December 3, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:20:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Call this meeting to order. Sorry, we're a little bit late getting started. I'm usually the first one here, and today, I was the last one here. Sorry about that. Um, we will start with the pledge of allegiance. If you will join me for that. Next is roll call?

[00:21:38] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:21:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. So tonight, we have a special presentation. Um, we are excited to recognize the 2019 synopsis, science, and technology championship winners. And before I call you up here, I just want to give a little bit of background. So, the annual synopsis championship showcases students in Santa Clara County, who will become our future scientists, technology experts, engineers, and mathematicians. This regional competition celebrates achievements by middle and high school students. Through the annual affair competition, hundreds of students work independently, or in teams to address questions in the fields, including computer science, medicine and health, chemistry, and biology. So I would like to invite the Santa Clara Valley Science and Engineering Fair Association board member, Vina Jen, and then the following 2019 championship winners, to come on up here to the lectern, so I can give you certificates of recognition of your achievements. And, um, I'm not sure if everyone's here, but I'm gonna announce everyone's name. because we want to make sure we recognize them all. So we have Paulo, Cho, Michael, Eng, Daniel, Gosemfer, Hannah, Grayensky, Sierra Howard, Alon, Non, Micah, Nasi, and Franklin Ruan.

[00:24:47] Board Member Vina Jen: Hello. First of all, I'm not the president of the Synopsis Championship. I'm one of the board members, and I've been there for like 18 years. This is our 60th year of encouraging the Santa Clara County students to do these science fair competitions. This is the only fair, which is a segue to international science fairs and state fair. So you can imagine how much work this association volunteer association has done for 60 years to be here. All these students here. They represent Mountain View and they have worked so hard. to be where they are. So you don't be surprised if you see them future, you know, price winners or something, you know. So I'm so happy that you've decided to recognize them and their hard work and perseverance. And our next science fair is obviously in March, every year we have it. So hopefully we'll see you again next year. Thank you.

[00:25:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next time, the agenda is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Are there any items that, uh, council members would like to pull council member commit?

[00:26:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I don't want to pull an item. I just want to note my recusal from item 4.7 due to the proximity of the location to a real property interest. Thank you.

[00:26:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, uh, I would like to pull item 4.2. And, uh, item 4.5. Anyone else? Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Please come up to the... Why don't you come on up and, uh... share your comment? Thank you. Sorry, Mount, you a resident?

[00:27:30] Public Speaker: I think it's PC going here. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm here to speak about the reversible bus lane. You've heard me talk about this before many times, and why, for various reasons, I don't think it's actually need it, but recently, I came upon the most fundamental reason of all. And that is that it really doesn't save any time. The reason is that probably for most of us, we take it for granted that Shoreline Boulevard's going to be backed up in the morning with gridlock traffic. Well, that's gonna change. And, of course, the bus plane was envisioned, I think, in that environment. Why else have a bus lane if you're not going to save time? But there's this project, which is, you know, going to hopefully start very soon, which is the reconfiguration of the 85101 off ramp. And as I've told you before, this works wonders on shoreline. It frees the backup. Traffic was smoothly. This simulation even includes the 500 trips per hour for the Microsoft campus over here on the right, which is probably going to open a couple years. And that's part of the main reason why this is extremely necessary, but it also frees up shoreline. And so what happens is now, with shoreline free flowing, the bus line doesn't actually save you any time. And in fact, it's, it's so free flowing. You can synchronize the signals. And you can go all the way. Okay, I'm going to pan down here just so you can see the rest of the simulation. Here's Terabella. Here's middle field. And you'll see it's kind of large orange rectangles, those are buses that I threw in there. This is where things kind of start at, yeah, south of the Safeway here. So you can, if you follow this bus here, it's a little hard to pan. I've synchronized the signals. It goes all the way to Per without stopping. And if you look, I'm going to do this a couple times, okay? Just so you can see it. It's a little bit hard to fall sometimes, especially on the screen. But if you look at the cars going next to it, they're going right along with it. You have a whole platoon of vehicles, you know, it's typical of synchronized signals. You can get a whole potato of vehicles that can go get green whites all the way. And so, as long as you don't raise the trip caps for North Bay Shore, you know, I think shoreline is going to remain free flowing. And in that case, why do you need a bus lane? I know this is, you know, this bus lane's been going on for about 5 years or so, and so I I expect you to prove it. But, like I said, in the letter to you, this 8511 reconfiguration is really critical. I mean, that would, that would have an immediate effect on Shoreline right now. Yeah, bus lane, maybe in 10 years or so, maybe it might come in handy, but this one unrealignment would just do wonders, and I hope that the bus lane is in no way holding that back. Thank you.

[00:30:28] Unknown Speaker: I do have a question for you. Did you factor in all of the new development in North Bay Shore?

[00:30:35] Public Speaker: Yeah, this simulation didn't, oh, not North Bay Shore. What I did run a simulation with everything south of 101, even including Terabella. And Shoreline still was operating okay. I didn't do North Bay Shore because I really don't, it's hard to figure out, you know, with residences and stuff, how much traffic will be coming in, how much traffic will be going out. But since the trip cap is bidirectional, as long as you keep the number of vehicles constant, I don't see why Shoreline should get any more congested. Unless you purposely raise a trip cappa, congestural wine again.

[00:31:11] Unknown Speaker: And Microsoft is expecting to open next year. Uh, 20 in 2020.

[00:31:17] Public Speaker: Yeah. That's scary, because that one on one realignment's not going to be done by that.

[00:31:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none. Um, I'll bring it back to council. So, um, I have a, I just have a question on... item... 4.5, and I sent a question, and I realized I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been on that question. And that is, in the staff report, it talks about three alternatives for a new police fire admin building. But the attachment to shows some graphical representations of what that might look like. And my question was, um, Can, are, do we have to stick with those graphical representations, or does the consultant we hire have the opportunity to change those graphical representations, um, based upon new information or, uh, better idea?

[00:32:30] Senior Project Manager David Printeum: This is David Printeum with Public Works, senior project manager, author of the memo. To answer your question, mayor, and counsel, those are extremely diagrammatic, meant to be starting points, and those options can be enhanced or altered at the recommendation of staff, or the consultant, should other alternatives, you know, be discovered. So, I mean, it's meant to be starting points, and sort of big idea options. And so, the idea of the whole process is to explore each one of those, macro ideas, and determine which one is better. Once we've selected one that we believe is most viable, then there are all kinds of permutations of each of the selected option will be explored.

[00:33:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So there's a lot of work to do. I guess, in short. Okay. So then I'm good with that item. Um, I do want to discuss, um, item. 4.2. Did anyone else want to discuss 4.2? Um, otherwise, is we can vote on the balance of the, um, consent calendar, council member McAllister.

[00:33:53] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I just had a comment on 4.4, but, um, I put in a question to the city manager's office about, was the property acquisition included in the $15 million, and the answer was no, and they're working on getting me the amount that was required for right of, uh, the right of weigh dollars needed. And so it was just making a comment that this project for full disclosure is more than $15 million to go about a mile or so. And so I just, as that information comes up available to us. I just want the council to see. When this first was proposed about, oh, you have an answer for us. So...

[00:34:37] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Good evening, Don Cameron, public works director. Thank you. The property acquisition will come to about $3 million.

[00:34:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thanks. And it is, in addition to the 15 million, your seat. 15 million.

[00:34:53] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Just to be clear, the $15 million is not just for a lane. It's for significant changes to the curbs and sidewalks and bike lanes and utility movements. There's a lot of very technical and detailed elements of this project.

[00:35:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, no, that's... thank you.

[00:35:12] Unknown Speaker: Uh, but to, uh, to Jean's point, just to remember, also, we're trying to protect a right of way, if for future development, or transportation, technology, so it may be a little premature, you know, saying that this transit lane isn't necessary, but somewhere down the line, if we do go with new technology, we'll need that right away.

[00:35:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Who drops out of the queue?

[00:35:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that the motion on the floor is for the balance of the consent item. I'm not sure.

[00:35:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, it is. Okay. Okay. Did you want to make that motion then?

[00:35:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, so I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar, including 4.7, adopt a resolution approving the final map of track number 10499, accepting dedications and making findings as required by the city code, to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[00:36:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion for the balance of the consent calendar, excluding 4.2 by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, and a second by council member Ramirez, and we have a recusal on item 4.7 from council member Kameh. Any other discussion on any of those? So let's vote on the balance. So that passes unanimously. And then let's go back to item 4.2. So, um, I pulled that one because, um, I feel like I had a different perspective on what I was looking for out of, uh, an update to the downtown precise plan in the three areas. And I don't know how whether council members feel about this. But I think when I was thinking about this, I was really looking for a way to preserve the historic buildings, and to make sure any new development fits in with the existing character and complements the historic buildings, and that we have active ground floor uses, and that it's pedestrian friendly, and that it potentially restricts office development. I really wasn't looking for a way to increase density or intensity. And then there are some issues that we would address in another phase, like parking. But I was mostly focused on how do we make sure those first three blocks, the historic areas, remain historic and a great character. And it seemed like the scope of work that I read was much broader than that, and not necessarily in alignment with that. And I'm wondering how other folks felt about that. Council member Hicks.

[00:38:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I apologize. I only recently found out I was not recused from this item. So my comments won't be as thorough as they would be otherwise, but I completely agree with what you're saying now. Um, and I think that what we have in the first three blocks of our downtown is unique, and in many ways plays the role that a public park plays, and that you don't, at least I don't, build on a public park. It's a public asset. And that's, in the way that you described the, um, you know, whether they're rated California or national historic, but the heritage character, the unique character, the authentic character of what we have, I think makes it the most lively blocks of our city. You may remember, um, both Castro Street and San Antonio were designated, our most walkable streets, and we recently withdrew as council, San Antonio, because People are not walking on it. And I want to make sure that we maintain, particularly the first three blocks of Castro, three and a half blocks are the ones that I find most lively at this point, and I want to make sure that we take care not to lose that community asset.

[00:39:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez.

[00:39:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So similarly, my recollection, also, is to have a fairly narrow, defined scope for phase one, and I think, you know, uh, the Marin council member Hicks have sort of articulated, I think, what the focus was, what sort of an understanding that phase 2 was more comprehensive, just because we're encompassing the full, precise plane area. So I'm comfortable with narrowing the scope, to be focused on addressing sort of the historic preservation concerns and sort of pushing off other issues until phase two.

[00:40:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cast number Clark.

[00:40:17] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'm confused. So, so, so, phase one, but you just, what was, as council member Ramirez just talked about phase one, it looked to me like it was pretty limited to that. So it's area 8, which is the first three blocks, and then area A, which has, I think, potentially some of storage structures on it, and then G. So that area, sort of around that 3 blocks. And then the phase one elements were the feasibility of historic district overlay, which I think would offer the protections that have been talked about, the minimal ground for land use changes. And then the potential revisions to the design guidelines, which I assume would be to ensure that the design guidelines for that specific area would be more in alignment. So I guess, if we're requesting changes, I just, I don't understand what the changes are, because it's already pretty focused in phase one on that specific area with historic overlay and other things. So, um, If there are specifics that we want to change, I'm open to that. I just thought that the phase one in the staff report captured that.

[00:41:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So from my perspective, I agree that it is limited in terms of the area that's being looked at. Um, but when I read the part about, how do we, like, we're gonna take a look at which parcels might redevelop, and how do we incentivize residential, and how do we increase intensities, and doing form-based codes? And to me, that was much broader than, No, I just want to focus on making sure, um, it's not just the first three blocks of Castro, um, but a little bit to the Eastern West of that, that the core of our downtown. remains, um, with a great character, with the historic resources being preserved, walkability, and all those things. I wasn't really interested at this point in how do we incentivize residential, um, in the first phase. I was just trying to, in some ways, protect that core asset downtown. Any others?

[00:42:29] Unknown Speaker: Do you have emotion or...?

[00:42:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, so I would, um, propose that we narrow the scope. Um, to, it's the same, um, sections of the downtown precise plan, but that we focus on preserving the historic buildings. And making sure that new development fits with that character. So we might have to define what that character is, and what new development would look like, and that we, uh, look at requiring active pedestrian friendly uses on the ground floor, and that, um, we potentially restrict office development in that area. Anyone else? So that would be my motion. Sorry, I forgot to hit the button.

[00:43:29] Unknown Speaker: So, uh, our sitting room.

[00:43:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, um, I'd like to request that staff have a chance to comment, and if you're gonna make modifications, A, that we can react to it, but, B, that we know exactly what sections of the scope you want removed or changed. So, everyone's on exactly the same page.

[00:43:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So does staff want it? I mean, the sections that I would remove are, um... how to incentivize residential. Because I think that's a broader issue, uh, that we all look at in phase two. Um, the parcels that are likely to redevelop and how might they redevelop? So the economic analysis of that.

[00:44:24] Unknown Speaker: Can you reference a page or a paragraph or a section just so... or looking at the same thing?

[00:44:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So in the staff report? Let me find that again. Uh, you know what? I didn't print that out. Let me look online.

[00:44:42] Unknown Speaker: Attachment 4 is the scope of work that details out.

[00:44:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so the scope of work was in a slightly different...

[00:45:00] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Maybe I can help Diana Pancholi, senior planner and project manager for the downtown precise plan update project. I think the sections that you're referring to is, um, Section B 2 in the scope. It is under land use, which talks about incentivizing residential development and use. And then, um, Section B one dash C one, which talks about economic feasibility evaluation by our subconsultant.

[00:45:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: What was the 2nd one?

[00:45:33] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: B one uh slash C one. It is called economic feasibility evaluation.

[00:45:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Diane, are you suggesting that whole B1C one be dropped?

[00:45:47] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Uh, B2, and B, and C1.

[00:46:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's from phase one, or from the entire project altogether?

[00:46:08] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So this particular scope is just for phase one.

[00:46:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[00:46:10] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah. And then I feel we will have to modify B one, um, maybe with a more direct language which says restrict office in these areas. rather than talking about other uh, incentivizing them. If that's what council really wants.

[00:46:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I mean, I said, look at restricting office development in these areas. Um, and also, I wasn't sure, um, about, if you are talking about the, um, potential design of any new development to fit in with the existing character, um, would that necessitate doing form-based codes, or would you just talk about the, like, architectural features, uh, that should be included?

[00:47:08] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So as part of the school, we are going to study the kind of design language that we have in our precise plan right now, and how does it help to kind of guide the future development in order to maintain the character and the historic nature of the of the buildings that we have.

[00:47:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right, but does that necessitate doing a form-based code? For this area.

[00:47:29] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Not necessarily.

[00:47:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then I would say you could also, yeah, take that out. Um, Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[00:47:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, so my question was about the, um, economic feasibility piece, and if there's any, um, relationship of that work with historic preservation, for instance, how do we incentivize, or if we were to require preservation, what would that impacts on economics be? In which case, should we... can keep that in baseball.

[00:48:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think that's a different type of economic analysis, and I wouldn't be opposed to leaving that in.

[00:48:13] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: That will be definitely a different type of economic analysis. Okay. We can tweak that, if that is what is required.

[00:48:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I think we'd want to know, is it possible or not?

[00:48:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Exactly. So I would include that. Uh, Council member Hicks.

[00:48:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: This may be related to the previous comments, but one of my particular interests is getting appropriate, um, historic preservation, uh, incentives and tools, so I don't know whether that's related to the economic analysis as well. This would be things like, well, there are a number of different tools, but one of them would be transfer of development rights, for example. So I don't know how, and I apologize again. I just found out I was not recused and cannot get the report up, so I'm kind of speaking blind.

[00:49:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Council member Clark?

[00:49:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I heard, I heard a discussion about, um... We were trying to, you know, include design guidelines, you know, looking at the design guidelines to help, sort of better integrate and respect the historic nature, what's down there. And then I heard take it out. And so it's very unclear to me, what is taken out in the motion.

[00:49:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I don't think we said to take out the design guide lights.

[00:49:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. But I heard consideration of form based code, like, we wouldn't even consider that as an option or explore it, 'cause that's sort of, that's pretty standard.

[00:49:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, to me, our thornbolt is different than design guidelines. So, um, I didn't know if we needed to do form based codes at this point, or could that be later on in phase two? It was just the consideration of it, but, um...

[00:50:04] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: And I do note, Madam Mayor, in Section D of that attachment for there is some discussion of foreign based codes. If you wanted to review that and see if that's something you'd want to include in your motion. It's the second paragraph of... D.

[00:50:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I wasn't sure if he needed that at this point, and based upon the answers, um, that I got, like it was necessary, but I can be convinced otherwise, if folks feel like it needs to be included. I just wasn't sure how that would relate to the design guidelines, and to me, it sounded like they were kind of separate. Is that true?

[00:50:47] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: That's correct. That's certainly something that can be considered as part of phase two if you don't want it to be looked at in this phase. Council member.

[00:50:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And, uh, I think there were also some firms that were suggested that, you know, as long as we're revising this, I would include them in the folks who could potentially respond to the RFP. Um, I will.

[00:51:17] City Manager Dan Rich: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we need, are you... That's a totally different topic. You can either modify the scope of work of this consultant, or you can reject this consultant, then go back out and ask for other bids. So I want to be real clear which we're doing here.

[00:51:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All right, so I was gonna say that I frankly, was not impressed with the proposal that we received. Um, so I would prefer to reject this one, modify the scope and go out again and include other, um, potential bidders on this work. This one, I found some sentences to be incredibly complicated and not very clear on what they were trying to say. There's even a sentence in here that there's the first part of the sentence, and then it just ends. And it's like there must have been a second thought there. Um, I felt like, did, you know, perhaps they should have taken another look at this before they sent it in. So it made me kind of concerned about the quality of their work, to put it very candidly. So I would like to reject this one. Council member Hicks.

[00:52:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Uh, I would be open to opening it up again, but, but again, it's because I haven't had time to process this or look it over, having been told only maybe an hour before I came into the meeting, that, um, I was not recused from this.

[00:52:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[00:52:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, I'm, given the, I think, fairly significant modifications to the scope. I'm comfortable with going back to bid and seeing if there are other consultants who may be interested in the revised scope, and including folks, maybe, who haven't historically done work in Mountain View to see if they're interested. I asked the question about how many folks are in our list and how often we update that list, and it sounds like not very often. So I do think, you know, keeping it open and to the extent possible, you know, working, maybe proactively reaching out and seeing soliciting, you know, interest from other consultants, I think, would be healthy for the city broadly.

[00:53:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, vice may hobby, Coca.

[00:53:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and I, too, am in the position as Cousin Briggs, that we were recused, and now we're allowed to discuss, so I'm not totally up to speed, but my question was, um, if we were to go reject and go out to bid. What kind of timeline or how much time does that? take?

[00:53:59] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: So, looking at the holidays, we'll probably send an RFP out again sometime late January, so we're looking at at least 3 to 4 months, maybe a few months lag at least.

[00:54:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: In light of that, I actually, I'm familiar and comfortable with the consultants. So I'm inclined to just stay on track.

[00:54:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can some ever today?

[00:54:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. My question was gonna be in the same vein as the vice mayor. I know that this is one of the things that we had talked about, I think, as a council priority. And so, um, when I feel comfortable kind of refining the scope of work and moving things between phase one and phase two, um, I know that part of what we're also trying to do is work with uh, outside vendors to to help push uh, or to move along, some of our priorities. And so, I don't feel comfortable kind of going out to rebid. Um, but I think kind of given the refinements, perhaps that can help instruct the consultant in terms of the high caliber that we're expecting as a council, and I'm sure staff can help, kind of deliver that message, and I feel confident in that. Is that part of the motion, then, to reject and go out to bed again?

[00:55:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that is part of my motion, and I would say, if I had to summarize it, Um, it would be to reject, um, this proposal, um, to go out again, and include other firms, and then with the modifications to the scope. that I'm not sure I can summarize those, but I think you got them all. written down. Um, so that would be my motion. And, um, Council member Romero's second edit, Council member Clark.

[00:55:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so, um, I won't be voting for the motion. I think I would be fine with updating some of the scope and modifying some of those things, but I think if we reject this, and it's going to add three or four months of time, that's three or four more months, that people can submit, you know, compliant applications under the current downtown precise plan, and I'm not sure, ultimate way that is, that's worth the trade off.

[00:56:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[00:56:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And does reject, in your motion, mean that the consultant cannot reapply, or does it mean, does it mean that they can?

[00:56:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think they're welcome to reapply. Yeah. And I think the narrow scope of work, um, might make up for the, uh, delay in going out to bed again. So I don't think it is necessarily one for one, in terms of pushing this out. Would that be the case, 'cause this is a more narrow scope of work.

[00:57:02] Unknown Speaker: I think it's more the timeline of just getting it out and getting proposals in, evaluating and bringing them back to you, narrower scope, obviously, would be less work for the consultant, and hopefully less cost to the city. It might be a slightly shorter time frame, but my guess is the time frame of doing the project's not going to change significantly.

[00:57:22] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, and if council really wants us to go out and explore new consultants, it is going to take us some time to reach out and, um, see, you know, who all are interested and actually available at that point of time.

[00:57:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, Council member McAllister.

[00:57:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm sort of. So, if we went with the existing consultant and told them to revise it. When that's shortened the timeline, I don't see how going out again for another RFP, we did one. If people were interested, they would have applied and did something. So when we're reopening it, the idea that we're gonna get new people to bid on it. Um, I'm still, if somebody can clarify that for either from the staff or city manager of... is really good.

[00:58:11] Unknown Speaker: We have no idea. My recollection is only two companies bid on this time, and there are any number of factors that might have been that, but in general, the industry is extremely busy, and people simply have other work and therefore aren't bidding on new projects. Now, could that be different in January or February? Absolutely, it's possible, but it could be just as bad in January, February. don't know.

[00:58:32] Councilmember John McAlister: It also said in the staff report that there were two firms that a member, a resident recommended, and they were not contacted about this, because they weren't on our list of folks we typically work with. So they were not, they didn't participate. Is that correct?

[00:58:50] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: If I may, the RFPs already were out, and we were already in the process of reviewing the RFPs. That is when the resident suggested those. So that's why they were not contacted at that point of time.

[00:59:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But they could be contacted if they're interested if we went out again. So a question for you.

[00:59:11] Unknown Speaker: Please?

[00:59:13] Councilmember John McAlister: So if we went back to the original, uh, the consultant that you're recommending, and said, We want you to rescope this. What kind of a time frame could that be?

[00:59:29] Unknown Speaker: One week. is what I hear from our consultant. So I'm assuming if counseling gives direction to narrow the scope, we will simply work with the consultant to do that and adjust the timeline, the cost, and everything, appropriately, but we would not bring it back to you. We would simply move forward with the project.

[00:59:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I'm sort of leaning the time wise, you know, one week out, I'm sure they would respect your opinion, to be single. I would respect it. So I'm sort of leaning towards reworking with the consultant we have now.

[01:00:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[01:00:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just gonna comment that my experience with RFPs is that, um, sometimes people don't respond to requests for proposals, not because they're too busy, but because they are, this is with my work with the school districts, they aren't on the list and haven't been contacted, so it's not necessarily just because they're too busy, which may be the case in terms of...

[01:00:35] Unknown Speaker: There are any number of factors. Some of the ones that we know did not, who are on the list who didn't apply was because they were too busy. Obviously, if they aren't on the list, and they didn't know about it, even though it's all public information, that could be factors as well.

[01:00:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so any other comments? Okay, let's vote on... I'd like to see if this motion is supported. So let's vote on this one. Okay, that motion fails. Council member Clark.

[01:01:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: We'll move item 4.2, but direct staff to, in for phase one, to just narrow the scope as we, as we describe tonight. So focusing on, let me pull up the language that we had from earlier.

[01:01:32] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we could summarize, we would, we would drop, um, B2 and we would modify... We would take out the farm-based code and move that potentially to phase two. And we would drop item B1, C1. Is that, Diane, is that match your understanding?

[01:01:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, and then I had four specific points. The first one was to look at design guidelines for historic preservation, uh, do some amount of economic analysis, to see the impact of, you know, development in respect to historic preservation, restricting um, office use in these 3 sub areas and active and uh, encouraging um, active ground floor uses.

[01:02:20] Senior Planner Diana Pancholi: Yeah, so it would be exploring exploring the restriction of office in those areas. It might not make sense to do it in the whole thing, but like we can explore what's through the defasibility analysis, we can see what makes the most sense, too.

[01:02:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: So that would be my motion.

[01:02:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by council member, Clark, and a second by Vice Mayor, Abbe Koga. Any further discussion? Okay? We can call the question. And that passes 61. Okay, so I think that closes out the consent calendar. Okay, onto item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. So, Anna, he wishes to address the council on items not on the agenda tonight. Okay, seeing now, we'll close this portion. And I just want to remind folks that the city is recruiting for two seats on the Environmental Planning Commission for the terms ending December 31st, 2023. The application deadline is December 19th, 2019. And interviews with the city council will be scheduled in early January. So if there's anyone interested in applying to the Environmental Planning Commission, please contact the city clerk's office. Next is item 6.one, which is 1720 Illustrate, Residential Project and 660 Mariposa Avenue. And we will start with an announcement from our city attorney.

[01:04:31] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, uh, tonight, I will be recusing myself from this item due to an interest in real property in close proximity to the project site, and assistant city attorney, Nicole Wright, will sit for this item and assist counsel.

[01:04:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. And before we get into the staff presentation, um, just want to see a show of hands, of the council members who wish to disclose that they met with the applicant or had conversations with the applicant or visited the site. So that looks like it's unanimous. So, we will start now with a staff presentation.

[01:05:09] Matt Vanosen: Wonderful. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council. Matt Vanosen, I'm here with Wayne Chen, here to talk to you about 1720 Villa Street and 660 Mariposa. So it's kind of unique in that there's two project sites, so I'll first just go over the project locations briefly. So you can see here, here's 1720 Villa Street, and then a few blocks south of it is the 660 Mariposa Avenue project site. So person background on June 4th, 2019, this year, City Council approved a gatekeeper project at the 1720 Villa Street site, that included 226 units, community benefits, including 2 public pass, and traffic calming, as well as 34 on site BMR units, which is 15%, and that's in perpetuity, rather than the applicant proposed 10.900000 in Luffy. At the meeting, the applicant proposed another alternative, which we're calling the Mariposa alternative, and that was for the applicant to work with bridge housing, to rehabilitate, indeed, restrict the 48 units at 660 Mariposa, and those would be at 80% AMI, and those rehabilitated units would be delivered with no city funding. So the initial council input at that meeting included that there was not sufficient information at the time or analysis to make that determination on whether the alternative mitigation proposal was a better option. Although counsel was supportive of exploring the alternative proposal. And displacement was a major concern, but there is no guarantee that there would be no displacement with the alternative. And there's also no guarantee that displacement would occur if Mariposa were left to market. And then there was also discussion that Mariposa would not be adding affordable units to the city. It would just be preserving them. And then, finally, there was some discussion of a win win, which could include the 34 on site BMR units at the villa project and working to acquire Mariposa. And council directed staff to work with the applicant to analyze the Mariposa alternative. So the BMR program requires that an alternative mitigation further affordable housing opportunities to a greater extent than the affordable housing obligation. And this is certainly a unique alternative mitigation, which is relatively new, in that it's not an aloofy, and we don't have a lot of, we don't really have a specific way to analyze that. But staff did create an evaluation framework for this proposal, and that included looking at for topics, and that was a project level comparison, including onsite features and amenities, unit level comparison, including in unit features, and amenities, economic value, and financing structure, and then qualitative factors, including the probability, efficacy of preventing displacement, and the value of affordable housing, integrated with market rate housing. And so, to start with the project level evaluation, certainly, there's some big differences there. The villa site would be new versus 1964, built, year built at Mariposa. The affordability levels are 65% AMI versus 80%, AMI, annual increases would be 3%, and 4%, and then the term of affordability would both be in perpetuity. And I do want to call out that the staff report had originally said that the Mariposa Project was 55 years, and we have since confirmed with the applicant. in perpetuity, as well. And then additionally, the villa apartments would have more amenities, while Mariposa would be, including resident services, managed by bridge housing. And then, as far as the unit level evaluation, certainly, there's a difference between the 34 on site units versus the 48 units. The 2 are a little closer when it comes to total square footage, given the unit sizes at the new villa project. So there's really a number of different trade-offs there. You have new and larger units at Villa versus smaller and older, but more units at Mariposa. And then also just some in unit amenities as well, and the newerville units to contain higher quality and more amenities than Mariposa. So as for the economic valuation, the estimated value of the 34 onset units at Villa is $20.1 million. The applicant proposes to contribute $12.4 million for the delivery of Mariposa instead of the 34 BMR on set units. And this proposal would also include no loan repayments to the city, no tax credits, no prevailing wage, and the use of incomes and rents based on TCAC and not HCD. And then as for the quality of evaluation, for addressing displacement at the Mariposa site, the initial rents at AMI levels, according to existing Mariposa households, to be increased up to 80% AMI rents, and there's currently 44 occupied units at Mariposa, and 35 of those 44 households are between 30% to 50% AMI., And there would be up to 4% annual increases with use of higher TCAC rents. And then addressing displacement at the onset units, rents there would be 65% AMI with lower HCD rents. And rents would be increased subject to HCD income increases. There's also SB 330. which has replacement requirements, which would go into effect in January. And if Mariposa were sold to a marker rate developer, requirements to replace demolished rent stabilized units are also being developed as part of our displacement response strategy. And then finally, staff is also recommending modification of a condition of approval to include preference for tenants displaced from Mariposa, should the 34 onset units stay in place. And then, finally, as far as the qualitative evaluation goes, the integrated affordable housing, there is value in integrating, affordable housing, with market rate housing, and based on council priorities, the BMR program was modified to prioritize development of BMR units on site, and that any request for an alternative mitigation would require the applicant to demonstrate its greater value than on site units. So given that, we conclude that the overall, the alternative mitigation proposal does not appear to provide a greater benefit than the 34 on site BMR units based on the evaluation criteria used. Staff does have one recommendation for a different approach and we're calling that the hybrid approach. And this is where the applicant would provide 17 units on site at the Villa project, which was half of what was approved. And then the applicant works with the affordable housing developer and the city to acquire the Mariposa property still. 48 units would be rehabilitated, indeed restricted, in perpetuity, at Mariposa. And the applicant would provide an initial fee of $6.2 million to the city. An additional could be required based on actual level of rehabilitation needed per the condition of approval and inspections by staff and the chief building official. And then the city would contribute the other 6.2 million, plus up to an additional $2 million for prevailing wage increases. So this hybrid option increases overall supply of affordable housing, adds integrated, affordable housing, preserves naturally affordable housing, enhances ability to address displacement concerns. An applicant pays fees to the city, which is lent and repaid like revolving loan fund, and requires city contribution. And so with that, the staff recommendation is to adopt a resolution of proving the modification to the BMR requirement, as well as with condition number 57 in Attachment 1 as received by a council and provided to staff, there were some minor changes made to that condition of approval in front of you. And then it would also be to direct staff to work with the applicant in bridge housing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 660 Mariposa Avenue. This concludes staff's presentation.

[01:14:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? And is it, um, just you, Mr. Moss, or... Okay. And so combined, you two would have 10 minutes.

[01:14:43] John Ross: Yeah. Yes. Exactly. So, I'm John Ross with Prometheus, a real estate group, and for once in my life, I'm actually gonna be brief, and we're hoping to be less than 10 minutes combined, if we can pull this off. So, um, I just, uh, first want to thank you for providing us an opportunity uh, to share our alternative mitigation plan with you this evening. We met last time on June 4th. A few things have happened since then. Most importantly, we've met with our residents at Mariposa twice since the last meeting, and went over the details of the rehabilitation plan, and the rent structure, and a number of different items. We believe that those meetings wanted. extremely well. The residents are here tonight to speak on their own behalf, and staff was in attendance at those meetings, as well. The other thing that's happened since then is Bridges had a chance to do their due diligence on the property, and, um, you know, that's good news, bad news, their construction costs are a million and a half dollars more than what they had understood in June. Council directed us, me, specifically, I recall that night, to make sure that we don't come back to council asking for more monies, and we are not doing that this evening. Prometheus will fund the million and a half dollars, and Bridge will not have to come out of pocket, nor the city for that. We have studied the hybrid option. We still think our plan is a great plan, and we do think it's reasonable, but after much review and thought, we have concluded that we are willing to go with the plan as outlined by staff here this evening. One issue that's come up very recently, recently being today, was some concerns from labor representatives that are here this evening about how the renovation work would be handled, as it relates to prevailing wage versus having unions working on the project. In some cases, you can have prevailing wage with non union workers. and others unions. So, what I'm asking for from the city tonight, respectfully, is if the city council is in a position to approve the hybrid plan as proposed by staff. We are all in favor of doing that. But I'm requesting that we have some time to work out with labor, some of the concerns that they have, and see if we can't come up with an agreement, and the next, let's call it, approximately 90 days, and have that in writing, as far as being able to work out those specifics. And the thing we'd ask from council tonight, should you be in a position to approve that hybrid plan, is that we, Prometheus, have the ability, if we're not satisfied with what we can work out with the labor unions, that we would just revert back to the 15% on site, if we really had to, or strong desire, expectation, and plan, and hope is to do exactly what's in the hybrid plan, but I would like to be able to have some time to work with labor here in a collaborative manner, to, hopefully, come to the same agreement as far as what the preferences are for labor and for what we need to do as well. So, the condition that we would ask for, if it's doable, would be to provide us optionality at our discretion to either do the original 15% on site, which is already approved, or go with the staff's recommendation of plan, if we can get agreement with labor. So, that's all I have. Brad Woodland is here from Bridge Housing to provide a little bit of background on their company. I think some folks wanted to learn a little bit more about bridge, so... Brad? And I'm available, of course, for questions.

[01:18:29] Brad Woodland: Let's see if I can get this up and running in ten minutes. I've got just a quick PowerPoint presentation. Um, and maybe that's not gonna... Technology expert. Thank you. Um, Brad Whiblin with Bridge Housing. I know I've, uh, had the opportunity to meet with several of you or talk on the phone. Thank you for your time around this busy holiday season we're in. I concur with John's comments, and the staff report. As I understand it, in essence, the proposal that we were here in Maine in June is pretty much intact. It's virtually the same proposal that we are presenting tonight. In terms of the rehabilitation, operation, and regulation of the Mariposa apartments. What we have now is a lot more information about the physical needs of the building, the demographics of the residents. And we've begun to work out operational plans about how to accomplish the rehabilitation. We've gone out to 3 separate contractors, gotten detailed pricing, done destructive testing. We have a very good handle on what the building needs are. And I think having toured a similar property here in Mountain View with staff, I think we're comfortable, and I believe staff is comfortable with the level of amenity and finish that we're proposing. We have, um, of the Madrone apartments as kind of our baseline model. So, I think we're all in agreement on that. Real briefly, I want to talk a little bit about bridge.

[01:20:50] Brad (Bridge Housing): I want to get a little bit of clarity on our proposal, because I think, I hope we're able to go forward with that, and I want to make sure everybody is, uh, understand kind of the rationale for some of what we're doing. I don't know if I can figure out how to. I think.

[01:21:20] Unknown Speaker: Boy. Advancing that, I'm struggling here as well. Which one? Yeah. What kind of arrows here?

[01:21:36] Brad Woodland: All right, sorry for the technology issue here. I see I'm running out of time, or I've got three minutes left. I did send you all a brief email today, a little bit of background on bridge. I know we're not that well known in Mountain View. We been around for 35 years. I've been with a company for 25. And the last time we worked in Mountain View was just about 25 years ago. So we built and continued to own an asset manage senior development here in town. But most of our work has been around the rest of the Bay Area, Southern California and in the Pacific Northwest. We're large and well managed, financially sound, nonprofit. A little bit of our origin story here. We're following all the displacements here in Mountain View. Mariposa Apartments came up for sale. We made an offer to buy it. Prometheus allowed us to tie it up so we could have discussions with the city. Um, for a number of reasons. There were some challenges to that scenario. Ultimately, we landed on the scenario you have before you tonight, this alternative mitigation. Um, Our whole goal was about preservation, and I know that's in sync with the council's recent work and ongoing discussion around anti-displacement. Um, I don't want to go into all the detail, but we do think we have a financial strategy and a couple of options, and some things that might actually, um, allow us to to lessen the rent increases on residents, and we can talk about that. Uh, I discussed this, um, earlier, our current budget is about $122,000 a unit in rehab. You can imagine that's a substantial budget. All of the kitchens, baths, finishes, et cetera, will be taken care of roofs, systems. Real briefly, there's a lot of discussion about the 4% room. rent increase. So I wanted to give an example of what typical affordable housing projects are dealing with in terms of rent increases. The red line is what tax credit finance projects have been able to, and for the most part, have been raising rents over the last, well, since 2011 through 2019. Um, a lot of volatility in that market. Rents are way up today. They were down in the sort of tailwind of the recession. Our proposed 4%. You can see how that would have played out over time. Ironically, those both turn out to be virtually the same. I would also argue that the city's rent control ordinance, which has an average of about 3.6% a year increases. Obviously, would be very similar to the proposed 4% at Mariposa. So these are, this is completely in keeping with the way most affordable properties are operated. We're not, we're not proposing that we would have to raise rents. Um, and in fact, we're reaching out to a little below local philanthropy, through one of your large tech companies, and if we're successful there, that money would go directly toward keeping rents even lower. Another issue that came up around prevailing wage. This was originally a private transaction. We were going to acquire the building from Prometheus, and they weren't going to write a check and the city wasn't going to write a check. If I could have another minute.

[01:24:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, we're working with the technology, so yeah. Give you a little bit more time.

[01:24:57] Brad (Bridge Housing): And since this was a completely private transaction, Prometheus was just going to lower the purchase price of the building, that had a lot of positive effects for us, lower property tax rate, transaction costs, ultimately prevailing wages not being required. And so those were all things that were helping the economics of the project. And as I think you've heard from Prometheus, they offered this opportunity to a number of local, very sophisticated nonprofits, and those organizations could not make it pencil. We found a little bit of a mousetrap that just worked. Um, I also wanted to say that we are not in the business of structuring around utilizing prevailing wages. A quick summary there in the last 4 years, 6600 units under construction are completed, 97% of those were a prevailing wage, or a full-blown PLA. One project in Southern California, again, that was privately financed, um, did not pay prevailing wage. So, we've got quite a track record in this area, and we're comfortable, again, with staff's proposal, and meeting all of the requirements that come with a prevailing wage project. A couple of other issues that came up, I just want to get clarity on it. The regulatory agreement would be in perpetuity on 48 units. There's a small parcel on the back of the property that's vacant, and we would suggest that that not be restricted. We'd like to keep some flexibility there for a for sale project in the future. Just a minor but technical and important detail for us. And then finally, we have agreed to replace the windows, in addition to the doors. Those were issues that came up in conversations we have with staff. And with that, I'm gonna be able to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

[01:26:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, are there any questions from council members for staff or the applicant? Vice mayor, I'll be coca.

[01:27:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I guess my question has to do with what's transpired, and I see, um, Mr. Garcia here from building trades as well, but could you clarify, um, I guess what needs to be worked out, and, um, get the time, I guess the timeline of all of this, and, yeah, what would come about, like, is it intent? How long do we... allow or do we need to allow for you to work something out, or is it open ended? I guess I'm not clear on that.

[01:27:42] John Moss: And that's a great question. No, we wouldn't leave it open at all. I was saying 90 days earlier. I hoping it's less than 90 days, and it would be no more than 90. Okay. If we want to call it 70 or 80 or something. I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable working a toast way to see if we can come to an agreement on it. And again, the issue is prevailing wage versus the union's doing the work entirely. And when you have a prevailing wage requirement, typically there's some non-union contractors that are working with their employees at a prevailing wage, and then some unions. So, um, I'm sensitive to, um, Hosway's reaching out and wanting to discuss, uh, how the unions can get more involved in this, and we'd love to have them more involved. It's just that it's only been a couple hours, a few hours since I've learned about that. So I would like to be able to have an opportunity to sit down with him, or we would at Prometheus, and see if we can work something out. I think 90 days is plenty. I would hope we could do it in 60 or so, but maybe Josue can speak to some of that as well. I know in the next 30, of course, probably not a lot's gonna get better.

[01:28:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure, with the holidays and whatnot. And then, did you, Mr. Brad, did you say that you've done PLA projects? Is that a possibility here, then?

[01:28:58] Brad (Bridge Housing): Um, we have. We are currently constructing two or three projects under full project labor agreements. Those tend to be much larger projects. 48 units, we've never done anything of that scale. So, as John said, we're open to the whole conversation, prevailing wage, labor. I don't think a PLA is probably warranted on this project, just from my experience.

[01:29:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:29:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member Ramirez?

[01:29:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, just one quick question for, I'm not sure if it's Prometheus or Bridge in this case, but, um, would you be open? I, I, you may have already done this, but, uh, to continue working with staff to identify other grand sources of funding, um, to offset the cost, either from the city side or from, uh, you know, if there's any, uh, additional cost that becomes, uh, necessary to pay down.

[01:29:59] Brad (Bridge Housing): Yeah, and you can imagine all of us nonprofits are experts at mining the philanthropic and other sources. So, up until just a week or so ago, we were anticipating this to be completely privately funded. So we have only done a little bit of outreach on the philanthropic side, but, um, we're definitely open to exploring any of those opportunities. Thank you.

[01:30:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Well, open this up for public comment. So can I say a show of hands. of the folks who would like to address the council on this topic. Or maybe just everyone who wants to address this on this topic can line up, since I saw no one lose our hand, and I'm thinking there's some public input. Okay, each speaker will have one and a half minutes, and that doubles if translation is needed. So, please, for speaker, if you could remember to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk, either before or after you speak, I would appreciate it, for speaker.

[01:31:21] Josue Garcia: Good evening, mayor and council members, thank you for allowing me to speak, Josue Garcia, with Silicon Valley maps, and I want to thank you for the opportunity, and also thank you, John, for being open to my recommendation earlier today. And Jess, I think we can work it out in 90 days or less. And now there are different agreements that we can put together, we can be a PLA. There's different types. We've done it before with other developers. In fact, we have done it with primitives with before as well. And the idea is that as construction continues to boom, wedge step and worker abuses continue to happen throughout the area. And we are trying to prevent that. That city has a unique opportunity because now you are putting some money into the project so that gives you more leverage. And I think you should take advantage of it. But for sure, I'm very hopeful that we can work it out. And like I said, we have worked with Primitus before and we have got some agreements between the 2 of us. Thank you.

[01:32:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Not sure who's next over there.

[01:32:36] Martha Garcia: Hi. Hi. Hi, good evening. My number is Marta Garcia. My name is Martha Garcia. I'm here to thank you and to ask you to take the best decision today for our families. I'm a resident of 62. I have lived there for 20 years. I would like to thank you again, and I hope you guys take the best decision for us. Thank you.

[01:33:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:33:45] Estelia Garcia: Buenas tades, estelia Garcia, vivo. y, um, pollo el projecto de, de, um, Hi, uh, y por el projecto de la Mariposa, que... porque, tenemos, um, tengo yam muchisimo tiempo viviendo en esta, yamuchas gracias porso tiempo y buenas tadas. I'm a resident of 660, Marposa, um, apartments, and I would like to thank you for, um, taking the time to consider the best options for us. I have lived there at my past apartments for many years, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here.

[01:34:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:34:59] Luz Garcia: Mi nombres, los Garcia. My name is Luz Garcia. Soy residente del se Santa Mariposa. I'm a 660, my boss, apartment president. I've lived there for about 15 years. Eh, I love this city because it is very safe for my sons for my family. Um... Or must vivienda. Gracias. I mean, it's a part of the British house in project for our housing.

[01:35:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. X, please.

[01:35:57] Public Speaker: Good evening. My name is, and my husband here, Tadeo.

[01:36:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Speaking of microphones, we can hear both of you. That'd be great.

[01:36:13] Public Speaker: My name is, my husband here, Tadel. I'm a resident of 660 in my Posa apartments. I'm asking you today to take a good, uh, decision. Uh, for 17 years, I feel safe here in the city. I have four children, and they go to the best schools here. I have a daughter. I'm worried, you know, where she's gonna go to school, and my others, children are worried as well. Please take a good decision tonight, and we are very worried what we cannot do if the project doesn't go through. Please take us into considerations in your decision. Thank you. That's everything.

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

[01:38:19] Heidro Rodriguez: Good evening. My name is Heidro Rodriguez. He's... I'm a resident, uh, resident of, uh, 660, my... I would like to thank you for hearing us tonight, and to support us. I would like to continue living in this city that I saved for myself and for my neighbors. I'm here to support a house bridge. I'm only asking you to take a good decision. Gracias. Thank you.

[01:39:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:39:17] Veronica: Hi, good night, my name is Veronica. Thank you for your time. I'm resident from Mariposa, C60, for the last 16 years, and I would like to keep living there, because this is a great city. My kids love Mountain View. We, we, we like to keep living here. Uh, we are here for support bridge. Thank you.

[01:39:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:39:50] Alex: Alex, here. Uh, so, I guess the, uh, the hard part about negotiating from the DSN last minute, uh, negotiations going on is that, uh, curveballs come up, as I'm sure you guys have all been experiencing tonight. So I'm sure, and I totally appreciate, you know, where Prometheus is coming on this. They are business and they, uh, obviously have, um, business incentives to look after, uh, Josue and uh, John Moss definitely have a lot that they're going to have to work out. But definitely lost amongst the staff reporting, uh, and you know, the discussions, uh, you know, at least in the parties that I feel have been mostly involved in this, uh, have been the actual residents who live there. Um, you know, one of the value considerations that I didn't really feel were considered as, you know, what is the quality of life of the residents who have been long time out of your residents and what is the toll that anxiety and uncertainty is taking on their lives? Um, you know, one of the things that we came out here to support today is a uh, de-risking of this whole deal for the residents themselves. There's a lot of risk that Prometheus taking on bridge. Also, I'm sure we'll have risk, but there's a lot of risk for the residents too. And right now, with the deal as it is structured with the hybrid option. You know, it sounding good. I'm glad that Prometheus supports it. There is a lot of positives around it. But I would like to propose or, you know, ask for a solution that does no longer exposes residents to risk if I may have just 20 more seconds here. Um, you know, the deal as it is structured, um, for the discretionary outcome.

[01:41:28] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Actually, so my question is, what would alleviate or lessen the risk?

[01:41:36] Alex: What would alleviate the risk is taking a decision that no longer gives Prometheus discretion to influence what happens with Mariposa. Uh, whether it is that the city says, hey, whatever the differential is, uh, for the, um, you know, the uh, prevailing wage, we're willing to front that, um, whether it's approving the original proposal with the 34 units, not being on the table or the 17 units and the 660 Mariposa alternative mitigation being, um, you know, approved as has been proposed, that's good too. Whatever it is, as long as it can make business sense for them so that they don't have to kind of, you know, keep their hands in that pot and just finally give that property to bridge. That's what's gonna be best for the residents. They just are tired of living under this cloud. And it's it's what we would like to see happen.

[01:42:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member command.

[01:42:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So, to follow up on that. So should the hybrid model go forward where bridge would own 660 Mariposa that would also alleviate residential concerns and would make you feel more comfortable. I feel like that's what you're saying, but I just want to make sure that we go on record hearing that from you.

[01:42:51] Public Speaker: Sure. About 80% of the way. The remaining 20% is if...

[01:42:56] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The funding component.

[01:42:57] Public Speaker: Correct. Okay. Prometheus and the trade unions are not able to come to some kind of agreement, and then that reverts to the, hey, let's go back to the 15% on-site VMR, then that throws everything back up in the air for 660 Mariposa. And so that's also too much risk. If there's a way to account for that funding, whether it's the philanthropic angle or even if the city's willing to put that money in, then that de-risks it for the residents, for our current residents of my own view.

[01:43:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yep. Thank you. So yeah. Okay, and then, well, I don't know if this is the time to ask the staff question, but I mean, it sounds like the city would is willing to contribute the prevailing wage. I think that the part that's coming up now, in real time is the PLA aspect, right? Which is what we need to work out. So I think in terms of that 20%, Maybe it's closer to 10 because the city is willing to go forward with the prevailing wage aspect. I think the other component that got brought up tonight in real time, right, is the PLA. And I'm sure we'll all talk about that after public comment. Thank you.

[01:44:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks. App appreciate it. Thanks, please.

[01:44:13] Fernando Romero: Oh, good evening. My name is Fernando Romero, and I'm a resident of 660, Mariposa apartments. I'm here today to speak in favor of the project. So, um, I know we're going to talk about the numbers and we're going to go over the economics of the project and everything. But one aspect, I think we can live out of the picture is the qualitative aspects of the project, which is, you know, the people here bring the diversity to our city. So we need diversity in the city of Mountain View, and I think, preserving the affordable units is a good way to preserve our people here in the city because, you know, we have had a lot of projects where people had to leave their houses. And in this case, I don't think we want that to happen anymore. And I think this is a good opportunity for the city, Mountain View, to approve this project and set a precedent for the future. And I think that that can also be a good way for the Cedar Mountain View to study. this project, the outcome of this project. And, you know, who knows, maybe other municipalities around the country who are struggling with housing could look at the city of Mountain View and study what we're doing. So thank you very much for your diamond.

[01:45:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I think we have a question for you, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[01:45:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And, um, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but, um, and, you know, I know we have many residents and I don't expect you to speak for all of them, but from your conversations, um, my, my question has to do with, Um, you know, we had a comparison done of the 34 on site units versus the 48 existing units. And, um, in my mind, I was trying to, I guess, and I can now ask, um, what the value of staying in the, your, you know, current residences, um, and upgraded, of course, by, um, bridge. Um, like, if you, could you describe, like, is that, you know, how much is that more valuable than new units that maybe not everyone, but 34, you know, families could get into eventually down the road? Or is it more valuable to stay where you are with, you know, your units are older, but upgraded? I guess I was trying to understand.

[01:46:47] Fernando Romero: Well, you know, obviously I cannot speak for everyone here in this room, but I'll speak from where I have heard from my neighbors. So, you know, obviously people would love to have a new home, you know, they would like to have their apartments for model. They like to have newer apartments. But I think if they had the option of, you know, you can apply to these 34 units, but there's no guarantee that you will get there. So we're talking 48 units versus 34. So, um, I think people will prefer to have a roof over their heads and sometimes, you know, the the luxury part or the amenities sometimes come 2nd after after that. So I think 1st thing is for people are concerned about staying in their homes and having a roof over their heads.

[01:47:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you and thank you for translating.

[01:47:44] Fernando Romero: Yep, thank you.

[01:47:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[01:47:53] Miriam Banderas: Good night. My name is Miriam Banderas. I'm resident. I'm 660 Mariposa Avenue for about 10 years. I have been living in Mountain View for 18 years. So, for me, living in Mountain View, it's a very inclusive, safe, and diversity community. Or kids are your kids' classmate. Stevenson school, I know a few people around here, because my kids are attending the same school as you were. So I want them to have the same opportunity. Right now, when I saw the kids doing this big project, I know all the kids from our apartment are capable to do that, because that's why ours as a parents are working really hard for them to have a better future. I think they deserve to have the same opportunities. Another thing. Um, uh, we, we have some meetings with the, uh, bridge, uh, bromateos, and they were very, um, clear, how false, empathetics with all, with all, no, or necessities. I know they are trying to help us, and I really appreciate that, because it will be really hard for us to go on another city and find the same safety and then the same help, what we are getting here. Thank you so much. I really thankful with the city. All the opportunities you are given us. Even learning English to get a lot of help to our kids. So it's amazing, this city is amazing. Thank you so much.

[01:49:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion, and bring it back to council for any further questions and then discussion and action. My smear, Abbe Koga.

[01:49:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I guess I wanted to first think, um, the applicant, Prometheus, for coming back, because, um, this was something that, you know, we approved the project, the Villa Street project, and, um, we were kind of taking a leap of faith, that they would return with the alternative mitigation. And, um, and not that I questioned, but, um, it's great that they did come back and were good on their word on that. And, um, I, I, you know, very much appreciate, um, what has been proposed. Um, frankly, you know, to me, in this scenario, the most valuable item for me was frank, was to keep Mariposa intact. And the idea, the concept of bridge housing, which, um, you know, I've had the opportunity to tour of some of their, um, developments, uh, when we were looking at the Franklin Street project here. We actually turned one of Bridges projects in the East Bay and was very impressed by what they offer and provide. So, you know, my thought was like the value here, the underlying value is that we have existing residents, and we're talking about, you know, anti-displacement, and the ability to keep them in place, and then also be able to remodel and improve their units, um, and have it under bridge of an affordable housing debt developer in perpetuity, um, was the most valuable thing to me in this in my mind. I understand the 34 units, and they're brand new, and yes, they might be a little bigger, and I get all that, but to be frank, you know, and maybe if the Mariposa units were empty, it would be very different. But even having to think about relocating and, you know, so forth to me was an extra, um, concern and, you know, leaving doubt. And so, the fact that we don't have enough units over there to move everyone over, left just too much to me of uncertainty. And so, um, that this was, you know, that was my primary my priority here. So the fact that we're able to do that, and then in addition, get 17 more units, and I know that Prometheus maybe wasn't intending that part, but that they're willing to go do that. I'm very appreciative of. So I think this is a win-win, win. Um, you know, I obviously, I was the one who pushed for prevailing wage on affordable housing projects that the city, um, has is involved in. So you know, that policy is, you know, something very near to me. Um, I understand the piece. Yeah, I think it's about more like union labor versus non and there are some issues around wage theft there. So, um, I too, you know, appreciate um, the building trades coming forward. I am hopeful that things can be worked out. But I will say, you know, my primary focus is to keep the residents at Mariposa intact. So I really do want to, you know, both sides, or all parties, just emphasize the real importance of getting an agreement done. So, um, yeah, so I will be looking forward to seeing that within 90 days. Um, so other than that, yeah, I, and I don't know if we need to put the preference now into the, for the villa, the on-site units, give the preference to the Mariposa residence, but, I mean, if you think that's still needed. I'm supportive of doing that as well. Um, I just think overall, in, you know, with on-site units, we do have the ability to give preference to Mountain View residents, and that's what I would like to focus on is, um, if there are Mountain View residents being displaced that they get 1st preference to that. Thank you and thanks, everyone.

[01:54:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:54:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. So this is, persistence pays off. This has been one of my goals to displacement, and affordable housing is that we actually buy some property, and that we have control over it, and I think this is going to be a start of many things that we will do to reduce the removal of naturally affordable units, and so, I am excited to see that we got, uh, a win win. In fact, I am so excited that hopefully this will continue, and we will get this pass, that I am going to be somewhat presumptuous, and make emotion before we do it. So here I go. Adopt a resolution approving a modification to the BMR requirement for the previously approved planned community permit at 1696 1758 Villa Street, to require 17 on site units and initial payment for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 48 off site units at 660 Mariposa Avenue, to be read entitled only, for the reading wave attached at one to the council report. Two, direct staff to work with the applicant in bridge housing for the acquisition, and rehabilitation of 660 Mariposa Avenue. Three, providing 90 day grace period to work out specific details concerning prevailing wages, with workout prevailings. If no agreement is reached, then the applicant has the right to return with the original project. Are there other elements?

[01:55:54] Unknown Speaker: Well, so, okay, um, I thought that's where prevailing wage would do. I think that's what we were discussing. So. So you have two questions, whether it's, I don't think the ask was specific to prevailing wage, it was essentially working with labor to come to an agreement, but the other question I wanted to clarify, you said, if it's not worked out, they could return. I think the suggestion was, I would automatically... automatically... to the 34 units on site. Then we could do the specific details concurring with the unions, and if no agreement is reached, then the, it will automatically revert to the original project. With that... So it...

[01:56:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You're the second or so? Go ahead.

[01:56:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I think we just want to modify the motion, or to clarify the motion, um, in terms of, I supported everything until, um, should something not be worked out in the 90 days, I think the whole goal that, where you're discussing is trying to preserve the, the, the units at 660 Mariposa. And so, um, you know, while the 34 units are form compliant and that, I feel like, leaves the uncertainty that the residents have brought up in terms of what happens to their location. And so, um, The only thing I wanted to include was that then maybe the project comes back to council for review. Um, should something not be worked out by the unit, that would be the only, um, thing that I would change. to the motion.

[01:57:32] Councilmember John McAlister: But we've already approved the initial project. So the applicant has the right, until we vote on something, to come back and say, I'm taking this off the table, I'm going to go with the original. And I would like to... So... my goal is, along with the vice mayor, is to make sure we preserve. And the gentleman said, just like any of the developers, certainty is more important to them, and certainty to those individuals at Mariposa is that they will have a roof over their heads, if this goes forward, and that roof will be improved, and propertarity, that they will have it.

[01:58:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. The form compliant project that would come back, though, wouldn't include, it would be 34 units on site, and it doesn't have anything included about Mariposa.

[01:58:23] Councilmember John McAlister: But that's the, yeah, so that's... That's what we're trying. That's a risk, that we're... We are...

[01:58:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So what I think we can do is, this was the condition of approval, I like to stop. The condition of approval to this project was that this aspect, the 660 Mariposa part, would come back to council. And so, I don't, I would think that we would also be able to say, this is, this approval is contingent on the 90 days with working out, Should that not happen, can it come back to council for review? That would be what I would hope that the motion would include. So I would just have to help clarify that, but that's the 2nd to the motion that I would hope for.

[01:59:14] Councilmember John McAlister: So, you could do it either way. I think the applicant was suggesting that it automatically revert to this.

[01:59:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You could, but, you know, to the point you were making, that would not provide the same certainty to the residence. So you could, if you chose, require it to come back.

[01:59:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Just another note. I mean, staff had actually suggested there's a tremendous amount of details that still need to be worked out with Bridge under the hybrid proposal. And so we wanted some time to be able to work that out as well. And so perhaps those two things could be merged in the timeline, that if it doesn't work out on our side, or on the labor side. It would be brought back. Do you want to add that to your motion?

[02:00:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, number two, I would see that was direct staff. So that would be your concern. And then the number three, though, would help. And if you guys, could you both do it concurrently? Because we've already, in number two, that's part of the motion.

[02:00:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so they can bring both back. The only difference is it comes back. It just comes back. So we want it to come back. If it comes back to us...

[02:00:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Go ahead, Mr. Moss.

[02:00:34] Mr. Moss: No, but... I've just had a quick follow up that he could. To clarify, I believe, and maybe staff can confirm, but I think the condition of a approval for the Project of Ville on June 4th was not that we had a come back for an alternative mitigation. We were voluntarily. going ahead and stating that we certainly were proposing it that night and wanted her to come back to council. But if we decided to not come here this evening, it would have been 15% on site. So we're here this evening because we want to not do that. Otherwise, we could have just done that half an hour ago and not started this meeting. So, our intent, our goal, our preference is to end up with, uh, working with Tosway, getting it done, and having the Mariposa residents, stay there for the rest of their lives. So, that's our goal, and that's what we tried to do before, but I don't think there was a condition that stated we had to be here tonight. We voluntarily came back here after six months of working very diligently with staff to try to make this all work. Our plan is still to absolutely make it work. But there wasn't the condition that we had to do that. It's just, we have a... Significant interest in doing so, or we wouldn't have just spent six months and hundreds of thousands of hours to figure all this stuff out in the last six months, so we've got an incentive to make it work, I think, anyway, and... So we will do our best to do so, and we're gonna be in the city forever. Well, at least we have been for the last 50 years, so longer than most folks have been here. So, did that help clarify for you?

[02:02:07] Unknown Speaker: So if we, um, go with your, um, motion, and it passes, um, like that, then if it doesn't work out, that is the new condition, and then the project doesn't go forward. So you would have to say, yeah, 'cause you didn't, it doesn't revert back unless we say, right? It does. Let's put it with automatically. It doesn't automatically. My understanding of your motion was that it would automatically. No action would not have it revert back. Right. So, um... Yeah, so... If it automatically reverts back. And, um, things don't get worked out, as Council member Comay was saying, then the folks at 660, Mariposa, um, are at risk of displacement. Yeah, so, I don't want those people to be at risk. So, you would have to add to your motion.

[02:03:06] Councilmember John McAlister: No, but I'm looking for guidance over here at our esteem.

[02:03:11] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I think... I think there's more certainty to the residents to require it come back if a deal can't be reached. If a deal can be reached, then it goes forward, and everyone's fine. But if what the applicant and Mr. Moss can confirm, but I think what he's asking for is that it would, if a deal can't be reached on the labor issue, it would automatically revert back to the 34 on site units. I think what council member, Kamea, saying, is, If a deal with labor can't be worked out, bring it back to council, and you would have another crack at it, either to find another solution or hybrid or whatever.

[02:03:53] Unknown Speaker: But the applicant has the right to say, fill me out on this one, then the applicant can say, No, we're gonna...

[02:04:02] City Manager Dan Rich: The applicant has the right to withdraw their request for modification tonight. Once you take action tonight with any majority vote to modify that condition, that becomes the new condition. So they would no longer have the right to automatically go back. to the original proposal.

[02:04:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I'll ask the applicant, if we reduce it, so it doesn't revert to the original program. Would you move forward, or would you withdraw your... Because we're playing with people's lives here, and just less... I mean, there's been a lot of compromise already, and I just don't want to, again, I want to give certainty to people.

[02:04:44] Mr. Moss: Okay, so, to be really clear, the proposal that we provided to the city was a proposal where there would be absolute certainty, right? It was 48 units plus two, actually, we didn't talk about that, but there's two more units that we found on site. So it'd be 50 units. I remember Posa versus the 34. What's been brought up, you know, recently here is this hybrid proposal. which we're willing to go along with, um, very reluctantly. We proposed a very formal proposal that would, if you approved it tonight, and you still can't approve it. I don't suggest that we're going to back up into that. But if you did, that would provide absolute 100% certainty to the residents, because we would do 48 units, or 50 units there, and we wouldn't do the units over at Villa. We've decided to go with your plan, but this wrinkle on the union side has caused us to need to pause for a 2nd and make sure we work something out. We're confident we can do that, but not so confident that I can absolutely guarantee that right now, because I don't know enough about it. There's implications on that prevailing wage that are rather significant, to say the least, on this project, so I just need a little bit of time with Josue and his group. I'm confident we'll come to a conclusion, but this came up today, literally. So, we did originally have a proposal that would guarantee tonight. The staff recommendation is one that, I think, comes close to guaranteeing. It's just not an absolute guarantee. But I do commit to working as hard as we can with Josue to make it work. Otherwise, we would have actually just pulled the application an hour and a half ago and not started up this meeting tonight to be really honest with everybody, so...

[02:06:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. So let me ask, Chris. Thank you, John.

[02:06:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Mr. Moss. So, staff. So let's say we have that then in there, that the project comes back to us, which, therefore, means it's a clean project. Nothing's been approved, if that's what I understand, the city manager was saying, that the original project is not approved. If counsel makes a motion to modify the condition and that is passed, then that modified condition is the condition that holds forth. And therefore, the 34 units, the whole project is dead. Or what, what, what goes forward then?

[02:07:14] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, I mean, I think part of this is based on council deliberation right now and what it wishes to include in the modification. of the C.O.

[02:07:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Let's say we go with the modification that he comes back to us. And therefore, if he comes back to us and says at that time, I, I'm gonna not go forward with the Mariposa project. Does the conditions of the 34 on-site units continue, or is everything then renegotiated?

[02:07:46] City Manager Dan Rich: I do believe I'm looking across the dais here, that it depends on what the motion is. So, for example, if the motion is made to articulate something like move forward with the hybrid option, but if within 90 days, the agreement is not reached, then return to the council for further deliberation on options to move forward with COA 57. Or the council could, as another hypothetical include language that says, approve the hybrid option, have the applicant work with the unions to work out on agreement, if that doesn't move forward, then go to the 34 units, just as a hypothetical. So it depends on, I believe.

[02:08:34] Councilmember John McAlister: That's what I was proposing, the 2nd one, is that if it comes back to us, It goes with the 34 units.

[02:08:39] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes, if a motion is made, and the majority of the council votes, and...

[02:08:44] Councilmember John McAlister: That, if we take out that, that it goes back to the original project. What exists of the original project?

[02:08:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Then I believe we would have to develop and work with the applicant on another option to meet the council's desire to meet the BMR requirements for Villa.

[02:09:03] Councilmember John McAlister: But would the 34 units be that requirement? Or we could change that to say 25% or something. What I'm trying to get is what hypothetically would we, where would we go with this?

[02:09:17] City Manager Dan Rich: I'm looking across here, if there's any additional...

[02:09:20] Unknown Speaker: So, so, if counsel were to take action and basically modify the condition of approval, what was condition 56 and 57 would be changed. So the original condition would no longer exist. So, if you, depending on what the motion is, if you direct that it returned to council, should a labor agreement not be reached, then it opens back up that condition in terms of for BMR and what would be required. So there's kind of no longer automatic 34 units on site. I don't think that would preclude you from doing that at that point in time if you wanted to, but I think it comes back to counsel for deliberation on that for that piece.

[02:09:59] Councilmember John McAlister: But then the requirement to try to get Mariposa could be taken off the table.

[02:10:05] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's alternative mitigation that's been proposed, and so.

[02:10:10] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, but I'm saying, the applicant will have the opportunity to say, okay, you're gonna discuss it. We didn't get an agreement, so Mariposa is no longer on the table.

[02:10:24] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it won't be on the table, so there goes.

[02:10:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: But I... But I think that what we're seeing tonight is the applicant trying very hard to work with all of us to preserve Mariposa, and I think the fact that they have come forward in the last couple hours today to say that they now support the hybrid where we can preserve Mariposa, get additional units at Mariposa, as well as get, you know, inclusionary units at Villa, is their attempt to show an act of good faith, that they want to move in this direction. So I, well, I appreciate kind of all the hypotheticals. I feel like perhaps not focusing, letting that be the hurdle for moving forward. I think that the best would be to condition it so that should something, you know, heaven forbid something, not work in the 90 days, that it just comes back, and we can discuss that. as a council, should that happen? I think that what we heard from Mr. Moss is that he's going to try very hard to make sure that does not happen at all. That's what I'm understanding. That's the motion that I would like to 2nd Um, and, and I think that that helps provide the most certainty to residents that they'll be able to stay with this motion. Should something unfortunate happen. It'll come back to council for us to make additional attempts to help preserve where they live. So I think that is the most certainty that we as a council can provide. in this situation.

[02:12:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we've got folks in the queue. Did you want to respond to that, or?

[02:12:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Or do you want, wait, should we hear from others?

[02:12:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, but, okay. Let's go to Ramirez.

[02:12:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Wow. Okay. Um, I was hoping to just support the direction we were going in, but this got a lot more complicated really quickly. So, as I understand it, I really appreciate where council member Kame is coming from and trying to provide some assurance to the 660 Mariposa residence that they're going to have someplace to go. And I think if I were to characterize where council member McAllister's coming from, it's limiting Prometheus' exposure to additional cost that we can't necessarily predict coming out of negotiations with labor. Maybe that's one way of thinking about it, right? If it's concern about exposure to costs that we can't predict, then, you know, providing some assurance to the applicant, that they have a fallback, that they know that they can finance makes sense. Maybe another way of looking at this is, are there other ways we can potentially limit exposure to the applicant? And I don't have great ideas right now, but one thing that comes to mind is perhaps we could have sort of a cost sharing mechanism where if there are, you know, considerable costs that are incurred from the negotiations, that the city can bear some portion of that, whatever seems reasonable. Right. Well, it's just an idea. But it provides some assurance to everybody that, you know, if things don't work out quite as well as we hope that they will. The residents of 660 Mariposa would still have the assurance of that alternative mitigation moving forward, the applicant would be assured that they would be able to finance this, and then a portion of the risk is now borne by the city. And whatever, whatever cost sharing mechanism we think is appropriate. But that way, it doesn't necessarily have to come back to us where the risk may be an entirely different set of conditions of approval that are no longer acceptable to the applicant. I'm just trying to think of, is there some sort of elegant way out of this where everybody kind of lands in a place where we understand what will happen moving forward. Um, I, I like the idea of kind of a, uh, a stop check, you know, if things don't go the way that we want them to go, then before just disposing of 660 Mariposa entirely, or the bridge partnership, that we have a chance to check in and maybe negotiate some other way of moving forward. But if there's a way we can do that now, then we don't, there may be other ways of providing that assurance. So just one idea, I don't know if staff has other recommendations for limiting that exposure. But I think we could maybe benefit from some ideas. So...

[02:15:14] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, just 2 points. Number one, as it's currently drafted, the city is accepting risk up to $8.2 million, so we've already accepted potentially $2 million of costs due to increased labor costs, I would be quite concerned if all additional costs were to be borne by the city in a sort of an open ended checkbook on the city. I don't think that's appropriate. But getting back to the bigger issue of kind of greatest certainty for the residents of Mariposa, which I think everyone is saying is what they want, and I think everyone here is working in good faith to come up with a solution and is motivated to make it work. And, you know, I have high confidence level that can occur. But the automatic reversion to the original condition would provide less certainty to the residents than requiring it to come back to council.

[02:16:18] Councilmember John McAlister: So you're saying the automatic comeback to revert is less certain? For 660 marathons?

[02:16:24] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, because if you automatically go back to the current condition of the 34 on site units, then there's no longer a protection for the Mariposa Project. Potentially subject to sale and redevelopment.

[02:16:38] Councilmember John McAlister: So, but that's what, okay. So where, if we don't go with it, then yes, then the developer, or 660 Mariposa, they could just say, Thank you, but no, thank you, and put it up for sale, or whatever they want, and therefore, we haven't achieved our goal.

[02:16:55] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, they always have the right to not proceed with a project. But if tonight, if we provide the return, that they would be more incentivized to move forward with the project and try to preserve 660.

[02:17:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, that's fine. Okay, so, to Mr. Councilman Malukas, you misread what I was saying. I was not concerned about the applicant's his financial side. I was more concerned about the people at 660 Mariposa, just like the people at Rock Street, where when they were exposed to displacement, that the developer could have just walked away, you know, they upped the game to them, but they could have walked away, and those people at Mariposa would have less lost money. And that's what I'm talking about. Certainty is, we have something on the table now, that will guarantee those people housing, and that 660, that community will exist, if it comes back to us, and you ask for it to come back, then they might, after reviewing the financial ramifications, and what the city manager said, that there could be more exposure to the city, And in the past, the city councils have not been willing to go outright and buy the project, or buy the building. Then, I think you're seeing less certainty for the protecting the people and preserving naturally affordable housing. So, I hope that cleared it, but no, I was not looking to protect the applicant. I am looking to preserve the people that are living there now and improve their lives. So, if the city manager is, God, you know, I'm just sitting there, because I know for sure that we get something here. If we go with, they, it comes back to us, then they could take something off the table. And we've already moved this far on this particular project to getting both units, both remodeled, plus 17 units, that, to me, is quite a win-win. So let's hear what I'll be in.

[02:18:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counseling your Hicks?

[02:19:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I appreciate your motion, council member McAllister, and also that your reasoning behind it, but I, um, strongly support the amendment that council member Kamei made, and I think that gives the, um, and I think we've had the reassurance from the city manager. It seems to me that that gives the, um, most security to the, to the, um, residence of Mariposa, which I think is what most of the speakers have spoken about, and it seems to me to be the sentiment of the council. So that would be, and I think that, um, folks from Prometheus are really going to try, I think they sounds like they feel that they're 99% there. But I would like if we do maybe not 99%. But if the negotiations, you know, do fall towards that one% instead. I think checking back with them as a council member, command's amendment, advised, I think that is how I would like this motion to go, and that is what I would be supporting. Thank you.

[02:20:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: My spare holiday coca.

[02:20:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, that was my my thought too, was that, you know, I, I fully, I mean, I have faith that, um, an agreement will be reached, but in the case that it isn't, um, I wanted the council to have the opportunity to maybe modify the, the, you know, levers. And my thought was that if it's, and, you know, I mean, I don't expect it to be a cost issue, frankly, it's more about, right, labor, you know, union labor versus not, wage theft, um, making, you know, checks and confirmations, but if it were to come to some changes in the finances, that we could adjust that. So, you know, my, again, my priority is preserving Mariposa. I think we're all I think we're all in unison on there. So my thought was, should it become a, you know, an agreement not reached, it can come back to us, and then we can discuss whether we, let's say, you know, lower the on-site unit count to make it more feasible for Mariposa to be preserved. So that's why I wanted to come back. But I do also, I want to be mindful of Prometheus an applicant because they do have an approved project, and so my question was going to be, you know, by doing this, allowing this time, like, can you move forward or can, I don't know, if I ask staff or you, but move forward with your Villa Street project or not? Like, do we need to have a decision on this before you start your project on Villa? Or can you start pulling permits to do that? Because I don't want to drag this on forever. Right? You know, and I don't want to, frankly, dock the applicant for coming back with a proposal that we like better than the original. I you know, I don't want to punish good deeds. So, yeah, is there some, Can we move them forward in terms of their original project on Villa Street?

[02:22:24] City Staff: Yes, the current condition of approval speaks to a 6 month window where negotiations would take place based on the current proposal. And those new negotiations with labor could either fall into that or have a separate timeline, but we have given them a timeline, which approximately meets up with their current building permit process.

[02:22:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[02:22:50] City Staff: And also to note that the applicant has already received their demolition permit and has already started to do work on the site. What is that? Our approach has been that the project is moving forward while we continue to work with the applicant.

[02:23:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Is it okay if any response?

[02:23:09] John Moss: This is more complicated than I think I even envisioned a few minutes ago. So, in terms of us going forward with demo and all the rest of it, it's really hard for me to get investors and banks to lend money on a project where it's not defined, and up until this last hour or two, It was fully defined, and it was defined where we would have 15% on site, or we would end up with a Mariposa solution. But if we don't have either of the two clarified tonight, as far as us having clarity, then I'm not sure if, you know, the contractors we have out there, and our investors and everybody are willing to continue to go forward on the project. So up until a couple hours ago, we had the ability to just do 15% on site. I just want to remind everybody for the last six months, we've been able to do that. I appreciate the, you know, the concerns and the desires to have absolute clarity for the residents of Mariposa, who have voluntarily come up with this option. If we want to try to minimize the time of lack of clarity, maybe we go from 90 days to 60 days or something like that. So I am sympathetic to folks that don't have total clarity, but for the last six months, we've had the ability to go in a different direction, we haven't done that. So, for tonight, they're all of a sudden to open this up where we come back in 60 or 90 days, and then we're exposed to an affordable housing requirement by the city that could be, the way I understand it, almost anything. Under the sun, once we open up Pandora's box. You know, up until tonight, we've had a 15% on site, or we come up with a mutually agreed solution. What you're suggesting here is that if we don't agree with labor, then we come back, and we don't have necessarily mutually agreed solution, the council would dictate whatever that affordable housing requirement is on the property, whether it's Mariposa, or 50% BMRs at Villa, or anything, and that's the way our investors and banks look at it, so they would probably cut us off altogether. After tonight, if there's gonna be that kind of exposure. So, we want to shorten the time frame for Josue and us to get together and get this done, so that we minimize the lack of clarity for the residence. I'm all in favor of that. But, uh, so I'm sympathetic to that, but I just want to remind everybody, we've had six months to not come back. If we didn't want to. We absolutely did not need to come back. It was not a condition of approval, and we've come back voluntarily, and there's a reason why we've come back. It's because we're absolutely motivated and incentivized and want to make the deal. And if you want clarity for the residents, you can approve the proposal that we have given you with 48 units, and that gives everybody in this room clarity, gives us clarity, council clarity, and it gets 48 units instead of 34. There are options out there. That's not mine.

[02:25:53] Unknown Speaker: So our option already exists, because that project with that condition, with the, oh, I'm sorry, the on site units, you could move forward with. But you're talking about approving the taking Mariposa as you're 100%.

[02:26:07] John Moss: Yes. Yeah, we've proposed that originally, and we're willing to do that, and this, that gives all of our residents here absolute clarity, because Council Clarity, yes, and we don't need to go through all this consternation, but I know that you prefer the hybrid. We're willing to do that. And if the labor thing didn't come up two hours ago, I would have stood up here, and I told folks that earlier and just said, Okay, the hybrid, gavel drops, and we're done. So I still expect that to happen, with working with him, but I can't guarantee it. And there's more to it than just the prevailing wage issue on the renovation. I'm also concerned that labor, very well, may want to open up Pandora's box on prevailing wage on the entire project. So that's why, in the next 60 days, I need to absolutely make sure that that's not what their intent is, because if it is, the whole project's off. Because that's a $40000000 hit to the budget. So there's more to this. I mean it's a very layered issue. Um, issue, but we did propose something with absolute clarity, guys.

[02:27:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I do want let. So, and this is a question for staff, prevailing wage on Mariposa has already been addressed, right? in the staff proposal.

[02:27:17] City Staff: The way that we characterize it, It would be addressed through the additional cost that the city would contribute. It sounds like there may be some other components that, um, John and, um, the unions would need to come around.

[02:27:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Correct. So, um, I'm going to take a turn here. I'd like to find a way to have this settled tonight. Um, but my goal is absolutely to preserve 660 Mariposa as a place where folks who live there can continue to live there. We've talked so much about displacement that, um, I kind of feel like, you know, here's an opportunity to not have displacement. And so I'd like to make sure we don't lose that opportunity by making this perhaps more complicated than it needs to be. Um, so I do see that there might be some risk that if we don't solve this tonight, um, it could potentially, um, not be as favorable, uh, if we try to negotiate this again. So I'd like to find a way to settle this tonight that preserves 660 Mariposa. Um, and I do prefer the hybrid option. Um, so I do support your motion, and maybe there's a way to modify it, um, to say, in working with labor, that, um, you know, I, I can't imagine that, um, or at least I would hope, and I'm assuming this is correct, that, um, Prometheus is not, uh, a company that does, that has any wage theft, uh, violations, They wouldn't do that. So, that one should be easy to, uh, sort out because, and there should be no additional cost. Sorry, Bridge. Sorry, thank you. Um, and so, uh, maybe it's something about, you know, because I don't want to leave it open ended for the city, um, items that don't increase the cost. Um, labor practices, things like that, how the workers are treated, um, And if we could somehow characterize the things that are, could be discussed and that don't increase the cost, or that we say only increase the cost a certain amount, um, but I, I kind of like to get this settled tonight. Council member Clark.

[02:29:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, it's gonna suggest another, um, sort of similar option, I completely agree with you, Mayor. Um, and, you know, you could go the direction of saying, you know, if, if, if the stuff in part two, directing stuff to work with the African and Bridge and the acquisition doesn't work, or if, um, the negotiations with labor don't work, it comes back. I think in terms of having a little bit more clarity for everyone. Look, as much as I would love for them to come to an agreement with labor, um, I don't know what the request from labor will be, and I have to think about is, is that thing that I want, so important that I'm willing to risk the entire project and 660 Mariposa. And the answer in my mind is no, that's not the cost benefit analysis that I'm most comfortable with, the cost benefit outcome that I'm most comfortable with. And so what I would say is, move forward with what staff has proposed, basically say, you know, Prometheus has worked with labor before. They don't want to be on labor's bad side. I'm pretty confident that this will all get worked out. It's a small enough project that it should, it should all be fine. But if for whatever reason, it doesn't work out, then we move forward with, um, what staff has proposed, where we do the cost share up to prevailing wage, and they can move forward at the prevailing wage level. And, uh, you know, I'm confident that they'll work something out with labor, but, um, the risk to me of that not happening isn't worth tanking the entire thing. And so that's what I would say, instead of coming back to us, like, if whatever reason doesn't work out, you know, we've contributed up to prevailing wage, that's our policy anyway. or would be something that we would do anyway. And if they can go above and beyond that, then that's great, and we sort of expect that to, I personally would expect that to happen. because I don't think, I think their reputation in our eyes and labor's eyes matter. But that would be, instead of coming back, I would just say, we'll contribute up to prevailing wage, if all else fails, you can move forward with the hybrid option that's put together here, and not more. Yeah, wasn't it was it 97%? of your units? You did have agreements with labor. So that's a pretty good track record in my book.

[02:32:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other folks in the queue, wanna talk? So, Council member McAllister, back to you.

[02:32:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Uh, I want certainty, so I'm gonna stay with my original motion that it doesn't come back to us, because I'm not willing to gamble. I mean, I'm the people on this council, I gamble more than anybody, and this one project, I'm not willing to put people's lives at risk in the community. And so by moving forward with this, what we have tonight, we, I disagree with the esteemed city manager. I think we give them more certainty that if we approve the this staff report tonight, allowing Prometheus and the Unions to work out a agreement. I think that provides more certainty. But if it comes back to us, then I don't like to use Mr. Moss's words, but Pandora's boxes, it could change things. So, this way, I think we got our sending. That was the original motion.

[02:33:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I have a second, so...

[02:33:20] Unknown Speaker: Do you want me to pick?

[02:33:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so we have a motion by council member McAllister, but we don't have a second on that. But what was the third...?

[02:33:27] City Staff: You have the two staff recommendations. And then the third one was...

[02:33:30] Unknown Speaker: To read that third again? The 90 days. I think Christmas is the 90 days grace period to work, to work out specific details with the union. If no reman is reached, then the applicant would have the right to, and I guess that's the part right there where people are getting stuck on, the right to proceed with their original project.

[02:33:50] Unknown Speaker: Not the original project. What we're saying is... It would revert to the hybrid, the staff recommendation for tonight.

[02:33:58] Unknown Speaker: But that okay, but then we wouldn't need... So, okay, so, I'm confused about, is that if we're proposing this, that is, the number one is the hybrid, and that if they return back to us, it's returning back to hybrid. So, we're approving the hybrid, and then you're saying we'll come back as the hybrid.

[02:34:21] Unknown Speaker: So, Chris, I'm not saying bring it back. Yeah. I don't want to bring emotion on the, is there still a motion on the floor if there's no second, then...

[02:34:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: There is no second, so...

[02:34:34] Unknown Speaker: I will make a... different motion. Okay, so now there's... So, I'll move that we, um, I'll move that we adopt a resolution approving a modification of the BMR requirement for the previously approved planning community permit at 1696 dash 1758 Villa Street to require 17 on-site units in initial payment for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 48 offsite units at 660 Mariposa Avenue to be read entitled only for the reading wave attachment. The council Report. And two, this is what's slightly different than what's printed in the agenda flow. So it would be direct staff to work with the applicant and bridge housing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 660 Mariposa Avenue, and direct the applicant in bridge housing, provide an 90 day period during which the applicant in bridge housing, and work with labor to come up with a mutual agreement to, um, utilize Union labor, basically, come to a mutual agreement on terms that basically come to agreement on terms that are mutually agreeable to both them. And if, but at the end of all that, basically, what can proceed is the hybrid option that staff is proposed. So it's basically the staff recommendation, plus just giving that 90 day period to recognize that we had concerns that came up today. We want to make sure that those 2 sides have a chance to work everything out. And we hope it does, but if it doesn't, then the hybrid, the hybrid option is what moves forward. Mr. Moss.

[02:36:17] Mr. Moss: That doesn't work. Okay, so, just to clarify, and I appreciate that, I mean, I think that motion, there's good intent there altogether, I just want to be perfectly clear with everybody in the room, that the main concern that I have as far as the union thing, is not that we won't work out a deal on the renovation. My main concern is that the potential for the labor unions, to, and this is coming from our labor attorney, that it's conceivable that they very well may come up with a request to have union labor and prevailing wage for the entire villa project, not for the Mariposa renovation only. And that would expose me to up to $40 million in additional costs, which would kill the project we wouldn't go for.

[02:37:02] Unknown Speaker: understood. And so that's why I'm saying, if their demands are unreasonable, and you can't agree to it, then you don't have an agreement, and you proceed with the hybrid option that you came in tonight, saying that you supported. So, given...

[02:37:15] Mr. Moss: Sorry, my point on the hybrid project is it has city funding, and the city funding may or may not end up causing a state law to be employed that would mandate for union labor to be used on the Villa project as well. That's why, if there isn't this sole discretion option, I would have pulled the project from the beginning at 4 o'clock this afternoon. So it's a really important issue.

[02:37:41] Unknown Speaker: The negotiation window is just for, I believe, it would just be for bridge to work with. I don't know who would actually work with labor, but basically, it's just, we're worrying about 660 Mariposa and not, there's no requirement on Villa for, and it's not even a requirement. It's just us giving you a grace period to work it out if you can.

[02:38:00] Unknown Speaker: So isn't it limited to 660 Mariposa anyway, because that's the portion we're talking about tonight. The affordable app. So, from what I understand, I think that's the concern, the concern is, is, if counsel goes with the hybrid option, that may trigger further requirements on the entire project as 720 Villa and Mariposa. And so, that's all I'm understanding that the concerning.

[02:38:26] Mr. Moss: Yes, they were turning, has told me, as of two hours ago, it's not inconceivable, that labor has the right per state law, if monies are given on this project, and it's the Mariposa project, but it is tied to Villa, it's not inconceivable. We don't agree with it, but it's not inconceivable that labor could make a claim that that would mandate prevailing wage for the entire villa project. So if the city's willing to take that risk and pay for that, I'm all in favor of this. I don't think you are, just like I'm not. So it's a big deal. And I would pull and go to the 15% at this moment, if we were gonna do that, or at least attempt to do that. So it's really important issue, and I can't underestimate, you know, how important it is to us, and I think, to the city. So if you do want to cover any and all prevailing wage costs above 2 million, we're all in favor of that, and I could proceed with that. And I say above $2 million, not just for Mariposa, but in the unlikely event that Villa ends up as a prevailing wage job. We're talking about $40 million of additional costs, which means the whole project would be killed instantly. That's why I need the sole discretion in 60 days, 90 days, whatever you want to provide to us. Otherwise, I need to withdraw the application that we had with the city in terms of the alternative mitigation for affordable housing.

[02:39:47] Unknown Speaker: So, just so I understand, you came in tonight, um, supporting the hybrid, but what you're saying is, regardless of whether we give you a window or not, you're now concerned that, um, any city funding associated with this.

[02:40:01] Mr. Moss: Any city funding, correct? So the hybrid one, I was planning on coming in, saying, I'll go with the hybrid. Labor got concerned. I talked to my attorney. My attorney said, I don't think that they have merit in that, but there's no question that they could have. It's a gray area. So I don't want to acknowledge any, you know, liability in that regard at all because I don't think we have it, but it's not inconceivable. That's why I need 60 days to iron that issue out specifically, and I need something signed off by this gentleman that would stipulate that this has nothing to do with the villa project.

[02:40:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, the other thing we could do... the city. And, um, but anyway, uh, I see you're in the QOA. It's kind of an important issue, but it is very complicated, and don't get me wrong. This whole thing is very nuanced and very complicated. Vice mayor, I'll be coca.

[02:40:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so, um, I think I understand the concern, um, and, um, as much as, you know, I support prevailing wage, and I do support that. Um, on this one, the Americas of residents are a priority. So my thought was, could we flip it the other way then, and have the default be, what Prometheus offered in terms of 660 Mariposa and the financial contribution. Because, to me, I'd rather have that than the 34 on site units. If that's the option or the default option that the council wishes that can incorporate that as part of the modification.

[02:41:35] Unknown Speaker: Could it be the 50 units that they're now saying they have, or is that...?

[02:41:43] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Five zero. Yeah. Yeah, you could, I mean, you can do it almost any which way you want. I think one of the challenges is, frankly, to not give either party in the negotiation undo leverage, to come to a solution, and if one party has a default of their advantage, then they have less incentive, if the other party has a default of their advantage, then they have less incentive, I mean, I don't know if they're willing to do it or not, but perhaps a labor representative could state whether or not their intent is for the labor agreement to be on the Villa Street project or solely on the mayor. Street Project, and depending on that answer, that might resolve the issue. Mr. Garcia. Sorry to put you on the spot here. But we'd love to hear from you.

[02:42:41] Mr. Garcia: Sure, thank you. And I have not talked to my attorney yet, but, um, the intent is for the Mariposa site. However, and Mr. Moss is correct, if, uh, from my very basic knowledge of prevalent wage, if the city provides a subsidy for a project, the, the entire project, um, the preventing wage will apply to the entire project. But the intent is for the Mariposa project. And by the way, we can come back and give you a progress report every 2 weeks or whatever, every 30 days or something. But the intent is for the Emory Possum project. Thank you.

[02:43:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:43:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So, what was the original sell price of the Mariposa that if we went back to the original time you came here, and we said, Prometheus, we just sell it to bridge, done deal, clean, and move on? And, of course, would bridge be able to buy it?

[02:43:44] Mr. Moss: It was $24 million, and I think, you know, Brad can speak for himself, but I think he answered down to the last council meeting, which is, he can't buy it without a subsidy of significance, right? I mean, that's why there's 12.4 million, uh, between, you know, that we would be providing to them in order to make it work, right? Or you lower the price.

[02:44:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, or we... Yeah, so... Anyway, it's a big issue.

[02:44:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Council Harbor Clark.

[02:44:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, throwing out another option. The other sort of semi clean way to do this would be, remove the city subsidy, we know what that is, figure out what the equipment, maybe take a recess and figure out the equivalent of what that is in the inclusionary units, and reduce the inclusionary unit requirement by that amount to make up for the $2 million, or whatever it is in city subsidy. I think the calculation was in the staff report, and maybe we just figured that out, and then there's no city subsidy, there's no issue raised.

[02:44:53] Unknown Speaker: What about the six million?

[02:44:54] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and the hybrid, there's 6 million city money going in to pay, essentially, for the 17, for half of the project, because Prometheus would pay, would do half of their units on site, and therefore would contribute half of the funding to Mariposa. There's, under that scenario, under the hybrid scenario, there is $6 million from the city, in addition to potentially additional costs for prevailing wage.

[02:45:24] Unknown Speaker: Do... I see. And if I could also add, under the applicant's submittal, it would be no on site units for the full 12.4 to be contributed towards Mariposa, and that would be the way they had made a pencil.

[02:45:49] Unknown Speaker: What is that? Isn't there a financial contribution on top of that or no? Or was that the 12 million was the cost of doing the renovations, is that?

[02:46:02] Unknown Speaker: It was originally 10.88, and with some additional costs, It's now 12.4, and that contribution plus the sources that bridge would bring would, uh, the intent was that it would fully fund the acquisition and rehab of the project.

[02:46:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Did staff identify the, the sort of dollar value gap between, sort of, the value of sort of the, um, 100% 660 Mariposa versus, sort of, the hybrid, and what the, my recollection is that if they, the 660 Mariposa alternative, where everything is there, would be more financially advantageous to the applicant than this hybrid approach would be, but maybe I'm wrong.

[02:46:54] Unknown Speaker: I think one of the challenges with the evaluation of both what was submitted by the applicant and then figuring out this hybrid option was an estimate that all 34 BMR units on site would be equivalent to just over $20 million. And that served as a reference point for the 12.4 million, that would have been contributed if there were no BMR units on site at Villa. And then it was just a contribution working with bridge to deliver Mariposa as a whole. So there is this tension between the 12.4 contribution towards that acquisition rehab project, versus the estimated $20 million value of the 34 BMR on site units. So, every BMR unit, not on site, is some amount, it doesn't quite translate dollar for dollar. Right.

[02:47:56] Mr. Moss: Yeah. Yeah. But in terms of the dollars that were required, just if I, if this is of any relevance or help at all, when the gatekeeper was approved, the fees that were charged by the city for this project were 4.8 million, those fees were increased in 2018 by the city to, for this project, $7.2 million, and then our proposal back in June was $10.9 million. And with the cost increases by bridge, Prometheus has proposed $12.4 million. So, for what it's worth, and we were grandfathered in, from what your ordinances state. If there wasn't in Luffy, and don't get me wrong, there isn't in Luffy that the city has to take, they can do the units on site. But the inlu fees were just that over time. 4.8 million, a gatekeeper, 7.2 million, in 2018, 10.9 million is what we were proposing, which was above and beyond what your fee was then. And then we're now at 12.4 million, I think, and that's what we were willing to pay. The $20 million was when some consultant has come up with for new projects as to what their values were.

[02:49:14] Unknown Speaker: Understood. Can you commit to, you found, two units?

[02:49:18] Mr. Moss: Yeah, we did.

[02:49:18] Unknown Speaker: You commit... And for whatever reason, you can't do 50, can you add the two, inclusionary, on site at the Villa?

[02:49:26] Mr. Moss: Yeah, we could do that. Yeah, I'm confident in that, yes.

[02:49:29] Unknown Speaker: And so we could default to the 50. That's a 47% increase over the 34 units on site.

[02:49:37] Mr. Moss: Yes, we can do that.

[02:49:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[02:49:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, if council feels that we've solved that, we can go with that. I was gonna throw something out a little different, was the, and I don't know if it's possible, but the, um, we were having Prometheus pay for the bike path. Maybe the city could pay for more of that and not put any end of the project. I don't know if that works. Yeah, I don't remember how much was.

[02:50:12] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask staff how they would feel about, so if I modify my motion, basically saying, you know, number one, the resolution, so instead of the acquisition, an initial payment for the, um... Basically, I need help with the modification, and I'd like your input on if we do the 50 offsite unit, 50 offsite units at 660 Mariposa Avenue, and, or 48 offsite units there into onsite units, if for whatever reason, they can't. Maybe staff doesn't feel they've actually found 2 extra units. So there's 50 units total. And um, And then that would be the, that would be the default option. So basically where we want to move forward with the hybrid. We want to give everyone the 90 day period to negotiate. And if those negotiations work out, then great, and if not, then, um, the condition that prevails is the preservation of the 48 units at 660 Mariposa, um, plus an additional 2 units either there or on-site at, um, at Villa Street. And if we, if staff is feels that that's doable, then that might be worth consideration from my colleagues.

[02:51:44] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, I'm trying to clarify what the default is there, the default. So if there's no agreement with labor in 90 days, the default would be either 50 units at Mariposa or 36?

[02:51:58] Unknown Speaker: No. So it would be, it's the 48 units at Mariposa, regardless, and then they think they've found a way to build two additional ones there. So if they can, then great. If they haven't, then the other two would just be included on site at Villa Street, but regardless, the total overall. Either preserved or new unit count would be 50.

[02:52:22] Unknown Speaker: And if I can clarify, too. So then the fallback would be no city funding, but you're basically going to what Prometheus, the applicant proposed with the change of 50 units at Mariposa or 48 at Mariposa to units on site.

[02:52:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: So the choice number one is the hybrid is staff is proposed, plus the 90 day period to negotiate. And if whatever, um, with labor, and if, for whatever reason, that doesn't work out, then the condition that stands is, um, just, um, Mariposa, the preservation of the 48 units in Mariposa, plus either two new units there or two units on site at Villa Street. So, basically, the total number has to be 50. And then there's no city funding as part of that, so that hopefully takes care of any, um... any concerns there.

[02:53:16] Unknown Speaker: So the 30, the 17 units at Villa Street would go away.

[02:53:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: They would, yeah. And that the money that, if an agreement can't be worked out. And if the money isn't...

[02:53:30] Unknown Speaker: So are we increasing our funding, because we have to do something to offset that. So you're saying, Prometheus would take all that extra money that would have gone to the 17 units and applied every, all the money to Mariposa. And would that be sufficient to buy Mariposa then? Or to accommodate your final gold.

[02:53:58] Unknown Speaker: Well, but the 17 units there was a city subsidy.

[02:54:01] Unknown Speaker: Right. Okay. So we're pulling that out, and then...

[02:54:05] Unknown Speaker: We're no longer providing us. Prometheus is putting $12 million into Mariposa.

[02:54:10] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, I think what I'm hearing from council member Clark is the first priority and choice is the staff recommended hybrid with some time for labor to work it out, should that fall by the wayside, it's essentially going to the Prometheus proposal, which actually is 50 units. Their original was 48, but then they did commit to two additional units. So it's really just their proposal. And if staff determines that those two units aren't appropriate on site of Mariposa, they would provide two more units to presumably BMR units. But those would be the only two BMR units in that situation on Villa. So, I mean, that's certainly an option, but you just need to be clear that your default is essentially going back to their proposal, and the only hesitation I would have is to ensure Prometheus has an incentive to, you know, to try to reach the first hybrid deal.

[02:55:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: And that is mine, too, and that's why I was trying to come up with an equivalency of on site units at Villa that sort of equalized the two. cost wise, yeah. It was hard to come up.

[02:55:21] City Manager Dan Rich: Based on our economic calculations on the $96 fee, which will be our moving forward fee, a unit is, I think, about $550,000. So, you know, I don't know exactly how the math works out in your scenario, but you might want to have a little bit more of a disincentive, to not reach the hybrid agreement.

[02:55:48] Unknown Speaker: So are they... The proposals? Um, the units at Mariposa refurbished? Or is it just as they are now?

[02:55:58] Unknown Speaker: I think it would be the Prometheus proposal, which is to refurbish all of the... That would be refurbished. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[02:56:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member Clark and a second by council member Hicks, but, um... It's sort of fluid. I need the wording from staff, and we may need to take a break or move on to something else and come back to this, so that, um, I don't know if they want to think about the equivalency more. I don't know if they need to come up with. Maybe if you could just articulate a little bit more, what's the equivalency you're trying to achieve?

[02:56:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: I want financially. Basically what the city manager has said before. Like, I just don't want there to be a financial, a financial incentive to not, um, negotiating good faith with labor, and basically go to the default that I've defined. Because I think we're all in alignment that the default should be, um, save Mariposa, plus, you know, some financial equivalency to the hybrid option, if the hybrid option doesn't work, but I don't know what that is. Yeah, and if Wayne or Matt have ideas.

[02:57:13] City Manager Dan Rich: You know, I think it's somewhat subjective. I think, as we said, we value a BMR unit at about a $550,000 unit, or cost. So what you're suggesting is a million dollar incentive, essentially, to Prometheus to get to the hybrid, whether that's the right incentive or not. I don't know that anyone can say.

[02:57:35] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just to add on to what the city managers stated, just in terms of the two ends. If 34 units is equivalent to about $20.1 million has about 591K a door, in terms of a value, on the flip side, at currently $12.4 million for Mariposa, for 48 units, that's 258 a door. And there may be something that's somewhere between, that starts to get a little bit of the offset of having no or much fewer BMR units on site. Maybe it's not the full equivalent of 591k a door towards Mariposa, but maybe it's something, but maybe less than that.

[02:58:29] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, I think that to incentivize to get to the hybrid, you would probably want to require a fallback that would include more on site units at Villa, because the 50 at Mariposa is what they're already proposing. So if you want to create an incentive to do more... I mean, the way you've structure it, there's no incentive, because, so, you know, maybe it's five units on Villa, but there's some arbitrariness to what that number is.

[02:59:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm open to whatever my colleagues feel is... So I would like to have it be incentivized to go with the hybrid. Um, but, yeah, I need some help figuring out, um, what specifically would be, um, the number of units, I guess, at Villa, to make that, uh, less attractive than the hybrid. Oh, yes.

[02:59:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes. I'm just doing the math here, and, you know, my math may be wrong, but I guess I'm a little confused now, because at 258 and 50 units, I get 12.9, but then with, uh, 591 and 17 units, I get 10.05. So the 17 units is lower. Then the Mariposa, so... And that's, yeah, I mean, my math may be wrong, but if that's the case, then isn't requiring Mariposa, actually, higher value. So doing that units on site is... I think the per door cost of Mariposa, you said, was to something, I forget what the number was. The eight?

[03:00:28] Unknown Speaker: The renovation of Mariposa per door is... So, call it 125,000 plus or minus per unit. Well, the acquisition, yeah.

[03:00:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, I guess I'm completely cross, then, so, um, I, you know, I was gonna suggest maybe we take a break in a stuff to do some calculations before we make, do take the vote.

[03:00:57] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to do that, but have we articulated, specifically what we're looking for here, so that you could do the calculation.

[03:01:10] Unknown Speaker: I guess a question is, um, we may need to take a moment to understand what is a deep, um, a fallback option that would still facilitate negotiations for the hybrid, and if we're talking about sort of economic value, that's, that's more of a math, that's just a math question. So we may need to take a moment to see if there's some other way to consider an option that would still create an incentive to negotiate towards a hybrid option.

[03:01:49] Unknown Speaker: So, I think, too, the hybrid option that's on the table includes 17 units on site at Villa, and what our calculations are showing is that each of those 17 units would be 591K. So I think if we take those 17 units off the table and revert back to a project that's just at Mariposa, maybe figuring out what additional number there should be based on that unit account that we're losing, that we're losing on site at Mariposa, that becomes more equivalent to that 17 times 591,000 a unit. And I think that is correct? And I think mathematically, that is the differential between the 20.1 on site versus the 12.4 contribution towards Mariposa. So somewhere in between there is the room.

[03:02:41] Unknown Speaker: Right. So I'm happy to... I'm happy to take a minute if we want to.

[03:02:54] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think we should actually move on to another item, because we would switch city attorneys, and the city attorney, and the staff can go work on it while we can proceed. We have a very full agenda remaining tonight, and maybe we do the next item, and then come back to this.

[03:03:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, do we...?

[03:03:14] Unknown Speaker: You probably need to continue this item.

[03:03:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This item, yeah. Um, okay, and we will move on to... 6.2, which is the gatekeeper application for 365 to 405 San Antonio Road, and 2585 to 2595 California Street.

[03:03:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, Mayor, I have a... I have to disclose...

[03:03:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez.

[03:03:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I will be recusing myself from this item because my leasehold interest is located in close proximity to the project site. Thank you.

[03:03:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So before we get into the staff presentation, just want to see if the council members, I want to disclose if they met with the applicant.

[03:04:13] Unknown Speaker: I did, but not, it was before, it was before the last time this came up, but not since then, but anyway, yes, at some point.

[03:04:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes, I did. For the previous council meeting, but not specifically for tonight.

[03:04:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Hey, folks, if you wouldn't mind taking your conversations out into the hall, um, where you've moved on to the next topic, um, and then you can come back. Okay, so let's move on to the staff presentation. Thank you.

[03:04:50] Deputy Zoning Administrator Rebecca Shapiro: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Rebecca Shapiro, deputy zoning administrator, and I am joined tonight by Stephanie Williams, our current planning manager. The item I'm presenting is a request for gatekeeper authorization of an application to develop an approximately 190,000 square foot mixed use office building, including a request to utilize up to 150,000 square feet of development rights from the city's transfer of development rights program, which supports the Los Altos school district's efforts to develop a new school. In the San Antonio area. The proposal tonight is similar to a larger version of this gatekeeper project, which was reviewed by council in September, and was not ultimately authorized by council at that time. Overall, council indicated that the applicant could return for council consideration and encouraged a revised proposal, providing a smaller building with an improved design that better integrates with the area. Starting, again, with a little bit of TDR program background in January of 2018, the city council, at the time, provided final direction, and approval for the TDR program, which was memorialized in an MOU between the city and LASD, amongst several other elements, the TDR program, TDR program created and allowed for the transfer of up to 610,000 square feet of developable rights from the proposed school site. where the square footage is not needed for development of the new school, to other potential development projects seeking to utilize the TDR square footage. LSD is scheduled to close escrow on the school site tomorrow, which is an 11.65 acre property, currently owned by Federal Realty. This area includes the eventual school site, which has over 4 acres or would have over 4 acres of shared open space, as well as an additional 2 acre parcel that the city would acquire for a public park. In 2018, council also agreed to provide funding of up to $23 million for the joint open space. Authorized 7 gatekeeper requests for development proposals seeking to use TDR square footage predominantly in the East Wizman area, and allowed one prospective TDR purchaser to defer submittal of the gatekeeper application for up to 5 years, which falls within the 10-year horizon of the TDR program. All of the available TDR square footage is encumbered by these eight gatecaper project sites, which were previously considered by the city council, including this project, which requires a new authorization, because the applicant was unable to submit their development application before the original authorization expired. The revised request from Merlo and Geyer is to develop a seven story office building with ground floor retail on a nearly one acre site at the southeast corner of California Street and San Antonio Road. As noted earlier, the proposal seeks to use 150,000 square feet of TDR square footage, and the design has been revised since this past September. Specifically, the project is roughly 39,000 square feet smaller and one story shorter. In addition to the square footage and height reductions, the revised design features increased setbacks, extension of the pedestrian arcade around all sides of the building, reduced building heights at street frontages to about 5 to 6 stories, which is more compatible with adjacent structures, increased decks and modified window designed to articulate the facade, and the use of more natural materials to try to complement other buildings in the area. This initial revised design is a starting point. If the gatekeeper is authorized by council tonight, then it will undergo detailed design review as the project enters the development review process. While the revised proposal is smaller than what council reviewed in September, the proposed 4.45 FAR still exceeds the San Antonio Precise Plan maximum commercial FAR for the site, as well as the maximum that would be allowed at 2.35 FAR for a residential or mixed use development in this location. The project's square footage is composed of permitted commercial floor area at up to .75 FAR as well as 150,000 square feet from the TDR program. And additional 9,700 square feet of excess area is currently included in the plans, but would need to be removed for a compliant project, and would further lower the 4.45 FAR. The TDR program itself provides policy support for exceedance of permitted commercial square footage for the project, as well as for the San Antonio Precise Plan amendment that would be necessary to the office development cap in order to land the TDR square footage on the property as office area. This project in these respects is similar to some of the office TDR projects that the city council has authorized in our under review in the East Brisbane Precise Plan area. And also, like these other TDR projects that are under review, the proposed development will likely require some development standard exceptions, most notably what's been identified by the applicant as setback exceptions, but the exact extent of any necessary exceptions would be evaluated in detail if the project is authorized tonight and enters into the development review process. In conclusion, staff is recommending that the city council authorize the assignment of staff resources to review the proposed gatekeeper project, as it would advance policy objectives for the San Antonio area to achieve a new school site, as well as keep some of the TDR square footage from the program in the precise plan area. The project is generally consistent with the overall office development cap for the San Antonio precise plan on a square footage basis, and the location is proximal to major transit resources in the San Antonio area. The project would provide, ground fuller activating space, retail space, and would complete the build out of the west side of San Antonio Center. And that concludes the staff presentation tonight. The applicant does also have a presentation prepared, and we're both available for questions. Thank you.

[03:11:45] Executive Managing Director Scott McPherson: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. My name's Scott McPherson. I am executive managing director at Merlone Geier, with me tonight. Our, um... Brett Christophilos. He's gonna provide a leasing update for you on phase two in phase one, from a retail standpoint. And Dave Guyser, our director of design construction. He's gonna walk you through some of the meaningful changes we've made, uh, to the program. So I'm going to be very brief tonight. But I wanted to draw your attention to a few things. The first is, uh, the representatives from the school district wanted to be here, but they were unable with prior commitments, so they submitted a letter, which should be a part of your, your package. And basically, it outlines the fact that they're fully supportive of our project. We are, uh, we are the largest participant in the, in the school district and the TDR program. And we are the only participant in the special plan area where this, where this density is from. So we think those are our key points. We are excited to be presenting tonight and moving forward on what will be the final phase here. As you know, we've completed 330 apartment units as a part of our mixed use component in the center of San Antonio Center. And we're also excited to see an additional 1000 residential units under development at our intersection just surrounding our project. So with that, I will hand it off to Brett.

[03:13:22] Brett Christophilos: Counsel, thank you for having me today.

[03:13:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could speak into the microphone.

[03:13:28] Brett Christophilos: Sorry about that. Thank you for having me tonight to talk about the exciting retail leasing that we're doing at the village of San Antonio and kind of give an update as to where things are going. We put this together to kind of walk through, spaces that are in lease negotiation, what we have signed leases, where we're working from letter intents, and the direction that the leasing for the project is taking at San Antonio Center. San Antonio Center. Um, over the last couple years, um, with the turnover from the office tenant, the sub-leasing, to the now certainty of office tenant and opened, the opening of the theater, and within the last couple months, finally, the opening of another anchor, the hotel, um, has continued to, um, peak and grow the retail interest within the project, which has allowed us as a, uh, as an owner of the project to continue to market the asset and work on the asset with the best-in-class tenants for the project. As you can see up here around the project. One of the biggest things for us in retail leasing these days is to provide a scene, is to provide a place where people are going to want to spend time, to attract better restaurants, to attract better retail to the project. Retail leasing these days is, you know, for lack of a better, better analogies is no longer the, if you build it, they will come as compared to more of the, um, the ice drop starts in Minnesota and in, uh, Mississippi, it is the raging river. Um, and how that has started is with the anchors being open, beginning to drive traffic to the project, to identifying, which is, um, probably changed within the last 4 or 5 years. Um, The type of name tenants that retailers have on their co-tenancy is now joined into the fitness, is now joined into the better retail tenants. And so, kind of walking around the project, um, we are in lease with one of the best in-class sandwich salad brands to take this end-cap space. Uh, finalizing a letter of intent, potentially with a Michelin bib rated restaurant that's local to the peninsula. Um, in lease negotiations with the best in class Indian, quick casual with the bar component, and all types of tenants that would basically bring more traffic throughout the day of the project. With that, that is kind of continue that snowball into other uses where, um, the retail, um, eyeglass, um, I wear tenant that would be taking the space here, as well as a national cosmetic tenant that we're working with here. As we continue to sign these leases, bring these tenants into the project, bring other tenants into letter negotiation, we continue to see that snowball grow. And we're actually really excited to see where this co-tenancy is going with the project. And with that, I'll tuck Dave.

[03:16:36] Director of Design and Construction Dave Guyser: Thank you, Brett. I want to talk about the changes that we've made in the project since last we were here in September, as Rebecca indicated, we've reduced the project by the amount of square footage that we were planning on transferring density from the rest of the site. That was that 40,000 square feet we talked about. So that's come out of the project. Um, we've increased around the entire perimeter of the property, this colonnade. So the pedestrian space and an effort to increase the pedestrian connectivity around the rest of the area. We've now stepped back the building from a colonnade, an additional 15 feet, and that surrounds the building, so that on the, If you look at the building around the entire ground floor, we have this colonnade that extends the pedestrian experience around the building by additional 15 feet. So if you look around from the curb face, we're now approximately 30 to 35 feet back from the curb face to the building face, to the retail frontages, and that continues. And that continues around the site, you'll notice that up against a theater that's over here on the right, we have a separated retail space under this canopy for another retail space, and again, increase the pedestrian connectivity and circulation around the building by another 20, 25 feet that will be activated by outper seating, et cetera. So the, An effort to, uh, revision this building, we've taken a step back and looked at the massing of the building, and in addition to the 40,000 square feet came out of the height of the building, again, on the ground floor. But now we're looking at 6 stories along San Antonio and California that you see here. Stepping back into the product is the 7 stories that matches the height of the hotel and the parking structure that are inboard of the project. Um, we've, we've, through the use of warmer materials, the, the woods and stones and and black metals, um, we're trying to uh, increase the authenticity of the building, uh, sets that it speaks to the more neighborhood context. We're getting away from the more of the corporate aesthetic that we showed previously. What I think, oh, did not resonate with you, the council, and looking for something that fits in more the character of Mountain View. We're using punched openings. We're using outdoor balconies and landscaping on those balconies. Instead of having the flat glazing, we're talking about depth of mullions to provide shadows, more visual interest to the building. Again, around the building, we see the colonnade. We've actually stepped that back from the corner, create a 2 story clear story at the hard corner for, again, visual interest and for design intent. Um, inside the, Inside the project. This is from the main street in the plaza, looking back at the retail space on the right in that outdoor plaza area, and the entrance to the office building here. We still have the lobby to the office on the ground floor, but surrounded by retail. And again, the one of the greatest features, the project, we think, is the fact all the project, all the parking for this project is subterranean. Not a single space is above ground. So we're building down under this building that connects to the existing parking structure that's under buildings one and 2 on site today. So again, all the parking for this project is subterranean. For context here, we've dropped our building math into what we see today, which is again the 6 stories along San Antonio, California, stepping to 7 interior to the site. We see the 6 story buildings that already exist with Facebook, along San Antonio. We see the 5 story product that gray starts building across the street. We see the 7 story and 5 story product, but 7 story long San Antonio Road, that Prometheus is building currently on San Antonio Road. And I think it's important to, as we transfer the density from the federal site here. It's also important to remember that the federal site that you see where Kohl's and 24 fitness are here. The density on that side is going to remain in perpetuity at a 0 to .25 some of that area that a school would see in park. So, I know that people are, you know, the, the complaints had been that, hey, we've got all this density, the hard corner, but the idea of that transfer density is that we have consistency of building in the phase 2 development, but they were providing the low density with the park and the school forever on the federal site. I wanted to go back to one of the things on the building itself. On the top of the building. We still have this shade structure up above. That has been lessened, lightened, to really create more of a glassy top to the top of the building, and it really brings the materiality of the building, uh, in the in the 5 story range, uh, even lower than the buildings that that face the other side of the street. That's all I have. I'm happy to answer questions about the design and what we've done and others as Rebecca indicated this is a starting point. This is a jumping off point, working with staff, architectural review, which we've done on the previous buildings on site, to simply make the project better as we move forward working with staff and working with their architecture review board, moving forward. Thank you.

[03:21:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, are there any questions from council members? Did you have some question, but it didn't register? Council member Hicks?

[03:22:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have two quick questions. One for staff and one for the applicant. One. Um, you had mentioned, uh, probable setback changes. Can you give a little detail on what that might be?

[03:22:25] Planner Rebecca: Unfortunately, I can't. The level of plans at this stage is very high level in schematics, so there's not any setback information. on the plans, but what the applicant has indicated in their submittal letter is that setback exceptions may still be needed, but setbacks have been increased. Those increased setbacks may have much to do with the increased ground level colonnade. Although I did note in reviewing the floor area of each of the floor plates that there does seem to be a slight reduction in the, each the size of each floor. So it's likely that the setbacks did increase as a result. But unfortunately, I don't have specific information in the plans at this stage.

[03:23:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. And, um, for the applicant, um, maybe you can shed some light on that same question, but also, uh, I was wondering whether the Clair story was larger before? Has it gotten smaller, or how has that... changed?

[03:23:31] Director of Design and Construction Dave Guyser: So, yes, the clear story actually ended at this column line before. It was equal on both sides, and we've actually extended that clear story all the way back to this line, at this point. So, not a, but that's, that's 2 stories. Now the ground floor at 18 feet, but initial 13, 6, so that's a 30 foot high, clear story at that corner, and then it's at 20 feet surrounding the rest of the building. So it surrounds the building at the full, the base, the ground level, which is 20 feet tall. And then each subsequent floor is 13, 13, 6. So, um, it is higher and it has been extended the corner. Happy to look at more if we can do more. We, Architecturally, we thought this was the right proportion. We're happy to look at more. I must say that in order to, we had limited time to re-look at all this and get this back in. But again, we're happy to, through the design review process, look at additional change that might be requested.

[03:24:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. I appreciate the answer on the setbacks.

[03:24:33] Director of Design and Construction Dave Guyser: Oh, sure, yes. So we did increase the setbacks from the street to increase the pedestrian setback from the curb at the ground level around the project, and we have actually cut back into the building to create more of the outdoor balconies that you see. So the, the, the setbacks are, it's undulating. And so we would have to, I would, the reason it's difficult for us to come up with what that exact setback is today is because likely, like we did on phase 2 of the project, we created an average. So it exceeds the setbacks in some locations, but it might be less in others. And we worked at, I think we negotiated some kind of an agreement before that the average setback would be at 15 feet or something like that. Those are the details that we're going to have to work out with staff.

[03:25:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that general direction, because I think it's really important on such a big auto corridor that their pedestrians have some sort of clear story or overhang or setbacks and ways that make them comfortable walking from one place to another in the area.

[03:25:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[03:25:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Sorry. Uh, sort of a Johnny come lately for this project, but, uh... staff, I had a question for you guys. There was, like, 9,000 square feet, 9,700 square feet, that... How are you proposing to address that, or if council, says, Well, we want to hold to our requirements versus an exception for the 9,700.

[03:26:07] Planner Rebecca: So the... Pardon me. The staff proposal or recommendation is that that 9,700 square feet would come out of the project, that there would be no exception provided for that square footage. So, through the development review process, if counsel authorized the gatekeeper, we'd work with the developer and their design team on the best way to excise that square footage from the project to benefit the design overall.

[03:26:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Now, you were saying that the design is not settled. set yet. It's still evolving. The building? I mean, I know you guys, they proposed it, but did I hear that you guys are still working with it to?

[03:26:49] Planner Rebecca: We haven't worked on it at all. because the project hasn't been authorized. If the gatekeeper is authorized tonight, then the developer would submit their development application, and through the development review process, like any other project, it would go through multiple rounds of internal review by staff, as well as review by the development review committee.

[03:27:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I just spent, along with many of my colleagues, a couple of days in San Antonio, Texas, and they had some older buildings there that were more sandstone and very impressive. And so when I look at this building here, it just doesn't add much... The buildings in San Antonio had a lot of character, too. And I'm looking at this one right here, and I just see steel and windows. And if we're still in the development phrases, or review phases that, um, they have a lot of soft shapes in San Antonio. It's more of a Spanish, but I'm not going to propose it here, but things are more rounded, a little more, uh, not so, uh, stark coming out. And I sort of like that look a little bit. And I know when we were working with Graystar, on their corner, they, we asked them to soften up the corner there, because theirs was square, and they had this angled roof on it, so, um, is there, if you, is there room to suggest that the corner is more of a rounded corner? I mean, how would one ask the request that that be part of a review that, instead of coming out at a square corner, that they have a rounded, softer corner coming around? It's not a corner, but, you know, a sphere.

[03:28:36] City Staff: I think if that objective were the objective of a majority of council, then we would take that into consideration through the design process, and certainly the applicant would hear you guys saying that tonight, and roll that into their the preparation of their plans for the development review process.

[03:28:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Yeah, I'd be interested, since I am new to this project, uh, tonight, so I'd rather, I'd see you'd like to see it softened up, and I know some people want residential, which I would always think would be, uh, advantageous, but I'd like to, uh, hear for my colleagues on that one.

[03:29:12] Unknown Speaker: Interesting. What was the question?

[03:29:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counselor member Clark.

[03:29:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: Alexa Clark. Just a quick one. So, in the slides. So, the proposal is 4.45 FAR, and the square footage there, but, um, you're saying that we would still require the removal of this roughly 10,000, to 9700 further, um, um, as part of it.

[03:29:36] City Staff: correct. Offensing. So, I mean, the existing site is limited, the .75 FAR, for commercial square footage, specifically. Excedents of that through the TDR program is principally intended for TDR square footage, so that 9,700 square feet is in addition to 0.75 FAR on the property and 150,000 square feet of TDR. So that has to be removed as part of it.

[03:30:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So if we were to authorize this, it would just be understood that that would have to come out.

[03:30:05] City Staff: Okay. Correct.

[03:30:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any of the questions from council members? Um, okay, seeing none. We'll open this up for public comment. Are there any folks who would like to address the council on this one? If you could come up and be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk. That would be great. The speaker has three minutes.

[03:30:35] Randy Kenyon: Hi, Randy Kenyon, representing Los Alto school district. Tonight, our entire school board, and the superintendent, are in San Diego, attending the annual California School Boards Association Conference. Otherwise, Miss Spizer, Mr. Bear would be here tonight speaking to you. I know that you know how critical the TDR program is to the success of our mutual goal of getting a school in a park in the San Antonio area. And as you've seen the data from Rebecca, um, since the Malone Geyer, is planning to buy a quarter of the number of TDF square footage of TDR that we're proposing to sell. Um, that's very significant, and we urge you to approve their gatekeeper application tonight. That's it. Thank you.

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

[03:31:36] Grace Coher: Hi, my name is Grace Coher. I am a resident. Um, I don't oppose the school building, but I do oppose more office buildings. Um, one of the things I've read on next door from residents is that uh, we've basically taken the soul out of the name what the name of our town is, which is Mountain View. You cannot see the mountain anymore because of these buildings that are so high. One of the things I think, you know, driving down San Antonio, I find extremely oppressive, on the right hand side, having the new condos going up. Just feel like it's totally closing in, and then to have another thing, um, you know, built out on that corner where milk pill is, was, um, is really just very disappointing. Um, and I know that I um, I'm not the only one that feels this way. I just feel that it, it's just, it just feels really oppressive, and I kind of avoid the area. And one of the other things, I said that, but I'm seeing what your proposal had for more retail shops. I remember when you 1st proposed this years and years ago. I kind of heard something about, Oh, you know, think of Santana Rowe. And I was just there at Paul Allen's last week, and I was trying to find a parking space. And there's that middle area where you drive down a dark alley, and I thought, This doesn't really feel like Santana Row. I mean, I don't know what happened from the point where you proposed that and what happened to it today. Um, If you do decide to build on that corner, I was hoping that it would be, um, a lower story, um, because even in this shot, I can see you can't see the mountain anymore. So that is our namesake, so please respect that. Thanks.

[03:33:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Dix, please.

[03:33:45] Deborah Colton: Hi, my name is Deborah Colton, and I am, um... My concerns are mostly about the school. Um, and, um, actually, can I say something? I comment quickly about, um, earlier, um, I appreciate what you guys' concerns about the, um, maintaining the character of the downtown, so I just wanted some touch on that. So if I can. And that about the school, I do worry about, I think, the plan, at some point, was to have that be in elementary school, and I do worry that having an elementary school, and maybe too late on this, but having an elementary school, in that busy, on the busy intersection, in a shopping center, seems, like, maybe not the best idea, and I may be too late for that, but, um, just wanted to raise that. And then, um, the second question, second, sort of comment about the whole school situation is, um, I want to make sure that, um, that that school doesn't become, um, the school at which all of the sort of, the poor kids from the wrong side of the tracks get funneled into that school. I know that one of the things, um, a lot of the parents in the Los Altos school district kind of feel like the Mountain View students are sort of the poor country cousins. And I want to make sure that the school that we have doesn't end up being the Mountain View school that the poor kids go to, and that it's a lesser school for some reason, because of that. That's all. Thank you.

[03:35:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion. and bring it back to council. If there's any further questions. If not, uh, discussion and action. Council member Clark.

[03:35:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Hey, I'll just be brief. I think, generally, um... Yeah, I'm somewhat encouraged with the direction that is going in. I think, even though it's still pretty, you know, significant in terms of massing it, what you've done so far looks... There's a big difference in my mind between what was there before, which was, you know, even more boxy, and, um, um, just, um, sort of staring you in the face, and this one, at least, with the removal of some of the FAR, and the additional windows and things, I think, breaks, especially what the on the ground floor. Um, I think is much more respectful of the importance of that corner. So I'm, um, you know, I'm basically taking the position that, you know, I'm confident with staff and their recommendation and the review process that they'll go through, um, and I think staff's confidence that we can, um, make this work, and it's, and it meets the general sort of, um, priorities that we've adopted for the area that, um, I'd be okay authorizing resources for it. I don't know how ultimately the project will end up, but, um, I think the question is tonight is whether or not to authorize resources to sort of further refine this and, um, and, and move it forward. And, um, you know, I, I just, I don't, I don't think that, my guess is that residential or completely different uses, that that, um, corner is probably not going to work. And so, um, you know, given those realities, um, I think I'm comfortable authorizing the use of resources to, to, further refine this and move it along.

[03:37:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abi Koga?

[03:37:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, question, the 9,700 square feet and excess, if that were to be removed, like, do you have an approximation of, like, what that could mean? Could that mean a full level, a story removed, or has it half, or, like, is it would be better, you know, step backs? I guess I'm trying to get a sense of, um, how that affects the...

[03:37:50] City Staff: Relative to the overall size of the project, 9700 square feet is a fairly small amount. So it's hard to say at this time, what exactly we would recommend it be used to improve. Certainly, the objectives that we've heard from council that are shared by staff are things that we'd focus on, but it would definitely not be significant enough to remove another floor. Um, and I think it would, it would be, um, there'd be probably a targeted area where we'd see improvement. It's not something that would, I think, have a sort of a big picture or real sort of macro effect.

[03:38:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But every little bit helps. Okay. Thank you. I, I think there definitely has been some improvement to the design, but I guess I still, uh, have concern about the mask thing. And, um, you know, it's definitely... I think I said this before, but, um, my concern here is that the entire block has now become this wall. And, um, so when I ask about removing stories, like, you know, we talk about, especially in residential developments, feathering, and step backs, and transitions. And I just don't see that here. It's just, like, it's kind of actually, you know, squaring off this corner and making a big wall. And, um, I guess I'm very sensitive to this, um, area particularly because it does, you know, it's crossed from the residential. Um, my thought was, yeah, instead of going higher, we should go lower and then step it back. So, um, you know, in addition to, and we have been receiving comments about the interest of limiting office and, you know, doing more housing here. Um, I, again, I say I've said this before, I think the, you know, that massing, the office massing could be on the other side by El Camino. Um, so, to me, I just, I just, um, am not. I'm not convinced yet that this is the best use of this corner, so I can, I will not be supporting this.

[03:40:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Others? Council member, come in.

[03:40:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So, um, when I see things conceptually, I try not to hold to the design too much knowing that it'll go through several articulations through staff and DRC in terms of design, um, to kind of hit at the concerns that we're talking about in terms of the, uh, maybe the the setbacks, the transitions, the massing. For me, when this project came forward a couple months ago. I had supported it because of the tie to the TDRs. Uh, that was of the most importance to me to, um, so that the Los Altos school district would be able to kind of move forward with the project on the federal realty, um, side. So, um, I do agree with my colleague's comments that the current design is closer, um, but that there's still room for improvement on it. I was trying to remember the location. We have, um, I think it's Bryant and Dana. We have a building where it's kind of curved and it go around, goes around one of the trees. It's kind of really nice, has good place making, perhaps kind of some design elements like that. Um, you know, that that would be of interest to me, that type of articulation. Um, and perhaps maybe looking at some, some other existing buildings within, um, downtown and see how those can can help translate would be helpful. Um, I do think that that corner, because of its prominence really does need to create a sense of place. And was actually in the development yesterday walking around, and I feel like I'm happy to hear the update on the retail. I think there's still more that can be done there in terms of creating this vibrant engaging atmosphere. I've tried to go to a couple different places and I feel like it's on the cusp. And so how can this corner help create that place making to get that kind of community activation where people would want to not only frequent these places, but it would actually become part of their lives, and it would integrate versus, um, kind of being a, uh, I don't want to call it a nuisance, but kind of like that, right? The other thing I'd like to comment on is, you know, there was quite a bit of discussion and focus on the pedestrian aspect, which I appreciate, but we're actually trying to move as a city towards some multimodal infrastructure. So some of the conceptual designs, you saw the green bikeways. I'd love to see opportunities where we could, I saw the bike racks, appreciate that, but, you know, mix flow, bicycles, sidewalks, et cetera, trying to go through your project. I'd like to see a little bit more of their thought there. I know when we've met previously, you've talked about opportunities where you shut down certain sections of the development to help create that place making. Um, with events and such. I'd like to see a little bit more thought there and how this corner can help integrate into that. But I am supportive of moving forward and authorizing the staff resources, so at least we can move forward. Thank you.

[03:43:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:44:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I am, um, uncomfortable with the amount of office, as, uh, people have, have emailed, residents have emailed me and also spoken about the, the number of offices, um, versus the need for housing here tonight. But I also like council member, Kame, have, you know, I came into this process fairly late, and I feel like at this point, I want to see a school and park and don't want to throw a wrench in it. So, um, I expect the design to continue to evolve. I wouldn't, I have, as council member, McAllister said, um, seeing buildings with rounded edges in various places, so that could certainly be explored. The materials have become warmer. They could certainly, you know, maybe become warmer still. But I'm leaning towards supporting the project unless council members come up with some additional reason that I should not, or some other direction. we could take. Council member McAllister.

[03:45:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so, again, you know, um, it was interesting, uh, over the years or so that I had to sit off side on this particular project that, uh, everybody was talking about, well, we need a school, and we need parks, and so, there's one of our main driving issues, as the TDR, so, um, continue, I will continue to support the TDRs, and the process. So, I guess, in a short phrase, I'm in favor of moving this project forward, because our goal, sort of like what we were doing on the last item, is our goal is always, has a different, difficult path to get there, but, uh... So, I would support that. But I'd really like to see, in this duplex this photo that you have, It's still, it's very boxy. It's very sterile to me. It's very stark. So I'd like to, again, I appreciate council member Hicks, and the council member of the committee to say, let's soften it up. I mean, I'm even throwing it out. I remember, at one time, Councilman Clark and I were looking at another project, and we were saying, Well, put some lights on there. Make it a visual art. I mean, here's an opportunity to really bring attention to this corner, and, you know, you see San Francisco, you see all these other cities, international. Mountain View is not an international city, but by softening and putting and using some lights on it or something like that. Yeah, I guess we are sort of... But to add some imagination to this. This is, I know, we were going through with phrase that all of our apartments were looking the same. And this looks nothing as an anchor to bring that attention to it. I'm sort of looking outside our window, as our nice big tree went down, you know, a big monumentary or something, but soften this to the staff, to just tell them that, if they come back with this, I would not be very happy to see the same square edges like that. So take advantage of new technology, and to really liven up this whole area. Council member, or the vice mayor, mentioned that when we had a council member, Renee Bryant on it, she was our place maker, and you hired an individual or consultant to come out and design a place, and we haven't seen much of that place, especially now with the holidays, and maybe you don't have the tenants, but still, there was commitment on your part to put a place, and all the other, yeah, I gave another holiday tree in there. But to start tying those things in. So I like to see you follow up on that, and, and again, you can make this a very exciting corner. Because you will have 700 units on one side. Another, what, say, is 600? Is Grace Stark 500? So you got a thousand, some people living around here. And then we're gonna look at that. They won't look, but if you put some imagination technology, and I always like to go refer to somebody that does it right, Disney and say, hey, you'll watch them, see what they can do. I mean, it say hunky, but it's something to think about. So, yeah, I support them going forward, but really push their imagination on this one. Thank you.

[03:48:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So I had concerns about this proposal, uh, from the beginning, and we have not been supportive of it moving through the process. Um, I do believe there are other, um, property owners or developers who would consider purchasing TDRs from the school district, if this one didn't go through. Obviously, you know, we all want to support having a school in Mountain View, but I think we can do better than this when it comes to how those TDRs are used and where they're used. Um, I have concern about, um, adding such a large office complex on this corner, and to the city in general. I've said before, I prefer to see residential here. And I think the office, the rest of the office, space that could be built or that's been studied in the EIR for the San Antonio precise plan, um, should be in other parts of the San Antonio precise plan instead of all in one corner. I do believe there are other buyers, as I said, of the TDRs. So I don't think this necessarily has a huge impact on the school district going forward with a school. Um, so I still can't support this. I would much rather say residential on this corner, and I know that's not your business. So, I have suggested before that you partner with another developer whose business it is to do residential. Um, and do that on this corner. Um, I do agree with a lot of the comments about, um, I think this is a great opportunity to do a, a good sense of place on this corner, um, and you can do that in a residential building as well. It's an important corner. And I want to see it very inviting and open and not be so, um, dense and restricting in terms of, um, how you would feel as you're either walking or biking, um, along California or San Antonio. I just don't think this is the place for such a dense building, or for an office building. So I still can't support this. Council member McAllister.

[03:51:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to ask staff, of course. So I met with the... developer one time. And so, my question is, I brought up the idea of mixed use, a true mixed use of office with residential. Had you broached that subject with the applicant on this particular item?

[03:51:33] City Staff: We, as a staff level, have only responded to the proposal that's been put in front of us. We have heard from the developer about suggestions for integrating residential into an office development, and that feedback maybe is best heard directly from them, but, you know, what we've heard is that at this scale, it doesn't make sense. If it were a much denser project, then there may be sort of the ability to get a better concentration of each respective use, but that at this scale, it wouldn't make sense to them, sort of other issues as far as their areas of special, of expertise and what they develop, notwithstanding.

[03:52:20] Councilmember John McAlister: The mayor and I were, oh, no, you were at the Marriott. So when I was in San Antonio, I was at, I was staying at, yeah, a different hotel. clarify. I was staying at the Hyatt. And a component of the Hyatt Hotel was a residential component, different door. So there was two mixed use of a hotel and residentials, ownership units, I believe, in that complex. So, as we go forward with all this development. I mean, we need to change the mode that we, all it is is either it's all office or it's all housing or it's retail. So, I hope that the staff would push back on some of these people and start saying, You got limited stuff. The council is getting concerned about what's being built. Let's start going somewhere out of the box, it's being done elsewhere. to solve the housing issues, and also, if they're going to build an office, they can address the housing and balance by putting some housing on top of it. So, I think it's, it's plausible, and then hopefully that you guys will start considering and pushing, and maybe have a little discussion on this particular project, that would then we could probably get more buy in from the full council and feel a little bit better about it. So, I'd appreciate you guys bringing that up with them. Thank you.

[03:53:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[03:53:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, all, um, I think staff has heard most of the comments. I'll move the staff recommendation, just, um, just, um, and say that, you know, I think you've heard, um, you know, a desire to move us forward, I really do think it would throw somewhat of a wrench. I think there probably are other buyers of the TDRs, but I also think that the amount of time and uncertainty that that would inject into this is probably, in my mind, not worth it at this point. But I do think, I do think, you know, you've heard sort of what our general sentiments are. I agree with council member of McAllister, that, you know, there's a lot, whether it's art or just sort of visual interest that can be done to, um, you know, really respect the prominence of the corner, and, you know, just to throw an idea out there would also remove some FAR, um, may or may not be feasible, but even just having, you know, a public walkway from that corner through the building and into the center. Um, like you have with some some hotels. You know, maybe it's, you know, a one and a half or two level with the corner that you have, and, you know, then you've sort of invited the public into a space as opposed to just a private office that necessarily doesn't serve all the public interest. So, I think there are ways to get creative here. And, um, I think, just for my part, I, I don't want, I don't want this to just turn out to be, you know, an office on the corner, um, an, you know, underdeveloped corner, um, just for the sake of, of TDRs that looks like the office right next to it. I think, um, I'd really like to, you know, I think TDRs are an extraordinary thing. And we should expect extraordinary results from it, from a gatekeeper. And so I understand the, I understand the desire to get, you know, something that pencils isn't financially feasible on, you know, a site that isn't as wide as some of the others. But I think there's a lot that we can do to, um, sort of, you know, have visual interest in that corner, set it apart from the things around it, and invite the public into it as opposed to just having it be a private office. So, um, those are those are my comments. I'll move the staff recommendation to sort of move this to the next phase and assign resources to it.

[03:56:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by council member Clark, a second by council member McAllister, is there any further discussion? Okay, let's call the question. So that passes four, two... one... Right? One recuse. Okay. Um, let's take a break. We need to vote, too. have to continue. We have to vote to you. that we continue past 10 p.m. since we don't really have another option at this stage of the year. All those in favor? This time, I'll say yes, because we really have to finish the topic that we continued. All those in favor, raise your hand. Okay. So we'll take a break until... Can we do 10:30? Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order, and we'll go back to item 6.1. The continuation of item 6.1. Thank you very much. Oh, sorry, we do have to... That's right. City attorney's recusing himself and the other city attorney's... probably coming in.

[04:15:20] City Staff: Okay. Thank you very much. So, staff did some evaluation in terms of the hybrid option being the starting point, 6.2,017 BMR units. We understand that the issue of city funds, is triggering some of these issues with prevailing weights. So part of it was to figure out what perhaps another equivalent option would be to the hybrid option, that takes the city funds out of it. And based on staff's calculation, an alternative would be a contribution towards delivery Mariposa, and we're assuming that would be 12.4. And then the remaining economic value would be created by incorporating 7 BMR units on site. We believe that that combination is economically equivalent to the 6.200000 +17 BMR units. However, the council has the discretion to look at other options or dial that up or down.

[04:16:35] Unknown Speaker: Great, thank you. Um, can you, do you mind just repeating the first part, so the equivalent, um, I understood, completely understood the second half. But the first half, the contribution toward Mariposa.

[04:16:51] City Staff: Yeah, if we start with a hybrid option of the 6.2 million plus 17 BMR units, then we also wanted to look for another version that was economically equivalent that still maintained that value and also still an incentive for folks to work together to figure out the labor union on the 1st hybrid option. And so, um, the alternative to that hybrid option would then be, there's no city funds, then, um, the applicant contributes the other half of the 12.4, so the full 12.4 takes the city funds out of it, and the remaining amount to make that version equivalent to the hybrid option, um, yields 7 BMR units.

[04:17:37] Unknown Speaker: Got it. So, I guess what we'd be proposing would be, you know, 1st choice is the hybrid option, negotiate with labor for a 90 day period. Um, and if we confirm what everyone said tonight, that, you know, that really would just apply to Mariposa, and, um, that can all, that can all be made to work, then that's what moves forward. If, for whatever reason, that doesn't work, then we revert to, um, the Mariposa option plus sort of with the, um, with the, um, 7 units on site and the other items that you detailed.

[04:18:13] City Staff: Correct. Yeah.

[04:18:15] Unknown Speaker: So I think we should probably ask the applicant. Um, if that, if that is um, acceptable to them, those 2 options, basically.

[04:18:28] Applicant: Sure, yeah, I appreciate that. So, I did get an opportunity to talk to staff about that, you know, briefly a few minutes ago, and it made it clear that there's a significant difference of opinion, as one can maybe imagine, on valuation of the units, and the seven units assumes that the impact of us putting 34 units on site is $20.6 million, which I know the went to a consultant, and they came up with that valuation, and we respectfully disagree that there's $20.6 million of value with the 34 units on site, without any doubt whatsoever, and the numbers that I quoted a little bit earlier, were in lieu fees from, you know, way back when, when this got approved, and those in lieu fees. I just want to remind everybody we're grandfathered in. for this project to not go to this $96 square foot or $20.6 million number. So as much as that might be a current valuation by a consultant, we respectfully disagree with that number in a rather significant fashion. So, you know, if we were at that number of seven units, you know, we respectfully, you know, pull our application and just do the units on site, or work with the labor unions and try to get it done, and if we can't do that, then to do the 34 units on site. So that's our preference, and that's what we would be respectfully requesting of counsel here this evening. I go back to the fact that we are incentivized. We didn't need to show up tonight. We could have had 17 units or 34 units on site. We decided not to do that. for a number of reasons, including what that impact is, and especially trying to make sure that we could have the residents stay on site as well, and have not have any dislocation, potentially in the future. And we came up with a proposal we thought that was pretty significant. And obviously, the council decided, you know, otherwise, we were willing to go with that pirate until this issue came up. We're still willing to do the hybrid. We would just love to have the opportunity, and if it's not 90 days, it's 60 days to work something out with Josue. And if Josue is willing to work with us, we're more than happy to do that plan, and if the council were willing to have another option, that labor would sign a document that said that they would not even think about Villa for the, you know, prevailing wage for the Archer Villa project, I can guarantee you tonight that we will stick with the hybrid plan. So, I can map out what we need from labor in order to make it work. The other option, of course, is just a simple continuance for 30 days or 45 days, and we come back, and we get this all solved, which I'm more than happy to do, as well. But I do think that we make a good make. They said we didn't need to come here tonight. We could have just done 34 units on site, so, um, and I believe that we still, hopefully, have the option to do that anyway. But we want to do the hybrid after everything is said and done, and we're more than happy to work closely with labor to do that, so we've been in the city for almost 50 years. We're not going anywhere. If we were to go ahead and, you know, make an effort with labor and then turn around to you guys and say, Oh, that didn't work out. We're just gonna go ahead and do X, Y, and Z. And I wouldn't really be too proud of us, and I don't think we're intelligent of us. So, yeah. I mean, if there was some fewer units or something, maybe, but seven units certainly doesn't work for us, we don't agree with $20.6 million.

[04:22:20] Unknown Speaker: And that's what I was gonna ask. I was gonna ask a two part question. So, one, you would prefer a 60 day period instead of 90. You would prefer a 60 day period instead of 90? Is that what you're you keep...

[04:22:31] Mr. Moss: I'm saying we could offer, if that helps out, in terms of, you know, lessening the time frame? I think I'm hopeful I talked to Josue in the brake, about 60 days, and being able to make that work. And, uh, he was confident that, uh, he could work that out as well.

[04:22:44] Unknown Speaker: And then the second part is, you talked about the delta between the inluv that you had used earlier on in the process versus sort of what the consultant had talked about. And what is what is on a per unit basis, the, in your mind, the difference between what the consultant came up with and what you've...

[04:23:05] Mr. Moss: I don't recall our math internally, to be honest with you in a per unit basis, what that was. If we were at, called 4 units, we can make that work and proceed forward, I still would strongly prefer to just give us an opportunity to work with labor, and we will do our best to make that work, and if it doesn't work, um, you know, we do, we do what we could have done a few hours ago, which is doing the U.S. on site. I believe we're incentivized enough to make that work, regardless of the math of these units, and trying to dissect the 20.6 and how much it is per unit now. and everything else, but...

[04:23:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I think the mayor had a question, but... I would stall if I could, but those are the only questions I have. Thank you.

[04:23:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, I did have a question, and it's probably for the city attorney, and that is, can we place the condition that, uh, the negotiations with the union only applies to 660 Mariposa?

[04:24:12] Unknown Speaker: I mean, to be honest, I don't know the answer to that offhand, whether or not that's something that... we could limit it to that.

[04:24:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: This is where I'll play attorney. I mean, certainly, I agree with Nicole. It's unclear. I think we could certainly place the condition, but whether or not we place the condition, if labor chose to litigate the item, we have no idea whether or not that condition would hold up. We can certainly indicate, and I think you have indicated very clearly that it's your expectation that it only affect Villa, and the labor representative has also indicated that's his intention, but didn't give an ironclad guarantee of that. So...

[04:24:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[04:24:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then, did I hear you right, Mr. Moss? Did you also say that you would you would consider a continuance of 30 days just to see if you can get a signed document from labor? Did I imagine?

[04:25:10] Mr. Moss: Yes, whether it's 30 or... it may indeed need to be something more like 45 given the holiday schedule, but, um, yes, if we want to just continue this and and and go over it at that time, that may take a lot of the, um... lack of clarity.

[04:25:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: How do they equate you? Yeah, because that's tempting to me if we can just get some agreement. You know, it seems like maybe even next week, but I'm being overly optimistic, maybe, but, um...

[04:25:39] Mr. Moss: I would love to be able to do it by next week, just knowing the complexity of the issue that we're gonna be talking about, um, the potential complexity, depending on what flavor's position is.

[04:25:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Right, but... I mean, it's touching me... back and ask for another continuance in 45 days, or 30 days, or whatever it is, what, you know, last thing I want to do. Yeah.

[04:25:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[04:26:02] Councilmember John McAlister: I was just curious if the labor, gentlemen, would like to give us an insight of your ability to help us save those 48 units and those people there, and what can be done to collaborate to get this project going forward.

[04:26:23] Labor Representative: Yes, just to allow us to continue that conversation. We always negotiate in good faith, and I believe Primitives have done it also as well. Um, every time we talk to a developer, we come to an agreement. Very often we come to an agreement and sometimes we don't come to an agreement and everybody goes their way and continue until the next project. We always come with good faith. Um, and all I'm asking is to trust us and if we don't come to an agreement, we don't come to an agreement, but it will be based on good facts and good faith. You know, I don't expect for John to say, I'm not going to answer the phone for 90 days and say, hey, I wouldn't get to an agreement. Then I'm stuck. I think he will, uh, negotiating good faith, and we will negotiate it with faith as well.

[04:27:09] Councilmember John McAlister: But, let's say, just can't limit it to a prevailing wage. Are you able to say, you know, on, we will do prevailing wage, which they're willing to pay, and just, we're willing to pay, actually, and limit it to Mariposa, and keep the other unit of the Villa Street exempt? Can you make that kind of commitment so that we can give certainty to our 48?

[04:27:36] Labor Representative: Like I said, that's the intent, but again, I stated before, earlier that, I mean, my basic knowledge of prevailing, which is when you keep, uh, projects, some financial incentive, that, that could trigger something out that not even me or you could, uh, stop. I mean, sometimes a project gets a funding and that developer or government organizations to say, this is not providing wage. Somebody files as a determination, and I'm sure most of you know those terms. And the state may come down and say, actually, it is a revealing, which project, even if Jose says, no, we are the state, if the city council says, no, we are the state, and this is a prevailing which, the city attorney says, hey, this is not a prevailing which project, but the determinations come from the DIR. And if they said that it's a prevailing which project, there's nothing I can do, there's nothing anybody can do, there's nothing anybody can do. If, unless, you know, you challenge it in court and all those things, but there are things that I...

[04:28:35] Councilmember John McAlister: You don't have discretion, so you're saying state law. This is all new to me. So state law will override any kind of agreement that you guys come up with that, you know, you say, Hey, yeah, we want to protect these 48 residents and apartments, and you guys come under agreement, and then somebody else, who would come along and say, Hey, no, this is wrong, you guys gotta do it. Who would?

[04:28:58] Labor Representative: Oh, there's labor unions as well, and people from the community.

[04:29:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Other unions would come along, you're saying?

[04:29:03] Labor Representative: Yeah, but that's what I'm saying that in our case, we will negotiate in good faith. So...

[04:29:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, Thank you for coming. App appreciate that. Thank you.

[04:29:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I would, um, I'm open to what my colleagues think, but I, um, I'm not sure a continuance of the holidays is, I'd like to give everyone some certainty tonight. And so I think it's in our, um, I think it makes sense to sort of, um, just have, um, basically the options that staff had identified earlier, but, um, you know, if, if the African feels that seven is unfair, um, and, um, four or five is more realistic, then if my colleagues are, um, the, the African has suggested four, um, you know, I want to respect the, I want to respect that they started early on in the process. And so, if, if, if my colleagues with four or five, then we can, then we can proceed with a hybrid, they can have their negotiation, and if, in the worst case scenario, we have a fallback that it sounds like, would work for everyone. Um, that is enough of a, you know, enough of an incentive to sort of move everything forward. So, I'm open to what others think, but that's where I'd like to go. I really like to wrap this up tonight and not have to revisit it in 30 or 60 days and have some other last minute thing come up, and, and at that point, they just want to move on with the project and not even worry about saving Mariposa. So.

[04:30:42] Unknown Speaker: I'd also like to resolve this tonight. And with the primary goal of saving and not having any displacement at 660 Mariposa. So I'm open to an adjustment to the number of units.

[04:30:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:30:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I... I'll go back to my fallback position as... I'm just happy that we're considering... I'm delighted that we... This council's taken a few years to come to the point that we will buy a housing unit, and to me, it's a win win. The discussion that's, I know some of you don't like the idea that, but it's moving forward, and so, Mr. Council member Clark, anything that I will support that will get us to buy that unit and preserve it. I will do it, and I'm glad to see that you are making the motion of anybody to make the motion to do it, 'cause you were always concerned about us getting into the business, but we are...

[04:31:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: We aren't buying anything. Just to be very cool.

[04:31:42] Councilmember John McAlister: I know, but it's the public's sake.

[04:31:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: We are not buying anything.

[04:31:45] Councilmember John McAlister: No, but we're moving through that process and it's a transition. So I'm looking on the bright side on this one, so I will support anything that does that we end up saving 660 Mariposa.

[04:32:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: Mr. Mossif, we can wrap this up tonight at 5 units on site for, like, the fallback case. Would you be okay with that? You'd propose four, Stafford proposed seven, if we can land at five, I think we can just sort of wrap everything up tonight and move forward, and...

[04:32:20] Mr. Moss: Yes, we can do the five units. I just want to clarify that the two units that we're looking to add at Mariposa, that would be part of the five units, and that the city will work with us to... We'd give you the credit for those two. So as long as the city will work with us in terms of, obviously, reasonably evaluating those two units, because I'm pretty confident that we will meet all the criteria, as long as we're being reasonable in the interpretation of that, I'm fine with that.

[04:32:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So, I'll... So, I've withdrawn my motion from earlier. I don't think it's still, um, it's still relevant, but I think I'll need staff's help here, but, um, I think, I think the components of the motion are, one, I'll just read it again, so it's in the record. Adopt a resolution approving a modification, the BMR requirement for the previously approved planning community permit at 1696 1758 Villa Street, to require 17 on site units, and initial payment for the acquisition and rehab of 48 off site units at 660 Mariposa Avenue, to be written title only for the reading wave attachment one in the council report. Um, um, to direct staff to work with the Applicant Bridge Housing for the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of 660 Mariposa Avenue, and then I'll need help with sort of what the other components are, just sort of making clear that the hybrid option that staff had proposed is our first choice that we're giving the applicant in labor, um, you know, up to 90 days to, um, negotiating good faith and come up with, um, with an agreement, and if they're unable to, then, you know, the fallback option that the council is approving tonight is the acquisition rehabilitation of 660 Mariposa Avenue, um, and then, um, 5 BMR units, either, um, at the Villa Street, property, and then we would count that if they're able to produce 2 new units at 660 Mariposa, then we would count that towards the five.

[04:34:43] Unknown Speaker: And you need to also say the investment in Ariposa 12.4 million.

[04:34:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, what is?

[04:34:51] Unknown Speaker: Well, if I may, just to help...

[04:34:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, queen.

[04:34:55] Unknown Speaker: Round out the motion. So one thing just to clarify, too, is I think what staff had indicated earlier with respect to the on site units, which is now five, two of those could be located off site, but at city's approval. So I just want to make sure that that is part of the motion.

[04:35:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's right. Okay. And then, um, and just to clarify as well, so the resolution has been attachment one has been revised for condition of approval 57, which is put before all of these, just to clarify that that's also part of the motion, and then I can then make the further revisions to the revisions.

[04:35:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[04:35:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. A 2nd revision to attachment one condition of approval 57. So, um, the further revisions would basically be, and I'm just looking at the document, um, the second paragraph that's outlined there for Condition 57 would basically read that, um, the applicants shall have 90 days to reach a written, um, agreement with labor organizations to resolve any potential issues. In addition, an agreement shall be reached between, um, the applicant and qualified affordable housing developer for the conveyance of, and an agreement between the city and to rehabilitate, to the level and quality specified in this case. 660 Mariposa Avenue. prior to issuance of the building permit for the residential structure and parking garage. In the event, any of these agreements cannot be reached, the applicant shall convey and rehabilitate the 48 unit building at 660 Mariposa Avenue. The affordability term, and level, and quality of the rehabilitation shall be the same as set forth in this condition. In addition, applicants shall deliver 5 on site units, 2 of which may be located off site at 660 Mariposa Avenue, with the cities approval. And then also want a modification to the resolution findings and support of this alternative to the alternative mitigation. and be adding language in Section 2 of those findings, the 2nd paragraph for the same reasons, the alternative requirement in the event agreements are not reached to satisfy the alternative mitigation condition in which the applicant shall provide five, excuse me, on site units, 2 of which may be provided off site at the city's approval, and convey and rehabilitate the 48 unit building at Mariposa to a qualified affordable housing developer, satisfies the city's BMR requirements. And then it's queers through this, that, you know, we're basically in that fallback scenario, we're not providing the city isn't providing any funds that would trigger prevailing wage or anything like that.

[04:37:37] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:37:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: That doesn't need to be written. Obviously written. I just wanted to make sure that that's all understood.

[04:37:43] Unknown Speaker: Okay. When you say city's approval, that isn't necessarily city council approval. That's just the city staff.

[04:37:51] Unknown Speaker: Correct. That's what is intended.

[04:37:53] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure.

[04:37:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[04:37:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick clarifying questions. So does the motion include, uh, staff suggestion to give priority, uh, to displaced, um, Mountain View households for the the BMR units?

[04:38:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: I believe that was in the staff recommendation. So, yes, if I need to clarify that, then, yes, it is.

[04:38:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then the two, if the...

[04:38:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Actually, maybe were... So, sorry, just...

[04:38:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: No so... Yeah, this place. Sorry, that's not, um, just trying to think through the iteration of this. So, um, no, I don't believe that that's in there for a preference for the mayor pose for residence, but I...

[04:38:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, for Mountain View residence.

[04:38:41] Unknown Speaker: Oh..

[04:38:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, correct. The way the condition's currently written, is specific to displace tends from Mariposa versus displace tenants from Project Citywide. Sorry, but actually, and that's what's been stricken, because that was only for if there were going to be the 34 on site units, but that's no longer part of the motion and the condition. So I don't know that there's an, there wouldn't be tenant displacement from 660 Mariposa since, through the alternative and the alternative, to the alternative. I think Mariposa is preserved. But we could give those 5 units, they could have priority for Mountain View residents. So if you're, since we're not having the displacement that we would have had before, we can give priority to Mountain View residents, which I think would normally be our policy anyway, but if I need to specify that, then I can do that.

[04:39:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It would probably be good to specify that. condition specifically for displaced tenants, and it's...

[04:39:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: So basically, those five BMR units, two of which can be offsite, we would, we would just direct staff to work with whoever ultimately controls those to provide a preference to Mountain View residents.

[04:40:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: To Mountain View residents, or displaced Mountain View residents, and if displaced Mountain View residents, There needs to be a little definition around that, i.e. displaced within the last two years or some period of time, or...?

[04:40:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: And besides some duration, which would be helpful, they're looking for the definition of displays that we used previously. So, yeah, the displaced, we can include displaced for the purposes of this condition shall mean vacating of a rental unit, upon notice from the landlord as a result of, or to enable withdrawal of units, from rental markets, substantial repairs, conversion to condominium, change of use, owner, move in. which is what's I think, commonly used for the definition of displacement. And then we could add to it some duration of time, since this definition of displacement was intended for being displaced from 660 Mariposa. There wasn't really a need to put a durational requirement in terms of when you were displaced, because it was particular to a location.

[04:41:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I see.

[04:41:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: So we could use that definition of displaced and we could do within a year, a year time frame, if folks are comfortable with that.

[04:41:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, yeah, that's fine with me. And the other question was, the two offsite units that could be a credit against the five required, would that be at 65% AMI, which would be the same as if they were inclusionary, or would it be 80%, which would be consistent with the bridge proposal?

[04:41:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: I believe. I think the, um, well, I'll defer to what staff feels is... Um, I think it should probably match what, if they're... If the likelihood that they're going to be at 660 Mariposa is, and it should probably be whatever they're operating under, because I, I don't know if they want to treat two completely separate away from the other. And it's not a... But I realize there's a different value.

[04:42:06] Unknown Speaker: No, inclusionary would be 65, and then offsite would be 80%.

[04:42:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I have some discomfort with that.

[04:42:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I don't disagree.

[04:42:16] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, can you repeat what the actual question there is?

[04:42:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The question is, the AMI level of those two offset units. I think they should probably just be the same as the others.

[04:42:28] Unknown Speaker: Right? The two at Mariposa?

[04:42:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I think you'd want those to be the same as everything at that building. You could say the ones at Villa, could be the normal 65%.

[04:42:39] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I guess the only thing is, what if they don't come up with the two there? Then I guess the inclusionary ones, they're just at different AMIs across the two. Sites.

[04:42:48] Unknown Speaker: No, these 65. Yeah. Right. Oh, my God. Okay.

[04:43:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And just one clarifying question, two, displacement for one year prior from which point in time?

[04:43:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: I thought I was hoping to not have to depart. I knew you were gonna ask that question. Um... Within one year of the, would it make the most sense to me that from the time they apply? Or the time the applications are due, or...

[04:43:27] Unknown Speaker: And I'm looking to see... I know process wise what the most obvious... If we were to mirror something that is something like state law, and that time, period, is longer, but if we're going to use the one year, it would be... We could use it, um, as council member Clark was saying, it would be, um, someone who was displaced within their past year. So, um, that might look different for, um, um, um, any particular tenant, but it probably reads something like, um, preference for tenants who have displaced who have been displaced, um, from their, um, last tenancy, um, within the past year. within the past year of their application. And I think that might mirror what you were saying, of applying for that...

[04:44:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Of their date of application, probably.

[04:44:37] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the, yes.

[04:44:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm not clear what that means. So, to clarify what I understood, are you saying, um... One year, they were displaced, as previously defined, within one year from their BMR application? Is that the...?

[04:45:03] Unknown Speaker: There's a couple things. One is probably ease of administration, and the other is this one year period. So, for example, it could be, um, residents who have been displaced in the past year from this point, or, um, folks who have been displaced, say from this calendar you're on. But if we wanted to have something a little bit different, and I apologize, I'm trying to think a little bit here on the fly. It could be an applicant who is applying for the BMR unit, if they have been displaced from a project within the past year of their applying for that BMR unit, then they would have a preference. That's what I was getting at. basically the date of application.

[04:45:57] Unknown Speaker: Just out of curiosity, what would mimic state law if a year is longer? What is state law? Do you know offhand?

[04:46:04] Unknown Speaker: It's stated a little bit differently. And this is part of our overall displacement response strategy to craft this language programmatically, but the replacement requirements that are in state law is, I believe it's, something like if a unit has been demolished within the last 5 years.

[04:46:29] Unknown Speaker: Oh I see. Right. And that's how that language is constructed.

[04:46:35] Unknown Speaker: I see, okay. a different scenario then. Okay. Uncoverable with the one year, and then, um... So, sorry, does that mean, um, they actually have been displaced or they will be displaced? Because, um, I was thinking of the folks who currently live at Mariposa. If they are well under 80% AMI and the goal is to get everyone to 80% AMI, and now they can't afford it, they could be displaced. So, but before they're actually displaced, if they could have, um, priority, because the villa would be 65% AMI. So it could be affordable looking like that, and that there's rationale for that, and it could have this kind of prior year look back, then maybe to that question is another question is, if there is a desire to have, say, a one year look back, is there prioritization within that? So, folks who have already been displaced, do they have priority of folks who are going to be displaced, but are not yet displaced?

[04:47:51] City Manager Dan Rich: I think under a program, if we do it, when you look back, there wouldn't necessarily be any internal hierarchy unless the council were to state something like that.

[04:48:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: So this can get very complicated, very fast. Maybe we're not displacing people at 660, maybe we just let our standard BMR program applied to these 5 units, or...

[04:48:13] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, you cannot have a preference, or you could say something like, anyone who's been displaced as a result of a project approved by the city council anytime after January 1, 2019, should there be more people in that category than spaces available. There would be a lottery amongst them.

[04:48:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just keep it simple.

[04:48:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, and probably January 1, 2020, but...

[04:48:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'm okay with that. And then we read, we would have the, if there are two units at, just at Mariposa, they would be at the same affordability requirement as the other units there. even though that may be different or higher than the units at Villa Street, just so there's consistency, and just so that's recorded. And then, um, and then in terms of preference, um, I think we'll just incorporate what the city manager said, basically, it's a, if you've been displaced due to a project that's approved by the city council on or after January 1, 2020, um, then, you know, you have preference in the lottery, or...

[04:49:25] Unknown Speaker: Well, you're not looking to go back to displacements in the past year or something. You're just saying from January 1 forward.. My point is, there's been some displacement in the past year where they might necessarily be out of the units yet or out of the city.

[04:49:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, okay. Oh, no. So we'd want to try to capture some of the folks that are still at risk of displacement. Okay, generally, one 2019, then. I'm convinced it sounds like you're comfortable with that, too. You're the secondary, okay, with all this?

[04:49:58] Unknown Speaker: No, he's not done when he gets done. He'll repeat it. I don't think he's gonna repeat it. I'm not repeating that. No. As long as I get her opposed, then we're gone, but I'm okay. We're not buying it, so...

[04:50:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion.

[04:50:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: That is the motion.

[04:50:16] Unknown Speaker: I don't think anyone is going to miss me next year at this point. Good riddance.

[04:50:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the council member, Clark, and a second by council member, McAllister. So, uh, before... we vote on this. Do we need to repeat the motion? It's a pretty long one.

[04:50:37] Unknown Speaker: No, wicked.

[04:50:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, the city security is no element. So I did want to give Mr. Moss one more chance. Because when we vote on this, it changes things, so...

[04:50:51] Mr. Moss: Sure. Uh, no, I understand the proposal, and we're fine in accepting that first time.

[04:50:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Sure. We appreciate all of your helpfulness, assistance, and getting clarity, took a little while, but I think we're there.

[04:51:03] Mr. Moss: Yes, thank you. Thank you.

[04:51:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call the question. That passes unanimously. Thank you all very much for all the great work on this one. I appreciate it. This was a first. Coming to fruition tonight. Okay, so we will move on to... item 7.1. which is oversized vehicle parking on certain streets adjacent to class two bikeways, and we will... Do a very short staff presentation.

[04:51:59] Assistant City Manager Mike Fuller: Yeah, good evening, Honorable Bear, uh, members of the council, Mike Fuller, assistant city manager. I'm here with Lorenzo Lopez, senior traffic engineer, um, in the interest of time. If it pleases the council. I'm going to forego the staff presentations. We are more than happy to answer any of your questions, though.

[04:52:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:52:27] Councilmember John McAlister: I don't have a question, but I'll be glad to make a motion.

[04:52:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have to take public comment first. Okay. No. So, are there, are there any, are there any questions from council members before we open it up for public input? Okay, so we will open this up for public input, if there's anyone who wishes to address the council on this item. Please come forward. You are welcome to speak on this topic. Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public input portion, and bring it back to council, council member McAllister.

[04:53:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. I'd like to adopt a resolution designating streets or portions thereof, whereas oversized vehicles, parking adjacent to Class 2. Bikeways is prohibited, pursuant to Mountain View City, code, section 19.7, 9.3, to be read entitled only for the reading, wave, attachment 1 to the council report.

[04:53:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by Council member McAllister. Second by, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. Is there any discussion? Okay. We'll call the question. That passes unanimously. Thank you. I apologize, you waited all that time. Thank you for that. Thank you, senior.

[04:53:54] Assistant City Manager Mike Fuller: Thank you so much. Thank you so much. It was our pleasure.

[04:53:57] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. We got assistant city manager hanging in with us. What kind of couple?

[04:54:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we will move on to item 8.1, which is the final 2017 and preliminary 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventories. We'll start with a staff presentation.

[04:54:21] Assistant City Manager Mike Fuller: Um, Madam Mayor, um, on behalf of Steve Attinger, our Stainability coordinator, and Aaron Brewster, our sustainability analysts, too, who are on their way down. And in the interest of time, will forego the staff presentation on item 8.one, and simply seek counsel's adoption of the preliminary 20, I'm sorry, the final 2018, um, the final 2017 inventory.

[04:54:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, are there any council questions on this one?

[04:55:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we did send in quite a few questions.

[04:55:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, okay. Then. Thank you. We'll open this up for public input. Each speaker will have three minutes, and if you could fill out a blue card, either before or after you speak, that would be appreciated.

[04:55:27] Mike Barros: Time, I think I'll go first. Uh, I'm Mike Barros. Um, resident and homeowner in Old Mountain View. I saw the proposal to ban natural gas in new residential developments, and I was a bit alarmed by that. Uh, having done uh, some research on it. I'm less alarmed. However, I think that a ban would have some unintended consequences that should be explored. Uh, a ban would increase the amount of electricity uh, demanded by the residents of the city of Mountain View. And I haven't really seen an analysis of how that demand would be, um, addressed. And so I think that having a more thorough analysis of how the supply would meet that demand is needed. I understand that the Silicon Valley clean energy, or the green energy, clean energy, is our supplier, but ultimately, it is PG&E that's supplying much of the power. And of course, uh,

[04:56:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: no, it's Silicon Valley green energy.

[04:56:42] Mike Barros: Okay. Um, In any event, I think that an analysis of the demand side is and the supply side is prudent. Thank you.

[04:56:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[04:57:03] Public Speaker: Mountain View residence for 20 years and past member of the sustainability task force. Uh, the best I can do to the cause is take only a few seconds of your time at so late, just to thank you for the change in, uh, atmosphere and tone when we are talking about sustainability in the city. Uh, I've been on this project for about 2 years now and I can see a change. And I really thank the council for your attention and all the effort, the response from the city, the city managers, the fact that the sustainability staff is now part of a large group in the city who is all working with the same goal. So because it's so late, I want that you relate to the 160 countries that are negotiating for Cup 25 in Madrid. And it's long nights, it's 100s and 1000s of participants. And when you see how difficulties come to a consensus in a city like Mountain View, where we have similar situations and economic level and lifestyle. Try to imagine how hard it is for the world. But that's why we have to be resolute because we are only carrying a very small share, but we have to show the way we have to do our contribution. We have to change our lifestyle. We have to be educated. We have to have leaders. We put the right means and the right decisions for the future of the planet for the future of this city. So, thank you, thank you. Please take your responsibility, and many people said it tonight. Make good decisions for all of us. Thank you.

[04:58:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing that, we'll close the public input portion. Council member McAllister.

[04:59:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, uh, Steve, I got a question for you to what the gentleman said and what Margaret responded to. On page 8 of the staff report, it says, due to a customer confidentiality constraints, the city was unable to obtain a detailed breakdown of electricity usage by energy service provider. So does that mean that we don't... Do we know who's providing the majority of electricity to us at this time?

[04:59:33] Sustainability Coordinator Steve Vattinger: I can answer that. SVCE is providing the majority of the power. They have an opt out rate that's pretty stable at about 3%. So the remaining percentage of customers in the region are being supplied by SVCE. We don't have the exact breakdown for commercial energy use or residential energy use, um, by usage information, but we do know that the majority is SVCE.

[04:59:59] Councilmember John McAlister: And is that when you say majority, so that they're getting 100% of their power? From Silicon Valley Clean Energy?

[05:00:07] Sustainability Coordinator Steve Vattinger: No, we do have commercial customers that have opted out.

[05:00:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Residential wise.

[05:00:11] Sustainability Coordinator Steve Vattinger: Residential wise, we do have some residential customers that have opted out and remain with PG and E, but it is a very, very small number.

[05:00:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[05:00:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Bye, Mayor Abi Coco.

[05:00:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I wasn't planning to talk, but, um, when, I just want to, first of all, thank staff for this very comprehensive, uh, report, and, um, you know, very pleased with the numbers and the results, and, um, I also wanted to address because we have been receiving emails, and I've actually asked my Silicon Valley clean energy staff also to, um, do like an FAQ about what this, um, natural bath, gas, or all electric requirement on new developments means. But there's this concern about the increase in use of electricity. And there is that there is that potential, but I guess I just, you know, want folks to know that there are many people working on the issue and how to address it. Silicon Valley clean energy is now the provider of energy for most of Mountain View now. And the goal there is carbon free. And I think, you know, the confusion is that you still see PG&E on your bills because they are the ones that have the transmission lines, and they will continue to provide that for as long as there's another option. And there is discussion, as the mayor of San Jose has put out a request, you know, a call for a public option, alternative to PG&E. But the issue about sudden electricity use, yes, it'll increase, but because it's just new development, It's not like everybody tomorrow is gonna switch over to electricity only. And so it is a, it is actually a more gradual increase. And, you know, a big part of SVCE's mission is to also build its own sources of energy. electricity. So, you know, we do solar wind, hydro. There are other options we're looking at. Um, you know, the big difference is that PG&E still uses fossil fuels, and we're trying to get away from that. And the reality is, is the fossil fuels are decreasing. And I'm learning this in my air district work, but they're decreasing, and so we're having to look at, you know, do we allow the tar sands, um, oil from Canada? which is very dirty, frankly, to come into the United States? And, you know, to do that, that would probably cost a lot more money. So, you know, solar wind, hydro is, is, um, more abundant. We have more control if we just create, you know, the sources, the plants for that. And SPC is committed to always being a lower cost than PG&E. That's one of our mission, our missions. So, um, I don't expect this huge increase in electricity costs, like everyone is afraid, it seems they're the people that we've heard from, who are, you know, upset about this are. Um, and again, it's about, you know, new development, because eventually the state is probably going to require everybody to go all electric. And retrofitting our existing, you know, homes and whatnot, is really going to cost a lot more than if you just build new to start with all electric new to start with. So it's trying to, like, cap that number of units that we're going to have to switch over. And so if we cap it by, say, no more new buildings, you know, with gas, then we can start to work on retrofitting existing buildings. So, um, you know, I understand the concern, um, there may, you know, some of it is valid, but I just want folks to be rest assured that it's not that it hasn't been thought through. It's been thought through for a very long time, and that's what Silicon Valley clean energy is working on. So, um, just wanted to put that out and, you know, I'll continue to work in writing to respond to other folks' concerns, but I just thought I'd put it out there since Mr. Virus came up. So thank you for being here.

[05:04:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:04:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, the vice mayor said most of what I was gonna say, at first, I wanted to thank, um, staff for answering my voluminous questions on these two, two items so that we can save time now that we're, we're here at 11:30. And then I also wanted to thank the members of the public who came and stayed this late to speak to us about their concerns, and in particular, Mr. Beer's, oh, your concerns, they're, I feel like we need to communicate better on that particular decision, because I feel like it was an important decision, but you're not the only person who's asked, you're just the only person who's stayed up until 11:30 to ask. Um, so, I would like on our website, maybe, some of those, because this is, among the decisions that we've made since I've been on council, this has been one that I've received, not the most questions about, but among the most questions, so I feel like, and I also feel like when we talk to people, they understand it more. And the one, I agree with everything that my vice mayor said, the one thing I just wanted to clarify is that it's not that most of Mountain View gets its power from Silicon Valley, clean energy, which could mean 51%, it's like 97%. So, you know, meaning that almost all of our electricity comes from sustainable sources. So, I know that's been, several people have emailed me with that concern, that, that we're upping the number, the amount of gas used to generate electricity, but really, and then I wanted to highlight the other thing, the vice mayor has said, which is, when we put our money into Silicon Valley clean energy, They, they support more clean, energy, more clean generation of electricity. So we should be, we should be making a virtuous cycle in that way. Thank you.

[05:06:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other comments? Council member Clark.

[05:06:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll move the staff recommendation.

[05:06:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Save a motion by Council member Clark in a second by Vice Mayor by Koga. Is there any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, what call the question? That passes unanimously. Thank you. So we'll move on to item 8.2, which is Community Greenhouse Gas Accounting. Reduction targets and carbon neutrality. And we will start with a staff presentation. A brief presentation.

[05:08:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Since council has paper copies of the presentation, you can probably talk them through it. without it showing on the projector.

[05:08:47] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: Apologies for that. It was working several hours ago. Good evening, council. Uh, I'll take you through the presentation on community greenhouse gas accounting, reduction targets, and carbon neutrality. I'm Aaron Brewster. I'm a sustainability analyst for the city. And this is Steve Vattinger, sustainability coordinator. So, slide one, staff has three recommendations in this report. Number one, measure and report on the consumption based emissions reductions from sustainability action plan for actions. Two, adopt the proposed absolute GHD reduction targets beginning in 2025. And three, direct staff to develop a resolution adopting a carbon neutrality target of 2045, and requiring development of a carbon neutrality plan by 2025, including potential use of carbon offsets. Slide three. This report and presentation analyzes recommendations from the environmental sustainability Task Force 2 and city council direction in four areas of analysis. conducting a consumption based emissions inventory, changes to the city's GHD reduction targets, consideration of carbon offsets in the city's GHD accounting methods, and a carbon neutrality goal. Slide four, the first area of analysis is a consumption based emissions inventory, or a CBEI. The recommendation of the ESTF2 was to conduct a consumption based emissions inventory in addition to the city's official community inventory. I won't go into detail about the differences between a consumption based inventory and our official inventory, because that was detailed in the report. But the slide five illustrates that CBEI doesn't just add upstream and downstream emissions to our existing inventory. It's really a completely different approach to quantifying and assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. And there is some overlap between the 2 methods, but neither really neither entirely captures the GHD emissions associated with the community. As for slide six, I won't spend time going over the results of the CBEI for Mountain View that was conducted by the Bay Area air quality management district, since it's detailed in the report again. But I will say that the sources of consumption-based emissions are unlikely to change significantly over the next few years, meaning that this 2015 CBEI can be used to inform program development for some time. Slide seven, to summarize a few key points about CBEIs that influence the staff recommendation. A CBEI focuses on residents as the end users or consumers of goods and services, which means it does not directly quantify commercial sector emissions in Mountain View. Because of the focus of a consumption based inventory, it's going to be more reliant on estimation methodologies than on measured data. And it does not actually measure consumption of goods and services in Mountain View. With the exception of metered utilities. As a result, CBEI will not show the result of city programs to reduce consumption based emissions. Those would need to be assessed separately as part on a program by program basis. Slide 8, as a result, our staff recommendation is to leverage the 2015 regional CBEI data for Mountain View, to continue to develop programs to address consumption-based emissions, and to measure and report on the consumption-based emissions reductions from additiatives as part of the sustainability action plan for reporting process. Moving on to slide nine, the 2nd area of analysis is changes to the city's GHD reduction targets. The EST of 2 report made several recommendations in this area. One, adopt per capita, rather than absolute GHD reduction targets, to adopt official annual GHD reduction targets, and three, adopt GHD reduction targets that decline by a constant percentage rather than a constant amount. To summarize them, key points that inform the staff recommendation on per capita targets, they are potentially easier to meet as they decouple GHD reduction targets from uncertain future service population growth. However, this also means that per capita targets would result in uncertain absolute GHD reductions because we don't know what the service population will be. And it's very difficult to accurately predict the service population, especially in the long term. Per capita targets will also be inconsistent with state and national GHE reduction goals, as well as those of other jurisdictions in the region. And as a result, our staff recommendation is to keep the city's GHD reduction targets on an absolute basis and continue to also track and present GHD emissions on a per capita basis. Moving on to slide 12. For the second topic, annual GHU reduction targets, to summarize some key points here. Mountain View currently has official targets at five year intervals, which is already much more frequent than most jurisdictions. GHG reduction is really a long term process. Programs in infrastructure that will yield significant reductions, require many years of planning and investment, as those of you who are involved with the creation of Silicon Valley creating energy. I'm sure you are familiar with that. The reality of climate action planning is that emissions do not decrease annually along a smooth curve, but in much more uneven and intermittent drops towards those long term goals. It's very difficult to manage community GHD emission reductions on an annual basis, since they are not directly under the city's control and could be heavily influenced on a year by year basis, by outside factors such as weather. Given the year and a half long delay in obtaining the data necessary to complete a final inventory, it also means that the city would not be able to course correct to meet targets for intervals less than five years. Moving on to slide 13. As a result of those factors, our staff recommendation is to continue to assess progress on an annual basis by comparing our annual community GHG inventories to our interpolated targets, but not adopt official annual reduction targets, and to use those interpolated targets to help us course correct if we are off track. Moving on to slide 14, the constant percentage versus constant amount, emission reduction trajectory, some key points that informed our recommendation. This approach prioritizes larger near term emissions reductions, which recent United Nations reports have said is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts. This trajectory would also bring our GHD reduction goals closer alignment with the state's AB 32 targets, and it represents a more consistent year to year effort in reducing emissions, as this will become incrementally harder as emissions get lower. On slide 15, as a result, our staff recommendation is to adopt proposed new GHD reduction targets based on a curve that declines by a constant percentage each year. And if you go to slide 16, you can see the table that proposes what these new targets are. These proposed targets remain at five year intervals, but follow a curve that amounts to roughly a 4.7% annual decrease in emissions. To put that in context, a recent United Nations report released just a few days ago. said that global emissions must begin falling by 7.6% annually in 2020 to limit global warming to one. 5 degrees Celsius. We're a little bit ahead of the game because our emissions have already started to decrease, which is not the case on a global scale. Slide 17 just shows the difference between our current GHE reduction trajectory and our proposed trajectory in dark blue. And this proposed pathway takes into account the fact that our emissions peaked in 2015 and greatly exceeded our target, and it plots a course between that peak and our long term goal. So moving on to slide 18. It's our third area of analysis, which is the purchase of carbon offsets. The ESTF2 recommendation was that in years where the city's GHD emissions exceeded our target, the city should purchase enough carbon offsets to make up for the difference. Additionally, the council's sustainability committee recommended that staff investigate the possibility of offsetting the city's entire inventory to achieve carbon neutrality. In slide 19, you can see the results of our analysis, about the potential cost of purchasing offsets, for the excess emissions in the past three inventory years, as well as the cost of offsetting the entire inventory. Depending on how much emissions exceed the target in a given year, the cost of offsetting, the excess ranged from 329,000 to $1.3 million. The cost of offsetting the entire inventory was between 5 and 7.7 million. Carbon offsets do not carry over year to year, so these would represent one time costs. The city of Palo Alto, which purchases offsets for community wide natural gas use, funds them through a surcharge on natural gas that passes this cost on to residence and businesses. It's possible in Palo Alto because the city operates its own utility. But is not a funding mechanism available to Mountain View. So if the city does decide to purchase offsets, there need to be an alternative funding source identified. Moving on to slide 20. As a result of those factors, the staff recommendation is to consider use of carbon offsets in the context of carbon neutrality, but not to purchase offsets at this time. And moving on to slide 21, the fourth area of analysis in the report, which is carbon neutrality, as previously mentioned, this was originally introduced in the context of purchasing carbon offsets, but there are other paths to carbon neutrality. Slide 22. To summarize some key points of information around the staff recommendation on a carbon neutrality goal. Governor Brown established a statewide carbon neutrality target of 2045 in an executive order last September. Several local jurisdictions have also adopted a carbon neutrality goal, in addition to their GSU reduction goals, generally with a target date of 2045 or 2050. And if the city were to adopt a carbon neutrality goal, the next step would be development of a carbon neutrality plan to assess the city's options for emissions reduction, carbon sequestration, or other measures, such as carbon offsets. Slide 23. The staff recommendation is to adopt a carbon neutrality target of 2045 and direct staff to develop a carbon neutrality plan by 2025, including the potential use of carbon offsets, and to proceed with sustainability action plan for tasks that lay the foundation for a carbon neutrality plan. Moving on to slide 24, fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact from staff's recommendation regarding to leverage the regional consumption based emissions inventory, to informed programs, and to assess the individual impact of SAP for programs that reduce consumption based emissions. However, if city council directs staff to conduct a CBEI, we estimate the cost at $65,000 per inventory. For the GSG reduction targets and carbon neutrality, there's no direct cost from adopting the new targets or carbon neutrality goal, there will be additional costs to develop and implement programs or projects to achieve these goals. These are not expected to affect the near term projects approved as part of SAP4. But any additional projects would be included in future sustainability action plans or other proposals for council approval. Moving on to slide 25, alternatives. There are several alternatives to the staff recommendations. One, direct staff to work with Bakmed and other regional partners to explore conducting additional regional consumption based emissions inventories. Okay. Okay, well, I will let you read through the alternatives on your own, since there are many. And, uh, we can move on. The last slide has our recommendations again, and I will turn it back to council for any questions.

[05:22:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Are there any questions other than the ones that we sent in? Uh, from council manners. Okay, I don't see anybody in the queue, so we will open this up for public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on this topic? Seeing none. If you could, um, come up to the speaker, if you wanted to do public comment. Okay, well, close the public comment portion, and bring it back to council for any discussion, and then action. Council member Hicks.

[05:23:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm generally highly supportive of all three of the staff recommendations, at this late date. I don't think I'll go much into the reasons on why, um, as, so the first one being, um, measure and report on the consumption based emissions. I'm supportive of that. Adopt the proposed absolute greenhouse, gas reduction targets beginning in 2025. You spelled out a lot of advantages and disadvantages, but I end up coming on the side of the advantages that you named. And in addition to those, I think that, um, an absolute target can give us a bigger challenge, which as a relatively well off city, um, I think that, you know, relative to other cities around the country and the globe. I think that that's a good thing to have a bigger challenge. The 3rd is to direct staff to develop a resolution, adopting the carbon neutrality target of 2045, et cetera. I want to read the whole thing, including potential use of carbon offsets. And the only thing I was going to add to that is that, um, after reading the, the report, and then talking to family and friends over Thanksgiving about this. Um, I happen to kind of network with people, um, network with people who, uh, work with Ken Alex, who was, who worked with Jerry Brown on things like this, um, including carbon neutrality, carbon offsets, and making sure that, since we have a climate denier, as our, um, as our president at this point, hopefully not in a year or so, but I can't gu that things will change. He also works on making sure that instead of just focusing on our own city itself, when we make plans on spreading the, you know, kind of networking with other cities and regions, um, by ourselves, because we can't do it top down with a president who will really set that agenda. We have to do it ourselves. So, he and I have been emailing back and forth a little bit about using carbon offsets as a way of, as a wealthier city, using those, in essence, kind of as grants to pair with disadvantaged cities that have maybe compelling projects, that maybe would, I mean, that we could pair with over time. And I think Palo Alto does this to some degree and use those to network and do projects that are maybe more compelling, maybe even a better use of our dollars for reducing our carbon footprint. in the world, because, you know, if we, clearly, if Mountain View reduces our carbon footprint to 0 or negative, and the rest of the world doesn't, it's not really very helpful. So, I've been communicating with him about that, and I'm just hoping that we can continue that communication to maybe develop that kind of model, um, as a part of our, so, to do what you said, basically, but maybe carry that conversation a little further, and as, see if Mountain View and other communities would like to do, use carbon offsets, as in some kind of pairing arrangements so that we could fund compelling projects, maybe more compelling than we could even do here. And I'll close my case.

[05:27:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got September, Clark.

[05:27:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'm generally okay with all the staff recommendations. I just wanted to make sure I understood how a couple of things tied together. So there's, and it's all related to the offsets, as I've generally in the past, not been supportive of those. But, um, the, um, So, staff recommendation is just to consider offsets in the context of carbon neutrality, but not to purchase any at this time. There was a sustainability committee recommendation that was investigate the possibility of offsetting the city's entire GHG inventory to achieve carbon neutrality. So was staff's recommendation sort of informed by the sustainability committee, or is the sustainability committee going in a different direction? That was just what was unclear to me. Or they all sort of integrated, and basically what we're saying is, we'll continue looking at this in the future, in the context of achieving carbon neutrality, but not recommending any sort of purchasing framework at this time.

[05:28:34] Unknown Speaker: The council sustainability committee, made a recommendation that we look at and present the information that was in the presentation tonight, so that the larger council had a sense of what the dollar values would be in terms of either offsetting the excess each year or doing a full carbon neutrality offset or the entire inventory.

[05:28:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see.

[05:29:01] Unknown Speaker: But the committee, to my recollection, stop short of making any kind of a formal recommendation beyond that.

[05:29:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand sort of the direction they gave.

[05:29:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Bye, Mayor Abbe Coca.

[05:29:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So thank you again to staff for the comprehensive report. Um, I am very supportive of SAS recommendations. Um, I would just make a couple of, um, comments, um, regarding the, some of the alternatives mentioned, um, regarding the CBEI, um, as, you know, I serve on the Bachmed board, and I had, I had seen the 2015 report. I'm not sure why that it hasn't been updated, but I'm more than happy to inquire with staff there. to see if there might be plans to do a more current CBEI. So, I think we should continue to work with Bakmed and other organizations that might be looking at this and not do it ourselves, but to kind of piggyback on what other agencies are doing. The other piece is about the offset. So, you know, I, I, you know, I'm very mindful of, um, our finances as a city, and, um, yes, we are in good times right now, um, but, I also want to, you know, remind folks that we have, um, voted to, um, put significant resources into our sustainability efforts as a whole, was it, 7.5 or 9.5 million over the next 3 years. And, um, looking at the, frankly, the cost of offsets, um, And the way I look at it is that, um, you know, yes, you can buy offsets, but for me, I'm, I'm actually more interested in using, if we had that foot pot and money, using it on direct, you know, direct sources. So I always go back to the pie chart on a, uh, Side 6, I think it's the previous report, but, you know, energy, that's what we've been working on with buildings and land use. and going all electric buildings. The biggest pie is transportation. So if I add $5 million, I would rather put that funding into EV chargers, you know, some kind of grant program for EVs, water, you know, water heater pumps, um, transit. Like, I would rather use that funding in more concrete ways than to buy offsets. So, I'm not really interested in purchasing offsets at this time. I'm sure we can look at it as a reference, but my interest is more to, you know, put whatever funding, whatever dollars we can get into direct, um, sources of reductions. And transportation is really the big pie that I think, piece of the pie that we need to focus on. So, um, those would be the uh, just my comments. Otherwise, I think the recommendations are great, and I look forward to supporting them.

[05:32:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Castle member Ramirez.

[05:32:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I also agree with the staff recommendations, and I also agree with the vice mayor's comments regarding carbon offsets generally. So if we're going to impose a penalty on ourselves for failing to hit our greenhouse gas reduction goals, my preference would be to to keep that money local and invest in transportation, uh, capital improvements that, um, you know, have material benefit to our residents. I think there probably is a compelling case to be made for investing that money outside of Mountain View if there's a, you know, sort of greater bang for the buck. You might have a proportionally greater impact on greenhouse gas emission reductions if you invest that money somewhere else. But I think our, you know, I would suggest that our primary responsibility is to not be residents. So if we're going to do that, then I do share the vice mayor's preference to keep that money local and reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally as well. I was hoping to second somebody else's motion, but if we're okay, I can go,

[05:33:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: well, there you go. There you go. I'm ready to go.

[05:33:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So you have a motion, I think it's the staff. recommendation. Is that true? Uh, we have a motion by Vice Mayor of Bikoga, and a second by council member Ramirez. I just want to add a couple of comments. I do appreciate all the work the team has done on this. It's a ton of information. It's a ton of progress that I think we've made. And there's a couple of things that I really appreciate about it. One is the, um, staff recommendation to measure, or to report on the, um, emissions, reductions from consumption based items. that were part of the SAP4 initiative. I know I talked about doing a consumption based inventory. But now that, uh, we have more information from staff. I agree with your recommendation on this one. Um, I would echo the comments about, um, carbon offsets, and I'm more interested in using the funds locally, and if we have them, than buying carbon offsets at this point. Well, we've invested $7.5 million, I'm sure we could invest more. And make more of an impact locally. And I want other cities to step up and do the same thing. So if there are no other comments, Council member Hicks.

[05:35:01] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just gonna clarify that, that, um, the term carbon offsets may not even be the best term, but what, what I've been talking to this gentleman about, and it's not something that I would see us doing right away, but if we see that our spending is locally is facing declining returns to scale, and we see that in some communities that don't have the money to, that have compelling need, that, where there would be a large bang for the buck, I would like to be open to exploring that and seeing if, at some point, it would make sense, it makes sense to invest in communities that can't do the projects themselves.

[05:35:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Vice man, they told you.

[05:35:49] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I appreciate that. I just would respond by saying, I think we have a long way to go ourselves if we're at 5% EVs. We have a long ways to go. So I'd rather focus on local right now.

[05:36:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so there's no further discussion. Let's call the question. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Again, thanks so much for all the work on this. We will move on to item nine, which is council staff and committee reports. Are there any... Vice mayor, Abi Koga?

[05:36:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I could mention everybody, um, that, uh, several of us attended the National League of Cities, City Summit in, um, San Antonio last week, 2 weekends ago. Um, and, um, it was, uh, very interesting, um, as you, you all know, um, my obsession with the recession. I attended a panel about how to get ready for the recession, but interestingly too, I, of most folks in that room, including some of the, um, economic experts don't, that they don't expect one and then very near terms. So you never know, but that was a positive to hear.

[05:37:19] Unknown Speaker: And, um, there are some other issues. There's a lot of work being done on race and equity and leadership that is of interest to me. And, um, interesting, you know, depending on where you are in the country, the erasolations have different nuances, but, um, I appreciate that the League of Cities, National League of Cities is taking those, um, issues into integrating them more into the work that they're doing things. What else?

[05:37:53] Unknown Speaker: So, um, yes, I also attended the National League of Cities conference in San Antonio, and from my perspective, the most interesting part of it was the speakers at the general sessions. I was very surprised, I really didn't know much about common. Um, I was pretty darn impressed with him. He was incredibly eloquent, incredibly thoughtful. And I thought, wow, he certainly made a fan out of me. There was another speaker who was a comedian who, with AARP, spoke about, um, being a caregiver. And he certainly used his humor to talk about the experiences of caregiving. And I so appreciated him talking about that as a young man who is taking care of his parents. He's an only child. And he started in his, I'd say, early 20s, taking care of his parents. Um, he was incredibly thoughtful, responsible. I just, and he was another one that just totally, made me a fan of his. I will definitely, uh, look for his, um, his, uh, um, appearances, uh, to do comedy, because he's great. Um, and the 3rd was a gentleman who spoke about, um, the emotional side of infrastructure. And that was pretty interesting. I never thought about infrastructure being emotional. But he's written some books about it. So I felt like, this time, the general sessions were better than the breakout sessions that I went to. But overall, it was a great conference.

[05:39:46] Unknown Speaker: Friday night you had anything special going on that night?

[05:39:49] Unknown Speaker: No. No. didn't think you.

[05:39:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else? Okay, then, um, is there a closed session report?

[05:39:59] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is not.

[05:40:08] Unknown Speaker: There's no... The city manager. I think, um, all unless one of you spoke on behalf of the others, all members who were at the conference, need to report that publicly.

[05:40:18] Unknown Speaker: Listen, it was me, the vice mayor, the mayor, Council member, Camet, and council member, McAllister, were all there. San Antonio, Lego cities.

[05:40:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.. Got some of McAllister here in the queue?

[05:40:37] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I'm fine.

[05:40:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, okay. Facilitated that we were here. Okay, then, um, we will, uh, join this meeting to the next city council meeting that will be held on Tuesday, December 10th, 2019, at 5:30 p.m., in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →