go. I just don't think there should be chunks of the city with this significant amount of change over a period of time without doing all the studies and all the things that, that's just the, we've always done it the right way, or we've tried to do things the right way in the past, and I just don't think that we should piecemeal it in this case. Anyway, the only thing that I would say, and you can probably just nod heads on this if you're okay. and not actually modify the motion, but one thing I would like is if we get gatekeepers in this area, in Q3 or thereafter, that either the applicant, not necessarily staff, staff is the most comfortable doing it, sort of, at least talks a little bit about how that gatekeeper does or doesn't fit into this, and it can be as simple as just reminding us, sort of, what uses we'd looked at here, what transitions and setbacks we've looked at. Does it roughly meet this vision or doesn't it? And we can decide at the time if that's good or bad. But I just, I want to make sure that we utilize this in one way, shape, or form, and I think the best way to utilize that is when we're reviewing gatekeepers for the area.

[02:23:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abi Koga?

[02:23:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I do agree, and I do agree that doing a plan is the best way to go, and so, yeah, um, I was just trying to figure out how to move forward, but, yeah, it's a question of when, um, you know, my, my thought was that, um, I would highly encourage these, um, parcels to be consolidated, or at least the part, the property owners working together, to figure out, you know, all of the components that we are looking for. So I, you know, I would like to not see one offs. And hopefully this will encourage them to start consolidating.

[02:24:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:24:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to make a comment to the staff, since, uh, I was one of those council members at the time that this came through, and Chris and I can take, uh, I keep throwing Chris under the along with me, um, responsibility. Um, this, you did what we asked you, and that was the council before, and you did what we did, and it was an extraordinary amount of effort, and I do appreciate it. It's maybe not where you thought it was gonna be going. But it was a great place to start the discussion. And to me, a lot of times, you have to have an acorn before you can start growing that tree and figure out where you're going. And so the effort is not in vain, Dan. And that it was greatly appreciated, and as we go forward, this will help make it even better, because also, you sort of gave us a hint of where we're going, and all the developers out there, a sense of, okay, This is what they're looking at. We better be on our game, to make sure that we bring something that people will expect. So, again, thank you for all the effort, the time, Martin, hanging in there for doing all this, too, because he's sitting in the back, but it was well done. But it just didn't go this time, but thank you.

[02:26:04] City Staff: My second clarification was regarding the last part of the motion, and the, um, support for, um, Paulo the Housing and Public Storage, um, proposal. Um, need clarification on some of the things that are required or requested, I should say. For out the housing, did mention that they might be proposing 100% affordable housing project, which might not need a gatekeeper authorization per se. It will be still be a gatekeeper project, but not an authorization required. But they're coming in in combination with in partnership with the public storage, who might require additional height beyond the existing zoning, which does require a gatekeeper authorization. So just wanted a clarification with this motion, um, again, can you clarify the timing for the gatekeeper, for the public storage?

[02:27:06] Unknown Speaker: So I didn't really thought about the exact timing, but uh, to some of the other points you raised. Um, I am okay with additional height for public storage. If others are okay with that.

[02:27:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Right, but,

[02:27:27] Unknown Speaker: um... I should read on that. And then, um, in terms of timing, um, I'm okay if it moves forward now. Do others have... Okay. Yeah, they have to go together. Yeah, because one has to tear down for the other one to develop.

[02:27:48] Councilmember John McAlister: I think our question is more, um, would you entertain a gatekeeper necessary for the project prior to Q3.

[02:27:54] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:27:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. With the understanding, there are implications of that.

[02:28:00] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Staff time? Are you a consultant? Anything's possible, and Q1? Randy, you hiring? Just kidding for the record.

[02:28:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, um, is that it? Okay. Uh, I don't know if our city clerk has, um, put that in, or should I recap, or is it in here?

[02:28:35] City Clerk: That would be great if you could recap.

[02:28:36] Unknown Speaker: Recap? Okay. Thank you. So, um, the motion is that we don't accept this vision plan, um, and that we, when in Q1, when we revisit the council projects to support our goals, to see how we're doing in terms of which ones have been completed, which ones are in process, which ones still, um, are to be done, that we, during that discussion, um, talk about whether or not we prioritize Terabella precise plan, because obviously, there would be implications, in terms of trade offs with other projects, that, um, we, in the fall of 2020, when we consider gatekeepers, that, at that time, we would also consider, um, if there is an extraordinary master plan for the Terabella area, that it could be considered at that time, and that we allow the, um, I'm gonna say, like, the joint public storage Palo Alto housing project, to move forward now, understanding that there are implications of that. And so we probably need to understand what those are and make some trade offs. I made one more note, and it said, Don't discard the vision plan, but look at elements to keep. And so the question is...

[02:30:03] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Okay. Okay. Yes, absolutely.

[02:30:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. I had that, as well. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, um, any further discussion? Okay, that's called the question. And that passes unanimously. I do want to, um, as has been said earlier, thanks staff so much for all the work that you have done on this, um, and that's why we do not want to discard the vision plan. We absolutely will revisit it. And, um, I want to thank all the residents again, too, for coming out and sharing your thoughts with us, and all the folks who put so much work into this. It is great to have the neighborhoods get together, and tell us what you're really looking for. So thank you all very much. And I think we're gonna take, like, a 10 minute break before we start on the next topic. To order? And the next item on the agenda is 6.2, which is 701 to 747 West Evelyn Avenue. And before we get into this topic, do any council members wish to make a disclosure with any meetings or conversations they've had?

[02:43:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, council member. Well, just start canceling my memory. Yes, I was. Yes Thank you mayor. I would like to disclose that I met with the African. Let me just... Go ahead.

[02:43:39] Unknown Speaker: Uh, I want a disclos that I also met with the applicant.

[02:43:44] Unknown Speaker: Me, too. Same here. I'll just close it. I also met with the applicant.

[02:43:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yes. Thank you. So we will start with the staff presentation, then we'll have council questions, and we'll open it up for public comment and then bring it back to council for deliberation and action. Thank you very much.

[02:44:10] Eric Anderson: May I round check? Thank you, counsel. My name is Eric Anderson. This item is 701 to 747 West Evelyn Avenue, public hearing. I'm also joined by Stephanie Williams, the planning manager and zoning administrator. The applicant for this project is Marwood Assets Management. So here's an area map showing where the project site is relative to the transit center, across the street to the north, Lot 4, which is planned for development, with a hotel immediately to the south. Castro Street is half a block away to the west. And the current uses at the site are a subway restaurant, a car garage, and several other small commercial spaces. The proposed development is zoning and general plan compliant. The zoning allows four stories and has no maximum FAR. The proposed project is a four story building with three stories of office over a story of retail. The property is too small to accommodate ramps for underground parking, so they are proposing to access their underground parking through the neighboring lot for development to the South. More will be described on that later. On February 26, 2019, the council held a study session, where council endorsed an on site parking ratio of one space per 500 square feet of art. in Luffy for the remainder, parking in Luffy for remainder, and 25 public parking spaces. In addition, counsel provided design comments, including more interest and activity along Blossom Lane and Evelyn Avenue, more differentiation from the proposed Robert Green Hotel, and modifications to the proposed roof trellis. Here are two views showing how the design has ended up after development review committee recommendation. It does utilize traditional materials in downtown's historic environment, including limestone and standstone. It also includes ornamental elements, including parapet caps, water table awnings, and pedestrian details. It also has a regular rhythm of inset windows. The project has been modified to provide a larger corner plaza and an highlighted entrance on the corner with the tower element. The plaza includes interesting and engaging landscaping and seating. The project also has reduced mass elements along Evelyn Avenue, including a building brake part way through the building, and upper floor stepbacks. The building also steps down as it orients towards the Olympus Cafe Plaza on the corner of Evelyn and Castro. This slide shows the summary of the parking project's parking compliance, they are providing one per 500 square feet of parking, which is a roughly 33% parking reduction. They will provide the remainder in in loofies, as well as 25 public parking spaces. To accommodate all of these spaces. They are proposing 44 standard stalls, 27 puzzle lift stackers on the ground floor, as well as space for 11 valet spaces, also on the bottom level. In addition, council is being asked to consider a subdivision, a preliminary parcel map, and several agreements. The subdivision is from the Robert Green Company expectation that they own the garage. And so a condo map is proposed to transfer that ownership to the Robert Green Company. In addition, there are two proposed agreements with Marwood. The first is for the easement through Lot 4, with the terms that are consistent with previous council direction. And another agreement that staff has developed the framework for, in order to protect the city from unreasonable garage owners, and from transfer or sale of the garage condo to a party that's not associated with the rest of the project. Back in October, the city received a letter from Marwood. outlining options for their parking requirement. These options would avoid the proposed easement, the subdivision, and any negotiations with the Robert Green Company. They would potentially locate parking elsewhere in the parking district. Option one from their letter would include a development agreement and $8 million, which the city could use to enhance downtown parking. Option 2 would include a development agreement, and Mara would construct a garage with reimbursement from the city less $8 million. The applicant is seeking whether council is receptive to further study these options, and the council is not being asked to make an action on them tonight. But the applicant may submit a modification to their application at a later date based on counsel conversation. The third recommended action is a summary vacation of street utility easements on Evelyn. This is done to create a consistent 13 foot sidewalk along Evelyn Avenue. And staff is recommending that the sidewalk be increased with a street dedication in front of the depot garage, and reduced with a street vacation along the subway building. Next steps for this project include that the Robert Green Company would build the garage concurrently with Lot 4. This is expected to start construction on in fall 2020. If this construction doesn't happen concurrently with Lot 4, then Marwood must modify their application. Marwood would then also pull building permits for their building to be constructed over that shared garage. The applicant here is here and would like to make a presentation. This concludes staff's presentation. We're open to any questions. And the remaining two slides are the staff recommendations. Thank you very much.

[02:50:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So the, um, applicant has a presentation. Great. Why don't you come up? Um, we... um, allow 10 minutes for applicant presentations.

[02:51:22] Tim McEnry: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of the council, Tim McEnry, director of Marwood. Um, very happy to be here tonight, and, um, I want to start by saying I appreciate the, the guidance that counsel's given us, because with that guidance, that's sort of what brings us here today, over the last several years. Also want to thank the city staff, who've worked tirelessly on this small, but complex and highly visible site. And lastly, the community whose voice, I think we've tried to incorporate as much as we could into this project as it stands. We've always been of a strong belief that this site could provide a much, a much greater contribution to downtown Mountain View, to the landscape, um, by us providing an upgrade to this current condition. And we really, we believe we were delivered on that initial principle with the design that we have today. This corner location across from transit. You know, we see as a vital gateway to downtown, strong transition to the lot 4. And and just a site that's gonna, uh, be of greater benefit, I think, in the future as that whole transit center evolves over the next decade. Moving forward, I just want to talk a little bit and get right into our material that we're using with this kind of visibility on this building, the facades. Excuse me. The 3 facades are a bit of, uh, high importance with us and staff and DRC about what they look like. So we've been very thoughtful, I think, about the materials we're using that they're, they're of high quality, high appeal, especially in the context of the masonry veneer that we're going to be using. And as you can tell, um, that's running the whole length of this building, on all facades intermixed with, uh, intermixed with the window railings and, um, uh, metal panels, that metal detail that we're showing. This is the 1st rendering. I want to talk through a few of them, but this 1st rendering, really, is the most prominent feature of the building. Um, the hope Evelyn Corner. What you're seeing on the foreground here is this is the lot for hotel development that's been grayed out, just to demonstrate massing, but this area here, known as a visioning corner, is going to be quite a welcoming corner that we see coming off of the transit center. We worked heavily with staff to soften the overall detail in this area. The setbacks and window articulation of note 2 is a lighter approach that we've taken with the parapet, the roof parapet, as well as with the glass elevator that's recessed. Um, uh, staff spoke. Eric spoke or recently about that, the 10 foot sidewalk that's going to run along here all the way, the whole length of hope. This is moving more from a view from what this transit center is going to see, and what we want to show here is that you start to get a sense of the active ground floor environment, which we're designing around, what we do to enhance this is really the unobstructed windows, the detail, the setbacks we have, and do the full length of Evelyn here. We tried to break up the massing, as you can tell, um, and add some interesting seeds to this building, which again has been something we worked heavily with staff on. The 4th floor is also set back. Uh behind the street facade. And this sidewalk on this side are 13 foot sidewalks. Obviously we're anticipating quite a lot of pedestrian activity. There's going to be bike paths that run along all of Evelyn as well. So I think the nature of this whole frontage is going to be quite dramatically changed in the future. This is the blossom Evelyn corner. This is a view that's going to be seen not only by transit center, but I think with the pedestrian underpass pedestrians who are merging up, we'll be looking at this angle. The entryway here will be an entryway into the retail, the ground floor retail that we have on this side. And I think the importance here is that, you know, we're right across from the city plaza as well as from Olympus Cafe. So we tried to create an environment where there's some flow from that area onto Castro. This is a close-up of that corner as well, showing, again, the intricacy in the building that we've done, a greening of the wall here that enters into the retail center. as well as what the entrance to blossom is going to look like. Because obviously with the hotel accentuating blossom, I think there's going to be a lot of traffic coming off Gosro through the hotel and then probably shooting down to this direction to the transit center. These next two, excuse me. These next 2 renderings are just more bird's eye view of, um, the site to give you an overall layout of what this would look like, um, with the hotel behind us. You know, we're pleased with this overall design. We really, we failed, kept, we kept in line with the downtown precise plan, specifically the, the precedents which we draw from, um, around the massing modulations, the setbacks, the facades, and the desire for the ground floor treatment. Um, we really, we believe this reflects what the city'd like to see as a traditional building, building design, but also incorporating contemporary elements to it. This is a visual depiction of what the building looks like with the hotel behind us getting built and the building remaining as is. And this is a straight shot from this is using a rendering from a lot 4 developer with a straight shot from the transit center. I'm gonna move in the parking now. Um, We've, you know, parking obviously has been a big discussion over the last couple years, you know, and we feel at this point we've delivered on the parking requirement. Um, we were, we worked heavily with the city and lot 4 developer on the legal, I'm codifying the legal documents around how this garage will operate as well as how the garage parcel will be treated. And we're, we're willing to move forward and execute this project. But as well, we recently presented other options to council to address the parking component of the building. Options we feel that could provide greater flexibility and impact to the city to address downtown parking. Um, The council's guidance would be willing to work with staff, spend money at our own risk to explore the feasibility of these parking options, and also prepare to move forward with the joint garage simultaneously. Um, we obviously are only going to move forward with council's approval. So, in summary here, we feel that we've delivered on this smaller building and ready to move forward. In this small building, we feel delivering a host of benefits to the city, as well to the public. You know, it fits in with the historical landscape as we see it. Um, it's gonna be a strong transitional link. between the transit center as well as the future developments in that area, plus the lot for development, as well as moving into the downtown. Regarding the deep, the ground for retail. We're committed to delivering on that retail experience. You know, we've had a lot of discussions with a lot of different stakeholders about retail and what our plans are here. We know retail is a real hot button item in downtown and that's not lost on us. We want to work with existing retail in the city that may need a home. We, uh, additionally are committed to not having a, um, cafe in this building for the tenant. Um, and that the tenant is going to be servicing the eateries in downtown Mountain View. You know, the size just won't permit that. As well, we've embraced, I think, on probably the most extensive TDM program that a building scene in downtown Mountain View, and we say that firmly. Um, our TDM in our, from our perspective, has teeth to it. We're putting money into it. We're putting, uh, um, uh, person that's going to work with us on our operating team into managing and forcing the TDM. Um, We feel we've really created a personalized approach to that, that due to the size of this building, unlimited office square footage, we can execute and be successful with. Um, And in conclusion, I think we just, we, we, we feel that we've revitalized this highly visible parcel. We've, we're adding funds, we're adding parking. Um, we really want to include, excuse me, we really want to improve the quality of the downtown uh, existence, downtown parking existence. We're trying to go beyond our project to contribute to that. Because we really just don't view this as a commodity building. And frankly, we like to create a template, I think, for how people think about downtown building in the future. We love your support for this project, and I just look forward getting some guidance from you about how to proceed. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[03:01:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Or at this point, are there any questions from council members of staff or the applicant? Council member, Clark.

[03:01:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: I had one on the, um, the public spots in the, uh, sorry, the 24/7 public spots in the garage. None of those would use the utilize any sort of lifts or anything like this.

[03:01:25] Applicant: No, they'd be on the upper levels, which is not where the list would be.

[03:01:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Got it. Okay, thanks.

[03:01:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got some over, McAllister?

[03:01:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'll have a quick app. Quick, forget that. That question for the developer, please. Maybe staff can answer, but I'll ask... So, when we were looking at this a while back, I was concerned about the northwest corner, and how you can soften that with, you know, and you put, you have part of the wall as green, but there was, we were talking about lights, or some kind of, um, enlightenment of that particular area that unique about it, to bring attention to it. Has that thought still continued forward, or what we see is what we're gonna, you're proposing.

[03:02:18] Applicant: I think what we have right now is where we're at on the design that's been blessed, you know, by DRC. I know this is something that we've, we've spent a lot of time on, um... I don't know, Raquel, if you have any thoughts about, you know, the history on... I mean, this is something we have punted, and we've worked on, um, Feel free to comment on the treatment here on this corner.

[03:02:44] Raquel: Sure. So, um, several things that have been added since the last time that council saw this, uh, to that corner. You saw the landscaping inside the space, although you can't see it from this view. There may be a better view in Tim's slides. There's also pedestrian scale lighting. There's also a... There we go. The awnings have been modified, and the planters have been added along Evelyn and blossom, and there's been the decorative metal panels that's been added along blossoms. So all of those things are added to add those finely textured details that are appropriate at the kind of pedestrian scale in downtown. We also tried to incorporate some kind of pavers on Blossom to transition more with the Olympus Cafe. Obviously, the public works manages that lane. So there's not, um, there's not a lot. We, we, the feedback we got that from some of our design ideas was, it wasn't gonna be feasible to, to do more to try to transition that space on the floor. Is there anything else you want to reference on?

[03:04:07] Applicant: I think something, yeah. Um, the council might be cognizant of is, we tried to fight to get some of the decorative panels is to conceal, um, the backflow preventer and transformer on the ground floor, and we tried hard to convince PW to put that below grade, but that wasn't, um, they weren't amenable to that. So that's part of why we have those panels there. But we try to treat that, you know, in a decorative manner. So you still have something that's open to the outside air. But, um, doesn't feel like it's just back of house. And the treatment of that and the bay consistency of Blossom Lane is very consistent with um, Evelyn as well in terms of the bay repetition of the columns and the recessed openings.

[03:04:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. I'll go back to staff now, question. So, I'm trying to get some clarity on the... Their letter in the option too. So I asked the question. Um, I got a cost, the cost would be, would they be... If they If they lease a lot from us, Would then they, would they be charging for parking? I mean, so they build this lot, they have control $8 million, but how does this working? I am still confused.

[03:05:30] City Staff: Well, we only have as much information as the letter. I mean, we, um, you can ask the, the applicant, how they. Ask them again.

[03:05:38] Unknown Speaker: So I would suggest we not get into gory detail on that tonight. The issue tonight? Simply is, number one, the project in front of you, whether or not to entitle it. And number two, whether or not you want to indicate to the developer that you are open to them coming back with a modification along the lines of options one or two. There's a considerable amount of detail and discussions that would have to occur before anything would be brought back on those.

[03:06:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, thank you for that enlightenment. So, uh... Okay, because that was important to me. So I was trying to... So, they're asking for approval, and that was an important part of that. I was trying to understand their partner.

[03:06:23] Unknown Speaker: Option 2 is not what's on the table to be approved tonight. The only thing to be approved tonight is the project as submitted, which is the joint parking garage. They would need to come back to you, requesting a modification, um, to pursue options one or two. They simply want to know tonight whether or not you're interested in exploring those options.

[03:06:44] Councilmember John McAlister: And was there... a payment? That was the new Lou payment.

[03:06:53] City Staff: I believe option two includes $8 million payment. Both options include $8 million. Option 2 would be incorporated into construction of a garage, and then the draft project also includes about $1.2 million of parking and movies.

[03:07:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, at this point, rule two runs. This mayor, by Koga?

[03:07:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, just one question regarding the 13 foot sidewalks. Does that match up with the Madera, the sidewalks on Evelyn in front of Madera?

[03:07:36] City Staff: So the sidewalks in front of Madeira, I believe, are have a more substantial landscaping strip between the back sidewalk and the curb. So I think that dimension is actually bigger. I don't know exactly what the dimension is off the top of my head. Do you... Tiffany. So, it's... So, the zoning administrator planning manager thinks it's 10 and 8. So, 10 foot sidewalk and 8 foot planter strip. This would not have a continuous planter strip. It would be 13 feet from building to curb.

[03:08:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, was there a reason for not... I mean, I'm just thinking, Evelyn, and just having a completely even sidewalk? Is there a reason we...

[03:08:22] City Staff: Well, there is a block between... Sure. ... where the sidewalk is smaller than Madeira's. The, um... They are in different precise plans, yeah. The other rationale is that a, um, a residential frontage is often different than a commercial frontage, so you don't have the kind of, um, screening factor. You have more of the planet, the tree well design, rather than the full planner strip design. So that changes the, how the sidewalk is configured. The 13 foot sidewalk here really was a result of working with the applicant on how their garage could be sized, in addition to looking at other sidewalks in immediate vicinity, Castro Street, Oak Street, Evelyn, on the other side of Castro, and recognizing that this would be equal to, if not greater, than any those other sidewalks. in the area.

[03:09:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is it comparable to the, um, right here, the Sobrado building, the sidewalk in front of that on Castro Street?

[03:09:43] City Staff: Um, I could probably do a rough measurement on Google Maps, to give you that answer, if you give me that I could.

[03:09:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm just thinking of comfort for the pedestrian, and... that's, to me, comfortable. I just, I don't know, just in comparison what a 13 foot sidewalk would be. Thanks.

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

[03:10:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I had a little, uh, back and forth with the applicant about, um, just one of the details, and I wanted to make sure that I understood their response it was about. I've seen, um, tubular steel railings, sometimes look cheap and sometimes look fine. So I think the, the, so I checked into that, and I think what I got is an answer saying the component needs to be either engineered or selected from a prefab system, that has yet to be done. Um, but just that, uh, you encourage us to bring this up now, and that you'll take it back and work on it, and make sure that it's a higher caliber solution, not a lower end tubular steel. Do I understand the communication correctly?

[03:11:04] Applicant: On the detail page that you're referring to, we show, those are showing design intent, primarily showing the vertical post, and then the horizontal, as being the primary members of the railing just so that it has some substantive, you know, quality to it that's being presented. As stated, showing a design intent of something that has a rectangular profile. Obviously, we would choose something that matches the quality of the building. So when we say something that hasn't been engineered, At this point, we don't have a structural engineer to help us design all that, but I think that that intent is to match the quality of the building and the stonework that we're proposing.

[03:11:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[03:11:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing none, we will open this up for public comment. I see a show of hands, or... Okay, each speaker will have three minutes.

[03:12:13] Don Mayer: Evening, Madam Mayor and Council members. My name is Don Mayer, and I am the interim president and CEO of the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of our board of directors, I request your support for this project. As you well know, we need to continuously be revitalizing the downtown. And this site is really an outstanding opportunity to do just that. The building is well designed, beautiful, provides needed office space for smaller business tenants, and we'll also add to the retail mix in a prominent location. So Margaret has worked hard to create parking solutions with the goals of having no net impact on overall downtown parking demand. So not only will they provide parking for the building through the joint garage, but will also add public parking, contribute cash to this city that can be used for parking solutions, and implement a TDM program to leverage the building's premier position adjacent to the transit center. So for all these reasons, the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce requests your support on this project. Thank you.

[03:13:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for, uh, any further questions or, uh, discussion and action. Vice mayor, I'll be Koka.

[03:13:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I don't know if we have an answer for my sidewalk question yet, but, um, uh, overall, um, I know this is taking a while. I think it's how I gotten through several iterations and um, I, uh, am supportive of the, the, the, the building project. Um, I, I, particularly appreciate the articulation that's been added. Um, so, uh, yeah, so I, I think, um, moving forward with this, the building part makes sense. The challenge has been the parking, if you ask me. Um, I appreciate the applicant coming up with other options, and, um, this is where my preference is actually for, uh, I think it's option two, the garage. And so I actually had very little to no interest in what the project is proposing. I'd rather look at the other options at this point, but I understand we can't bifurcate it. So, um, I would just say if we're going to move forward. Um, I would like for to strongly state that, um, I, my, my preference would be to look at option two, which is the garage on what six, I believe, that we've talked about. And, you know, for, I'm not gonna go into all of the reasons why, about underground parking, not seemingly not working and the fact that I think we need a parking structure and so forth, but I appreciate the applicant's creativity and coming forward with a proposal that I would be very interested in looking into further. Thanks.

[03:15:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[03:15:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And, uh, my comments are substantially similar to the vice mayor, so, um, the project itself, I'm comfortable with, it's code compliant, and, uh, it adheres to the direction provided by council. Um, and I'm very interested in exploring, uh, my preference would be for staff to vet each of the parking options just to see if one, you know, is a better deal for the city. I lean towards the same option that the vice mayor does, but, you know, I want to make sure I fully understand, you know, all of the proposals at the table. Um, even though my preferred solution is not the parking solution that the applicant is providing, I'm gonna go ahead and move the project just because it is code compliant and it does adhere to the direction provided by counsel, but I'll stipulate that, well, assuming a majority agrees that the expectation is that the applicant will come back with, um, the alternatives that they provided here for the parking solutions, and that staff, you know, provide some analysis to the council for which one may be better for the city. So just to keep things moving. I'll go ahead and move to adopt a resolution, approving a planned community permit and development review permit, to construct a new 4 story commercial building containing 28,090 square feet of office, and 6,481 square feet of retail space, and 3 levels of underground parking access through the future adjacent public parking garage on city parking lot 4 on a .25 acre site at 701 to 747 West Evelyn Avenue, to be read entitled only further reading waived. adopt a resolution approving a preliminary parcel map to create a 2 unit condominium subdivision on a .25 acre site at 701 to 747 West Evelyn Avenue to be read in title only, further reading waived, and adopt a resolution ordering the summary vacation of a portion of public street and utility easement located at 701 West Evelyn Avenue to be read in title only, further reading waived. And I'm not sure the other portion of the motion of what's written here needs to be read into the record, because it's not colored red, but I'm happy to read it. It's... Yes, I am including the balance of...

[03:18:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, you could refer to those as the authorizations and staff recommendation. 4 and five. And then were you going to come up with language for the receptivity to bringing back parking solutions?

[03:18:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, right, synthesis at the expectation is for the applicant to come back with each of the options that they provided with staff analysis and a recommendation.

[03:18:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[03:18:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I'm generally okay with that, as long as it's, um, as long as it's clear that if, if, um, if they bring back those other options that, um, it wouldn't just be analyzing those two, it would be how those two compare to the underground garage, because, um, or that, that is proposed. Because the only thing that, um, I would say is, you know, one of the, actually, one of the greatest, um, attractions of this project to me, and the reason why I thought it was good that it sort of, um, was constructed along the hotel was the prospect of, um, also being able to have access to a larger underground garage, and not just the 25 public spots, but the 80s something that we would end up with access to on nights and weekends. And, well, I'm open to exploring the other options, and maybe we can explore those, maybe we'll have that information back in time to consider those as part of our downtown parking strategy, you know, session that we'll have in a few months. My, my guess is that, um, in terms of the, uh, I doubt we're going to have, you know, 100 plus spots available nights and weekends in 2 years for, um, the cost that we would have to bear, um, above $8 million, and that timeline's probably, um, much longer than the 2 year construction period. Anyway, I'm open to considering all those things. I'm just skeptical that either one of those options is going to be more attractive to me in the long run. But I think this is a good solution, and I think the more information we have the better. So I don't want to preclude anything.

[03:20:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:20:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: My comments are gonna be more or less like council member Clark's, that I'll be supporting the motion. I I'm very open to the underground garage, even though I have, like, the vice mayor has said, experienced problems with underground garages in the area. I think if there's a strong TDM program with enforcement that maybe you can make it work, and I'd like to see that happen. But I would also like to see other options explored in the context of, you know, the larger downtown. I'm not particularly married to lot six, you know, but looking over the whole area and seeing what works. Thank you.

[03:21:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[03:21:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have similar thoughts as most. I was looking forward to having that corner on Blossom and Evelyn a little more highlighted to me. It looks a little stark, but I hope we can maybe work on that a little bit. The parking, everybody knows, is always a big issue with me, and I mentioned a couple of meetings ago about prefunding a parking garage to help solve some of our parking issues, and that option two is something that I'm interested in seeing go forward. And if I understand correctly that there would be a five year, the time frame, if we do a development agreement, that would allow, is Dentist still in the dentist still, he gave me the thought of the prefunding of the parking garage. Oh, you're leaving so and so. What heck? So, um, I thought that was an excellent ideas, and hopefully in that time between the, uh, if we consider this is that they would be able to reach out or city staffed, would reach out to other small developers, and they would be cooperative of being able to contribute to this, uh, prefunded parking. I already told me it was refunded, too, that it would be an opportunity to gather smaller developers and start putting into a dedicated fund for parking. So I'm excited to see this particular option move forward.

[03:22:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh?

[03:22:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I seconded the motion. It's been a long journey to get to where we are today. Um, so I wanted to thank staff and the applicant. Um, you know, I think originally when this project came forward, we had looked at, um, you know, the opportunity of putting office housing and retail. And then as things kind of evolved, and the feasibility went forward. Um, I feel like this is, uh, this is a synergy where we have the most feasible project to move forward with. I agree that the parking is challenging, particularly related to the ramp fee. It's unfortunate that that's been the hurdle going forward. But I am interested in exploring the 2 options. Um, and that coming back to council, I'm not sure. Um, as I was mentioned, the viability of how those will go, but, uh, I want to be creative in how we are addressing parking downtown. And I do feel like the applicant has been listening to the discussions council has had, um, related to, um, parking, as we've been discussing it, looking, um, looking at it, kind of holistically, whether it's the precise plan or the downtown parking study and I appreciate that thoughtfulness. I think it's really important for all the things we're working on as a council to speak to each other and naturally connect. Thank you.

[03:24:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So last time we saw this project, I expressed concern about a couple of things. One is the corner of Blossom and Evelyn. And, um, I actually would still like to see it improved. To me, it doesn't look incredibly welcoming, and because it's sort of tucked under the building. And I'd like to see what we could do to make that a little bit more welcoming, so people see that that's the entrance to the retail part of the building. My other concern is parking, and I was not in favor of such a reduced parking requirement. And I still have concerns about that. So, actually, if we're going to look at an alternative, with a parking structure, I would like to revisit how many parking spaces go along with this building, because I think this can be very difficult for them to achieve their TDM goals. So, um, I'm more in favor of a parking structure than I am the underground parking, um, but I think we should also take a look at, does that mean they provide more spaces in a parking structure? So I don't know if the maker of the motion would include taking a look at increasing the number of spaces for not only this building, but then it'd probably be the overall parking structure.

[03:25:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So my preference would be not to explicitly require that, but I think that would be part of the analysis that staff would provide, is, you know, what is this actually a good deal for the city.

[03:26:02] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think I would say it would be something that staff would explore, not necessarily. We would require it right now.

[03:26:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So is this part of staff analysis?

[03:26:10] Unknown Speaker: Sure. Yep.

[03:26:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, cancel member coming. Okay. Uh, any other comments? Okay, let's call the question.

[03:26:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, you do. Sorry, that passes unanimously. Thank you.

[03:26:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think we need to take a vote if we want to start a new item after 10 o'clock.

[03:27:03] Unknown Speaker: So moved. Second.

[03:27:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Almost in favor. Uh, for in favor. That's for you, Gary.

[03:27:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So next is item 7.1, recycled water, advanced treatment, and wastewater purification agreement, and we will start with a staff presentation, and then I'll have council questions, and I'll open it up for public comment before the council takes action. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[03:27:45] Assistant Public Works Director Greg Hosfeld: Oh, sorry about introducing us. Good evening, Honorable Mayor, members of the council. I'm Greg Hosfeld, Assistant Public Works Director, with me tonight is Edarango, principal civil engineer. We're here tonight to provide an overview of a proposed agreement with the city of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water. Before we begin our presentation, we want to let you know that staff from both Palo Alto and Valley Water are here to answer questions if necessary. I also want to recognize Gary Kremen, Valley Water Board member, representing District 7, which includes Mountain View and Palo Alto. The agreement we're proposing tonight has a number of benefits. The city would receive funding to construct an advanced treatment system for the recycled water, which would allow us to increase our recycled water use. It would provide treated wastewater to valet water for purification and eventual reuse. It supports the sustainability goals for Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Valley Water. And also, it would reduce water diversion from the Tuolumne River and its tributaries and reduce freshwater discharges to San Francisco Bay. Staff is comfortable moving forward with the option of selling our effluent because we believe we won't need it in the future, and we believe our potable water supplies are sufficient to meet our long term demands. Couple brief points. The city's waste water is treated at the Palo Alto region of water quality control plant, which also provides our recycled water. We began taking recycled water deliveries in 2009, currently deliver about 400,000 gallons per day, which is about 5% of the city's overall water deliveries. We're guaranteed to 3 million gallons per day of recycled water through 260. We have discussed in the past with counsel the concern we have with our recycled water, which is too highly saline. We typically measure saline in the measure of total dissolved solids or TDS, in parts per million. We've targeted 600 parts per million as the optimal level for our recycled water. Despite a lot of work with Mountain View system, Palo Alto, and these Palo Alto Sanitary District levels still remains high. Currently, it's about 835 parts per million. We decided some time ago, we wouldn't reach the 600 parts per million goal and initiated an advanced treatment feasibility study, which we completed in 2017. What the study told us is that the cost of a 1.0125 million gallon per day system is about $20 million for design and construction, with operating annual operating maintenance costs, about $600,000, based on the proportion of recycled water supply between Mountain View and Palo Alto, we would pay about 75% of that. And we believe a 1.125 MGD system would be sufficient to meet all our long term recycled water consumption. Also want to note that in addition to the goals of Mountain View and Palo Alto, Valley Water has a goal of supplying approximately 10% of Santa Clara County's water consumption through water reuse. That's about 21 million gallons per year. Recognizing these goals. We began working together with the other agencies in 2017 to try and find a strategy to meet all these goals concurrently. We come to you tonight with the details of a proposed agreement, and Mr. Rango will present the details of that proposed agreement.

[03:31:24] Principal Civil Engineer Ed Arango: Thank you, Greg. Again, Edorango, principal engineer, and I'll be starting off by summarizing several key terms of the agreement. The 1st is, very well, we'll have the rights to purchase 9 million gallons per day of effluent for purification and reuse, which could be used at a valley water purification facility. The specific location of Valley Water facility is not yet determined, but if Valley Water chooses to construct a purification facility, they would be responsible for those construction costs. By a refund through a reimbursement, $16000000 towards a recycled water advanced treatment facility to be located at the Palo Alto regional water quality control plant. This is anticipated to cover approximately 80% of the estimated $20 million costs. I will pay an annual option payment of $200,000 to the Palo Alto plant partners until by where it starts operation of their purification facility or up to 13 years, whichever occurs first. After start of operation, a valley water is prevocation facility, or in 13 years, valuable pay the plant partners, an annual affluent share payment of $1 million. Both of these annual payments are total payments and not per partner, and will be escalated annually with the annual average consumer price index. Mount View will have a guaranteed minimum recycle wire supply of 2.5 million gallons per day as well as an option to request up to 1300000 gallons per day of a new water supply where the city would fund the cost of this new supply if authorized. Mountain View and Palo Alto are not obligated to build the recycled water treatment facility and the $16000000 can be used towards other water reuse or conservation programs. The timing term of the agreement would not exceed 76 years, and be based on whether Valley water exercises their option to receive the effluent, and if Mountain View and Palo Alto construct the recycled water facility. As far as fiscal impacts, the design and construction cost of the recycled water advanced treatment facility is estimated at $20 million. Backing out the $16 million funding from Bali water leaves 4000000 needed to fund the recycled water facility, of which 75% or $3000000 would be Mountain View's portion, consistent with the 75% proportional share of the recycled water allocation in the existing agreement between Mountain View and Palo Alto. Portal and Mountain View staff won't be receiving grants and local interest funding to potentially offset these costs. Mountain View share of the annual operation and maintenance cost of the recycled water facility is estimated at $450,000, and the revenue from both the annual option and effluent share payments would help offset a portion of these operation and maintenance costs. And finally, there is now a payment required. of the revenue received from Valley Water. For schedule, tonight, Palo Alto City Council also considered this agreement, and then we just recently got word that it was approved. If approved by Mountain View, mountain water would consider the agreement at their December 10th board meeting, if approved there, starting in January 2020, Palo Alto will begin the process to obtain a consultant for the design of the recycled water advance treatment facility, with the expectation to receive construction bins at the end of 2020. The existing receiver agreement between Mountain View and Palo Alto would need to be revised to reflect the specifics of this partnership agreement, and the new recycled water facility operations, and would be anticipated to come to council in February of 2021. And in June of 21, construction of the recycled water facility is expected to be in. This concludes our presentation, and with a recommendation to adopt a resolution to enter into the partnership agreement with Palo Alto and Valley Water. Thank you.

[03:35:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any questions from council members, Council member Clark?

[03:35:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I should have asked this advance, but walking through the timeline, construction, it sounds like I have to identify a site, construction begins in 2021, how long of a construction period do we anticipate, and when would service come online? Is it a couple years or...?

[03:35:45] Staff Presenter: We're estimating construction would probably be 6 to 9 months, and we would anticipate, probably best case, we'd be online with our recycled water facility sometime in 2022?

[03:35:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Got it. Thanks.

[03:35:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member, uh, Council member McAllister?

[03:36:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm trying to get a better understanding of, there was a question asked. Sounds like a big reason for doing this is to reduce our use of FSFPUC water. And then the, the answer that came back, the city will, the city will still have access to the supply, and if it is not being transferred to others, agencies that, so forth, as the city uses recycled water increases, and our use of SFPUC declines. We preserve our SFPUC supply for portable needs. Well, what's the advantage of a decline, because we still have to pay a minimum. So, am I, what's, um, can't we understand this part, that answer, though?

[03:36:54] Staff Presenter: All right, we, yes, we're still paying the minimum purchase requirement through the PUC. Uh, we are gradually increasing our our hitch hitch use, and we believe approximately the time that we're ready to come online with the recycle system. We will be out of that. So over the long term, our use of SFP, you see water will increase, and we'll get to the point where this recycled water will not offset that.

[03:37:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so what was declining then? Our use of BUC declines? So, you're saying it's increasing?

[03:37:26] Staff Presenter: Is gradually increasing now. But in here, it will decline. The recycled water that we deliver will offset SAP, you see water. And we'll have to balance that potentially. But over the long term, we should be well above our minimum purchase, and we should be able to combine the recycled water use and our consumption of SAPUC water. So we're not making a minimum purchase payment.

[03:37:50] Councilmember John McAlister: So did I hear you just say that in the long run, we will be over our supply?

[03:37:54] Staff Presenter: No, we'll be over the minimum required.

[03:37:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, we need to. Oh. But we haven't reached...

[03:38:01] Staff Presenter: And we're still a few years away from meeting that, but we're also several years away from putting this advanced treatment system online.

[03:38:11] Councilmember John McAlister: So in a few years, we'll have reached our minimum.

[03:38:15] Staff Presenter: Yes, that is our estimation.

[03:38:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, let me think that one over. Thank you.

[03:38:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:38:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I wanted to ask, I want to be clear on my understanding is whether or not we do this over the long term, which was 2045, as explained in the staff report, we have adequate water resources for our needs in any case, so we're doing this for some other reasons. It's not to meet our water needs.

[03:38:48] Staff Presenter: That's true. So we believe that based on our long term consumption estimates, we do have enough potable supply to meet all our needs. One of the primary motivators to do this is to, again, have the best use of water. So we would like to keep our potable water for the domestic uses. The recycled water system that's currently in place is not operating an optimal way. So we like to maximize the use up in North Bay Shore, and be able to use the recycled water for the irrigation, and again, maintain the potable supply for domestic needs. But, yes, we do have an adequate podo supply to meet all our needs. This is, again, maximizing water reuse, which, again, has the benefits of meeting the environmental sustainability goals for the city, minimizing the discharges to the bay, those type of things, and minimizing the diversions, reducing diversions from the Tuolumne River and its tributaries. So we think there's a lot of benefits to going ahead and doing this, even though we do have an adequate podal supply. Additionally, there will be droughts in the future, and this will allow us to keep our irrigation systems alive in the North Bay Shore area. So there will be a time when we're really glad we have this backup supply of water as part of our portfolio.

[03:40:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[03:40:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing then, we'll open this up for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to address the council in this, please come forward. Be sure to fill out a card before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk. Okay. All right.

[03:40:33] Darren Mayor: Good evening, counsel. This is Darren Mayor. I'm with the Chamber of Commerce. And I wanted to share with you that our business issues and public policy has seen this presentation, and our board of directors as well, and they support this effort, and we want to make sure that you are aware of that as you made this decision. Thank you.

[03:40:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[03:40:58] Pat Show Walter: Hello, Madam Mayor and Council, I'm Pat Show Walter, 35 year resident of Mountain View, and also a career, um, water engineer. And I just like to urge you to pass this. The city and Palo Alto and Valley Water have been working on this for a number of years. And in trying to figure out the best way to plan for climate resilience and water supplies, it's to come up with, or one of the best ways, is to come up with drought proof supplies. And that's really what this is. We're taking our wastewater, and we're purifying it so much that we can use it in our recycled water supply. Maybe even someday, if the permitting requirements change, We could use it more than that. But right now, we can use it for all non-potable uses. If you haven't had a chance to go visit the advanced purification plant in San Jose that's operating, you should, you should go do that. It's great fun and you'll see really exactly what this looks like and how it will work. The, um, as was mentioned, the big problem we've had with recycled water in the North Bay Shore has been that it's just too salty. That's really bad for redwood trees or citrus trees. It makes it so you can't use it as many times for cooling water. And it just means that it's, you know, people are, don't see it as a very high quality product. Whereas when you mix recycled water with this advanced, purified water, you can get much, much higher quality water that you can use for everything, and you don't need to worry about. So that difference in the salt content is very important. And it allows a lot of flexibility. And I also want to just mention that in the North Bay Shore, we are expecting a great deal of building to be done in the next decade or so. And those big office buildings are all going to be dual plumbed. That means that they'll have a plumbing system that's for potable uses like drinking water or washing your hands. And then it means that they'll have another plumbing system. that goes directly to urinals and the irrigation system and toilets. And that can be used with recycle water. So, um, we aren't using, uh, know as much recycle water as we have now, but with that expected development, we'll be lots closer to it. So I hope you'll support this, it's a great project. Thank you.

[03:43:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, please.

[03:43:57] Dennis Murphy: Madam, council members, uh, Dennis Murphy, Water Director for Sustainable Silicon Valley, uh, in reviewing, uh, this joint agreement, uh, really came to the conclusion that it's a very commendable agreement. It's a great example of regional cooperation. It maps actions to strategies, well, sustainability plans, and strategic plans, like the Valley Waters, North County Plan, it's a good investment in this particular area. We're actually calling it win, win, considering the three entities involved. It's a really good hedge against volatilities of kind of future supply, and it uses, utilizes, right now, a fairly untapped resource, which is the tertiary treated water, at the plant, that 95% of it going into the bay right now. There's actually been in the legislature, uh, a bill, uh, it's been a series of bills over the years. that would, uh, direct all treated wastewater to be recycled. Um, and that is, it's currently, that bill's currently in suspense right now, but it, uh, um, this actually gets out ahead of that, uh, pretty nicely as well. So we certainly recommend approval of this agreement. Thank you.

[03:45:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:45:40] Megan Fraley: Hi, I'm Megan Fraley. I am a Mountain View resident. And, um, I just want to say I think this is the best thing since sliced bread. Um, and just that there's a lot of contentious issues that might fill up the room a lot more, but it's just nice to actually come out when there's something that clearly there's just agreement from all parties and, um, something really great that's going to happen tonight and speak in support of, um, council supporting that measure. And I just wanted to also say I really appreciate the work with the water district and with Palo Alto because the more we're coordinating with other cities, um, to solve these problems. then the better. So, thank you and happy to be here tonight.

[03:46:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Mr. Cremen.

[03:46:28] Mr. Cremen: Thank you, Mayor Vice Mayor, Council People, Staff Public, et cetera. I'll keep this short, given the hour, having been up on the dais myself. This is true, it's actually the best thing since sliced bread. I mean, think about it this way. We're going to be giving the water district a $1000000 a year when this is all built at the end of the day, that can help reduce sewer rates among the 6 partners at the wastewater treatment plant, and paying 80% of the cost of building this smaller plant to remove the salt. So it can be used in redwood trees. It can be used in buildings, cooling towers, other irrigation things. et cetera. And of the $3000000 of the $4000000 There's actually some special loans available specifically for recycled water that I think your staff's working on applying for. Um, addition, you're going to get this backup guarantee of water supply. It doesn't sound like you need it, but you never know earthquake. et cetera. Uh, that the water district has to go find, uh, so, you know, letters you got from the EPA, et cetera, that this is a good thing, and I stand ready to answer any questions you have. Otherwise, I'll get out of your way so you can vote and get home. Thank you.

[03:47:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else? Did you have a question for him?

[03:47:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, Chris.

[03:47:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic?

[03:48:00] Garth Hall: And council members. My name's Garth Hall. I am the deputy operating officer, water supply, for Valley Water. So one of the things, I think that the staff and the public speakers have laid out the basics of what this deal is and based both at a high level and detail. One of the things I just want to bring to your attention is that we've been working with your staff for well over a year, with numerous meetings, hard work, listening to each other, exchanging needs from city of Mountain View, Palo Alto and Valley Water. And I actually have come together over the last several months and brought this thing home for your consideration. One of the reasons that's really important is that in that process. We have really got to trust each other, understand each other, and I believe, have built a foundation for a really long term partnership, which this is. This is long term. We have to work together. We have to understand each other. So there's no time to prove a thing like that in the difficulty of negotiating agreement. So I just wanted to recognize your staff for all the hard work they've done, really expert and the legal counsel that they have to advise them. Thank you.

[03:49:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[03:49:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. There are others in the cubit. I guess they've taken off. Um, I just want to thank uh, staff for bringing this forward and um, thank uh, director Carmen and the valley water district for your willingness to partner. We've had a partnership with Palo Alto. I remember 10 years ago, exactly, when we built, constructed the recycling. Well, a recycling system. And it was a few years after that, but then my good friend, then mayor, I believe, he was mayor, when he told me, you know, from Palo Alto, said, well, we can't use a lot of the water because of the salinity. And so, um, you know, it's been a long time in making, um, but I appreciate that we now have a potential solution. And, um, you know, it is a win-win win. I don't know if it's the next best thing, but probably pretty close. So I'm very excited to support this project and I'll make a motion if no one else is in the queue. So, um, my emotion would be to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager or his designee, to enter into a partnership agreement with the city of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley water district, to advance resilient water reuse programs in Santa Clara County to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[03:51:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the vice mayor, no 2nd by council member Kame. Is there any further discussion?

[03:51:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: I will just add that, uh, in, I guess it's coming up on three years on council. This is absolutely the most complex agreement I have ever read. It doesn't surprise me, it took a long time, too, work on it. And, uh, we will trust staff on this one.

[03:51:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, cancel my plane. Did you have that?

[03:51:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, yes. I did just want to say, when you were speaking of the complexity, I do want to thank staff. I took them up on their offer this summer to meet with them, to review all of this and ask all of my water questions. I'm sure my mother, former water district member, ever appreciated it. Although I'm sure I'll never be as well versed as her, but, um, it made me really excited and really comfortable to 2nd the vice mayor's motion tonight. Thank you.

[03:52:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, if there's no further discussion, we will call the question. That passes unanimously. So, thank you.

[03:52:15] Unknown Speaker: Thank you very much.

[03:52:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, next is item eight, which is council, uh, staff committee reports. Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[03:52:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Last Wednesday, we had our Silicon Valley Clean Energy board meeting, where we discussed a few items. Um, when I just want to let the public know that we will be working on a customer service center that will provide more information on some of the programs that we, the clean energy, SVCE is unveiling, um, such as the water, the pump, water, water, hot, water pump heaters. Um, and, um, EV charger, chart, EVs and so forth. And so this is going to be a, um, I think we'll be up and running maybe in a year's time, but we're going to be going out to bid shortly to get some, um, uh, folks to, to help us build this, um, service, this resource, um, that should be available on our website. And we talked about reach codes. I just want to let folks know that we received a lot of praise from a lot of folks. And the exciting thing is that we're not the only ones doing reach codes, and I think almost every city except maybe 2 or 3 are moving forward with some type of reach codes. So congratulations to all of us here for being leaders in that. And then finally, we did discuss, um, uh, so Mayor Sam Licardo has, um, written a letter calling for a public option for PG&E, and um, there's definite interest in that. So, SVCE will continue to engage in those conversations. There's a lot of details and things to be worked out, but at this time we are definitely interested in, at least having that opportunity to discuss a public option. On Thursday. I shared our cities association, legislative action committee. And here we discussed, um, the year, the legislative year, and then had a pretty extensive discussion on, um, the faster measure, the transportation, transportation mega measure, that they're calling it, um, the one cent sales tax, and the, I think it's the 9 Bay Area counties. There's, you know, there's quite a bit of concern, frankly, about the measure. Um, and then we had a presentation from transform on, um, their, um, I would say it's a, their proposal for a, they call it the Rex system, the regional express, uh, transit system. Um, it's the way they explained it is that MTC is calling for projects and there's about 100 projects in the, in the hopper. This is one of MTC at some point will pick, I guess, some of the projects, and then faster, if it were to pass, could or could not, fund these projects. But, um, it was a very interesting, um, presentation. I recommend folks, take a look at this Rex, um, uh, system, uh, proposal. If you go to the transform, I think it's transformed.org website, they should have it online there. Thanks.

[03:56:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[03:56:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I just wanted to... I had hoped to do this last week, but due to the late hour, I decided to wait a little bit, but I wanted to use the opportunity to thank the mayor for proving and signing the proclamation, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Founding of Saint Ethanacious Parish, which is the church that my grandparents helped found back in 1959 in Ringsdorf. And I had the opportunity to present the proclamation on behalf of the city at the dinner that they had to celebrate the occasion a couple of Fridays ago. So thank you very much for authorizing the proclamation.

[03:56:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[03:56:48] Councilmember John McAlister: This morning, I was chairing the VTA ad hoc committee on board governance. We are looking at this particular committee is looking how to improve engagement, and to make sure that when someone is selected, that they do look at fiduciary responsibilities. We have a report from our consultants, RMS, that gave us a pretty good ideas of how to work on evaluation. One thing that was interesting that came out of this particular report is that we VTA has a lot of goals and strategies, but there are no performance measures in anything that they've done. And so we are gonna be recommending that to the board to start being able to help analyze and hold people accountable, so that was an interesting concept. And we are moving right along. And I think starting tomorrow, there will be a webinar and town hall meeting that you can go to, go to VTA, and log in, and give comments about the governance of ETA and your thoughts, and everybody's appreciated on that one.

[03:58:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I have a couple things. I attended the VTA policy, advisory, committee meeting, and one of the items we discussed there was the criteria that would be used for the 2016, measure B, innovative transit service models, competitive grant program. And we had previously discussed it, and it was a very robust discussion. And then the technical advisory committee discussed it, and I guess they had a very robust discussion. And then when it came back to the pack, There was very little discussion, and we agreed with the staff recommendation. Um, the thing that hit home with me is, this is the first time these grants are being offered. And after the first round, um, if it doesn't turn out like we expected, we can revise the criteria. So I was okay moving forward with the criteria proposed by staff. And then, uh, at the City's Association board meeting on Thursday night, we, um, as you heard earlier, from the vice mayor, um, regarding, uh, Mayor Licardo, and mayors from other, the two other large cities, and then they ask a whole bunch of small cities, smaller cities, to join them, to, um, push for the, um, PG&E to emerge from bankruptcy as a, what did you call it, a public... a public entity. And, um, there was a vote taken, and the majority of the members of the cities association boards supported that. I personally felt a little uncomfortable, saying to push for that without really understanding the pros and cons, and the risks associated with doing that. So I abstain from voting on that. I didn't feel comfortable saying yes or no. Um, and that is it for me. Anyone else? Okay, then, um, is there a closed session report?

[04:00:20] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report.

[04:00:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So the next council meeting will be held on Tuesday. December 3rd, 2019, at 4:30 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street, where adjourned.

• ← Previous
• Next →