May 5, 2020 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:05:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And it's 630 so I would like to go ahead and start our meeting, uh, for Tuesday, May 5th. Oh, happy Cinco de Mayo to everyone. So I would like to uh call the meeting to order at 630 and uh have an announcement. Uh, this meeting will be conducted in accordance with state of California executive order and dash 29-20 dated March 17, 2020. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of public wishing to observe the meeting live, may do so at mountain dee.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountain view dot dot gov slash YouTube and then on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide all public comments during the public comment period for an item by signing up at mountainview.gov slash cc underscore speakers. Any emails and voicemail messages received by 5 PM today were forwarded to the city council. Email is received after 5 PM and prior to the close of the public comment period for the agenda item will be read into the record by the city clerk. And any voicemail messages received will be played by the city clerk. Our votes will be taken by roll call votes. Now I'd like to ask the state court for to proceed with no call, please.

[00:06:46] City Clerk: Thank you. Council member Clark.

[00:06:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:06:49] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:06:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here,

[00:06:53] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[00:06:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here,

[00:06:56] City Clerk: Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez.

[00:07:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:07:03] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[00:07:05] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here,

[00:07:05] City Clerk: Mayor Abi Koga.

[00:07:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here, thank you. Thank you. All members members are present. Uh, so we'll go on to item three. We have some presentations. And the 1st one, 3.one is a proper proclamation and recognition of affordable housing month, um, each May. Uh, we recognize affordable housing month, um, and we have a proclamation force that I would like to read. Whereas housing is the basic human need, and each year, 1000s of Silicon Valley families struggle to find an affordable home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, and on any given night in Santa Clara County, 9700 individuals are experiencing homelessness, 95% of Walmart and whom are unsheltered. And whereas quality affordable housing is vital to health, to healthy, safe, vibrant, and diverse communities and affordable homes as a solution to homelessness and provide support to seniors, families, youth, veterans, and people with disabilities. And whereas affordable housing is a regional need that requires regional solutions and participation from all cities and the county, and the city of Mountain View is committed to safe, staple, and affordable housing for all its residents. And whereas the city is a leader in developing innovative strategies to create diverse housing options, which is a council major goal. And the strength of our community and economy depends on providing access to housing options that allow current and future residents of all income levels to live where they work. And whereas the city has been active in the past year in developing affordable housing for all income levels. With the city, funding the construction of 15 new affordable units at the shore of these apartments, partnering with the West Mountain Viewersman school district to develop 124 units of teacher housing, and 20 units of city employee housing at 777 that's Middlefield Road. And moving forward with development of the city's slot 12 for political housing development. And whereas the global housing, near employment centers and transit can reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and emissions, and those housing and transportation costs for local workers in the city, and the city is dedic, and the city. I'm sorry, and the city is working with many organizations, agencies and community members throughout Santa Clara County, dedicated to addressing the significant need for affordable housing in Mountain View and in Silicon Valley. And affordable housing month, encourages with sharing and implementation of best practices, opportunities and solutions to help meet that need. Now, therefore, I, Margaret Adequate, that mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues from the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of May as a global housing month in the city of Mountain View to call upon all members of our community, to support affordable housing solutions, and to recognize the successful efforts of the city, and its dedicated partners who seek to improve access to affordable housing opportunities in Mountain View and our neighboring communities, signed into the 5th day of May 2020. And um, it, uh, it's normally, uh, in the past, it's been affordable housing week, but, um, in light, and there's a number of events that usually happen during that week, um, such as tours and whatnot, but, um, in light of, uh, being in, in place. Um, I believe that that they changed that to full of housing month, and there's actually a whole month worth of various activities and events, um, so I encourage our residents to, um. Please, uh, um, check out so that's, um, usually they're put on by the housing trust and SC at home and a number of organizations dedicated to the little housing. So, um, I'm glad um, happy to be uh, proclaiming this month of May as a Florida housing month. Uh, our 2nd presentation, our approximation is in recognition of Asian, Pacific American Heritage Men, um, is also, uh, uh, that is not, where we commemorate, the heritage of Asian, forces American, so, like to read, this proclamation. Whereas in 1978, a joint congressional resolution established Asian Pacific American Heritage week to coincide with 2 important historic milestones. The arrival of the 1st Japanese immigrants in the US on May 7th, 1843, and the contributions of Chinese workers to the building of the transcontinental railroad completed May 10th, 1869. And whereas in 1990, a joint congressional resolution extended the commemorative week to a month. And whereas this year marked the 78th anniversary of Japanese internment on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Diva was about signed executive order 9066, forcing 110 Americans with Japanese ancestry, into relocation centers, and then into internment camps. This executive order affected 100s of families in the Mountain View area. And whereas the city of Mountain View and the entire nation are enriched by the diverse cultural contributions made by residents from areas like China, India, Japan, Korea, and the Pacific Islands in Vietnam. And whereas Asian specific Americans have had a profound impact on the nation and the mountain. It's come to a number of Asian, it's Americans who serve as excellent representatives of those, the mountain view Asian Pacific American community and the mountain view community at large, including members of the city council, council advisory bodies, and the school district board of trustees. And whereas during these unprecedented times of the COVID-19 pandemic, the zenophobia and anti-Asian sentiment has been on the rise. It is of utmost importance that the city of Mountain View reassirm its commitment to all Asian specific islanders, and people of all backgrounds ensure a community for all. Now, therefore, I mark them, because I may of the city and mountain View, along with my colleagues in the city council, do hear my proclaim the month of May, 2020, is Asian Classic American Heritage Month. And um, being as Asian for the care coach myself. Um, I, um, I officiate, uh, our city is always embraced, diversity, and um, the Asian physic-American community, which is growing, um, in the population and and mountain view, and so, um, I think I got it important for us to recognize the contribution of members of the community, especially in this time. I appreciate the resolution that the council passed against anti-Asian sentiment, um, and this, this, that we affirms our commitment to, uh, diversity and a community for all. So thank you for that, and we will move on to our 3rd presentation, which is the COVID-19 update, our city manager can bring the car fee.

[00:14:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Good evening and let me share my screen. I think I'm going to need to have that enabled. Please, uh, Roger, if you're, um, watching. Thank you. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Good evening, mayor and council members. I am presenting our latest COVID-19 update here this evening and I believe this starts the ninth week we've been sheltering in place. It seems like, um, the time is blurring, so I'm, I'm not quite sure of, um, what we've brought on, but, um, we've certainly been, been doing this quite a while. So, tonight I wanted to provide some updates on programs that the city has implemented and then talk about the modified shelter and place order that was modified as of yesterday and provide some updates on city operations. So, the 1st update is, of course, be together in the update, and I'm pleased to say that, uh, as of yesterday, we have received almost $110,000 to the fund. So we have received 305 donations through the rent relief program and 270 donations so far, it's the small business assistance program. So that is 575 individual donations and I believe I've said every week that the generosity and the spirit that we have here in Mountain View of neighbors helping neighbors is certainly heartening to me and I think the 575 folks who have donated to this fund, um, are definitely all in this together. So, uh, we want to thank everyone and really appreciate uh, their donations. Then the next update that I would like to provide is on our rent relief program. And last week, uh, we have statistics from, um, April 24th and now I have statistics as of May 1st. So, as of May 1st, there were 1769 applications, and 238 households have been assisted, and there are 116 people who have applications that are approved, that are awaiting payment within the next couple days. There are around 1400 applications pending, and so far, 5 almost 500,000 and city funds have been extended with an average rental assistance of a little over $2000. And the percent breakdown of those households, um, and from their area median income has not really changed that much from all of the updates that have been given week after week. So, the, um, AMI continues to be primarily half at the 0 to 30% AMI rate, around 18%, and the 31 to 50% AMI range, and around 24% in the 51 to 80% range. In terms of our small business resiliency program and small landlord assistance program. So through our partnership with the Los Altos Community Foundation, these programs launched on April 29th through the main street launch website. Our small business resiliency program, we had a coordinated timed announcement exactly where we emailed over 800 Mountain View small businesses, and this includes around 160 businesses who had signed up on the interest list with our email, and they also made sure that we put this information out on social media. Um, through the community briefing and also the city's website. And currently Main Street launch has began to work through the 1st batch of applications. The application period did close on May 1st and we received 167 inquiries that program. For our small landlord program. We had 9 enquiries, and it operated in the same time frame where the program launched on the 29th, and the application period closed on May 1st. And at this point, we have an intake application and screen process to determine eligibility for the small landlord program. And we estimate that the entire process, including intake, review and hand off to main street launch for that loan application will take approximately 2 weeks. Then the last item that I wanted to raise everyone's attention to is the city staff, small business call center. So this is a new program that we have launched where we have identified a list of small businesses from our business license database. So, there are around 640 businesses in Mountain View that have less than 25 employees, and they're in the commercial zoning district. And we have around 16 to 18 city staff that have been identified that are basically going to be staffing this small business call center. And they are going to be calling all 640 of these businesses and just making them aware of the resources that are available to them, finding out, um, 1st of all, their business is open, are temporarily closed, um, share our resources webpage with them, and encouraging them to stay engaged with the city and just essentially letting them know that the city cares, um, about our small business community and making sure that we are connecting. with small businesses. So there will certainly be more information as both of these programs, uh, go out over the next week and as main street launch, um, starts to process those applications, so I will make sure to update city council and the public as more information is known through that. But I also wanted to provide an update on our safe parking lot. So right now, um, both the shoreline and Evelyn Lotts are open 247 and the Tarabella lot is expected to open soon. The shoreline lot has 21 vehicles and 48 participants right now, but Evelyn Lott has 17 vehicles and 33 participants. And we do have a face base lot that has 4 vehicles with 4 participants. So that is 85 individuals served right now through our state parking lot program. Uh, which which I think is a, um, true asset, uh, with what we've been able to do in such a short amount of time, um, staff, community, move Mountain View, and host of other community based organizations, and space based organizations that have helped make this possible. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that our public work staff completed freshwater inspiration, and you can see a picture of the freshwater tap, and this is going in, or it already is in, actually, at the Shoreline in Evelyn Lott, and is in operation now so that people that are staying in the safe parking lots have access to fresh and clean water. And so I want to thank public work staff for their ingenuity and creativity and coming up with this idea and also and quickly installing this as well. I think staff were very happy and excited to be able to do this and I really appreciate their quick work on it. And the other update I wanted to provide, and we have received a lot of inquiries about this. is the pedestrian signaling that we've put in place. Staff have identified 23 signalized intersections that are now on pedestrian recall. And this is as of just this past Friday. May 1st. And so these signal there will be operating between 6 AM and 10 PM and the pedestrian phase for crossing the street is triggered automatically without pressing the button. And the picture you see is the sign that uh, will go up and all of these signals, uh, they will be put up within the next few days. So, um, you can go on the city's website to see all of the 23 signalized intersections. And we have also put this information out on our community briefing for those that receive it. And the other update I wanted to talk about was uh, the update to our operations, just the changes that have taken place uh, as of yesterday actually when the shelter in place order was modified. I think everyone knows by now that the county's current shelter and place order has been extended through May 31st. And uh, we found out about this order extension, I believe, last Wednesday. So, staff have been working uh very quickly, and diligently since then, to make sure that um, these restrictions were the seizing of restrictions. Uh, we were able to unfold for the community starting yesterday. Just briefly, I wanted to provide some highlights of what has changed. So in terms of our recreation. Uh, golf right now, Shoreline Golf opened yesterday and currently only single players are allowed to tee off one at a time. And uh, we did have, uh, folks show up yesterday to golf and I think people were very happy that, that we were able to, um, have that restriction is, um, have folks playing golf. In terms of tennis, the courts reopen today, with social distancing between courts. It did take staff, um, some time to make sure that the courts were clean, and that we had appropriate signage in place and to make sure that we have uh, distancing between courts. And right now, pursuant to the order from the county, players are limited to members of their own household or their own living unit. Um, the skate park also open today. And in terms of the selling lake, right now, operations are not permitted until staff performs further analysis of the order. So, um, most of the operations, at least at, at shoreline are, um, are open except for the, the sailing lakes. So that is still to be continued and as soon as we have more information about that. We'll make sure to put information out to the public. And in terms of other modified operations, um, all construction operations have been resumed with distancing requirements in place, and plans and permits are being processed for all of our projects. For our streets and utilities maintenance. We have expanded cruise right now working in the field, with distancing requirements, and we also have our gardening, landscaping, and tree maintenance cruise, also working with staggered start times, and they're also making sure to work one person per vehicle. Um, I do also want to know some of the things that um, you don't even think about that you need to do, for example, cleaning the vehicles. So, when our crews switch out or there's different people driving the vehicles, we have protocols in place to make sure that those vehicles are cleaned after each use, um, so that our staff are also protected. Then I want to just make sure that I'm reminding everyone that the census is extended to October 31st and right now in Mountain View, we have around 63% of our households that have been accounted that have taken the census. So I would just like to let everyone know they can go to my 2020 census dot gov for more information or call 844-330-2020 for further information, but we do encourage everyone to take the census, everyone's um. Everyone since this does count. It helps us in Mountain View and it helps with funding and it helps be counted yourself. So please complete your census. And then, lastly, like usual, I want to remind everyone that they can text MV COVID, to sign up and receive the briefing, uh, 2 to 3 times a week, and that concludes my presentation for this evening, and I'm open for any questions.

[00:26:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you very much. Do we have any questions from council members? Please hit your, please, yeah, there we go, council number six.

[00:27:09] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. First, I wanted to thank the city manager and at the staff in general for all that hard work and particularly for getting the safe blocks up and running. I know that's been here before you were even here, that we've been trying to do that and particularly in light of this emergency situation. I appreciate that. Of course, we would prefer, I think, all everyone in council would prefer that, uh, that folks have housing, but given the emergency situation, I'm very happy that that's finally set up and has running water. My question is, I've gotten several emails from members of the public asking what we're going to be doing about arts and cultural institutions. I personally think that they're an important part of why people live in cities. Um, and so I was just wondering if you could give us a short update on, um, what's going on with a couple of those.

[00:28:09] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you. Yes, I can do that. Um, well, 1st I am aware that there have been, um, a couple, um, arts and cultural nonprofits that have applied to the small business relief program. Um, so there are people or organizations, um, businesses that are that are in the queue for our small business resiliency program. Um, as a um, landlord because Mountain View does have leases. Um, we have provided rental assistance to, uh, those businesses that, um, have requested it and one is the, uh, community uh, music um, academy at school. And there is also a new fund um, countywide that has been established for county arts organizations or artists from our community. So a new website, SV creates, um, has established an arts relief and recovery fund, and we will have this information posted on our website tomorrow, um, where services range from youth and senior arts programming for our vulnerable populations, um, to also a donation program that people can donate, um, to provide assistance for folks in the arts, and then also, Um, folks can apply 4 grants, um, whether they are arts organizations or individuals who are artists or creatives. And so that information will be posted on our website tomorrow. And um, KQED has also uh, rounded up a very long list of mutual aid funds. that can be provided to um as emergency grants to artists or creative professionals or nonprofit um freelancers that are facing financial hardships right now. And that information of all those mutual aid funds will also be posted on our website um with links to those resources. So I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in this, and so the city will make sure that we provide, um, links and resources, uh, for those other available at first.

[00:30:20] Unknown Speaker: Thank you and that's more than I expected so that's, that's great. Um and I think it's the community schools, music and art who provides art to the city and the schools that you were saying. I think that's the organization, you would think, where, um, we're going around. Yes, thank you.

[00:30:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, thank you. Customer McAllister?

[00:30:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, thank you for that, uh, never ending, uh, example of how good Mountain View is in compassion and the empathy we have for everybody and we take everybody's, uh, thoughts seriously. Uh, but I want to follow up on the, too, about the shoreline lot in the Evelyn a lot. What's the capacity on both of those lots? Are we at capacity or do we still have uh spaces available?

[00:31:09] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I'm not sure what the capacity is, and I would ask if our assistant city manager knows the capacity of that. I can find out shortly and let you know what that is, but off the top of my head. I'm not sure what the capacity is on that line. Audrey?

[00:31:25] Assistant City Manager Audrey: Um, I, I know for the shoreline loss that the capacity is 30 vehicles, if all of them are oversized and a larger number, if some of them are passenger vehicles, um, and I'm sorry that I don't remember the number for the Evelyn lot, but, where I can, uh, submission, I'll, uh, find that information and I can, um, uh, provide it or, um, see you later.

[00:31:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay that'd be great. Also, the vehicles, you know, vehicles versus RVs would be just curiosity on how many we're helping of each one. And, uh, is there, we're working with CSA for, um, counseling and are they setting up regular hours coming out to those parking lots, help, help, uh, counseling and what, activity? I mean, uh, direction. That occurring now, now that we got those left open?

[00:32:19] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, I believe that is the case, and Tom Myers is on the phone now. Um, I'm not sure if he's able to to speak to that, um, but, but I would ask him to provide any further information on what CSA is doing. You gonna jump in? There we go.

[00:32:41] Tom Myers: Yes. Hi. Uh, yes, I can tell you that, uh, BSA is providing case management to the Watts. We're trying to do as much of that, uh, via phone as possible, which of course is not optimal or ideal. Uh, but we do have, uh, folks that will be heading out to the lot later this week to give out the, uh, grocery gift cards that uh, the city is allocated for people in safe parking. Uh, but uh, yeah, uh, once the shelter in place is over, though, we will be on the lots a lot more. But the goal of safe parking from the very beginning has been to move people out of safe parking and into permanent housing and the only way you can really do that is your case damage.

[00:33:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you, man, city manager and assistant city, man.

[00:33:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, counseling, I'm out of check.

[00:33:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um Back to safe parking. Um, I thought we had more faith based lots in the past. Um dropped out and said not to participate anymore.

[00:33:50] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I would ask our assistant city manager to provide information on that.

[00:33:56] Assistant City Manager Audrey: Um, we have consistently had 2 um, based congregations that have participated, um, others that have expressed interest, but not wound up establishing programs, and whether the, the, the 4 vehicles currently parked. They don't know if that's all at one site or at 2 right out over the 2 communities that are participating.

[00:34:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. Just the way it was worded. I thought it was one and that's why I was curious if others had dropped out. Okay, thanks. And then, um, the other question and, um, I think 7 of us received the email, um, and, um, Mr. Myers is participating here. I was wondering if you could respond to some of the concerns that we heard from um a member of our community. Um, about, uh, concerns about not, um, getting relieved in the time that they thought they should. I guess is one way to put it.

[00:34:59] Tom Myers: Sure. Uh, I'd be happy to do that. I don't know if you want, if you'd want that now, or in item 7.2, but happy to bring it up now, if you, if you would like, uh, the, yes, my, uh, I, I, some of those concerns were shared with me, and I think that anytime you have a gargantuan process, like this, uh, a huge undertaking, uh, occur, uh, you've, uh, uh, you've got ramping up that needs to happen, and, uh, I will be the 1st one to admit that there's huge ramping up that needed to happen, and on when a city like, met the size of Mountain View is batting uh well above its uh weight class when it comes to uh funding per capita on a situation like this. And when it comes to uh, an organization the size of CSA stepping up to the plate to, to do that as well. It's, it's going to take some ramping up. I do have, uh, I think some incredible progress reports on that. The fact that the number of checks that are being sent out are increasing on a weekly basis. The fact that we went from 2 staff doing rental assistance to 14. The fact that we've hired uh for temporary case managers, uh, one of which was just hired today. Uh, that's all gonna increase speed, because I know people are very concerned. Uh, I think that uh, one of the concerns that was expressed in the letter that I completely concur with is that the eviction moratorium is going to send uh, the amount of desperation in the community through the roof. And we need to be prepared for that. Uh, the eviction moratorium is what has saved us from, uh, having a huge amount of, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, people becoming homeless, and the fact that we've been able to prevent that. Uh, uh, I think that uh, that is something that we need to keep our sights on, which is why funding for a rental relief program from any jurisdiction, whether it's Mountain View or any other jurisdiction. Uh, is, is incredibly important uh, and maintaining uh, people in housing is, is part of that. But, uh, uh, have no, no doubt that, uh, CSA continues to ramp up. We've taken one person out of rental assistance actually and put them completely and solely on communicating and educating the public. around rental assistance. Rental assistance I often said is one of the most important programs that CSA provides because it actually prevents homelessness. It's also one of the most least understood. People do not understand everything that goes into it. And for us to take a process that normally takes 2 to 3 weeks and condense it down to a week, uh, to get the get it done. Uh, I think is pretty extraordinary example of how much my staff are committed to this. I think another thing that's really important is we're providing rental assistance uh in 3 different languages. Uh, English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Uh, and uh, uh, uh, the, by far the largest number of people coming to us or speaking English, but also we have a high number of Spanish speakers. And one that we do not need to, that we should not forget is the number of Mandarin speakers, uh, who are uh, an important part, as, as Margaret said, at the uh, I'm sorry, as the mayor said at the beginning, when she was talking about Asian Pacific Heritage Month, that we have a growing number. of uh, Asian Americans uh, living in uh, Mountain View. Uh, and so Mandarin is an important part of that uh, uh, uh, assistance that we're providing.

[00:38:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, one follow-up question. So when we talk about uh the person who's now been dedicated to um communicating with the uh community and educating them on your program, um is that focused on renters or is there um any effort going on with the housing providers?

[00:38:52] Tom Myers: That has been focused almost completely on renters, and people who advocate on behalf of specific segments of the population who are representing renters, uh, one of the things, though, that, uh, uh, I think is becoming clear, uh, is the fact that, uh, uh, uh, while we've heard less of it in mountain view than in other communities. Uh, I think that we do have a subset of landlords who, uh, either do not know that, uh, the rules around eviction moratorium are ignoring them. Uh, uh, my understanding is that other communities are having a much worse time in dealing with this issue who are preying on vulnerable population. Uh, but uh, nonetheless, that's important work, and in fact, as we're speaking, I'm watching emails go back and forth between staff, between the staff member who is uh, uh, communicating that, uh, talking with various staff about better ways that uh, we can get help get the word out. Ultimately, though, I think that uh, uh, you know, we are dedicated to our client. And so if there are ways that we can better communicate with landlords, uh, we need to put that out there. I mean, we can put things out on our website, and we can, and we obviously communicate with landlords during the rental assistance process. Landlords are very much a part of that. The landlord needs to agree to take a check from CSA, for example. uh in order to participate in the rental business. The landlords are very much involved. But as far as communicating with landlords that you should not be engaging in inappropriate behavior and things like that. Uh, uh, those are things that I think the city, uh, uh, potentially do much better than CSA, actually.

[00:40:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, I was just wondering, if that is something that we could, um, you know, I don't want to sign us up for more work, um, but if, um, maybe we could look at Kansas City help in anyway, um, communicating with the helping providers, since we do know who they all are, um, because they're part of the CSFRA, um, if there's anything we could do or the rental housing committee could do, um, or that good to try to. provide more education on the different programs so that they're prepared to help when they're um tenancy health.

[00:41:10] Tom Myers: And that's where I would agree that the city is better equipped, because CSA does not have access to knowing who all of the landlords are in town. So the city would be better equipped to do that kind of landlord education.

[00:41:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. That's it for me.

[00:41:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: you. Hey, I'm from Ramirez.

[00:41:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, um, and thank you to the city manager and staff for, uh, pretty update. I think you're demonstrating just how it's remarkably adaptable. The organization is responding to the pandemic. And just before my, my question, I want to strongly support with, uh, council member, Madisek is, is, I think, recommending, and that's sort of using the tools that we have to, um, provide education and and and resources to, to both rental property owners and and tenants. I think probably, I would guess, um, the reason that maybe you're hearing less about um, challenges is because the city did send um, a masked mailer in early April, um, I don't know who received it, but I think it was a tremendous number of people, uh, just providing some basic information about the eviction moratorium, and maybe what that suggests is a reminder might be helpful in case people don't fully understand when the moratorium concludes, but, um, I just want to echo. I agree with the concerns and and um, and really like the, the suggestion from, from just a number of medicine. Uh, the only question I have, uh, for the city manager is, um, I, I, I've heard, uh, so, I remember there was a, a good, uh, update last time about increasing access to showers for homeless folks. Um, I, I, I was informed about a week ago and there was a church that was interested in, um, hosting a mobile, uh, shower unit, and I had heard that there might be some, some, zoning challenges with that, and I don't know if you happen to have any information about that, but is, um, you know, is there anything that we need to do in terms of greater flexibility for temporary use permits? Anything we could do for, for, um, you know, space based communities or private property owners who want to help and, um, maybe, uh, need some, some temporary relaxation of zoning restrictions, but it precludes them from, you know, posting a, a temporary shower facility or something like that.

[00:43:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, council member, Romero. So yes, staff have been actively working on shower options for quite a while. Um, so I think I'll take your question in a couple parts. First, um, we do have the dignity on wheels service that is operating now once a week that is providing shower and laundry service, uh, for folks who who need that, and we have been really trying to find out if we can get, um, them to operate more than that, that one day a week that they are operating. And as you can imagine, they are um stretched really thin. They have a lot of requests all over. Um, but just lately, I think we've been able to make some movement and that it may be possible um, for them to come operate another day or 2 Um, so that's in the works literally as of the last few days. Um, the other option is, and and I did, um, actually talk about this a week or so ago, is that Hope's Corner, um, had agreed to open their shower service up to 3 days a week, and we were all set to go with that, and, um, candidly, a challenge has really been having, um, or finding volunteers, who are able to actually, um, clean and, um, be there for that shower service. So that's something that staff have been working on. Uh, literally every day, um, the shower service and then the, um, congregation that you're talking about. I know that our staff has been working with them every day um to see if we could bring their mobile um shower unit here and so yeah staff is working through those issues and the last I heard um we're really working on that and seeing if we can make it possible. Um, so I, I think that there are some challenging issues, uh, with the church, but, uh, we are trying to work through those so that we can bring more shower service, um, to folks that need it. So this is, this is an, an ongoing thing, um, and stuff are working on this every single day, trying, trying to get, um, other options. Um, so hopefully by next week I'll, I'll have another update for you, but um, this is something that's at the top of the list.

[00:45:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great Thank you very much.

[00:45:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions and council members? I don't see any, um, just want to reiterate, um, our gratitude for all the hard work, uh, your city manager and entire city organization has been putting into these, very, uh, interesting, challenging, ever changing times, and I really do appreciate the flexibility, and the responsibility that our, the, uh, organization has been able to provide in the community, to the community. So, thank you again. Thank you to all our city employees um and uh really appreciate the dedication and hard work makes us proud. Thank you. So we will move on now to the consent calendar. Item 4 I don't believe that one motion unless any member of the council wish us to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text, the resolutions, will be waived unless they council on the request otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council member hit.

[00:46:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sorry, it always takes me a moment to unmute. Um, I would like to pull item um, 46 just for comment and 42 for, uh, possibly a, um, just a flight modification.

[00:47:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's a customer member in McAllister. Can you unmute yourself, please?

[00:47:26] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.4.

[00:47:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other members of the uh council machine that pull an item? Not, um, should I, let's see. I guess I'll go to the public. Sorry, let me get my notes here. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on an item on the consent calendar? If so, please switch the raise hand button and zoom or press 9 star 9 on your phone. The city clinic will display the timer on the screen. And let me see if there's anyone in our attendee box. If you'd like to speak, please hit the raised hand button at the bottom. Of the box. I don't see anyone. Uh, city clerk. Do you have any public comments?

[00:48:27] City Clerk: I do not.

[00:48:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Wait, I will both public comments. Um, and let's see, why don't I take a motion to, uh, approve the balance of the consent calendar.

[00:48:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll go ahead and and move the balance of the consent calendar. Um, I just, uh, I didn't want to pull it, but a quick comment on 4.3 the professional services agreement. Um I uh would in the future like to see an RFP at some point uh but I understand why uh we're not doing that um just kind of around for um if it does come back in. I think it, it would be appropriate to, to see what other options make was um, and then a city attorney. I think the only item that needed. Uh, you know, something read was 4.2 and that's been sold. Was there anything else in to read?

[00:49:29] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That's correct. The only uh consent item is 4.2 that requires the reading of the title of the resolution and that's been pulled by council member hicks so that does not need to be uh part of your uh motion.

[00:49:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you, so I'll just move the balance of the consent calendar. Thank you.

[00:49:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Did you, you had it on one item with the comment?

[00:49:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I just wanted to comment on item 46 not pull it for any. Um, so hopefully we can add that to it and I can make my comment now.

[00:50:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do tweet that.

[00:50:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, my comment is just, although I'm, I'm really happy with it, we're, I think it's fabulous that staff and the company involved with the continuation of the personal delivery device pilot program, the robots are doing delivery, uh, on our streets. I think it's fabulous that they're doing this. I do have, um, you know, I think it's, if we're doing it through these different places. I do have some reservations about takeover of our sidewalks, um, which, I think, to people, we've already had takeover of our street by, um, art, art. Um, I think, uh, I work to be with her for gas trainers, kids running the bike, et cetera. So, um, although I think it's fabulous. I, they want to make, and I've gotten some comics from public, too, that want to make, Sure, that sidewalks continue to work well for pedestrians, runners, people, wheelchairs, et cetera. So, um, I'm glad that the pilot program and I just wanted to comment that I want to continually checking on, on, uh, making sure that sidewalks are working for people. Thank you.

[00:51:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I'm going and then I go back to Councilman Ramirez is uh could we add 4.6 to your motion just uh thumbs up is fine. Great. Thank you. and is there a 2nd on the motion, counting on a matter check?

[00:51:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, 2nd motion?

[00:51:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great thank you. Uh, so motion by council member Ramirez, 2nd and by council member, Meta check, to move the hours of the consent calendar. Is there any other discussion? If not, could we get a roll call vote please?

[00:52:00] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[00:52:02] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[00:52:03] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:52:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[00:52:05] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[00:52:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:52:08] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[00:52:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah?

[00:52:11] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[00:52:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[00:52:14] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[00:52:16] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[00:52:16] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[00:52:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[00:52:19] City Clerk: thank you.

[00:52:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so we'll go on to item 4.2, uh, from November 6th. I believe you pulled this item.

[00:52:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so staff, this is uh, the item is adopting a resolution establishing a policy on, um, well, telling the reusable, the reusable plastic bag ordinance. Um, staff said we could suggested possibly approving the suspension for only 6 months with an option to expand in 6 months, month increments for up to 2 years. And I would hate to lose the progress that we, that we made so far, so I would like to add that to, uh, add that. If if I may. Thank you.

[00:53:14] Unknown Speaker: I think there's a misunderstanding, the, uh, what the resolution is doing is saying that this would be active only during the time of the governor's executive order.

[00:54:59] Unknown Speaker: Welcome to Zoo. Enter your participant ID. You have entered the meeting as a panelist. Attendees can now hear you speak. This meeting is being recorded.

[00:55:25] City Clerk: Uh, can you remember a Medachek?

[00:55:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:55:29] City Clerk: That's one really McAllister?

[00:55:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[00:55:33] City Clerk: Um, so, remember, Clark?

[00:55:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[00:55:36] City Clerk: Yeah, member Hicks.

[00:55:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, best member of...

[00:55:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:55:43] City Clerk: Nice mayor, can I?

[00:55:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And, uh, mayor, I, uh, also support it. So, motion pass the 7 0 is the extension. Thank you. So go on to item 4.3 professional services agreement for planning services? Is this, uh, um, number? I think it was 4.4 uh council member McAllister. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, uh, council member, so a little bit of 4.4 then, council member McAllister.

[00:56:22] Councilmember John McAlister: I had a course in the world. The uh how the money, the what percent was, uh, allocated. I was under the impression that the one% was for the total cost of the, of the project, but in the, uh, reading of it, it says, uh, one% of the construction cost. Is that something if council wanted to change that down the road? We bring it back to say the total cost of the project.

[00:56:54] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: So 1st off, I apologize for not introducing myself earlier, I'm John Cameron, Public Works director. Um, that, uh, that policy is a council policy and we do have plans to come back to the council. For a review of that policy and possible updates. I think we're currently planning to bring it forward in early 2021 due to staff work road. The short answer your question is yes. And the policy will be coming back to council uh in early 2021 for a full review and possibly revision.

[00:57:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Hey, thank you. Therefore, I would like to make a motion. to authorize the city manager to execute a professional service agreement with Chandler associate landscape architect to provide design and construction port services for 400 San Antonio mini park project 20 dash 48 and amount not to exceed $243,000.

[00:57:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman McAllister, is there 2nd on the motion? Council Meditrack.

[00:58:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, I 2nd it.

[00:58:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other discussion on this item? If not, could we get a Rokovo, please,

[00:58:12] City Clerk: we can? I'm back. Sorry about that, audio issue on this side, so thank you. Council member Clark.

[00:58:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yep.

[00:58:20] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:58:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[00:58:23] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[00:58:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:58:26] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[00:58:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah.

[00:58:29] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[00:58:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[00:58:31] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh.

[00:58:34] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes,

[00:58:34] City Clerk: may I be Koga? I,

[00:58:37] City Clerk: thank you.

[00:58:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Motion carry 7 0 with no abstention, and that complete our consent item. We will go onto item 5, oral communication. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during the section. It law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Any member of the public on the line likes to provide comment on non-agenda items. If so, please click the raise hand button in the Zoom attendee box, if you're in there, or press star 9 on your phone. The city clerk will display the timer on the screen. Um, check the box, see if there's any attendees wishing to speak. I do not see any hands raised. So, city clerks, do you have any really comments?

[00:59:33] City Clerk: No other comments.

[00:59:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great, thank you. So, um, in that case, we will close uh, oral communications, and then is on to item 6 public hearing, 6.one of the new residential development at 355 dash 365 401 and 415 East Middlefield Road, at the uh, staff presentation, with Jeff Roch, and our tistry basketball. Welcome.

[01:00:24] Unknown Speaker: Good evening. Pain host, disabled participant, screen sharing. You should be all set, Jeff.

[01:00:59] Senior Planner Jeff Roche: Thank you. They are members of the council. My name is Jeff Roche, and I am a senior planner with the Community Development Department planning division. With me this evening. This RT Shvastovo, our director and assistant city manager. Project site before you tonight is located at 355 through 365-401 and 415 East Middlefield Road, and involves a planned community permit, development review permit, heritage tree removal permit, and a best intended map. The project site consists of 2 parcels and is 6 acres in size, is approximately a 1000 feet from the middle field VTA station. The site is currently occupied. By 2 industrial buildings. This project site is within the boundaries of the recently approved East Wisman precise plan, and have the designation of East Wisman, mixed use on the general plan, and the zoning designation of East Wisman, P41 precise plant. The proposed project consists of 463 units. There are 3 types of residential uses included in the project, townhomes, podium condominiums, and the podium apartments. Building heights range from 4 stories to 7 stories. Access to all of the units will be from a new U shape service street, which runs through the project and connects to East Middlefield Road. The project also requires the removal of 18 heritage trees, and includes the dedication of a future public park site. In the slide, you can also see the significant trees which are being preserved and are relocated along the East Middlefield frontage.

[01:03:03] Unknown Speaker: I think you need to move the slides. We're only seeing the slide number 2 so.

[01:03:13] Senior Planner Jeff Roche: I'm seeing slide number 4.

[01:03:30] Unknown Speaker: Let's work on it. We're on 4 now?

[01:03:52] Senior Planner Jeff Roche: Okay, our staff report includes a discussion of the 10 policy strategies of the East Wisbon precise plan, some of which we will touch on in our presentation. As shown in this slide, the project is located in the medium and high intensity mixed use character areas. This project is a residential bonus FAR project, has an FAR of 2.91 and a density of 77 dwelling units per acre, except for minor exceptions as noted in our staff report. This project complies with the development standards of the East Whisman precise plan. The next 3 slides show different views of the project from East Middlefield Road, 1st the podium apartments. Podium condominiums, and in this 3rd slide, you see a rendering of the proposed townhome units, and what a conceptual park design might look like for the project in the future. We note that the design of this future park is subject to separate and further review, for the city's parks and recreation commission. The applicant is proposing an alternative mitigation BMR plan is noted in this slide. As proposed, they would include 27 low income rental units and 47, 41, excuse me, moderate income, rental units, no affordable units, and no in-loop fees. This alternative mitigation BMR plan was based on city council direction in October of 2018. Next slide shows the project's public hearing and meeting history. All of these meetings have provided staff in the applicant with guidance over the past 2.5 years, over what was expected to be ultimately included in the project, and its associated conditions of approval. The applicants have submitted 2 letters to you regarding their project. The applicants have proposed to extend the transportation impact, the exemption, another year, which is also addressed in our recommendation at the end of this presentation. Now, I would like to turn the presentation. over to RT to discuss both community benefits. and volunteer school strategy.

[01:06:19] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Good evening, council members. Um, this is Artisha Vastava. Can we need the Bolton director and assistant city manager? Um, I will go through the community benefit and the voluntary school strategy discussion. Uh, someone has submitted a formal proposal on April 23rd, offering a 4000000 community benefit package that includes the city's community benefit contribution, as well as the voluntary school strategy contribution. Summerville, in their letter, incorrectly noted that the 4000000 was to go into the city's general fund. Um and I wanted to provide a clarification of that. For the city's precise plan requirements. The required community benefit contributions for the bonus that they are in this project is approximately 2.50000 and would go into the East Rismond community benefit fund. And the one. 150000 that the applicant has voluntarily offered, is available for their voluntary school contribution. The $250000 community benefit contribution is available for improvements that are intended to help implement the precise plans vision, and lists a variety of community benefits, including affordable housing, transportation improvements, and these are provided in the map, um, on the side. District utility improvements, new open space improvements, buildings for nonprofits and community facilities, or other improvements that benefit the precise plan area. Under this other improvements category, the council may choose to allocate some or all of the 25000000 city community benefit contributions to the school strategy. This decision on how that 2500000 um, community benefit contribution should be prioritized among the various items, and how much may go to schools can be made either tonight, or the council may choose to make it at a later date with the discussion of the citywide school strategy in June. Um next slide, please. As the table in this next slide indicates, the 1500000 voluntary school strategy contribution offered by the applicant, when combined with the state school impact fee, comes to about 6.5 uh dollars a square foot. This is within, but at the lower end of the range, um, uh, of the 6 to $13 per square foot that was discussed during the council study session last October, um, on school strategy. The table also shows for illustrative purposes only what the contribution would be, should the council choose to allocate all of the 2500000 uh to the schools from their community benefit contribution. The total contribution in this case would come to $10.50 per square foot. Um, also, as outlined in their April 23rd letter, Summerhill has also noted that they will not be using the 10,000 square feet of TDRs that they had put, that they will be purchasing from the Salto school district for their project at a cost of $130000. Um the staff report provides more details on that purchase and the requirements. They're instead proposing to sell it to a non-residential developer and donating the proceeds to the school district. And this is the Mountain View, Wisman, and the Mountain View, Los Alto school district. They estimate the proceeds to be between 450,750,000. Um, and again, for informational purposes only, this would add between, um, ¢64 to $.20 per square foot. If the council is interested in accommodating this request, the conditions of approval related to those TDRs will be modified to clarify that resale options and to acknowledge that voluntary contribution of the proceeds going to the schools. In addition, staff would also like to note that if that PDO is resold, the 10,000 square foot of TDR will no longer receive a credit. From the community benefit contribution requirement, and the applicant will be required to pay an additional 50,000 community benefit contributions. That will be walking the council through these key decision points as part of the recommendations. And we are happy to clarify how the condition will look based on the council decisions. prior to motions being made. And finally, um, this isn't um, a detail that we've discussed, but the applicant has also indicated in their letter that they intend to submit an application to get our credits for their project. Once the parkland dedication ordinance is modified. There's no decision point required tonight. Um, but uh, the council will be reviewing the parkland dedication ordinance in the fall. Um, so we just wanted to provide you that additional piece of information. And I'll turn this back to Jeff to go through the list of recommendations, including the direction we're asking from council tonight.

[01:11:31] Planner Jeff: Thank you, RT. In conclusion, the APC recommended approval of the project and its associated environmental document, including the approval of an initial study of environmental significance, adoption of a resolution conditionally approving a planned community permit and development review permit, the transfer development rights of 10,000 square feet to the project site in relation to the Los Altos school district PDR program, and a heritage tree removal permit. And the adoption of the revolution conditionally approving a vesting tentative map, a resolution ordering the vacation of public easements, and then conclusion staff is looking for direction on 3 items. First, this allocation of proposed community benefit funds. The 2nd is the projects allow us to resell unused, LASD, TDR square footage, and 3rd returning to council for consideration of an extension, for the transportation impact, the exemption deadline. We would like to note that there are other individuals from planning, public works, the environmental consultants for the project in the audience tonight. Should questions arise, representatives, the Summerhill homes are also present. Thank you. This concludes job presentation.

[01:12:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Um, do we have... Let's see, we'll, we'll take. Do we give sensations from the applicants?

[01:13:06] Unknown Speaker: Yes, we do. The applicant does have a presentation now, if you would like. Um, we can, we can do that. I won't be able to set a timer for that time marriage because the applicant would be sharing their screen, but if you would like me to set a timer on my end, I can indicate when the time is up, your preference.

[01:13:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, yes, that would be great if you could do that. Is it 7 minutes that we normally give?

[01:13:32] Unknown Speaker: The policy allows up to 10 minutes.

[01:13:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, um, set the timer for 10 minutes.

[01:13:38] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:13:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Welcome... Henry Hill home.

[01:13:44] John Hickey: Thank you very much, mayor. Uh, I just want to check before I start, since this is new for us as well, but uh, you can hear me and see the slides on the screen.

[01:13:55] Unknown Speaker: Thumbs up. Okay, that's good. Thank you.

[01:13:58] John Hickey: Good evening, Mayor, Captain Ambert. I'm John Hickey, director of entitlement and planning for Summer Hill Housing Group. I'm pleased to be here remotely with you tonight to talk about our proposed project at East Wisman. Before I begin, though, I'd like to express our sincere gratitude to staff, we began working on this project more than 2.5 years ago, and we really appreciate the effort that staff made to work with us, to be flexible, and to keep us informed throughout the precise plan process. Thank you. Jeff and our key gave a good overview of the project. So I'll just touch on some key elements. The site's been used. Excuse me for a moment. Here we are. The site has been used for office, R and D, and manufacturing since it was initially developed in the 60s. However, given the site's proximity to transit and jobs, in 2016, the city identified it as a prime location for residential. At that suggestion, we submitted a gatekeeper request for the site in 2017, through the LASD TDR program. Our gatekeeper request was approved in April 2018, and later that year, council held a study session to give direction on the affordable housing strategy for the project. Our proposal today follows the direction that we received from the from council at that study session. Since then, we worked closely with staff in the DRC to refine the project, and we received unanimous recommendation from the ETC in February. We're very excited about the project because it will be the 1st residential project under the new precise plan. The site, as I mentioned, is less than a quarter of a mile from the middle field light whale station, providing easy access to downtown and nearby jobs. The project will provide 463 new homes with a mix of rental and ownership. In fact, 40% of the units will be ownership. And almost 10% will be 3 bedrooms. 68 of the apartments will be affordable BMRs with rents that's for low and moderate income. The project won't displace any residents. Project will provide over 25000000 in fees to support parks, public infrastructure and schools. We're proposing to dedicate a new public park on site. And the project will include great new public trails and paths that will eventually be part of a network for East Wisman. Here, you can see a view of the apartments on the left and the condominiums on the right, looking south from middle field. Note, uh, if you would, the public father, the long middle field, with landscaping and seating. This rendering shows the condominiums on the left, and the town flats on the right. Both overlooking the new public park and as Jeff mentioned, the park design will actually be developed through the city's public process. Our project features some exceptional measures for environmental sustainability. It'll be 100% electric, meaning no natural gas, and all appliances will operate on clean and renewably sourced electric power. The project will achieve green point goals with 120 points. Will install solar TV systems on all the buildings. They're expected to generate about 600 kilowatts for the project. They'll have a combination of level 2 and level 3 VV charges, excuse me, and all parking spaces will be easy ready, wired to meet feature demand. In addition, the project follows bird state design standards, and will redevelop an existing ground field site. As you can see from this site plan, much of the site will be open and accessible to the public. In addition to the new public park and the new public paths along the south and east sides of the site, the projects will include landscape, open space, and public entry plauses along middlefield, all of which are highlighted here in blue. In addition to our park, trails, and plazas, the project will provide high quality private amenity spaces for the residents. For example, this slide shows the courtyard for the condominium. Courtyard is about a 3rd of an acre and it will feature a pool, a spa, and a number of other amenities. Similarly, here at the main courtyard for the apartment. Courtyard is over 9000 square feet and features some of the same great amenities. And in addition to these courtyard spaces, there are fitness centers, club rooms, and 7 rooftop decks, as well as private balconies for most of the units. As I mentioned, the project will also provide a new public bypath, which is highlighted here in Blue, which will become part of the trail network when the neighboring sites are redeveloped in the future. We've designed our section of the bike path, to lead by example, with landscaping and wide travel ways. Although it's not part of the discussion tonight, as RT and Jeff mentioned, we've been actively participating in the city's updates on the parkland ordinance, and we respectfully request that any updates the council approves applied to this project as well. Also, in our March 11th letter that we uh submitted to to staff, we asked counsel to consider extending the tip exemption for grandfathered projects. Uh, and to clarify, we'd expect the extension, uh, to be limited to projects in East Wisman, uh, due to the additional time that it took to finish the precise plan. But I said, we're not asking counsel to take action on either of these requests this evening. The public benefits of this project extend well beyond the environmental features, beyond the transit oriented location and the onsite paths and open space for the public. Consistent with the precise plan. The project provides a substantial community benefit contribution and school strategy to support the city and the school district. But you mentioned, Sarmahar proposes to contribute $4000000 to the city. For the request that the city consider allocating a portion of that to the school districts through East Wisman. The market also proposes to contribute approximately $3000000 to the school districts directly. To achieve this, in addition to paying the level one school fees, Summerhill was requesting permission to resell the 10,000 square feet of TDRs that we're not using for the project. Instead for the benefit, we sell them for the benefit of the school district. We conservatively expect that the sale of the TDRs would generate 400 to $750,000, but they could potentially generate as much as $one.3 million. Now, in addition, the project would also unlock approximately $21.300000 for a new school in North Mountain View through the city's TDR program. First, Summerhill will pay the school district 130000000 as part of our TDL participation. But in addition to that, By providing 463 new housing units in East Wisman. The project allows the 2 non-residential TDL projects in use Wisman to move forward. And those 2 projects will contribute approximately $200000 for the new school. Our project is key because the job housing linkage program is predicated in part on lumping all of the TDR projects together. In effect, requiring our residential PDR projects to donate its dog's housing linkage rights to the non-residential TDR projects. Even though they put summer ahead of the food, stancial disadvantage relative to future residential projects, the East Wisman. Summerhill accepts this approach because the non-residential TDL projects are expected to provide approximately $20000000 for the school district. And, of course, our projects will provide uh, the benefit of, to the community of, uh, delivering much needed new housing. A mix, as I said, of ownership and rental, to help the council achieve its soul, providing a range of housing sites. Altogether, the community benefit contribution of school strategy has a value of more than $28 million. Again, we're pleased to bring you the 1st residential project under the new precise plan, providing 463 much needed new homes, as well as a new public park and a new public path. In addition, the project supports the city's sustainability and climate change initiative, and will deliver a substantial package of community benefits and voluntary school contributions. Our design team is remotely here available this evening, uh, as well as our managing director, Katya Kamangar, and our senior vice president, Kevin Abrahimi. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:23:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, uh, we will now go to the council, uh, for any questions you may have for the applicant or for staff. If you could please raise your hand. That's the number of the calendar.

[01:23:30] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, oh, well, start off with the applicant, John.

[01:23:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So in your, in your letter, I mean, there's a lot of great things about this project. about, but I just want to get a better sense of, uh, some of the math that you guys came up with. Uh, in your letter on the 23rd, you mentioned that the, uh, resale rights of the TDER could be anywhere from, uh, 400 to 750 and tonight you raised it to one.300000 um. So what do you think is more realistic nowadays? I mean, are PDRs getting more valuable? So that's why you changed it to 1300000,

[01:24:12] John Hickey: which was really just a question of, of how, um, how Kim will be able to sell them, uh, because, uh, we're anticipating that there will be demand for them. Um, and uh, it's just a question, we were trying to be conservative in our initial estimate. We don't want to over, over promise and undeliver. We'd much rather end the promise and overdeliver. Uh, hence, um, the layout in our letter.

[01:24:38] Councilmember John McAlister: How did, uh, this $20 million that you came up with, which, uh, of indirect resources for the, how did, how was that determine the $20000000?

[01:24:47] Applicant: So that's the contribution from the 2 non-residential TDR projects in the East Wisman Precise Plan area? And as you might remember, during the discussions from the discussions when the precise plan was being adopted? Uh, there's a jobs housing linkage. It's 3 units for every 1000 square feet. So, any project that would come in today, uh, if it were a residential, if it were a commercial project, would need to, in order to be able to take advantage of any bonus FAR, would have to link up with a residential developer to provide at least 3 new units for every 1000 square feet. And as Steph explained at the time, part of that, the main reason for that, uh, was to help uh, shift some of the burden, the additional burden on, uh, on residential development, to have, have the commercial help share some of that burden to ensure that the jobs have imbalances maintained. Now, as a TDR project, unfortunately we don't have that option. If we were a project applying today as residential, we'd be able to market that job housing when it gets right. But it was basically allocated for us without our having a say in the matter to uh the 2 non-residential TDR projects. Now, the benefit of that is that it unlocks those 2 non-residential TDR projects, but they can move forward, and that would mean $20 million in PDR purchases from the LASD, uh, school district. So, who's still on the TDR? It's the LAFDTDR, but those can't move forward. without having us unlock the, um, the, the job's housing requirement by providing the 463 new unit.

[01:26:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So, the 2 uh, $20 million is in C. But, but you're saying that, that's what, you know, what to me, where are those in, oh, the 20 million?

[01:26:45] Applicant: Yeah, the $20000000 is the, is the, the, um, the amount, but the, these 2 non-residential TDR projects will pay to purchase TDR rights from LASD, as part of the LASD, the city's LASD, TDR program.

[01:27:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so the LA, so let's also school district gets $20 million.

[01:27:05] Applicant: Yes, for the new school in North Mountain View.

[01:27:07] Councilmember John McAlister: right. Okay. Second, okay. Um, I like the. Thank you. that, that, okay. That was a great explanation. Thank you. So, on these other uh, TDRs. There's that 84,905 office based development rights. That, uh, you're allowed to sell, is that correct?

[01:27:28] Applicant: Yeah, so I don't want to get 2 at the tariffs here, but that's actually considered a floor area transfer in the precise plans, not a TDR. But I'm sure if if Erica Anderson is available somewhere this evening, he can probably provide more detail on that than I can. But essentially, the floor area transfer relates to the existing non-residential on site that will be demolished and won't be replaced on site when we develop, when we move forward with the with the residential project. So, the precise plan allows, um, the, the developer of a site that currently has non-residential on it, to sell that, um, those, those floor area transfer rights to a non-residential developer. That is one of 2 different, um, techniques that the precise plan uses to try to encourage residential development precise plan area. One is this floor area, transfer, the other is the job housing linkage that I was talking about.

[01:28:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So if we used your, uh, one.30000 so at a 100, $130 per square foot, it comes out to about $11000000 that you, potentially could recoup.

[01:28:49] Applicant: Again, this is getting back to what I was saying earlier. We, we, um, would, I think it would be aggressive to make that assumption in the same way, it would be aggressive to assume right from the start that we'd be able to recoup the full 1300000 for the 2DRs. We, we want as, as any, um, investor or lender would want, we, we don't make, um, overly aggressive assumptions about our budgets because they, it's too much of a level of risk, um, to move forward.

[01:29:21] Councilmember John McAlister: So, what's this? So, what, let's say, let's just make a sample $100 per square foot. Yeah, let's say about $10 million. Was this $10000000 included in your pro forma when you've developed this?

[01:29:36] Applicant: We included the assumption about... It's 1000000 not 10. If it's $100 times 10,000, right?

[01:29:50] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, no, this is the 800 uh, 84,000 square place. Not, not the 10,000 the, the transfer of the 84,000 of the existing uh, office building party.

[01:30:04] Applicant: Oh, okay. You're talking about the ability to market that to an office developer.

[01:30:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Right, yeah, right, but yeah.

[01:30:11] Applicant: Yeah, exactly. That's what I understood you to be saying. We included that assumption about that in, in our, um, in our forma. Now, keep in mind that there's a shorter time frame on when that can be marketed out. Um, so then there presumably would be on the resale of the GDR, so that will affect the value as well.

[01:30:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And the um. You mentioned to the staff, a couple of times, that, um, trying to make the, uh, corridor, the 53 foot wide street, uh, wider would have a financial impact on your unit, because you would have to make smaller. How much of a financial impact would that be?

[01:30:53] Applicant: It simply, frankly, not feasible. We, it's not just the smaller units, we, we would lose a number of units. We'd lose potentially several stacks of units.

[01:31:02] Councilmember John McAlister: So is there a dollar value on that?

[01:31:05] Applicant: Uh, I, we've run the numbers. I, I don't have them in front of me, but, but it's simply, it's, it's infeasible, absolutely infusing. Um,

[01:31:13] Councilmember John McAlister: so, that's what, uh, let's say, I think I have, those questions for, you, right now, um, so I'll let everybody go around and I'll come back and I have some questions for staff. Thank you.

[01:31:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you. I'm sending that a check.

[01:31:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So thank you. I want to follow up on one of the questions, Council member McAllister just asked, and that's regarding the transfer of 4 area ratio, and this is probably for city staff. When the city, um, looked at the financial viability of residential development in East Whitman, and we had, um, a consultant work on that with us. Um, were they assuming in the analysis, the sale of, or the transfer of, for a ratio for, um, a certain amount of money? was that excluded from that analysis.

[01:32:22] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah, I'll take that one. Um, So, the, the analysis did not, sorry, this is Eric Anderson, principal planner. Um, the analysis did not include any assumptions around, uh, any of the jobs housing linkage program, um, uh, incentives. Uh, so the floor area transfer or any of the job's housing linkage kind of, um, relationships that might, uh, provide funds for a residential developer. However, I should also note that the analysis did find, uh, for a typical residential developer, a, uh, an overall shortfall. And so the, um, jobs housing linkage program was identified as a potential, um, a way to, kind of help overcome that shortfall.

[01:33:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, I don't know if you remember this, but um, was there like a magnitude of the short phone? Um, That you should characterize?

[01:33:29] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yes, there was. Oh, I have it right in front of me. I can get it open in just one second.

[01:33:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. You want me to ask another question? I'm not sure if all my questions are if you like, but go for it. Um, so, if we pushed out the deadline for the exemption for the transportation impact fee. Um if we did that on a city wide basis, would any other projects be potentially exempt as well? Or be able to take advantage of that uh extended deadline? Or if you have a line?

[01:34:28] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah, it's, it's. Yeah, I'll take that one too. Uh, it is difficult to, uh, to note at this point, um, for the most part, the projects that would be able to take advantage of it, um, unless. As Mr. Hickey said, um, the, the code was uh updated to only apply to use wisdom projects, then they would be the only ones. But if the, um, if the code was updated to apply more generally, uh, there could be some projects that are potentially moving slowly through the entitlement process, that, um, that, that may also provide that benefit to, um, for example, um, uh, 1001 North Shoreline, which is coming to before you in, uh, in a couple of, uh, were expecting in a couple of weeks here.

[01:35:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And can you clarify, on page 22 of the staff report, um, it says, issued the building permit, which grants final occupancy? And so even if the deadline was pushed out one year, is that saying that you'd have to have final occupancy, your final occupancy permit by January one, 2022?

[01:35:53] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: No, the, the current, uh, code is just the building permit. Um, I think that may be, I mean, I, in Afroport, but the current code is, is the Senate to start construction. Okay.

[01:36:09] Applicant: May I answer just for just a moment, ma'am? Okay, Margaret. I didn't want to interrupt, actually, uh, if I could follow up on Mr. Anderson's comment there, we actually noticed the same thing and ask, um, uh, staff about it and I don't want to speak for staff, but, um, what, um, our understanding was from them is that they didn't intended to require occupancy, but their intent was to refer to a building permit that's, uh, related to occupancy. The issuance of the building permit.

[01:36:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so back to the uh financial diability question that Eric was, they're good.

[01:36:50] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, so it is right here. It is, um, Um, the financial shortfall could range between 50,000 and 150,000 per unit.

[01:37:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So I'll do some calculations and then I might have more questions about that. Um, let's see. Another question. Um, when the council discussed the, uh, BMR units and, um, what would be, um, I guess acceptable, um, Did we talk about whether or not these could be in perpetuity versus 55 years? Did we specify 55 years? Is there a question for that? Sorry. Unless, uh, I assume it's for staff. I'm not, I don't remember specifying anything, um, but I guess no matter, could, could we specify that it's in perpetuity tonight?

[01:38:09] Unknown Speaker: I had a mayor and... and this went through, um, the general issue of, the time limit was silent, but, you know, there could be a specification here right now, I believe, in our discussions with our housing division. The answer is 55 years is what um is in play. Not in perpetuity.

[01:38:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Can I get a clarification on that? Because I thought when we did the affordable housing strategy update we did specify in perpetuity.

[01:38:51] Planning Manager Stephanie Williams: So, uh, Stephanie Williams, um, learning a straight up planning manager. Yeah, so the BMR regulations, that's the buying for opportunity, where the base one is at 55 years, although when council did discuss, the BMR programs for this specific project, but the study session, it was in the context to be under the BMR phase one guideline, which has 55 years.

[01:39:18] Applicant: Council member, that is, that is what we were assuming for our pro forma when we were analyzing how many additional units we could provide, um, in, uh, for the use of the, at the end of them.

[01:39:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, one more question for staff. Um, in a typical um, development proposal. Um, the purchase price of the property is often determined after the entitlements are granted. Is that correct?

[01:39:55] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, are you referring to the BMR units?

[01:39:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, just in general, the purchase price of the property that they want to develop.

[01:40:06] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, this is um RT. I would defer to the the applicants who they are the ones who negotiate purchase place.

[01:40:15] Applicant: Yeah, if I may, uh, no, the purchase price was determined about 2.5 years ago when we 1st entered the contract. When we enter into contracts on our property, if we're not closing right away, the sales prices still established right from the beginning and then close the contingent on certain conditions such as receiving entitlements. But the sales price is set, um, at the beginning of a contract. So in this case, 2.5 years ago.

[01:40:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Is that true for all your projects? Sounds like you have a different approach than most developers. Um, I've never, I've never seen, yeah. Thanks.

[01:40:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, Counselor Ramirez.

[01:41:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, ma'am. I have one question. Um, I just want to, uh, we're, we're, the, voluntarily provided one.5000000 appears in different categories and so I'm hoping you can clarify how we treat it. So is it, is it intended to be a, an additional $150000 to the um, the East Worseman community benefit fund, in which case it would be subject to the restrictions of that fund, or is it a, private contribution to the school districts, subject to whatever agreement the applicant and the school districts come to, where the city would play no role?

[01:41:48] Aarti Shrivastava: This is our key, and I'll try to answer that. I think we, we definitely, we sort of went through that list and determine that the 250000 is what is owed to the city as part of the community benefit requirement. Um, and the one. 5 is the voluntary part. So we could put conditions around the 2.5 . But we couldn't around the one. 5 which is why we've identified them specifically in 2 different buckets. Um so the one. 5 is available for the cool contribution, well, the 2.5 , the council would have to deliberate on the other improvements and make a decision, um, as to which ones they want to allocate it for.

[01:42:30] Unknown Speaker: Um, so yeah, there is.

[01:42:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then, so just for, I guess, a question for the applicant, since you had, in your presentation, added this to the 25000000 minute community benefits, how, how did you intend it? Do you have a preference for a, an additional, voluntarily contributed 1500000 to community benefits, where the city would have discretion, or did you intend for a private agreement that you negotiate with the school district that the city would play no role in?

[01:43:04] Applicant: Uh, we were doing our best to provide the city with as much flexibility as we could. That's the way we stiled it. Um, and in part because, um, it's, it's really counts as, um, well, not, not our role to decide how, how those funds should, should be allocated to that. We're, we're, you're public servants and so it's, it's, um, would be inappropriate for us to try to usurp that. Um, we would, we're suggesting, um, and requesting that you consider allocating 1500000 of it to the school, uh, districts of service women because we feel that would be a benefit for the community. Um, but we, we have started with the way we have to provide the council with that. Ultimately, we defer to, to, to staff and and the attorney on, on, um, on what the options are for that.

[01:44:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay, and so, so not to belabor the point, but just to make sure we're on the same page, for staff, is your preference that the 1500000 voluntary contribution be a separate agreement between the applicant and the school districts, or do you prefer that to be treated like the community benefit fund, where the city would have the responsibility for, um, the allocation.

[01:44:28] City Staff: Well at this time, you know, for the adopted documents, the city can only collect the $5 per square foot. And so it is our recommendation that, the required contribution being a separate pot and there's a voluntary contribution be allocated um to the schools separately. And the council can decide separately, what part of the 2500000 that is owed to the city, um, can also be provided. So, yes, um, make them distinct because one's voluntary and the other is not.

[01:45:03] Unknown Speaker: Great, thank you very much. It's been required. I just wanted to follow up on one thing that came up earlier. How difficult, um, from a staff perspective, would it be for us to, um, limit the, uh, exemption or the extension of that, to basically modify the code, so it would only apply to the, to this specific precise plan of the entire city? Is that a, is that a heavy vote or is it something that we could pretty easily do just to make sure that we don't? Lump in a bunch of other projects into that exemption.

[01:45:44] City Staff: Eric, maybe you can speak to whether this can be done, um, at all.

[01:45:49] Eric Anderson: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I, I think it's premature to have that conversation. Um, I think the question before council is, uh, do you want to continue this conversation, uh, to a future date, and, um, certainly we can bring that analysis, and, uh, the, the kind of ramifications of, of that decision back to you, um, you know, more, um, uh, complete way. Uh, I also clarify that, um, if the council wanted to give direction, um, on that, that they, they do it not as part of this project, but as part of, um, um, item 8, um, that they bring it back at some time.

[01:46:34] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Would we? Would we not make a determination on that for this project tonight? Um, because I think they would probably want some level of certainty.

[01:46:50] Eric Anderson: Yeah, yeah. So the council can't make that determination for the project, they would, when they review the ordinance, it would, they would decide how it worked, and it then would apply to all the projects under the amended ordinance.

[01:47:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, okay, right. Thank you.

[01:47:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Remember Hicks?

[01:47:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, uh, 1st I wanted to thank other council people for bringing up the issue of, uh, the amount of being in perpetuity, that was going to be my 1st question. Um, and then 2nd the, that support focused on the $4000000 community benefit, and the, the breakdowns of the 250000000 and the one.5 million. The applicant presentation, uh, also specified uh, 3000000 directly to the schools in 210000 for new schools. I'd like to know, um, a little more about all 3 of those props of money and how they, uh, make, how they altogether constitute the allocations that the book, uh, would need in order, provide enough space for the students that will be generated in this area. by the, um, project.

[01:48:09] City Staff: So, I'll start by just going over the direct contribution, um, and there's a reason why we did not acknowledge the indirect contribution because, um, those would only be provided by non-residential projects when and if they got approved. Um, so the direct contribution, I think is 2.56 or the state level fee, the one. 150000 um, that's the voluntary school um, contribution, and that comes to about $6.50 a square foot, and then the $2.50000 community benefit contribution that comes to the city. And then the council can choose to allocate, so that is not yet allocated. Um, so that's, those are the only pots that apply to, the 2 school districts we're talking about Mountain View Westmen, um, and, um, well, um, MBLA. In addition, they're, they're proposing to sell their LASTTDRs and donate the proceeds, and depending on the sale price, uh, which we don't know. Um, it started out at 450 and the applicant has now amended it to say it could go as high as one. 3. Um, that would be acknowledge, again, that's a voluntary contribution. That's not something that the city, uh, would be a part of or would, would have the ability to require. Um, and that, those are the only ones that I think we, we should be acknowledged as part of this project because anything else, um, that would come from future TDR projects, would be acknowledged as part of those projects.

[01:49:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So you're saying the 3000000 and the 21000000 are part of other projects.

[01:50:04] City Staff: Um, The 3000000, I think, um, is basically, um, I, I'm sorry, I, I'm not understanding the fee, but the 210000 definitely, is a part of other projects, they will be recognized as a voluntary, um, you know, full contribution when and if they provide it. And so, um, it's, it's the 21000000 it's part of the LASETDR discussion. Uh drawn, I'm trying to confirm that that is the case.

[01:50:35] Applicant: Yeah, so actually, the, the toy, uh, my understanding is that the, um, $3000000 that we provided, uh, through the non-residential TDL project. So, unless, unless the 1300000 that we're providing through the TDR program would be considered a community benefit, that, um, that the 20000000 wouldn't be either. What we're focusing on actually, when we're including it, is what we've given up for that to happen. Uh, we've given up our jobs housing linkage right. Um, uh, they've been allocated for those 2 projects and so we've lost the opportunity to monetize them ourselves. Um, so it's, um, it's certainly from our standpoint, it's certainly been a significant hits our performance.

[01:51:23] City Staff: Um, I'll add by saying, um, I'll then confirm that that 20 or 21000000 is the LASDTDR, and we'll go to the Los Alto school district as part of a purchase by non-residential projects. The reason we're not able to provide specific dollar amounts associated with the loss of job housing linkage or otherwise is because there is also, um, um, what I, what we would call, um, uh, an unrecognized, uh, advantage that uh, Summer Hill had by going ahead of the precise plan. So they did have the advantage of time. And so it's hard to monetize all those things, and so I think we could have a very long discussion about what it meant for anyone, and so we don't want to get into those very esoteric discussions. I think it's enough to acknowledge that yes, there's a job housing balance linkage that's lost, but yes, there's also the, the, the ability to go ahead of the precise plan and and time is money. So we wanted to focus on the specific, um, dollar amounts that we could actually, um, uh, you know, uh, for sure, uh, you know, categorize.

[01:52:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thanks, that's terrified.

[01:52:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Before we go to 2nd round, if I can jump in with a couple of questions. Um, so just going back to the tiff, um, I think I understand tonight, we would go to, uh, Rick, stuff to bring it back under item 8 if we want, will entertain the extension. Um, and so is it at that discussion with agendas again, we would, uh, we, um, limit it to residential projects in the East Wisdom precise plan, for instance?

[01:53:18] Eric Anderson: If I could jump in, Madam Mayor. We're viewing this again, if that, it's absolutely correct, the topic could be brought up at item 8. But as I'm reviewing it and thinking about it more. It may make sense to provide that direction, if any, uh, tonight in in the item 5 of the recommendation. It could be done at either place, but it makes more sense to me now on further review to have that discussion be part of this motion tonight.

[01:53:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. Um. So, let's see, um, we going to the TDRs. Um, I know there's some, uh, restrictions on what we can do, relative to schools and school contributions, but is it possible to, um, say we, we would approve the sale of the TDRs on the condition that the fence, funds would go to the Mountain View School?

[01:54:22] City Staff: I think we talked about this for a long time and it's voluntary so we can acknowledge it. Uh, with the expectation that it'd be done, but the city cannot require this, not this voluntary.

[01:54:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Even though it's the TDR sales.

[01:54:40] City Staff: Yes.

[01:54:43] Applicant: May I, we're committing to it.

[01:54:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, and then, uh, the $21000000 contribution to the, a new school, um, so my understanding is that is, uh, based on unlocking the, commercial developments, within the LASD TVR group thing. Um, but in addition to that, um, would we, the city, be expecting, uh, community benefits from those, commercial developments, but then, would be the city council, decide if some of that, that those are all those funds to that, I'm sorry, could go to, um, school, school.

[01:55:41] City Staff: So the council will have, I think we, we, we expect, fully expect that none of these CDO projects will be coming to council before the school strategy discussion, and um, it is our hope that during that school strategy discussion, we're able to sort out, um, the, you know, what part might go to the schools, how this might get set up. So, um, hopefully the council won't have to discuss this on a case by case basis. Uh, so that's that's essentially what we're hoping for June 9th.

[01:56:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And that is allowed, um, legally allowed for us to make those determinations,

[01:56:20] City Staff: let's do what portion would go, not, not the voluntary amount, but we, we will bring some options for the council to consider, um, and one of them will be, um, to, to sort of, uh, combined all of that, um, into, into one fund that the city collects. Um, the $5 per square foot to any benefit. Right, whether to grow that, but I, you know, we have a lot of research to do, so I don't want to, um, promise anything before, um, before we're able to give you a stop report. On that future item.

[01:56:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All right, we'll go to Counselor Ramirez.

[01:57:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. My apologies. I think the response the council never takes this question confused me. So, the, the unlocking of the 20 some odd $1000000 from the LAC TVRs for the non residential project. Um, so just to make sure I understand, put those projects, proceed, if there isn't a residential project as part of the broader grouping. So let's say this project doesn't occur. Could those commercial projects proceed under whatever rules that they have to adhere to?

[01:57:39] City Staff: Eric might be able to provide some detail on the, um, some of the decisions, policy decisions the council made, for the east business.

[01:57:48] Eric Anderson: So, so based on council direction back in, uh, November, uh, those office projects would be able to proceed, uh, even if the Summerhill project did not, uh, proceed, um, on the basis that is this TDR program is a priority for the city.

[01:58:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, that's Wow, okay. Um, that's different from what I remember. I thought that what we, there were 3 different options. One was to not apply the the job housing linkage. One was to have the job, as the linkage. And the precise plan apply. And then there was this happy medium related to the whole group can sort of proceed together, but without an explicit job housing linkage. And I thought that was the direction provided by the council. If that's the case, if you remove the residential component, under that sort of broader, all of them proceed together grouping, could, could the commercial project still go through the entitlement process?

[01:58:56] Eric Anderson: Um, so the, uh, I, I'm sure I could go back and find this information. We can, um, we can have a maybe a more in-depth conversation about it. Um, but, uh, the, what if of, um, the, a residential project backing out, or, um, you know, not proceeding was considered in the staff report, uh, and it was acknowledged in the staff report when it would be, um, the council made that, uh, um, direction. Uh, that, we couldn't hold up these office projects. Uh, if a residential project was to withdraw or uh, not proceed. I mean, we could, we could. That was certainly an option. Um, I believe that was an option, uh, one of the earlier times that we brought this forward to city council. Um, and uh, the, uh, the decision at that time was that, um, it would be, um, uh, too disruptive to the TDR process, that the, um, for these office projects to not be able to proceed and have that level of risk.

[02:00:28] Applicant: Remember, Ramirez, may I just add a word? response to your question.

[02:00:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sure, I guess.

[02:00:37] Applicant: Um, uh, candidly, we'd be deeply disappointed if, if that's the consensus on counsel, all due respect to Ms. Anderson, but, um, would be deeply disappointed if that's the position the counsel takes, because, frankly, if that's the position, there's no reason why we shouldn't have been allowed to market our jobs housing linkage, right? If the jobs housing, linkage right, didn't mean anything. If they, if those projects, non-residential to ER projects would be allowed to move forward, but regardless of whether, we construct the units, then we should have been allowed to market those rights. Frankly, we might be having a very different conversation.

[02:01:16] Eric Anderson: So, I'm happy to respond to that, but I'm, I'll wait for direction from, uh, the mayor or.

[02:01:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yes, uh, I, I would um, officiate your response, uh, and I just, uh, that my impression was actually the same as, I think, what Counselor Ramirez's point is, and I had thought that we had grouped. I think there are 6 projects or so in that LASD, TDR grouping, and I thought we had grouped them together, um, and I, we afterwards, realized that, uh, projects, the residential projects would lose out on, um, selling their extra square footage to office, um, but, I, I, that, that is my recollection of what we decided to do. But I do.

[02:02:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I would, um, I appreciate your, um, answer because I think, I guess I, if that's the case, as you explained it, I don't see the benefit of being in this grouping anymore. And I think we, we want to encourage more residential. Any, uh, this doesn't seem to give them as any benefit, uh, if you can answer that, that's great.

[02:02:37] Unknown Speaker: So the benefit to the grouping is, um, that the long term balance is lost. So, um, if, uh, did Summerhill work to, uh, partner with a future office development, uh, then the amount of future residential developments that would be able to partner in the future would be reduced. Um, because that office amount would, um, would dry up. Uh, so that was the, um, uh, the, the long term balance was the, uh, the intent of finding these projects together.

[02:03:28] Unknown Speaker: I guess I still don't see the benefit to then this project. to be in the zooping with the office projects, if the office projects are allowed to move without them. So, uh, yeah, and it's still not clear on what, uh, the purpose of this, scooping wise, uh, now in hindsight.

[02:03:52] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I'll just, I don't want to go back into a discussion of the precise plan. Um, uh, but I do want to note that, They did have the benefit of time and a lot of the decisions, including the BMR mix, um, as well as the test, uh, as well as the, the additional 2.5 years that they had, uh, to move forward the project. These were all the benefits of having bought TDR. Um, and, and, um, projects that came after that had to wait would, would ha, would be subject to very different requirements. So, um, I do want to note that, I think they've had several discussions with the applicants about this. Um, and so I, I didn't want to go back into a discussion of the precise plan, uh, but I, I did want to note that.

[02:04:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Do you have any other questions, Counselor Ramirez?

[02:04:46] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Hi, thanks. Can someone bear McAllister? Yeah, thanks. So uh following up. I got a, there's a timeline, from the time that the applicant filed his papers, for the time that we need to approve it, and I understand that, uh, timeline is about to expire soon.

[02:05:08] Unknown Speaker: Well, um, I'll jump in here. Um, this, this week, we had a discussion about this. It started out as a gatekeeper application. Because it was submitted at a time when there was no precise plan. Um, it sort of followed along, and so we are reviewing this as a gatekeeper application. Which is not subject to permit streamlining.

[02:05:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh it's not. Okay, so it helps explain the, um, usually when we, in my prior experiences here that when we approve a project, there's nothing left outside it to be approved, and in this project, we're looking at the parkland dedication fees off to the side. It's just off to the side, the tips off to the side. So, we're not really making a final approval, we're making approval with conditions to come about.

[02:06:06] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think what we're doing is, uh, the main request the applicant has made, uh, it hosts our, our review of the project. And they have entirely to do with the financing of the project. And so we are identifying the process under which the council can make that decision. So, the parkland dedication, for example. We would not be able to make it without an ordinance in place because today, the priceline dedication ordinance does not allow them to ask for exemption. They don't qualify. So um, and the same way as the tip. So we want to make sure that the process is fully defined so that the applicant knows when and where um that particular request goes. So the council is making a decision on the application, what they're not making a decision on is items that are yet to be decided by the council as part of separate ordinances.

[02:07:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So what ex- okay. What are we actually improving? But you said you're approving them to define it? that they can go out and get financing, but we're not proving the final project.

[02:07:21] Unknown Speaker: Well, the council is approving the final project with the conditions under the current ordinances. What they have is the ability to wait and see how the council adjusts the ordinances in the future, and we always tell people there are no guarantees. We don't know how the council might want to adjust it, and we're not making any guarantees today, but when account does adjust it, they can come back and apply for a modification, um, in order to get the credit. So today the council is making um a decision on the project, based on the current ordinances that are in place. Very much like any other project.

[02:07:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so, if there's no further action by council, they would say the full parking loop is, they would play the tips, they would.

[02:08:09] Unknown Speaker: Um, so strategy is, that's not our, we can't legally accept that, so that's a different issue. Um, and also, okay, so those parts, they would have to accept at this point if we don't modify.

[02:08:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, what about, again, going back to, the general concept of a gate caper is, to uh, proceed forward at your own risk? As you say, nothing is guaranteed. So, when we were talking about the BMR units, we were, you know, we had the new policy at 15%, there we got 10 and 15. Uh, the BMR units of perpetuity, that's 55. So with that doctrine of where you proceed at your own risk still applying because the gatekeeper is never final until it's final?

[02:08:59] Unknown Speaker: There's always a risk. Um, and, and I think what we're talking about is that, um, we're, we're basing this on guidance receipt from the council, and the conditions have been written up that way, um, beyond that, I think the applicants have mentioned that they have, um, been closely in touch to make sure that the, sorry, the project does pencil out, but you're right. Um, we always sell, um, people that, um, you know, uh, when the council may choose to grandfather certain things, um, as part of ordinances, but, um, You know, whatever ordinances in place at the time, uh, what could apply to them?

[02:09:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So now that we have the precise plan, things that are in the precise plan would apply to this project.

[02:09:47] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and and I think the applicant had, application has been closely following the precise plan to make sure that they do comply. Um, we do note a few minor exceptions.

[02:09:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Yeah, and I would just note too, that there's no longer a general planner zoning amendment required for this project. So, um, well, it may have been a gatekeeper at one point because it was asking, it required a general planner or vending change. That's no longer the case. Are you, you concur?

[02:10:23] Unknown Speaker: Well, technically, yes, but we do say that the project was started out and processed as a gatekeeper, so we wouldn't be going back and retroactively applying for the streamlining requirements. Um, they would have been very short as part of the ordinance, and we would not have a way to do that because the precise line would be, um, uh, you know, developed during that process.

[02:10:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: It wasn't a gatekeeper, usually. Again, take your risk, when the, the, getting, until we get to the precise plan, everything's guidelines until we actually adopt the precise plan. What we've indicated for the precise plan?

[02:11:05] Unknown Speaker: Um, yes, um, that is true. There are a few minor exceptions and we did come back to the council to get council guidance to make sure that those would be supported. So, um, all I can say is, yeah, they are have to comply with the current, uh, requirements. Um, and uh, I also say that we have received guidance along the way. Um on this budget.

[02:11:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, let me follow. I got another question here, but we're talking about, um, The, the sort of, somewhat in the same beta, page 20 of the staff report. Gatekeeper requests afforded the applicant financial gain by allowing their projects to begin develop a review prior to the final adoption of the East Western precise plant. In exchange, and that you were sort of alluding to it already. In exchange, the applicant is required to purchase 10,000 at 1300000. And so, what other financial gains, that, or can we put a dollar amount on, they were able to get to the front of the line, basically, because they bought the, PDR, otherwise they would, they wouldn't get to the front of the line, right?

[02:12:25] Unknown Speaker: They would not have been able to move the pro project along. They would have had to wait until after January 9th of this year to apply. Um, and that, of course, would have taken some time. So, I think it's hard to put a price on it. We don't have the ability to sharpen our pencils on that, but we can certainly list, um, any developer will tell you that time is money. Um, um, I think they received a lot of attention from the council to get guidance to guide them through the process. Um, many of the, um, decisions on BMR and 50 exemptions were made for projects, um, uh, you know, keeping in mind, uh, the fact that the BMR face 2 had not yet been adopted. Uh, so yes, um, uh, projects such as these, um, have been grandfathered and the council will likely remember that they had grandfathered certain projects that were in process, uh, when an acting face to requirements.

[02:13:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and I think uh council member manager, well, I want to follow up another thing that I asked about. Um, one of the, the street service street with Summerhill is not complying with the street whip, indicated it was significantly impact project feasibility, and I asked, did anybody validate that statement? Did anybody from staff look at that and say, yeah that's true. Or generally, does that look at when the applicants say this isn't financial viable, that they take the extra steps to see if it's true or not.

[02:14:01] Unknown Speaker: Well, I'll say that staff actually does a lot of review and this is not just planning. This is public works. This is fire. Um, um, they all look at it and make sure that all the, the necessary requirements of that service suit are met. In addition, I would add that, um, the DRC also looks at it in terms of design, all these issues, um, are included in the process, and so what you see today is a result of all of that discussion, um, and all of the recommendations that were made as part of that discussion.

[02:14:37] Councilmember John McAlister: But was that facilitated because the applicant said this was not financially viable to make it shorter?

[02:14:48] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, so that did take specifically take a look at that and what would be necessary in order to make the building smaller, to achieve that, the precise faster with. And it would have uh required the removal basically an entire uh lower unit. They can look at the internal systems of the units, but how they're loaded by always, and other things, they're loaded in a pretty significant reduction number of units, their reduction number of units, translates, their loss of, um, revenue to the, Applicant and developer. So although staff doesn't have the exact number of the financial implications of removing those number of units and that it would have been, um, substantial and also knowing that the financials of the project. The beginning, I have been pretty tight for the developer.

[02:15:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you look, like, say, just follow up on that a little bit, when you said that the financials were really tight, did you include, as council member, Mattercheck asked about the selling of the 84,000 square foot? Was that included when was that part of your calculation?

[02:16:04] Unknown Speaker: It's a little thing that we relied on the East Wisman study, um, to kind of guide us, and when we look at projects, Um, you know, you, you will see sometimes projects with minor exceptions coming to you. Um, it's usually a lot of discussion about balancing out the design, balancing out meeting requirements. Um, we want to make sure that, um, all the, the necessary items for public health, safety, design, or all met, and so these are extensive discussions over many, many months, and sometimes years. Um, so our recommendation to approve is based on the balancing of all of that and understanding that, um, we, we do want the project to be viable. Uh, if we felt that it was not safe or that it had a severe design impact, you would have seen that in the discussions as well as the, uh, proposed conditions of approval.

[02:17:00] Councilmember John McAlister: So all move on to a, a traffic. So, I was looking at your, so, one of my questions in the staff report was about traffic, and it said, so, I wrote, there's 463 new year, that's approximately 517 bedrooms. And yet the net new trips is going to be a 108 and 146 in the evening. And I'm just, how? To me, I just, the dots don't connect on how you could have so many buildings. So many people living there. That's the, although the total units you have, and then you're also, that's one part of it. And then the other part of the question is the 9% proximity to light rail. And I've been listening for years that no one has validated the 9%. So how did we get, how was this determined? There's only 108 because traffic is going to be quite, I think there's going to be more of a traffic issue than what's implicated here. So please help me understand how we did that.

[02:18:11] Unknown Speaker: There, if I may, um, probably a better question to prefer, no public works is listening to this discussion. Um, our, our traffic consultant, Alan, um, Farren Pierce has also raised his hand, I defer the answer to that question to them.

[02:18:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If, uh, please. Is that public works? Ask and respond?

[02:18:42] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Well, uh, this is Don Cameron for the works director, uh, generally, we would, um, ask the traffic consultant to provide the more detailed response.

[02:18:52] Traffic Consultant Alan: A remote, however, that the one in an 8 met, the peak hour trip, again, is met, the trip, uh, that were already seen on the previous buildings on the site. We're going to talk to new trips, and this is peak hour. Now, we need to remember that, not all trips are taken during the peak hour, is actually a peak period, and you can see people in the morning reading for work over a 2 to 3 hour period, it's not all loaded into a single hour. And so when you stretch that out, that's how you start to see it added up to the number of housing that's on that one side.

[02:19:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, so I asked the question, how many trips are happening now at the office complex? and people you correctly point out that it was vacant, but the traffic reports assume an occupancy that reopen that they assume 242 daily trips at the existing building. So even if we added that to it. Um, I still don't see how the correlate. It's just the sole full amount of net trips. Um, I don't see that there was anything, I guess I would have to look for depth into the full parking analysis. I mean, traffic analysis. To fully understand what all the hours were. Are you not even done yet?

[02:20:18] Traffic Consultant Alan: Yeah, so you would, you would have to really get into death. And um, the other, you know, and I can tell you that, you know, they were following VTAs, transportation, impact, analysis guidelines, and using super site, subscribed processes to arrive at the number of trips.

[02:20:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And, okay, so I already asked about the 9%. So with all the projects that we have around there, has staff ever validated the 9% along the flight rail in Mountain View?

[02:20:55] Unknown Speaker: I'm not aware that the city has done any specific study related to the percentage of trips being taken by right rail, uh, for residential within Washington light rail. Um, my understanding is that what BJ has generally found and what they allow, and the traffic impact, analysis guidelines, as a trip credit, for residential within walking distance of a light rail station.

[02:21:25] Unknown Speaker: Don, you know what? We have our concerns about light rail. So, um, some days, we need to validate that. I mean, because I've raised that flag, but every time I hear about like, well, okay, that's a comment. I hold off on that. Um, And then concerning conditions. There's conditions 7374. Those were to be done at what stage of this process.

[02:21:55] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: We had to verify those. What conditions are those?

[02:22:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Group of TDR transfer and declaration of covenant?

[02:22:10] Unknown Speaker: That's not in my shop, so, I didn't know,

[02:22:13] Councilmember John McAlister: I, it's only sort of the concerns of some, maybe the EPC also.

[02:22:17] Unknown Speaker: So, those would be done um post council approval to land the TDR, uh, units on the site. As part of the recommendation under, uh, 5, uh, that was, um, on a portion of that, as to whether or not, um, we want to modify, uh, the conditions pertaining to that to allow someone else to spell their CDR unit. Um, so. Uh, and just to confirm, the purchase will have to be, um, we have to be shown the proof prior to pulling a building permit.

[02:23:03] Unknown Speaker: Um...

[02:23:06] Councilmember John McAlister: I think that takes me through all of my questions. thank you

[02:23:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Any other questions from council members? I don't see any hands raised, so we will go to the public, and uh, is there any members of the public wishing to speak, who are in our attendee box, please, uh, hit the race and button, and I have, uh, several coming up, so we'll start with, uh, I am David Rudolph, and let's do, um, 6.5 minutes, please. 3 quick. Bear, I do, um, it'll take me just a minute to get my timer set up for 2.5 minutes, or take me a 2nd to do that, if that's okay. Just moment. Okay, just, uh, use my phone here, like, let's see. All right. Uh, and I have, uh, let's see, open up for this, uh, Rudolph, welcome.

[02:24:22] David Rudolph: Madam Mayor, honorable city council members and city staff. Thanking you. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. As you know, we've been working on the development of a school strategy for the past several years. As it stands today, I'm one of the few people who are still engaged in the conversation, but when we 1st started this journey 3 years ago. And I remain hopeful that by developing a school strategy, that we all can relax and enjoy the fact that I will return to attending my own meeting as opposed as opposed to both parts. As I stated in my letter, our board is requesting a delayed approval. However, after talk, uh, after having a conversation with city staff, we all understand that there are various mitigating factors that are driving this project for prior to the finalization, the community wide strategy to address the new schools. I encourage that that city staff and especially city manager McCarthy, have reconfirmed their commitment to the finalization of a school strategy. As you know, I, as well as our board, believe that our schools provide a serious community benefit to our community. During this current crisis, we are now serving 2500 meals a day. We've expanded those meals to the weekend. We'll provide a free internet to our families, and 6 strategic locations throughout the city, and finally, as many of you know, our fields and parklands are some of the last messages of normalcy in our community. For the record, Coming Hill project will add students to Mountain View, Richmond, as well as Mountain View, Los Angeles, by providing a funding benefit to Los Alto school district, in excess of $20000. At Summerhill met with MBALA and MVWSC to discuss our concerns. They would have learned that once this property reaches maturity, Vargas Elementary will be overcapacity. In essence, the resale of TDRs, as well as the pain of level one fees, means that Summerhill is not contributing any more than what is required outside of the $4000000 contribution to the Eastwood Richmond community benefit package. Which is why we, or I, am asking that all 3 governing boards, direct staff to work together to determine what is appropriate for the allocation of the $4000000 contributions. These are trying times in our world and community. We all need to keep the needs of our community at the forefront of all of our minds. Schools that serve East Westman are critical to creating viable community. I mean, um, while I wish this process would have been unfolded differently. I do remain hopeful that our new city manager, as well as city staffs, reassurance that we will collectly have that approach, uh, to city council within a month's time, so in this, back and forth between all, all of our groups, and come to a, a good conclusion to help bring schools to East Westman and North Asia. Thank you.

[02:27:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So go on to David Johnson. We are. You should be on. Welcome.

[02:27:22] David Kaufman: Good evening, Mayor Abby Koger. Council members, staff and members of the public. My name is David Kaufman of Renalton Handley, representing the current property owners of these sites. It's been over 3 years since Summerhill 1st approached us with the purchase office.

[02:28:17] Unknown Speaker: Welcome to the Zoom. Enter your participant You have entered the meeting as a panelist. Attendees can now hear you speak. This meeting is being recorded.

[02:28:41] David Kaufman: We're particularly supportive of some of his plan from both residential and ownership housing. Which unanimous support from the community convinced the owners to take a chance and move forward with Summer Hill, for going several million dollars in projected rent while Summer Hill pursued entitlements? After 3 years of working tirelessly and in good faith with the city, through the numerous planned submittals. Summerville has designed an exceptional project, meeting the quality standards of the new precise call. The owners could encourage the city to seize the opportunity to approve this project and take the 1st significant step toward achieving the city's vision of balanced growth in the East Westman planetary. If this premier project is not approved or approved under conditions which make it economically infeasible to develop, we will have lost the opportunity to see residential on these sites for the foreseeable future. The owners will revert to investing in the existing industrial buildings and commit them to long term leases. We thank you for your support of this project and for your further consideration tonight. Thank you.

[02:30:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I will go on to Laura Brickley. Welcome, let's see. It should be on. Oh, there we go. I'm sorry, keep, okay, now you should be on.

[02:30:22] Laura Blakely: Um, it says that I'm muted by the host? Is that who you are? Oh, there we go. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, mayor. Advice me here and city council members. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm speaking this evening. I'm, um, this is Laura Blakely, and I am on the Mountain View School Board. And I just wanted to ask you to please improve some of his, Summerhill's request. to sell the excess PDRs so that the developer can donate the proceeds to Mountain View Whisman and the MVLA districts. I also encourage you to approve dedicating the full $2500000 of non-voluntary community benefit fees to the school districts that will be absorbing the kids who are in this development. This amount is but a small fraction of the value that the project will impart to the Los Altos school district, which will not receive any of the children who live in this development, allocating the full 2.5 or $4000000 to the local school districts, would enable the families and kids who actually do live in the Summerhill development in East Switzerland, to be direct recipients of the community benefits. It only seems fair. Thank you.

[02:31:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We go on to Dennis Martin. In trouble unmuting you.

[02:31:48] Dennis Martin: You hear me now?

[02:31:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[02:31:51] Dennis Martin: Oh, thank you, mayor. Dennis Martin speaking on behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area. BIA submitted a letter last week. Um, regarding the school mitigation issue in the uh, Mountain View Westman uh, school district. As we commented, uh, at the October 15, 2019 city council study session, controlling state law has prompted, uh, preempted the, the field of school facility, adequacy, and mitigation measures, in government code section 65995 Secra. Under these statutes, local governments are prohibited from denying, or withholding the approval of housing projects, based on a refusal to provide school facility mitigation beyond that expressly authorized and limited by statute. As such, the statutory level, uh, level one fee currently is $3.79 per square foot in the Mountain View Westman school district, and that represents full and complete mitigation of school facility impacts from residential development in the school district. We included relevant sections of law in our letter, and I won't go through those. Um, but, um, just wanted to close by saying under the 1998 School Facilities Act. The legislature created a comprehensive school facilities, financing and mitigation regime for homebuilders, the school community, and the state, to share in facility, construction costs, and that compromise, uh, BIA groups they defend. A cornerstone of this compromise is the complete preemption of local authority to consider and mitigate school facility impacts from new development. So I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. And um, thank you very much.

[02:33:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll move on to cat with them. You should be on, Ms. Wortham.

[02:33:59] Kat Wortham: All right. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and honorable council members. I am on Zoom tonight to express the leadership group support. They propose development on West Middlefield by Summer Hill Housing Group. The proposed development would bring over 400 new units online in Mountain View at a variety of price levels. The project, though, brings not only new housing, but new housing in an area that is near jobs in transit. The development proposal sits within the east list and precise plan, which the leadership is supportive of the final version. We're excited to see that the developer has included, um, or has decided to include, excuse me, a park and bike lane, accentuating many of those characteristics as they're outlined in the precise plan. Further, the studies well connected to transit, just being down the road from light rail, and is well connected to shops and amenities. In summary, we support this proposal as it brings new high quality and affordable housing at a time when we need it most. Thank you for your considerations of my comment this evening and great job getting your meeting with on Zoom. Thank you.

[02:35:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We'll move on to Nellie Minor. Welcome. We should be on. After Meyers?

[02:35:28] Superintendent Nellie Meyer: Can you hear me? Here we go. Yes, there. Thank you so much. Thank you, mayor and council members. I'm Nelly Meyer, superintendent of Mountain View, both also High School District. On behalf of the NDLA high school district board of trustees, I respectfully request reconsideration of item 6.one new development on East Littlefield Road, and ask the approval of the project to be postponed until after the strategy for supporting our schools is determined. As a district, we are hopeful, but concerned that there is a lower per unit contribution to schools, as detailed in the letter, we sent last week within the voluntary school strategy. We appreciate the innovative voluntary school strategy. I would like to ask the council to prioritize local schools and consider the required community benefit contribution as a means to support increased school building needs. Or at a minimum, that the allocation and prioritization of those community benefit funds not be determined until after we have agreed upon a recommended voluntary school strategy. I want to thank and share our appreciation for the partnership with the city staff. I'd also like to welcome our new city manager, Kimber McCarthy, and I look forward to working together. Thank you for your attention.

[02:36:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? Uh, Alex Brown? Should be on.

[02:37:08] Alex Brown: I just think it's really unfortunate that the city is forced to reverse engineer, numbers provided by this developer, and it seems really shady that basic finances are something that needs to be debated at a public meeting because the developers are unwilling to be transparent about their financing and processes. There's disappointing. Thanks.

[02:37:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any of the members of the public wishing a speak if you're in the participant box. Please use your hand. Don't see anyone? So, uh, city clerk, do we have any other public comment?

[02:37:43] City Clerk: Yes, mayor, I have 2 emails that I will read into the record. The 1st is from David Meyer. Uh, let's see. Uh, Dear Mayor Abby Koga, Vice Mayor Kameh, and council members Clark, Hicks, Mattachek, McAllister, and Ramirez on behalf of SB at home. I am writing in support of the staff and EPC recommendations to approve Summerhill's proposed 463 unit residential development in the East Wisman Precise Plan area. This would be the 1st major new residential development to move forward in East Whisman, and help set the stage from meeting the plans, robust housing and job jobs, housing, linkage goals. Notably, the proposal includes a variety of housing types, both rental and ownership, as well as affordability at a number of income levels. This is exactly the kind of development that Mountain View needs, transit oriented, dense, with affordability at different income levels. We hope to see even more developments like this in the future, as well as opportunities for 100% affordable developments in East Wisman that will help the city reach the plan's 20% overall affordability goal. Thank you to the council for all of your work to support and pass a housing rich East Whisman precise plan. We urge you to advance the plan's implementation tonight through your support of this proposal. Sincerely, David Meyer, director of strategic initiatives SV at home. And the next email is from Kelsey Baines. Good evening, city council members. Thank you for your service during these frightening times. On behalf of Peninsula for everyone, a grassroots pro housing organization that supports inclusive housing for all income levels. I urge you to support the 463 proposed homes in front of you this evening. Our current health crisis has illuminated the ways in which housing is foundational to human health and safety. Housing scarcity has pushed residents into overcrowded and unstable living conditions, endangering the well being of families in our community. The proposed development would help to alleviate the housing shortage by providing much needed housing near transit, jobs, and services. The proposed development, it's attractive, makes excellent use of scarce land. Excuse me, and will provide a substantive contribution to Mountain View's affordable housing fund in addition to providing on-site affordable rental homes. Thank you for your leadership in achieving the vision of the East Westman precise plan. Thank you, Kelsey Baines, regional executive director for Yimby Action, San Francisco Peninsula. And that's your last email. Thank you.

[02:40:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I will close public comment and bring it back to council for discussion and entertain emotions.

[02:40:32] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that's there. I am just trying to unmute myself. Can you hear me? Okay? Great. Okay. So, um, I feel like I want to, uh, think stuff and my colleagues follow the robust question, um, and, uh, and all those who gave public comments and I really appreciate that all, that were emails, written, and all the ones we got, um, over the weekend, um, police was in, I, I kind of find that it's, um, similar to, uh, be shorn when they were looking at. I was since my opinion were looking at trying to create residential in North Bay Shore, and tonight we have the opportunity with these equipment precise plan to, um, bring further residential into the Eastward Bay area. And so, um, kind of been, uh, and I always feel that when a prior company has moved their own direction, um, particularly regarded the affordable housing component. Um, you know, I too would have liked to be able to find a way to include that in perpetuity, but realize that prior counsel direction did not include that. Um, but I'm hoping that after all of our Robux questionnaire, we might be able to go into some of the recommendations and, um, if, if, uh, my callers don't have to comment at, like, try to put forward a motion, um, at least on items under 4.

[02:42:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, let's save the other hands, ways.

[02:42:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So yes, I I was going to suggest we do one through 4 and then 5 is uh um several questions that we can take straw boats on. Um.

[02:42:27] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So for, uh, recommend uh, recommendations for item 6.one, um, I move the recommendation, item one, should I read them into the, I don't know, one through 4 into the record then, the piano.

[02:42:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, please. Yes, please.

[02:42:44] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So, uh, item one to approve an initial study of environmental significance for 355-365-401 and 415 East Middlefield Road residential project pursuant to section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attached one to the Council Court. Item to adopt a resolution, continually approving a plant community permit and development for you permit for a residential bonus FAI to construct 2 7 story multi-family residential buildings with 427 units. That's 3 levels of structured parking and 364 storey townhomes with attached for a total of 463 residential units. And a transfer of development rights of 10,000 scores. Um, 2535 California Street, 56 Showers Drive, and 350 Showers Drive, to 355 East Middlefield Road, in relation to the Alfatra school district, TDR program, and a heritage tree available permit, to remove 18 heritage trees, be read entitled, only for the leading waves, attachment to the capital court. There are 3 adopted resolution, conditionally approving, investing intended map, to create 5 residential law, 3 common laws, and a dedication of, of a new 3.38 acre public park, on a 6 acre project site, located at 355 through 365, 401, and 415 East Middlefield Road, to be ready. Entitle only for the leading rate, attachment 3 to the council record, item 4, adopt a resolution or during the vacation, a public business, um, 355-365-401 and 415 East Middlefield Road to be, to be read and pedal only for the leading weighs attachment 4 to the council report. And then shall we, shall I just see if there's maybe a 2nd for that and then we can talk about item five?

[02:44:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so, um, I'll take a 2nd on those, your motion and then, um, load, take a low call, load on those items and then move on to ice and sizes, my intent. So, don't go on a medic check.

[02:45:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, um, I actually had a few comments, um, I didn't realize we were going to go right to a motion. Um, I am happy to see that there is a, uh, residential project here given all of the thought, um, that went into the precise plan. And so I do appreciate the Apple plant coming forward with the residential project on the site. Um, my biggest concern with this is the reliance on right whale, of um, the public transportation in the area. So, I'm, I'm sorry I say this every time we talk about light rail and are reliant on it, but it really is not an effective film of public transportation. Um, well, we don't have the data in front of us. I seem to recall data from the past. Um, it's probably a year or so old, um, where it showed that the ridership is steadily going down. I believe it's gone down since that time. And, um, certainly in the current, uh, situation we're facing with the pandemic, ridership is, um, pretty much halted, and the financial viability, uh, light rails, whether as well as other forms, uh, public transportation, I think is in question. So to count on it, um, is really concerning to me. Um, I have a few other concerns um, about this project, but, you know, at some point, um, as we say, we need to trust staff, that they have looked at all these, and analyzed it from all different angles. Um, and so while, I still have a little bit of a concern about the, um, distance between the, uh, stack flats and the, the, what they call in the town flats. Um, which is why I asked the question about what's the width between the buildings at Malone Geyer. And this was about the same. And, um, I had concerns about that, and I understand the point about, well, part of the, building is near the park and part of the building is near um buildings that are lower, so it's not all the same height. Um, still a little bit, uh, nervous about that one. Um, but I guess on balance. Um, I will be supporting this, at least the 1st 4 parts of the, uh, or the motion that life may made. So um I'll 2nd it. Thank you.

[02:47:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Confern McAllister?

[02:47:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I also would like to add some comments to it. The project itself. I'm glad to say. I'm always big supporter of ownership, and I was glad to see that that was a large component of it. Uh, it's going to add a lot of, uh, relief for other parts of the city, develop up there. It is an appropriate area. And um, I will be supporting the 1st the motions, but I do have concerns of, one of the perpetuity of the units. We're having a tough time addressing displacement, of portable housing units, and here was an opportunity to provide 64 units, approximately, uh, solid, portable housing or subsidized housing, and yet we let this slip through our hands. So, that was, you know, we're gonna learn from that. The, um. The canyon effect of, uh, Council member Matterchick said about Merlin Geyer. I mean, we thought that those were going to be grand spaces, and yet when you actually look at it, and phase two. It's a big canyon down there. It's really tight, the light plane isn't there, so, I had concerns about that. The financial structure of this. I wish there was more transparency from the developer. And more validation from staff. Instead of saying, uh, instead of taking everything at face value. I wish we had dug deeper into this. We've always had a concern about this going into, um, more facial and other development, but it's not the city's responsibility to make sure the project is financially feasible, but sometimes we take that, uh, direction, and I think that needs to be reviewed, to make sure that when we do, uh, do an analysis, we're doing it with our numbers, and not to the developers, because theirs could be bias. See, um. And that's always concerned of what what we go through on this thing. So, as we go forward, you know, we always learn from one project to the next, and hopefully we'll learn from this particular project. The. The parks will get into a bit later, the transfer fees, et cetera, et cetera. will come down. And I'm concerned about the $20 million, um, that's taken a little bit of liberty. To say that this project is gonna subsequently lead to $20 million. I think that's, again, a little too liberal for me. I mean, the project will eventually come there. But I think the developer did get a fair shape, I don't know. By going with the gatekeeper, was able to take advantage of moving to the front line, moving their project ahead of other, being able to, um, see, you know, with this COVID-19. They're probably real happy to get this thing going. So, I think there was a financial assistance or gain to the developer that we're not recognizing and as we go forward, we should consider some of that as part of our consideration. So, um, as I say, I will support the project. I think the project will work well. I wish there was more housing, but it is a unique project that it has a lot of different, uh, diversity of housing stocks, and again, some, some mirror to go on the back of council member. I mean, to follow up with council member of matter check. Light rail. I'm on VTA. I'm on a congestion management uh committee. Right rail does not do 9% production because you, it hasn't been validated even from VTA. So, to base, are all these assumptions, and it's been there for 6 years, I think even when the planning commission, I was on a planning commission, more than 9 years ago. Light rail doesn't show that 9% reduction, and hopefully, someday, someone will validate it. So, thank you and uh, we'll move forward.

[02:52:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Can you send me to share the comments?

[02:52:16] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I did. I'm looking ahead at, at, uh, recommendation 5 uh, the, the TDR uh, allowance to sell unused TDR, because if, if that decision is approved by counsel, It implicates 4 conditions of approval, which are actually part of, uh, recommendation number 2, the resolution approving the, the uh, project itself. So I'd recommend, you can still have a separate discussion about 5 A and C. But perhaps if the, the, discussion could take place, uh, now on the motion, the current motion for the project, and then we would need to, uh, formally uh, I believe planning staff have those 4 and modified conditions of approval if that's counsel's pleasure to approve that resale. I'd recommend having that brief discussion and determination now and, Uh, if it was approved, then the maker of the motion and the 2nder would accept that or not, and then we would move on to a separate discussion, providing direction on 5 A and C, and that's again because the uh, 5 B implicates actual conditions of the project approval.

[02:53:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for that clarification. Um, And I'll just ask the notion maker, basically, would you, um, what would you like to do this item, 5 B, like to include that in the motion? Um. We can go to if you're not ready to, we can go to discussion.

[02:53:59] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure, I mean, I think. My, my hope is there, there had been quite a bit of feedback and discussion about, um, kind of the, the school strategy, so I was hoping that I could address that when we decided to talk about item 5, so, um. So, um, being is on the LASB TDR. Right. So, um, I guess I just did my comments and then include B and C, I guess where we land. Um, so, uh, there has been this other comment, uh, written and tonight about the, the school strategy, and I think from a personal level, I wanted to acknowledge that, we, this item was deferred from a prior March meeting, and I know that, and the city level, we have been working on a, the strategy for many months, and had hoped that we would be able to adapt that prior to this project. Um, but kind of giving the, the title constraints and kind of others for seeing the project before us tonight and I just kind of wanted to acknowledge that. And um, also want to iterate that, for, for me, when I'm looking at this, I'm also taking in my experience of seeing this site, or trying to figure out, I think, this came to EPC maybe 2016, 2017, and this is maybe like the 4th or 5th iteration of this project site that I've seen. So, pretty familiar with, with all of that, I think the difficult part is the school strategy, and uh, it's coming forward tonight. Um, I just want to say from my point of view, it's not precedent, and I really want to, um, put, put that part out there and try to make the best out of the situation that, that we are in. So when it comes to item B or item 5 B, um, I do, um, I would want to include, uh, allocation to resell the unused LSDPDR or footage. So, um, perhaps one through 4 and then 5 B, and then if we wanted to go and take strong motions on AC and see, if there be, um, If that's possible, looking at the city attorney.

[02:56:31] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, that is that is possible. And also just for clarity, uh, to make sure everybody, including the applicant is clear on those conditions, I believe planning staff. Jeff has those 4 uh, conditions as modified, uh, we don't have to spend a lot of time on them, but I would like to include them in the record and the discussion of this motion. So if Jeff could pull those up.

[02:56:59] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: And included in this item B, would be the projects, uh, the projects allows to resell that I need PDRs and then goes wood, go to the school.

[02:57:13] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Correct.

[02:57:13] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Yeah, I just want to make sure and it would be the full amount.

[02:57:17] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Correct. Yes, and that is, that's based on the uh, developers of, uh, pledge, so to speak, and uh, just for clarity for the record, the conditions that are modified are 47273 and 74.

[02:57:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Let me go to Cal. Thank you. I'm going to go to Counselor Medachek. It was the 2nd door, but if you have comments, then whether you accept the, or accept the edition.

[02:57:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I do have comments about this one. Um, I have very mixed feelings about this. I think when we set up the LA SD TDR program, the intention of allowing someone to resell the TDRs, you know, I thought the scenario was, somebody bought some, they decided not to do the project, and so they sell them to somebody else. Not you buy them. So you get into gatekeeper status, a by the bare minimum, and then you resell them, even though you generated a huge benefit by buying that bare minimum of 10,000 square feet. So, um, I, I just feel like we shouldn't have a program where, it can be, uh, used like this, and, if there is any way we can change this. So that this doesn't happen again. I would be up for that. Um, so when I say I have mixed feelings about this, that part of it I really don't like. Um, but the fact that if the AR resold, the money goes to the school districts, then I do like that portion of it. So, um, I will be okay with adding that to the motion, um, the, the nice mermaid. Thank you.

[02:59:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh. See, we'll go to council member Ramirez.

[02:59:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I support the motion. I agree with the vice mayor and with counsel Mattachek. I think in this case, um, I'm, I'm comfortable with the, the, um, resale of the unused TDRs. I think it's memory serves uh when the council um created the TDR program. The council did allow for a secondary market. And I think this was one of, you know, one of the situations that maybe the council didn't consider at the time. And I think if, I don't know, I'll defer to the city attorney, but if the council would be interested in making a modification to the, to the TDR program to prevent this, this kind of sale. I wasn't really... I think if I were to, uh, reiterate what council member of Matachek said, it's the concern that you purchased TDRs to get a benefit like, you know, proceeding through gatekeeper, you decide not to use them, and then you pass it on to the next person, who can then proceed with a gatekeeper, um, and, and not, you know, sort of add in an item and never actually have a project utilize the TDRs. And that, I don't think that was really the intention. So, in this case, I, I, I feel like it, it, it's allows under the program. Um, I also, um, uh, agree with and and and support, um, the, the proceeds going to the school district, so I'm, I'm comfortable with it, but, um, and again, you know, for, for the city attorney, if we do want to make a modification to the program, so we can maybe limit the scope of the secondary market a little bit. Um, if that's an item amazing, I, I would be supportive of, um, of looking at it there. But I'm going to support the motion and I'm grateful for everybody for all of their work in this project.

[03:01:25] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, to respond, uh, council member Ramirez, that would not be an appropriate action or motion for, for this project, uh, discussion. But it, it could be on a future, uh, item 8, if there's majority support, um, by council, uh, to bring that topic back and and look at it. It would have to be carefully analyzed, of course, by planning and and in within the framework of the existing TDR program, but that would be appropriate for, uh, uh, a council member bringing that up at at item A.

[03:02:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. We're ready to cancel the Hicks.

[03:02:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, I'll keep it super short. I will be supporting the motion and uh, thank you uh, uh, to staff for working on this very... Um, I, I just wanted to say that I agree with uh, much of what uh, council members have said previously, I'm, I personally am deeply disappointed that we can't make the, the, um, the BMI unit uh, permanently affordable. Um, if there's anyway, anyone can squeak that out at the last minute, I'd be all for it. I, I, on the other hand, I'm very happy that we're providing husband in this area. I think the developer picked a great architect, one that I really lot of times supergrad. It's not a historic, um, and, uh, let's see if I had it. I mean, oh, and I, I, um, share the suspicions that the light rail is actually going to, uh, cut down on auto use in the area. So there's, that's a summary of my comments. Thank you.

[03:03:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's 9 o'clock.

[03:03:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so it was what, um, I'm generally supportive of this. I had one question that came up, um, that, uh, when I met with the applicant. There was an issue around the, and I can't remember if it was the, the voluntary contribution itself or the, um, contribution associated with, um, the sale of the TDR. Um, But is there in the language, is there some requirement for them to come to an agreement or would simple, simply just paying the fee for, for example, unable to get the school district to sign something? Um, would that constitute? Um. You know, uh, satisfaction of, of, of the, or do we even need to address that? I remember that coming up for some reason. in that.

[03:04:17] Unknown Speaker: Council member Clark, um, just to confirm, um, Are you asking about the TDRs? Or the voluntary school strategy?

[03:04:33] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think the, I, I think it might actually be the, um, the voluntary contribution, um, and they, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, Um, You've, basically, we're agreed to accept the voluntary contribution, but I, I recall there being, you know, some sort of agreement associated with that between the school district and the developer or the applicant, and I just wanted to make sure that, you know, if, for whatever reason, they aren't able to reach something in writing that, their contribution of the, The amount would still be sufficient or if that event address or maybe I'm just misremembering this whole conversation.

[03:05:13] Unknown Speaker: Um, just to confirm, um, this is voluntary, and the city can't conditions around it, and so, I think, um, as, as it relates to any voluntary contribution, we will acknowledge it and memorialize it in the conditions, um, and then indicate that, um, that we, uh, that there'd be some proof of transfer. Um of the money.

[03:05:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So it doesn't necessarily have to be in agreement. Okay, so just prove the country.

[03:05:46] Unknown Speaker: If I could jump in, actually, I do recall, um, that we had, that, there needs to be an agreement of school strategy agreements, I think is with, you know, facial and ecosystem type plan, so, I thought I read it in the stock report somewhere that we'd have to actually go back and modify that, is that, accurate?

[03:06:07] Unknown Speaker: Um, well, that, that is more sort of global in terms of how that would work, um, under the precise plan, and in this case, it's more, for this particular project, the applicant has voluntary provided 1500000, which we're not talking about, but definitely, is volunteering, um, uh, offering to donate the proceeds of the LASC TDR sales. Um, and so I think, specific to that, they would have to provide us some proof of transfer, since we acknowledge that. Uh, but it doesn't necessarily have to take one form or the other because again, the city can't dictate, it's voluntary. um some proof of transfer would be good. If the city provides, it's 2.50000 um as to the schools, and that could be separately done, then the terms of those agreements would be set by the city, so I wanted to separate the voluntary contribution from the city's amount.

[03:07:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, and then my, my last sort of comment on this, since we're including this in the motion is just, um, I, um, in this case, I'm actually okay with the, with the TDR, um, sale, and those proceeds go into the school district, I think, um, I would have concerns if we were talking about, you know, a broad swath of or an entire project being referred or something like that. But in, in this case, I think they're just selling off the excess that they didn't use, um, and coming, coming in below the maximum FAR, they could have, which I actually think is a good thing, and I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want to create an incentive structure where use it or lose it and then use sort of the developer tries to maximize that they are and it ends up being a lower quality project. But I also agree that, like, you want to mitigate sort of the persistent resale of large quantities of these things. But in this case, it's only 10,000 square feet and I think it's worth allowing them to resell that and contribute that. Hopefully to the school districts on a voluntary basis.

[03:08:18] Unknown Speaker: So we wanted to draw the council's attention to, um, number 4, um, uh, it has been revised, um, to acknowledge that the property in order with the, um, So may choose to sell um all the portion of them and voluntary to donate the proceeds of the sale. Um, and that is actually the 2nd last sentence in the top paragraph. And then, um, a condition number 72. Um, the last sentence, the last couple of sentences, we wanted to reflect that any credit that the TDR got towards the community benefit contribution will no longer be given, and they would have to remit to the city, um, that amount of community benefit. Um, so those are the 2 items related to, uh, transfer of development rights.

[03:09:12] Unknown Speaker: And I just want to clarify with the, the community development director, 73 and 74 uh, were also mentioned in, on page uh, 20 of the staff, report, and maybe you have some clarifying comments on that, maybe I referred to too many conditions.

[03:09:31] Community Development Director: Yeah, I think we reviewed those, um, with your office cushion, and we came up with, um, preconditions that would be amended as part of the, uh, 5B, uh, uh, C.

[03:09:45] Unknown Speaker: Okay, what would the 3rd one be? You have, you've got 4 and 72 and

[03:09:49] Community Development Director: Yeah, there is one more, but that's related to the school strategy, uh, would depend on how much the council wanted to allocate.

[03:09:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Just to clarify, this is 2 conditions that would need to be amended, um, if counsel would like to allow for help to sell me, um, PUI rights and that is number 4 and number 72.

[03:10:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, is this the 2nd round, so I'm just gonna, uh, add my comments 1st um, so I do support the project. Um, I think this is, this is noted, others are noted, there's a quite complicated project that has PDRs and, um, I've, as a 1st project in residential project in, um, and because it was a gatekeeper, and we were doing the precise plan as we were going along, and this project is moving along. Um, there's just been a lot of moving parts, but overall, um, I, I think the project is a, a, a good project. I like the design, um, I like the mix of a type, causing type. Um, I know we've been, um, really looking for more ownership opportunities and hopes that don't like provide, um, opportunities for the missing middle. And so, um, on balance. I think it's a, a, a, a good project, um, and, you know, there are challenges, they, like, design and sites, and, um, I, I, I note the issues around, um, street list and, um, and whatnot, um, but, I, I, I, I think that's all just, uh, um, part of the, the, the process and trying to make sure it's not, I mean, it could go tolerant, right, if we wanted to make a lighter step backs and so forth, but. Um, it, it, trying to stay within the guidelines, uh, in, in terms of heights and whatnot, I think uh, it was a, um, compromise, um, situation. Um in regards to transportation. I just wanted to note that, um, I guess for me, I mean, we haven't really talked about this, Denise, those men, I don't think. I know we talked a lot about it in North Asia about the internal education rate. So as much as I, uh, you know, agree that light rail is, um, challenged in terms of being a valuable transportation option, um, and, uh, I, I, I can understand the, the members that are presented, um, being questioned. And for me, I guess my intent is allowing this project to move forward is to really try to encourage that internalization. You know, the folks who work in East Luzman, as long as the North Bay Shore, and because of um, like the Stevens Creek Trail, there's actually good access to North Bay Shore. My hope is that by providing residential opportunities in this area, it would just reduce the need for people to, need to go outside of that view and be able to walk to their jobs or, or a bike or, or whatnot, um, just down the street in the same precise plant area, so, um, that's my real interest in this, and, and that's what it's been working for towards that job. housing, um, balance, and, um, you know, frankly, I, I guess there's always questions, um, idea of transit oriented development, of people who live here are just taking transit to go work outside of the city. Um, you know, I think the, with the job housing ratio, we're really looking at people who work and not view being able to learn the not view, but I think this project, um, I, I hope that this project will contribute towards that goal. And the final way with the PDR sale, um, I, I very much appreciate Council member Meta checks, comments, um, and yet, be, given that the, uh, family there would be voluntarily going to the Mountain View schools, um, I, I will support this, um, but I definitely would be open to revisiting the, the conditions of the DVR sales. So, with that, I, I'll go the 2nd one, council member, a meta check.

[03:14:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I just wanna uh Steph one more question. So, um, the applicant purchased 10,000 square feet of LA FD, right?

[03:14:51] Unknown Speaker: They have not yet, but we would require that since they, um, um, got the gift of time to move forward.

[03:15:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Right. So they purchased 10,000 and they're selling 10,000. So it's not like, um, they use, they purchase 200,000 and used 190,000 and they're selling the excess. They purchased and are selling the exact same amount. And so to me, that's why this feels like, um, yes, it got them the gatekeeper status to do this. Um, which is what I have an issue with. Uh, but as I said, because uh, it's going to the school districts, I'm okay with the resale. Um, I am interested in asking the negative motion if she would consider, um, modifying it, since we've heard several people express support for this, to say that the BMR units are in perpetuity.

[03:15:58] Unknown Speaker: Sorry, I didn't hear it.

[03:16:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Did you? Do you consider doing that? Okay. Well, then I'd like to do a friendly amendment to say the BMR units are in perpetuity.

[03:16:14] Unknown Speaker: And I'm okay with that.

[03:16:15] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's good for me. Thank you.

[03:16:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, it comes from here on McAllister.

[03:16:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Clarification here, on, um, So if, I ask the question. So if the 10,000 of square footage not used, by, Summerhill, then should the community benefits be hired by a 50 K? And the staff report said yes. So, if you put back on the screen, condition 72. To that be modified? Jeff, can you get that back up?

[03:16:55] Unknown Speaker: I believe we have modified it to reflect that.

[03:17:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Let's see, it says, excludes the 10,000 square foot of PDR, and I don't, and I, is the 2.4990000, including the 50,000.

[03:17:24] Unknown Speaker: No, but then the, the next sentence says, in the event that the PDR units purchase are resold, then the square footage that was excluded will be added back and the public benefit amount will be recalculated.

[03:17:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, okay, I just... Just want to make sure the footing. Okay. Yeah, um, you know, the whole point of this TDRs was to get a school over in the office of San Antonio, so, I don't want to penalize the Los Angeles school district, because of the one.300000 dollars. They're getting the money, which the whole intent of that was to get them the money. So how the final language works out. Um, is fine with me as long as, the TDR is satisfied, the, both also school districts gets their $1.3 million, so. I I do support the amended uh motion also. Also, the, uh, for being, uh, B, I'm fine with, I thought the school strategy. I would like to see if, um, have a full discussion. About that when the staff brings it back. I think too, we've been doing a lot of uh sausage making tonight and finding it out and I'd like to make sure we have a good, thorough discussion with full staff having the opportunity to present a, a process that would be uh, sustainable. So those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[03:18:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: The attorney did you have on that?

[03:19:00] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I actually just had a question for the community development director about the, uh, affordability time frame being changed from 55 years to, uh, in perpetuity. I just want to double check, uh, if that has any impact in the project approval documents, um, a condition, for example.

[03:19:24] Community Development Director: I, I think we're gonna have to go back and look at it. So give us a few minutes.

[03:19:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm gonna move on to council member Clarkson while we. We are waiting.

[03:19:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: To just uh 2 quick things, one, thanks. uh, calculate my magic, I, for clarifying the the 10,000 square feet. I forgotten that that was the, that was the total extent of what they purchased. I thought there was more than just that and they were selling in excess. So I agree with you and I appreciate you playing that out. Um, I, um, I, I, I cannot support the amendment to units and perpetuity as much as I would like that. It is not good policy making to make these changes at the final entitlement hearing. This should have come up a long time ago. They been proceeding along the path of decisions that have already been made by this council about when we transitioned from 55 years to in perpetuity. That specifically affects financing. Um, and I just, um, as much as I would love to have those units in perpetuity. I don't think it's appropriate to bring this up with that entitlement if we should have brought this up the last time that we talked about it, if that's the change that people want to make. and so, I just, um, I'll have to vote no on the, on the overall, um, question if, if, if that's in there, because I don't think that is a good, probably way to make public policy.

[03:20:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Ramirez.

[03:20:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. That was a quick question for the applicant, because I don't really have a good sense of, um, how it would affect the financing, but, um, uh, the applicant wouldn't mind commenting on, um, I mean, uh, 55 years is a long time. So, if, if by changing the BMR requirements to in perpetuity, how, how does that impact the, the project? My question,

[03:21:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: yes. Is the applicant available to speak? There he is. We should be on Mr. Hickey. I'm having trouble unmuting, Mr. Hickey.

[03:21:54] Applicant Hickey: Sorry, sorry, um, is that better? You able to hear me now?

[03:21:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:21:58] Applicant Hickey: Okay, I apologize about that. I'm not sure whether you were able to hear anything. I said, um, if you would indulge me for just a moment, uh, we're, we're discussing this here because we understand the question, we, we appreciate the desire for, for the units to be in perpetuity. It's obviously a challenge for the forma, but, um, in the spirit of cooperation. We'd like to see what we can accomplish. Just a moment, if you wouldn't mind.

[03:22:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: There are there are comments by council members while we're waiting. Oh, They snare.

[03:22:37] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I just kind of wanted to respond to the counseling number, Clark's, um, comments. You know, I would be, uh, on the, the 2018 council that approved this, um, but I would have, I would have hoped that if we were going in the direction, um, that we were, um, moving in with our BMR program that we would have kind of, that part has a little discussed it, and so I don't know what the discussion was at that time. Um, you know, I see that I hadn't brought it up in my original motion as well because I wasn't sure if it was feasible, uh, for the applicant and so appreciate that the applicant is trying to look through the food that works. Um, that's just a little acquiry at least on my point of view.

[03:23:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I would just add that, um, I, I don't remember the full conversation, the phase one of those full housing strategies, but I, I, I, honestly, I don't think we had talked about in perpetuity, at that time, it, I don't think it was considered feasible for us to look at that, so we were 55 years for like a long time and, and that's what we've had historically, so that's what we stuck with. But, um, I know with phase 2, we had new information, and, and that was an option, so that's why, uh, I think I, I recall that being why we never really talked about in perpetuity in phase one. It talks about a matter check.

[03:24:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'll also add that, um, we have, at an entitlement hearing, uh, changed the requirements from 55 years to an opportunity for another project, um, because it was a gatekeeper, like this one. So, um, this wouldn't be the 1st time we have, uh done this. Thanks.

[03:24:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm going to go back, look, with C, your hands are always, are you ready to do the summer?

[03:24:50] Applicant Hickey: Yes, please. Are you able to hear me?

[03:24:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:24:53] Applicant Hickey: Thank you. Thank you again. Yes, as I said, uh, candidly, it is a, a challenge to the pro forma, we, we underwrote it, um, the project where the expectation that the units would be 55, but we very much appreciate the, the council's, uh, acknowledgement of the efforts that we've made, um, to bring you a project tonight, that'll bring new housing, and, um, and that, yes, we, uh, We're willing to make those units in perpetuity, yeah, our opportunity.

[03:25:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you. So, in fact, we have a motion in a 2nd, uh, they may, may, may, may, may, may, may. which would include items one through 4 and um, 5 B, the sale of the LASD TDRs, um, and changing the BMR units, um, um, 55 years in perpetuity. Is that I think I?

[03:25:51] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, and also the modifications to conditions 4 and 72, and I believe, uh, the community development director and her team are looking for any other conditions, but we could say, uh, in the developers, um, agreement to the perpetuity of requirement and any conditions, uh, related to that would be changed accordingly.

[03:26:14] Community Development Director: Yeah, it's in 1880, so I just wanted to confirm that, and there are 2 conditions, 79 and 80, uh, they refer to the applicant's proposal, uh, of 55 years, and so there's no, uh, date written, but we can clarify that to say perpetuity. Um, I think one of those will be changed.

[03:26:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Counselor, quick, further comments.

[03:26:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, and I'll just say that, I'll, I'll support that as long as the, this is the, the developer, um, you know, really agreeing to that, and that was the case in the last time that we made it in perpetuity. It was a gatekeeper. We can't impose those conditions, counselor, right? We just did it with the agreement as well for and not, um, we didn't impose it on them. if they're okay with it, then I'm okay with it.

[03:27:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, any other discussion on the motion in the seconds? If not, can we get a little call vote, please?

[03:27:07] City Clerk: pretty quick. Council member Clark.

[03:27:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[03:27:11] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[03:27:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[03:27:13] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek. Council member McAllister. Council member Ramirez.

[03:27:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:27:21] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh.

[03:27:24] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah,

[03:27:25] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[03:27:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I, thank you.

[03:27:28] City Clerk: The Russian Passy? As in 0 with no abstention.

[03:27:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Um, so then let's move on to item 5. Let's see. I'm gonna try and take 5 C 1st. I think that might be a little quicker. Um, so, is there interest in returning to cancel for consideration and extension of the tith exemption deadline? I'm here?

[03:27:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll I'll be pretty quick on this one. I, I thought that um, the, the compromise that you had voted earlier is a, is a good one where, um, I, I would be concerned about allowing a bunch of projects to benefit from the exemption, but if we, if we narrowly scope the impact to, um, just projects in East Wisman or just residential projects in East Wisman. I think that, um, that sort of complies with the intent of previous direction from the council. And also, I mean, I'm, I don't know if there are any other residential projects in East Whitman that are really far enough in the pipeline to benefit from, from that exemption. So, um, I'm, I'm really glad you, um, you floated that, um, that congestion. Um, and uh, just, if you don't mind on 5 A, I think it's a pretty quick remark there too. I, I, I, I feel like it's a, unless, unless you'd rather hold off a, on Friday.

[03:28:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, go ahead.

[03:28:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I I wasn't sure if it would take longer, but when I was to delve into it and see how it goes. It may, how others may have different opinions, but I, I, it's a, it's a, so the, the community benefit funds have its own set of restrictions and requirements, and I think we want to be sensitive to, to the use there. Um, and I I feel like we need more time to to really evaluate how best to use that funding. So I, I don't think we need to, or I prefer not to make an allocation today, but rather, pulled off until after the school strategy is, um, adopted to determine how, how to use the 2.5 million. I'm, you know, I feel like, you know, making an allegation right now is difficult when we don't really have um, a good sense of sort of the full breadth of use and, and um, we don't have a school strategy adopted yet. So my preference would be, um, to delay that decision until after this whole strategy discussion.

[03:29:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hey, thank you. Before we go on, um, at city attorney, do we need to have a lotion on these items or can we just take a straw vote?

[03:30:02] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Well, looking at 5 A, I know that Miss Williams earlier brought up a condition that could be implicated by that, and I apologize, these conditions, these alternate conditions have been worked on, you know, throughout today. So, uh, depending on how 5 A is determined that could, that, that should require a formal motion because it could impact the condition that Ms. Williams brought up earlier. And I would actually just recommend a, a formal motion for 5 A and 5 C, uh, because they are in 5 C is an important, uh, policy decision. So I would recommend a formal motion on both with the understanding that 5A may implicate a condition. And then also I just had a couple comments on Council member Ramirez's, uh, thoughts about 5C. I'm not venturing into the policy realm, but I would make it clear that, I believe the community development director earlier said, that topic of the TIF ordinance would have to be brought back generally and analyze. I don't know if it's, I don't think it's appropriate now to put, uh, narrow, uh, narrow focus on it, for example, because the, the basic legal principle with planning, uh, laws and policies is that similarly situated people should be treated similarly. So I'm, uh, uh, uh, mindful of not, uh, determining, predetermining how focused that modification would be to the TIF, but rather, generally direct staff to bring back the ordinance with analysis and options. So, that, that would be my recommendation.

[03:31:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. So we will um take motion on A and C, 5 A and 5 C. And um, we do have um, a condition at this point it's been written up for the voluntary contribution of the 1500000 uh, to acknowledge that. Um, and so if the council were um, to move forward on that, then, uh, we can show you the condition. Um, Jeff I am not sure if you can get that up. It is the 1st one. Oh, I thought we voted on that already as part of item one through 4 and 5 A, item Friday is the allocation of the proposed community benefit fund, so when that would that be, uh, excl- uh, it's in addition to what the motion was, correct?

[03:32:48] Community Development Director: Just the, the history of this is, um, originally the applicant had not provided us any amount of, um, you know, the school strategy amount. And so, there was no condition in the, in the packet that you have. We're proposing to add this because the applicant has provided a letter. And so, when you add this, uh, the one.500000 will be acknowledged. So, take, we need to vote on this.

[03:33:17] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: But I'm sorry, uh, uh, visit for the community development director. I believe 5 A is referring to the allocation of the community benefit amount, the 2.5 million. I believe that may have been what the mayor was asking.

[03:33:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, um, but, and so, question then, do we have to add another motion for X, uh, condition X on the voluntary one. 5 million? Is that included in the items one through 4 so we need to vote on that.

[03:33:50] Unknown Speaker: Yes, um yes.

[03:33:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So we have 3 potential missions, uh, that we need to get through. So with that, let me go to Council number Hicks.

[03:34:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I was going to, I was going to generally say that I agreed with. And that council member has said, um, and then I, I guess that the attorney said that I couldn't fully, we couldn't fully go forward with what, uh, complimentary Ramirez said about the, so, uh, about the specifics on extending the PIF. So, um, therefore, I would just agree to go along. But, um, I also not yet allocating the community benefits, and then also I think that uh, council member, McAllister, has said that we've kind of made enough sausage tonight, and I would rather have, uh, I think, I would rather have a, uh, more completely understanding of school strategy and, and how we're doing that before I make an allocation, and I would also be hesitant to deprive the area of, you know, some of those other uses, uh, you know, although I think the, something the schools is extremely important and I want to do it adequately. If there are other ways of doing it, and we can provide this area with the other things that, uh, community benefits, you know, affordable, uh, things, um, open space, district utilities, etcetera. I would like to do that. So, I'm, I'm basically, I think, agreeing with a council number of Ramirez on that.

[03:35:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Metachek.

[03:35:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I also, um, would prefer to discuss the allocation of the community benefits, um, after we've done the school strategy. Um, I am very concerned about having another one off decision tonight, um, if we went forward with that. Um, because, but I really want to make sure we don't set um, another precedent for how things are going to be allocated and what the, a voluntary contribution might be. Um, I feel like we did one off or the development in North Bay Shore and I don't want to do another one. So I want the school strategy that has the policy, um, and any sort of process that goes along with that um, before we talk about how to allocate any community benefit from this project. Um, and then um. I would also, um, entertain, as Council member Romero said, um, talking about, um, the tiff, um, and saying, um, if we want to change the date. Thank you.

[03:37:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor McAllister.

[03:37:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, just a redundant question. So on part V of this. Um, Concerning the loss of school district. Nothing that we're doing now is going to affect uh $130000000?

[03:37:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, included item B in the previous motion for that path.

[03:37:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that's done. Okay, thank you.

[03:37:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion, see if I can roll everything in, but in, when, um, and I, I'll just say that, um, I actually was ready to talk about and, um, my preference was to, um, go ahead and allocate the funds to the schools in light of, um, just the increase of potential increase of students from this projects. directly into, um, the schools in the area, but, um, I understand the, uh, the interest of, um, talking about the schools in person. I think that's the majority is headed. So, um, my emotions need to. Uh, direct staff to return to council for consideration of an extension to the TIF exemption deadline. Um, item XX, the accept the voluntary contribution to the, of one.500000 to the Mountain Viewersman, school district, and that USX high school district, and direct council to, uh, bring back the discussion, the allocation of proposed community benefits funds to cancel after the school strategy. Agenda item. And there's 2nd Counselor Ramirez.

[03:39:02] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll go ahead and 2nd the motion.

[03:39:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Are they there? Discussions now?

[03:39:10] Unknown Speaker: Sure, um, I, I think my sentiments were similar to, similar to yours, Mayor, I, I was ready to score a, uh, and, uh, item XX, uh, to give the, the school district, um, as well as the PDR, uh, as much funding, as, as possible, um, the kind of, given this direction that they'll, that I've heard from my colleagues. Um I'll I'll be supporting your motion.

[03:39:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, could we get a roll call vote, please?

[03:39:48] City Clerk: Any quick? Council member Clark.

[03:39:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:39:56] City Clerk: Council member Hicks. Council member Mattachek.

[03:40:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[03:40:02] City Clerk: council member Ramirez.

[03:40:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yep.

[03:40:05] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[03:40:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah?

[03:40:08] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh.

[03:40:10] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah,

[03:40:11] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[03:40:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi, thank you.

[03:40:15] City Clerk: In practice, so then 0 with no intention,

[03:40:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: and that, this is, this item, thank you, staff, for your presentation. Um, it's 1005 so I would like to entertain a motion to um, continue with the other agenda items something I'm required to do.

[03:40:35] Unknown Speaker: I'll answer. That's what I was going to say. So move, we, we continue past 10. We need to do it.

[03:40:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Ramirez, seconds that, um, please, the will call the number.

[03:41:01] City Clerk: Sure, it's pretty informal.

[03:41:04] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, go ahead. That's fine.

[03:41:05] City Clerk: Counts a member clerk.

[03:41:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[03:41:07] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[03:41:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yep,

[03:41:10] City Clerk: council member Mattachek.

[03:41:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[03:41:13] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[03:41:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Reluctantly, yes.

[03:41:17] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[03:41:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yep.

[03:41:20] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kame. Mayor Abby Koga.

[03:41:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I think the motion passes, again, 70, no extensions, and I'd like to call a break if, um, my colleagues would be interested in that, so let's say 1015, we'll come back. Thank you.

[03:36:29] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Continue on to item 7 new business, 7.one or fiscal year 201920 general operating fund budget status, update report on the impacts of COVID-19 and our presenters, our city manager, Kimber McCarthy, and finance and administrative services director, Jesse Takashi. Welcome.

[03:50:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Just a point here. I want to ask. Okay, perfect. That's what I was going to ask if, if our finance and adamant services director, excuse me, was going to be sharing his screen or mine. Great. Okay. All right, well, thank you, mayor and council members. I will be presenting this item tonight with Jesse Takahashi, our finance and administrative services director, and this is our 1st opportunity that we've had to provide a comprehensive update to counsel on the city's general fund budget position for the current fiscal year in light of the estimated financial impacts of the COVID-19 crisis, which is the 1st coronavirus pandemic in history. The general operating fund is the single largest city fund and provides funding for core services, and this includes police, fire, parks, recreation, library, planning, public works, and all of the city's administrative functions, and that includes finance, IT, city manager, city clerk, and the city attorney's office. As we will discuss in the presentation tonight, the city's financial health and the general fund in particular, is shaped by state and regional economic forces. And also federal economic forces, both +and negative. And the city has certainly been impacted by the current crisis. So our presentation tonight will outline those impacts on the city's financial position, and we will provide details on how the city is expected to weather the storm and the near term, with the caveat, that there are many uncertainties on the horizon, and much information is still unknown at this time. We'll also discuss the framework for development of the fiscal year 2021 proposed budget, taking into account the current fiscal climate. Next slide. Can you move it? There we go. Okay. So I just wanted to start off by showing a timeline for the budget process and how that has been layered with the current crisis. We started the budget process, um, with updates to council in February. So on February 11th. Um, the major budget update was presented and then later on that month, staff brought an update on the council goals and work plan. Then in March, that's when the crisis hit. So as we talked about many times on March 12th, the state of emergency was declared and then the following week, um, that is when the shelter and place order was implemented and we closed all of our city facilities and moved to essential work only. In April, the city council had a study session on the capital improvement program. Which leads us to just a short time now after the crisis, um, May 4th, the shelter and place order was extended, so just yesterday, through this month. And then tonight we're here tonight to give you a budget update on the impacts of this crisis. In June, we are still expected to have the budget hearing on June 9th and adoption of the budget on June 23rd. So at this point, I'll turn it over to our finance and administrative services director to walk through the details of the city's financial position.

[03:54:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Jesse, you're on mute.

[03:54:26] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: All right, can you hear me now?

[03:54:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you.

[03:54:31] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Okay. Thank you. Uh, so carrying on the conversation of where we are from a budgetary standpoint, um, this 1st slide, uh, just recounts, uh, some of the uh, information that you just had that was given, um, but it also, uh, from a global perspective, um, and and this is really as it's made for, so this is pretty recent that we know that there's been over 30000000 jobs that have been, um, uh, lost uh, due to the unemployment uh, claims data that has come in. Uh, we've seen impacts on the stock market, which uh, has, has brought precipitously um, since the beginning of this issue began. Um, and well, it has, uh, recovered to some extent, um, there have been 1000000s of dollars, uh, that have been lost, um, as a result, and mainly due to the uncertainty that, um, has existed and continues to exist. At the same time, we saw the Federal Reserve. They're open market, federal open market committee, um, take action to react to, uh, the volatility, um, in the markets, and it, uh, reacted with a 150 basis points, um, a couple different, um, uh, movements to reduce, uh, in the month of March. Uh, and so those were just some of the things that um, were taking place over this period of time. Um, the overall outlook and the economic impact of the city's budget due to the COVID-19 uh situation has become, uh, is poised to become one of the steepest economic downturns um, that, that we've seen uh, since the Great Depression. This flight, uh, is really just meant as an overview on the uh, impact that it's having to our revenues or our general operating fund. So, uh, staff did go through and take a look, um, at this subsequent to the February with your report, which was last reported to council. And so we've taken this opportunity to, uh, do the best we can in providing, you know, what has changed since, since then and to those um, estimated numbers. So back, uh, in February when we reported, we had $1490000 um, in revenues for the general operating fund. Those are now, uh, expected to be lower by, um, 7700000 uh, from the year, from the, um, midyear. And primarily those are in several, um, significant revenue sources, um, property tax, transient occupancy tax, which is our hotel tax, um, and then, uh, rents and leases to some extent. Uh, primarily the focus being on the sales tax and the POT, which, um, are directly effective, um, and uh, and represent the largest, um, impacts, uh, of that 7.7 million dollars. And again, the estimates are based on our best guesses at this point, recognizing that it's a continually evolving situation. Um, and that's still ongoing. And so, well, we try to get our arms around the situation, we understand that, um, almost on a daily basis, things are changing, um, and we are in, um, needed to, uh, continually update, um, our numbers. And again, as the last bullet mentions, the ultimate financial impacts of the situation are still largely unknown. So this chart here is really kind of another breakdown more graphically that shows our revenue sources for the general operating fund. Um, again, the 3 uh, largest that we are addressing this evening and primarily that are impacted are the property tax, um, which represents uh, just under 39%. of uh the general operating fund revenues, um that, uh again, is estimated to be down um, about 5%, um, at uh, 54.200000 dollars, um, The, where, where we might have expected there to be a larger increase, the fact that property taxes uh for the secured and unsecured or set as of January one. Uh, we had a little bit of, um, uh, fortune there and that those taxes for next year are already based on, um, property values that have not been affected yet. So, for next year, there's going to be a relatively, um, uh, modest, uh, impact, uh, but potentially that could catch up uh, in in the following year. Also, there's been some discussion, uh, whether there could be any property tax, um, deferrals, uh, for payments. Um, there's not been anything uh that we're aware of at this time that would do that, uh, which is, is, is a good, good news for the city. Um, also, um, it's good to know that uh, since the last time that we had a recession, um, uh, there have been added constitutional protections, uh, for local governments, make it more difficult, uh, for the state to divert, um, uh, property tax revenues. Uh, look, use of money and property is our 2nd largest source, and that is at about 20, uh, $2.6 million. Um, that uh, consists of investment interest, uh, portfolio, uh, but it also includes, um, rents and leases and, and this is one of the weak forces, um, of revenue in our city, um, where, uh, it's a little bit more stable, um, and something that a lot of cities don't, don't have. And so this is actually one of the areas that, um, is helping shield us to some degree, uh, at least at this point, from a more precipitous declines and revenues. The sales tax is our 3rd largest contributor, um, representing approximately 14% of the budget, and, um, it's estimated to be the most negatively impacted by by the COVID-19 situation, primarily due to the closure of, uh, the large amount of retail, um, and restrictions, um, on, uh, those stores and restaurants. Um, I would like to note that the updated estimate that we have assumed shelter and place mandates will continue through the month of May. Uh, so that is kind of important to note, um, because should they continue beyond, um, June, that would, uh, create additional, um, negative, uh, impact to the, uh, forecast that we have. And then last week, uh, the transient occupancy tax, uh, which is actually part of the other local taxes, um, is a significant revenue source that we're addressing just because of the, uh, impact that is, um, it has subject to COVID, um, situation, uh, with hotel occupancy, plummeting, roommates declining in business traveling, uh, travel. Coming to pretty much a halt. Um, yeah, this is another one that we want to continue to uh make sure we monitor. Uh, this next slide, uh, is really just kind of meant to be before and after. It's another way of taking a look at these revenue sources here and how they compare, um, with our initial mid year versus where we see them now, um, as well as the relative, um, uh, a map that they contribute, um, to the city sources. So, as you can see, property taxes represents, uh, a significant, um, portion of that, um, use of money and property being 2nd and then sales and TOT while being, uh, probably the hardest tip on this emergency represents a relatively smaller, uh, overall share of the total revenue. Taking a look at the expenditure side. Uh, the total operating expenditures for the general operating fund are um, been updated and are projected to be $600,000 lower than what was uh, estimated at the mid year. Um, so that's good news. Um, In February, the overall total general fund expenses were just under $1350000 um now they're estimated at $134. $1000000 uh, and a lot, a lot of the uh, savings here or the reduction is due to uh, number of vacant positions and uh, staffing uh, personnel turnover, uh, that occurred during the 1st half of the year. Uh, we have currently about 74 vacancies that, um, are, uh, are with us right now, there's some active recruitments and some are, uh, in process of being, uh, filled now. Um, but we do note that the recruiting has slowed down, um, considerably, uh, due to the situation, in the sheltering in place, um, in, uh, positions are being filled, uh, more on a case by case basis, um, and we're prioritizing uh, essential services, um, swan safety positions, um, and other critical positions, um, that are needed to respond to the, um, COVID pandemic. Uh, it is impossible and very difficult to determine at this point how much funding it's any, there will be, um, available to the city for, um, the related COVID costs that we may incur. Um, at this point in time, we are, um, not seeing any federal stimulus package that has been approved, although we do believe that there is something in the works. Um now. And, um, that is continuing to monitor, um, um, the developments at the federal level actively working with our, um, federal legislative delegation. Um, and advocating for federal funding, um, what we can. Uh, and just as an FYI, uh, the city today has spent just under half a $1000000 um, in COVID related expenditures. A positive net operating balance in our budget, coupled with the estimated expenditure savings, will offset a portion of the lower estimated revenues that we think we will be getting in. However, not all of the previously adopted reserve, uh, transfers can be made, um, and still may hit a balanced budget, um, so therefore, uh, staff is recommending the reversal of a $3000000 adopted transfer to the capital improvement reserve, um, which, which, which was planned to be done, but in order to maintain the balanced budget, um, reversing this transfer would be able to allow that to happen. Uh, and well, it's been important to have the, the, um, this money in the CIP reserve, uh, for future projects, uh, that they will do, um, staff has determined that it's not critical, uh, to have that at this and thus, we could, um, uh, reverse that transfer for now, and uh, that would help balance the, the budget for this year. Next slide is uh an overall summary recap of our expected uh revenues and expenditures, with ending balance. Um, I'll just point out, again, the $770000000 and reduce revenues. Um, the savings of just under 600,000 for, uh, our, uh, expenditure savings, there, and the reversal of $30000 in the transfer to the capital improvement reserve, um, and this would, uh, allow us to basically have just a little bit over balanced budget, um, or an operating surplus of, um, $175,000 and you can see that right there in that middle column. 1920 updated estimate. So that's where we are looking for, um, the end of this fiscal year, and so that's a bit of good news. Um, that we are still uh able to maintain a positive, this is, albeit, a slightly fairly positive uh balance. How are we able to still, um, survive this? And why, you know, why are we able to still do this? Uh, I know news has been out around various cities in terms of their, um, uh, troubles that they've been having and trying to maintain, uh, their budget balance, um, and many going into deficits. Um, but there's uh, some, some reasoning here, then I'd like to just point out. Um, the city has a history of taking proactive and uh, strategic uh, steps to ensure that uh, the city's fiscal health and uh, sustainability or maintained. This includes diversifying this revenue base, um, adopting structurally balanced operating budgets. Funding long term needs and obligations as they come up. Um, and also very important is to maintain uh, prudent reserves. And the city has, uh, done, uh, this for quite some time, uh, over the years. And, uh, at this point, it's, it's really served the city well to help weather, um, situations and downturns, um, and specifically of this particular, um, incident that we are going through now. So this really, uh, kind of helps set the framework, um, for looking ahead to next year's budget development. Um, and because we have these, uh, mechanisms and this history of, um, fiscal prudence, um, sort of in our, um, in our past and are accustomed to doing this, um, This is how we are looking forward to developing next year's budget. And as the city manager has, has mentioned, um, you know, a lot of these impacts that we are, um, currently seeing now, this year will carry over, uh, into next year. Um, and that's far, um, because of that, we are uh, bringing forward or plan to bring forward a, essentially status quo budget. Um, status quo, meaning that uh, critical needs are still being provided for, um, mainly through the use of limited period funding. Um, but nonetheless, um, we intend to bring forward a, a balanced budget that will maintain service levels, uh, and provide essential services, um, supplemented, um, and again mentioned with limited period funds. We do expect, however, that there will be a limited amount of available funds to, uh, provide for long term liabilities and strategic reserves, um, that we've been accustomed to doing for a number of years now. So, um, that will not likely be available to be able to fund those, um, uh, reserves and and other, um, contributions. Uh, and then staffing vacancies. Well, we expect to continue at, uh, a slower pace, be, um, on a case by case basis, um, as needed. Now, given the financial impacts and the uncertainty related to the COVID development of next year's budget will focus on these 5 priorities. Um, taking into account the ongoing crisis. Uh, we anticipate maintaining the central delivery, uh, service, um, and response efforts, and this will also include uh, providing services for the vulnerable population. Uh, we will return or recover citywide operations, uh, once the shelter replaces ordered and modified, that we begin to, um, return to a new, uh, normal, whatever that normal ultimately is, uh, economic development, a small business strategy, uh, efforts to help get the community back on its feet. Uh, will continue to focus on public uh, communications, engagement, and the community building process. Um, and as well as strategic planning for the future, emphasizing innovation, efficiency, and operational improvements, designed to better serve the community and achieve, uh, the desired outcomes as we adapt to the crisis. Uh, and whatever this next normal will be, um, current council major goals and work plans, are also, um, being updated to reflect the time frame in the workload that are included in the proposed budget, uh, and that will be included in the proposed budget staff report that, uh, comes in June. Now, as much as we, um, assess the current year, and, uh, outwork for next year, in fiscal 21, We are looking even beyond those, um, those years, this year, next year, into future years. Um, and, uh, unfortunately, we're not out of the woods yet, and we do anticipate that the impact will continue for, um, beyond the next year and a half . Well, the city has a long history of being fiscally prudent and maintaining financial discipline. Um, this will help, uh, with our current climate. We are projecting, um, that there will be some deficits, uh, in future out years. Uh, forecasting possible revenue shortfalls is a difficult process, um, given the uncertainty surrounding, the duration impacts of, uh, the COVID 19 situation. uh not what they, what they will have over the next several years. Um, the 5 year forecast is currently being revised and updated in the midst of this extreme uncertainty period. Um, and it does not, uh, include additional related expendures that we are not yet aware of. Um, and they occur, as we have to continue, as we continue um, providing for the emergencies. In other words, they're still continuing, um, expenditures and things that we aren't aware that we won't be able to provide for, yet, um, we are doing our best based on the information we have to try to anticipate some of that. And at this time, preliminary projections indicate that, uh, the city will experience deficits in fiscal 22 of a 1000000 and a half uh, and in 2022, 23 of $2.4 million. Uh, and again, that is based on um, the shelter in place ending in um, in May. So, should the shelter in place or continue, um, through June, uh, we anticipate that those dollars or those deficits could increase by, um, $2000000 respectively, uh, for those couple of years. Um. So again, a lot of is is sort of contingent based on future, um, potential outcomes. But we do know that, uh, we will have to continue to monitor and to strategize, um, how to address these deficits, um, over the next year. So, um, some more information, uh, comes to light. We will definitely be um adjusting our forecast. Uh, and the 5 year forecast will be coming to you in the um, uh, proposed budget. I did want to mention um. Uh, potential impact of uh, this situation on our purse, um, because that is a significant uh, component of our expenditures. Um, information that we've gathered that's far, um, while Pers was doing uh, fairly well in the 1st half of the year. They're currently projecting a 4% uh negative return. Um, and just as a point of reference and prior recessions, they had, uh, a negative return of -28%, uh, 20% loss. So, um, relatively speaking, uh, so it's better than what it was in the past. However, um, we do anticipate that uh, that will have an impact on the city's expenditures in future years. Um, starting with fiscal 223 and primarily that, the reason for that is because of the uh, delay in, um, getting the uh, investment returns calculated into future, um, into future contribution rates. So there's a 2 year delay in that. And, um, that's why for now the losses won't impact, um, our rates, but they will, uh, coming down the road. Um, we do expect that, uh, next year's pension contribution for the city will be, uh, $29.40000 and that's for, uh, all city employees. Um, and then we've also, uh, done an estimate to determine what it might look like if helpers does come in somewhere around a -5% um, investment loss. Uh, and so we anticipate that the rates would increase about, uh, 6.5% for the miscellaneous plan, uh, 11.5% for the safety plan. Um, my fiscal 2027. Um, and the impact that that would have is to reduce our city's funding status by about 8% for each each plan. So currently our funding status is around 70% uh combined. Um, so that would potentially reduce it um, by 8%, 8%. um, down to probably 61, 62%. Um, so that's, um, definitely something that, uh, we would want to make sure we continue to monitor and be aware how that, uh, can't, uh, impact our, uh, projection over the next several years. And I just did want to mention, um, just for history that the city has, uh, over, uh, quite a few years, been making strides and funding this liability, um, by making additional contributions, um, but, unfortunately, because of the needed, um, uh, or because of the reduced revenues, we won't have the additional, um, uh, fund balance to be able to make those, uh, discretionary contributions like we've been doing in the past. So that is something that's a little different than what we've been accustomed to over the last several years. And as we look ahead to the upcoming proposed budget hearings, uh, in June. I just want to reiterate the fact that, uh, we, along with everyone else for dealing with a significant amount of unknown information and, um, outcomes that, uh, will continue to challenge us and knowing what the future will bring. In spite of the, in spite of this burden, though, staff is forging ahead, uh, and bringing forward, uh, to bring forward a balanced budget uh, for next year. Uh, to continue that thought, uh, at this point, I will turn the presentation back over uh, to your city manager to wrap up where we will go from here.

[04:19:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you for that. Um, I think in this slide. What I really want to underscore is just the significant amount of uncertainty and the unknown that we're dealing with right now. So, it, we're, we're dealing with uncertainty on many different levels. So the 1st part of it is, we really don't know yet what any further or future revenue impact will be, we do know that as the shelter place order continues, and as businesses are still closed, and as people might still have lost their jobs or not be working, that will impact those tax. It will impact um, the transient occupancy tax, which is the hotel tax. It will impact possibly our business license tax that we collect in January. So, as we have less businesses operating, we will have less funding collected from that revenue source. It will impact our recreation revenues and our lease payments and the longer this crisis persists, the more that, um, it is unknown, how, how these revenue impacts are going to affect our budget. So, that's a large part of, um, just the thinking of what we need to be, uh, working on over this next fiscal year and making sure that we're constantly monitoring the budget. I also want to emphasize and um, uh, we, we just talked about this in the 1st life, but I want to emphasize the unknown impacts of our, our pension cost. So, this is something that uh, will be statewide. So, as per investments are known, we're expected to know likely, I believe, in July, um, what's the full impact of, um, their investment return is. So, as their investment return that stays negative, and if it continues beyond the -4% that it is now, it will have a significant effect statewide, possibly on the solvency of, uh, cities throughout the state in order to make be able to make their 1st payments. So one of the great unknowns is whether hers will change that discount rates. So whether they will change their assumed rate of return. So right now the filmed rate of return is 7%. If they lower that assumed rate of return, what that does to every agency incurs is increased the annual contribution amount. So as those annual contribution amounts increase, whether they're at our city or other cities, is going to cause more expenditures to go up across the state. So, I think the big thing for her is just that, um, we don't know if we're going to have a higher payment if her does decrease that rate of return, and we also don't know what the impact is going to be on other cities throughout the state. So, so this is certainly a statewide issue, and it is what cities across the state are watching and waiting for to see what happens with hers. But I really want to make sure that this is something that, um, we are talking about and thinking about because, as Jesse says, this, this will have an impact on us in a couple years, when whatever the purge rate is now, they're, they're rate of return, whatever it is now will impact our payment in a couple years. So that's a big piece of the great uncertainty. I think the other piece of it is that there are also unknown health factors. So, we don't know about the availability in student testing right now, we're hopeful, and we know that efforts are lamping up statewide and countywide, but we really don't know what that's going to look like over the next few months. So how that plays into things is, we don't know when the shelter in place order is going to be modified or lifted. So we don't know how things, how quickly things might resume um back to what they might have looked like before. Um, which means that we don't know what the financial impacts are going to be. We also don't know whether there's going to be a resurgence in cases in the fall. So should we come out of a shelter in place order and have to go back into a shelter in place order or some sort of modified order, that will impact the city's bottom line. So, I think this, this really is a time right now for staff of uncertainty. Um, we really can't predict anything with uh, solve with information. We know what we have. We know what our actuals are, and we can do our best predict, uh, what those estimates are on projections in the future. But so much might change. So, to that extent, uh, one of the recommendations before council tonight is to direct staff to come back every quarter with updates on the city's financial position, and that's how we will be able to monitor what's happening and have a conversation with council about what we're seeing and what's happening with our revenues, so that we're in this constant, um, assessing. And that is unusual. This is not something that, that I know, Mountain View or many other cities, um, have to do, which is this, this constant assessment and possible, um, change your update to the budget at various times beyond midyear. But that is going to be needed as we move forward in the months ahead, just knowing that we have so much uncertainty ahead of us. And we can go ahead and go to the next slide now. So, the next steps in this process are that, um, we are bringing the budget, the proposed budget on June ninth, and as already stated, that will include a 5 year forecast, um, so an update to our projections, and I would also note that as those unknown impacts impact us, those budget deficits that we're projecting now can certainly grow. Um, now, yes, they could also be better, but it is more likely than not that those deficits could grow. So in the months ahead of us, that's something that we're going to be looking at and making sure that we're really, um, being diligent and being fiscally prudent with our expenses and, um, really looking at our operations. And also, as mentioned, we will be bringing to city council an update on the major goal of work plans. So, council already knows that this crisis has dominated, um, staff workload over the last several months and it will continue to dominate staff workload, um, in the next several months ahead of us, especially as the shelter in place continues or is modified. Um, so we're going to have to take a realistic look at those projects and the timelines and feasibility. Um then the next step after that is June 23rd, which is adoption of the proposed budget. And as I previously mentioned, we are planning on bringing those quarterly updates to council, and we will recommend any additional budget adjustments that are needed at that time. Um, it was more likely that the adjustments would occur at midyear, but we want to maintain flexibility in case there are things that we may need to do as needed, um, in these next several months. And so with that, I believe that is the last slide, and we are open for any questions right now.

[04:26:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. um, let's see, let's see, counsel questions. Any count questions from council members? Uh, Council on a matter check?

[04:27:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, Jesse, you answered a lot of the questions I had in your presentation, so thank you. Um, but on page 12, when you mentioned how the budget deficit might grow. I want to make sure I heard this right. You said, uh, that if the shelter in place continues through June, the FY 2021, 22, Deficit would be 3.59 better than one. 5 million? Did I hear that right?

[04:27:45] Jesse: Yes, that is correct.

[04:27:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then for FY 2223, it would be 4000000 $40000,

[04:27:54] Jesse: yes.

[04:27:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[04:28:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Come find me with Oaster.

[04:28:05] Unknown Speaker: Jesse. So, we had a little chat. So we are a charter city. And basically because we're a charter center, we have certain requirements other than a general law city. And our poor business, as the uh, city manager mentioned, police fire parks, rec, library planning, public works, and all the city administration functions. So forth and so on. When we go through our budget, well, we pull out items that are considered not charter cities responsibility, that are the responsibility of the county and state to take over, and will we therefore shift the monetary responsibility to them, make sure the city of Mount View is covering their charter services. I don't have to say whenever you want to take that as a more of a policy.

[04:29:01] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you. So I'll take that. So at this point, I think we, we are not at that assessment level yet, but I think, you know, should we get to the situation in this next year where, uh, we have to look at making any adjustments. I think we might have to undertake that. At this point, that's not something that staff has looked at in terms of um, which items are not uh, charter city items or or which items that are normally done by the county, um, or things of that nature, which things might be um, unfunded mandates. So I think, um, once we get into knowing more about what will happen over the next several months and years, we'll have to take a look at that. But that is not something that, um, we have undertaken yet.

[04:29:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Did you have any in your prior experience? Have you ever seen a city? If you were working for a charter city, say, okay, here's our core. We need to protect the core and we're gonna rely on the county and state too. Have you ever done that kind of analysis before?

[04:30:05] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I have actually, this is several times in my career, I come from the finance background. I think you all know that um I started out in my career at a county that had a $90000000 budget deficit um so that was certainly an exercise that um had to be undertaken by every single department. So I think you would look at those things. If, um, it does get to that and I think there are a lot of other, um, revenue, possible revenue enhancements and and obviously looking at any, um, expenditure changes that we might make, um, and so that would all be part of what I would call a fiscal sustainability plan, um, where we would look at everything that's on the table. But certainly, I think, um, at this point, um, those are, those are things that you would look at. I do.

[04:30:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions from customer?

[04:31:03] Unknown Speaker: I have a couple. I'm going to page 11 regarding Calter, I'm sorry, it's 11, it's the Cal, every guy in Calper, uh, 13, it's 13 on your slides, um. In terms of the, um, funded percentage, um, I know there's a based on extrarial when I don't, um, know how often they're done, but, um, the latest or the, maybe the next proposed extrarial. Like, I guess my question is, when does the Petra, um, the benefit of the Petra employees start to show in our projections? Because that was, you know, the, the, That was the, um, argument that was made that is, and back then I think it was 2012 or 2013 when kept the past, and within 15 years time or so, they, they said that we would see the benefits of, um, the changes in the, the formulas. So, is that anywhere in our near term projections or is this so?

[04:32:11] Jesse: Yeah, that's a very good question. Um, so the impacts of the, um, uh, and the pension reform, um, uh, while they are making great inroads, uh, into reducing the cost. Um, it's still going to, it's not a magic bullet in terms of being able to eliminate or reduce cost, um, uh, in a few short years. Uh, that really gets blended into the overall um, evaluation. And to really gain the full uh benefit and the impact of those reductions is going to take uh essentially somewhere between 20 to 25 years to fully realize. And so as, um, the, the existing, you know, tier one folks, um, retire or replace with tier 2 but a lot of the pension liability that, that goes with that, takes time to, to pay off. And so it's really kind of a transition as we get more pepper members in and the um, the tier one folks are retiring out. Um, it, it really does, you, you don't see that full benefit, uh, until the, the outer years. So, it's, uh, I know there's a lot of folks that were expecting us to be like, okay, we've been doing this now for, you know, seven, eight, 9 years, where's, where's that benefit? Um. So, uh, but that is something that is continuing to benefit us, uh, and it does get factored into the evaluations that we get each year. Um, but that is obviously offset with other costs, um, you know, whether it's the, um, you know, longevity, things that these accuaries, um, evaluate, um, in terms of people are living longer, so they're paying out more benefits, um, you know, reducing the discount rate that is being assumed, which also has the, uh, effect of increasing contributions, so there's different factors. Some are making rates go up. benefits that are, making rates go down, but that they're sort of a blend. So you don't see that, um, big impact, uh, the way that we might wish to see it.

[04:34:36] Unknown Speaker: So, um, the Taffer's contribution and, and your age 8 general, general fund summary, the 4000000 um, me, my name, is that in addition to our annual, as it goes? Or, or a payment.

[04:34:54] Jesse: Yes. Yes. So this would be one of those uh like call the discretionary um contributions and so this was part of the city's funding strategy um to help pay down the city's pension obligation. And so we've been, um, as we've had operating uh, so, uh, over the years, um, we've been making contributions to, uh, Cal Pers in addition to what our, uh, normal annual obligations are in order to help, um, increase our funding.

[04:35:26] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. So that, that, that number may change as we're time.

[04:35:32] Jesse: Yes. This one has already been committed, which is why we can't take that one back.

[04:35:38] Unknown Speaker: And then I remember, I remember correctly. I thought we created a rainy day friend a few days back. Um, it was in addition to the General San Jose. I thought we had an economic infringing season. I know we, we had it back in the great recession days and then, I think we got rid of it at one point when we were having a surplus, but I thought a couple years back, we reinstated that, is that accurate or?

[04:36:06] Jesse: Um, that is accurate. We do have a number of reserves. Um, we have not really focused on those here um, in this, um, presentation. Um, essentially the balancing of, uh, you know, the budget for this year and next year, uh, is being done without the use of, uh, those particular reserve funds. So we do have a budget continuency reserve. Um, we do have uh, the general fund reserve. Uh, which is uh, there's not a policy target about 20% right now. Um, and and other reserves. So, we do have those available, um, have the backstop, um, if if those are needed. But this is our, except for our, for our sexually balanced prejudices, our, our plan, uh, this is a plan of action.

[04:36:59] Unknown Speaker: Right, thank you.

[04:37:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other, um, jump memories, questions? If not, I will open this up for public comments. Are there any members of the public pushing to speak on this item if you're in the attendee box, please, put the raised hand button, or if you're on the phone, test R 9, any members of the public pushing to speak on the attendee box? Yep, I don't see anyone city quick. Do we have any other public comments?

[04:37:31] City Clerk: No other public comment, mayor.

[04:37:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: you. Then I will post public comment and bring it back to council and so we do have to take the boat on. Oh, let's see here. That's never click.

[04:37:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I just, um, I just wanted to start by. Picking staff for all the work that you put into this, um, over the last, well, few weeks, um, this is one of the most challenging, not just, um, you know, things that we've experienced as a city, but also just the timing of this, and having to redo through the end of the car, the school year, plus project, you know, with a lot of unknown, sort of what we might be doing within the next preschool year, right? I can't tell you how much I appreciate you, all the work that you put into this, and how thoughtful and and thorough this was, and I know that these will change. Um, you know, we'll have to revisit there's probably a few times in the next fiscal year, but, um, thank you for all the work that you put into this, um, and I'm, I'm just, um, I'm just really happy that we're not in the same position. Well, this will certainly be challenging for us. Um, uh, it, it certainly is not going to be as challenging, thankfully, um, for us, that some of our municipal counterparts. So, um, I'll move the staff recommendation. Um, uh, for the, the 4 items that are murdered in the staff report.

[04:39:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I counseling meta check.

[04:39:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Well, 2nd that motion, and I just want to add that, um, I think it'd be very helpful as we revisit this on a quarterly basis. To have information like you shared tonight, Jesse, about, you know, if this goes on for a certain period of time. Here is the implication of that. That's incredibly helpful for me. Um, I have found it a little bit uh, Uh, challenging, going from the private sector to the public sector, uh, because in the private sector. We're always do scenario analysis on this schedule. Um, we don't do much of that, uh, in the, uh, public sector, so, um, I loved it that you gave us that kind of information, and I would encourage you to do that as we go out throughout the next year because it is going to be so challenging, and to have those rough ideas is incredibly helpful. Thank you.

[04:40:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Ramirez.

[04:40:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. So very briefly, I'll, um, also support the, um, uh, the motion and then, um, you know, just echoing the sentiments with everybody else. I appreciate the work that you've put into this particularly just given how unexpected the circumstances were. The only 2 things that I would like to add are, I would, obviously, something we couldn't do with this fiscal year, but for, for the coming to 4 years in particular. Um, I, I'd like to develop some kind of, um, you know, tool or opportunity to, to, um, solicit public comments, um, I think, uh, excluding, uh, the mayor. This is the 1st time, you know, that any of us will have to deal with, um, substantial, potentially substantial deficits, and it'll be unusual for the community as well. And I think it would be helpful to just, uh, in whatever way makes sense, um, get a, get a sense of what the priorities of the community are and use that to, um, to help us determine what, what, you know, what cuts we may have to make, you know, where, where, um, where our focus should be. Um, with investment in the future. Um, and so I, I, it's not, uh, my impression just observing the council for the past few years is, there is, there really isn't a lot of public comments, aside from, you know, certain stakeholder groups that are activated and advocate for sustainability, but we don't really have a lot of broad based input. And so I think moving forward, I think that'll, that'll be particularly important. And the only other thing is, I'm, I'm glad, um, the city manager referenced, um, revenue enhancement. Um, I don't want to be, I think, creative and thought on how we look at that. But one of the, one of the things I've been seeing, um, more often lately is, um, uh, was it, like a real estate transfer taxes that apply to very, um, uh, high cost properties. So, um, I think San Jose adopted one recently for properties valued at $2000000 for more. I just read that San Francisco was looking out funding for $10000000 for more. Um, and that may be something that we may wish to explore. Um, some somewhere down the road. Um, but I'd like to offer that just as, you know, 11 idea, uh, particularly if it's something that the rest of the council, the council would like to look at, um, over time that, that may be something that, that could, um, get some community support. Um, but that's, uh, that's all I have. Thank you.

[04:42:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other comments? There's a motion in a 2nd. I believe it was Council member, and Council member, Med check. Um, anyone else is, um, my thanks just asked for, um, bringing them forward. I know it's a difficult um difficult venture right now because uh it's a moving target um and I think um you know the challenges that we have to be nimble and flexible and respond to the changing situation. Um, I, I will say that, uh, yes, is compared to what I've been hearing, uh, but other cities are facing, we're in a, um, a chore, positive, uh, position, and, um, you know, I kind of got to, um, a long history of financial prudence in the city. And, um, frankly, the diversification of our revenue sources. Um, uh, Kevin Dugget, who used to always say, hold on to land, and, you know, leasing land is a way to bring it in revenue, and I said, it's interesting to see that it's actually grown to being the 2nd largest, um, force of revenues for our city. So, and that's not a common practice among cities that I've learned. Um, I think, you know, we are gonna be, uh, obviously, we're gonna be going into, uh, different times, and I appreciate counseling members, and there is this comments about, um, obtaining community input. Um, it's gonna be a diff- different kind of input. Um, you know, I'd say, having been through the great recession and then, um, it's, you know, just being the changes over time, the last few years, and I think I've said this before, I do feel like, at least, we're fortunate to see surpluses, so we've been able to add staff, and we do a lot of projects, but we're going to be going, I think, into a, uh, you know, situation where we're going to have to pull back, and um, I just remember, um, you know, back then. We had a $4000000 structural deficit and we had to look at cuts and so, um, that's when I agree with Counselor Hallister. Um, we need to focus back in on what our course services as a city is, public safety, public works, um, you know, we definitely can look at revenue. New revenues, but um, you know, back then we looked at increases in fees and, like lapse in, fees and whatnot, and everything was very challenging, um, because, you know, it's increasencies and revenue generation, and, so, um, it's gonna be challenging times, I, I'm sure we, I, I'm, you know, confident we'll get through it. Um, can already input will be important, um, but I think in general, as a, as a city, we're really gonna have to, um, be ready for a very different environment. So, with that, um, there's the notion in a 2nd and any other discussion. It won't be any, so be quick, could you take your call?

[04:46:02] City Clerk: Council member Clark. Council member Hicks. Council member Mattachek.

[04:46:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes,

[04:46:11] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[04:46:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yay.

[04:46:14] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[04:46:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[04:46:17] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh.

[04:46:19] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah,

[04:46:19] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[04:46:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[04:46:23] City Clerk: Ocean carries seven, zero with no dension.

[04:46:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Thank you. and city manager. We go on to item 7.2. It's just allocation of additional funding for rent relief. I'm not sure who our presenter is on that, is it, um, Mr. Vastival, starting us off or Mr. Wong?

[04:46:51] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Mayor Avatoga? I'll be presenting. Sure. So let me go ahead and share my screen. Here we go. Can everyone see the screen? Okay, very good. So, uh, good evening. My name is Tim Wong on the Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager for the city. And tonight before you uh for council consideration is an allocation of additional funding for the city's rent release program. So a quick recap on March 17th, the council approved initial 500,000 for a emergency rent relief program for residential tenants based on the COVID 19 crisis. Uh, the program was launched on March 25th and it is administered by CSA. And on April 14th, the council appropriated an additional $one.10000 in CBG funding with the direction for staff to look at other sources to provide an additional 1000000 beyond what had just been appropriated. So staff went back and reviewed a number of potential funding sources. We reviewed or uh, we looked at CDBG, we looked at potentially home funds, we looked at the affordable housing fund. And based on staff review, what we found was probably the successor agency fund was probably the most appropriate to provide additional funding for the rent program. And just, the successor agency fund is former RDA housing set aside dollars, that, um, currently, this fund has one, a $170000 balance, with 250,000 dedicated to homeless services. Uh, state requirements have a June 30th, 2020 deadline for the, for the use of these funds, and so with the one.70000 -250,000 less a 100, uh, or one.450000 balance that could potentially be um, available for the rent program. But just to be clear, uh, successor agency funds are for housing development. So what staff had proposed was to use a $10000 of the, uh, successor agency funds for previously approved project, 950 West El Camino Real, in which the $1000000 of successor agency funds would be swapped out for the previously appropriated affordable housing funds, which are more, um, flexible to be used for the rent. Um programs. So therefore, again, staff proposed that a $10000 of the one.45 be for 950 West El Camino, and the remaining 450,000 of uh successor agency funds be used for homeless services. However, uh, a quick, a quick clarification when we were reviewing additional state requirements for these successor agency funds, there were 6, uh, specific requirements in these, in the state law that, in reviewing those specific requirements, it was eventually determined that, actually, 950 West El Camino Real would not be a viable project to receive the successor agency fund. So what staff will be doing is twofold. A, we will be looking at, uh, a future affordable housing project that will be encumbered with these successor agency funds, and B, uh, staff had to revise its recommendation in the staff report, um, for to provide additional funding. So, therefore, staff revives recommendation to the council is that the council allocate a $1000000 directly from the uncommitted balance of the cities below market rate housing fund, uh, for the COVID 19 rent relief program. And so, um, again, that is staff's revised recommendation to go ahead. And it's, it's, basically revising recommendation number 2 of the staff report um slightly. And so, uh, that concludes really staff presentation and, um, that is here to answer any questions that the council may have. In addition, uh, Mr. Myers from CSA is also here to answer any potential questions that you may have about funding or the rent relief program itself. So, uh thank you very much.

[04:52:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. Um, um, go for any question. questions, questions. Go to Counselor Hicks.

[04:52:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: a very simple question. Uh, do I have it, right? That it's simplifying the recommendation, and it's just take the 1000000 out of the blow market rate fund, period. Is that it? Or is there something more common?

[04:53:01] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: That is correct. simplifying the recommendation, that's perfectly correct.

[04:53:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And and were there any intended use for that previously, I mean, just, uh, fund affordable housing, but it was, did you have your eye on it for anything?

[04:53:25] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: We have a few uh affordable housing projects in the pipeline that uh within the next uh. few months that will be bringing to the council, so, uh, we're doing a little more review about the special requirements, and then we will bring forth that in the future.

[04:53:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And so how would the, um, you know, if we do allocate the $10000 to the below market rate? Uh, I mean, I'm sorry, too, but that really funds, how would it impact the affordable housing projects that you were looking at at, uh, giving the money to?

[04:54:08] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Um, there really would not be any impact because we would, those future projects would be using affordable housing fund money anyways, and so we would just be uh, replacing a $1000000 from the successor agency fund against those future projects. So, we would still be.

[04:54:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That's when you would use the successor agency fund.

[04:54:40] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: That is correct. Yes.

[04:54:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, got it. Thank you.

[04:54:48] Unknown Speaker: And so I was following up on that, and I was just trying to find this in the council questions. Um. Didn't we ask the question about, um, the successor agency funds and they have to be expended by June 30th, 2020, so, um, how would we, get a, I mean, how, how do you, how do you plan on like actually allocating the 1000000 of the successor agency funds uh before the end of June? Or spending them?

[04:55:28] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Well, that was part of the additional research that staff had been provided, or conducting, and part of it is, unfortunately, the state requirements are fairly um convoluted. They're not, um, 100% clear in its, uh, purpose. And so some, we have been consulting with other, um, outside legal counsel about what the specific requirements are outlined in those state laws. And it looks like that we might have some additional flexibility with these funds based on, um, Consultation with legal counsel. You know, additional flexibility in terms of time to out to spend them. Actually, it goes back, uh, the requirement is encumbering and not expending and that's what we're working. And we can encumber and we can encumber them.

[04:56:36] Unknown Speaker: You still have the June 30th deadline to do that?

[04:56:43] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Yes, and we're we're comfortable looking at encumbering future projects. Yes.

[04:56:50] Unknown Speaker: But wouldn't that mean that a project has to come to the council to encumber these, um, this money?

[04:57:02] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: We are working with finance, but yes, believe we would need to, um, bring it back to council at, uh, prior to that date. The June 30th.

[04:57:13] Unknown Speaker: And we have a project that we could do that.

[04:57:17] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Um, we're, we're looking at different projects. Uh, there are some uh, city sponsored. We're looking at, uh, potentially BTA or, or lot 12, uh, in, um, could potentially use those funds. So yes, we are looking at some of those potential.

[04:57:36] Wayne Chen: Just to add, this is, this is Winch and, um, to Tim's exactly correct, just to wade through, um, SP 341, which governs the successor agency funds. Um, we do need to do some additional coordination with finance. Um, we, we believe there's a way. We do need to crush it out a little bit more. Um, I think one thing that we discovered through this process, um, which was a good exercise of that. Had we not identified the successor agency expiration period. Um, it, um, it may have just been returned, um, to the state, but going through this exercise and finding that allows us to put together a plan. Um, and and to be able to respond to that deadline. Um, so we we'll have a little bit more information to uncover. Um, we, we, we think that there is a way to do it, and um, we can certainly provide council, um, a follow up, um, once we get that information. And so we have a little bit of work to do, but we think we can get there.

[04:58:36] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I, I, I would hate to lose a $1000000 of affordable housing funds. Thanks.

[04:58:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Counselor Ramirez?

[04:58:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Myers, if that's okay. Um, so 1st um, none, you, you have, or CSA hasn't, received any, administration fees or service fees from any of the contributions from the city, is that right?

[04:59:13] Mr. Myers of CSA: Yes, that's correct. The, the rental release funds have all been passed through funds and then we've also got the uh, grocery uh, gift card. uh program that's just been started where we're primarily uh, focusing on uh, uh, folks in the safe parking lots. and getting those grocery gift cards out to them, uh, uh, as well as then select uh, uh, low income families as well.

[04:59:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But there has been, based on your remarks earlier, pretty substantial operational impacts to CSA. In, in, um, administering these funds.

[04:59:53] Mr. Myers of CSA: Yes, there's no question. One of the things that, uh, we ourselves, we were talking rainy day funds before we ourselves have planned over many, many years to build in rainy day funds and and uh, utilize reserves. Uh, but there's no question. Yeah, we will be taking a hit for this. So, uh, I think that, uh, one of the keys is that we always wanted to make sure that we were delivering as much to the community as we possibly could. And as you all know, we we tie ourselves very strongly with the communities that we serve.

[05:00:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, if, if we were to set aside a portion of these funds for, as an administrative fee, what would be helpful to CSAs? 5%, what would be, what would be sort of meaningful and allow you to better absorb the operational impacts of administering the funds? Thank you.

[05:00:53] Mr. Myers of CSA: First of all, thank you for bringing that up because I have made it. I have told that, I haven't made a big point of it, but I have mentioned that in the past because I, I do think it demonstrates uh, uh, goodwill on our part to, to, to go, uh, to do that. But, uh, in general, whenever you have a contract with whether it's a government funder or a foundation funder or whatever, you can, uh, uh, the administrative fees and it varies depending on the funder can be anywhere from 5% to 15%, uh, uh, depending on the funder.

[05:01:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then a quick question for staff, if, if the council supported of the concept, what, what parameters would be helpful for us to set. You know, I don't really feel comfortable looking a number right now, but if we were to just assign a range or something. Would that be able to negotiate some kind of agreement with CSA, uh, to help offset the operational cost?

[05:01:55] Aarti Shrivastava: This is our key. I just wanted to confirm, is this from the $10000 a certain percentage of that?

[05:02:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, yes, yeah, but based on the identified funding source, it would be on the affordable housing fund.

[05:02:15] Aarti Shrivastava: I can answer, um, with one of our main street launch, uh, 15% is what we give to them, um, uh, for their administration cost. Um, we've, we've um, seen off generally between 10 and 15%.

[05:02:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's all I have. Thank you.

[05:02:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any any questions? Um, I have one and thank you, Mr. Myers, 1st thing with us so late. Appreciate that. Um, so we, we have received um, some emails about, um, the, the processing, uh, the time of the thing, um, and I, I, it, types, I think, into it, Councilman Ramirez is, uh, alluding to 2 and I guess I'll just be, you know, more direct, um, what would it take to double, uh, the, the, the, member of, um, applicants you process. currently.

[05:03:20] Mr. Myers of CSA: Yeah, I know that, that, that is a, I mean, rental assistance is one of those things that is, it takes a long time to do, and on a normal basis, it takes anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks. And we're, we've got it down to a week, uh, between when someone is actually engaged and the landlord gets the check. There are things, though, that can complicate the process. So, uh, if, uh, we, we transition to get 14 staff, uh, working on rental assistance, which for an agency our size is substantial, considering we're also doing a food program, and uh, all these other senior nutrition program, and all these other things, we've hired 4 additional staff, uh, in just the last week. And that has, I think, will speed up the process. Uh, if you look, though, at the, like, for instance, 238 uh, uh, uh, checks have gone out the door in a period of 5 weeks. That's an average of about 4748 checks a week. Uh, which, you know, in the normal times we're processing about 20 per month. Uh, and to do uh, to do 40, 48 checks per week. is is pretty phenomenal. Bottom line is, if the goal of the council is to speed up the process, uh, I'm not sure that the staff or, or you all would, would want to take away, I mean, you've already got one of the most flexible rental assistance programs I've ever seen. Uh, it would just mean we would have to beef up our staff. We would have to. We've already got a request in for city staff that would be appropriate to work on this. Uh, we've had city of Los Altos staff handle some administrative stuff around this. Uh, and uh, so, uh, I mean, we could, we could uh, try. I think uh we've already done an amazing job, though, of speeding it up as much as we possibly can. But we will continue to do so. Uh, and if the direction is to get more people on this, we will do our best to do that. Uh, but I, I, I, I really want to make sure it is clear this is, this process is moving at breakneck speed for rental assistance.

[05:05:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I definitely appreciate that. Thank you. Good question. I, uh, connected to Counselor Ramirez is that if we were to, um, a lot of administrative fee, could that potentially help in staffing up, in process.

[05:06:01] Mr. Myers of CSA: I will tell you that what we've done is we've taken some money that we got from United Way. We just recently got some money from United Way, and that's how we started building in the temporary staff. We also took some more money from our reserves who had to build up that temporary staff. If we were to get an administrative fee off of uh, of this, and I, I'm sure staff will want to go back. City staff will want to go back and research whether uh we can take administrative fees out of this particular pot of money. Uh, uh, but if we were to do that, we would, we would have be able to then additional staff. Uh, one of the, one of the few silver linings in the fact that half of our staff is working off site is the fact that we can add these additional staff without overtaxing uh, the capacity in our building, which we know is already uh, way too small for who we are right now as an agent. Uh yes, that they could be related. There's no question about that. And in fact, I would relate them. Uh myself. Hey, I would see administrative fees coming down as being fees that could be used for additional staffing.

[05:07:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, thank you. Absolutely. Counselor McAllister?

[05:07:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I, uh, I guess I'm out of the loop, because I haven't read any emails about people concerning the time, but I, I would think this would be, uh, extraordinary times, and people need to understand that, trying to gear up, this virus came on us, suddenly, and all of a sudden, we're expecting an organization to jump through hoops and get all these, I mean, to get manpower and the system going on, um, it's not realistic and people have to be a little patient. I know people want to get their money, but when people are saying, hey, they're not moving fast enough. I think it's a discredit to CSA, because they, they, they bust their rear ends to try to get things going, so, was, was there a lot of people, was it just one person that sent an email said, hey, these guys are hanging on to my money, whatever, so, uh, help me understand why these questions are coming in and, and putting a, shining a dark light on CSA for, for some, an organization that's doing their best. So mayor or at least or anybody, tell me, was it multiple or just one email?

[05:08:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm just here. Uh, well, I, I mean, I've heard from some folks. You actually brought it up, I think, a week or 2 ago when we were getting the numbers and the, the Delta between one week to the other, um, you know, so, I, I think it was a combination of hearing from folks and seeing the data, so, um, I, I understand it's very challenging and. It, it, we had. We've all had to adjust and respond and react quickly, so I, you know, very much appreciate what CSA is doing the question as was whether, you know, by funding or doing an administrative fee, to base staff up to process things more quickly.

[05:09:17] Councilmember John McAlister: So, back to your point, Mayor. So, I asked about the numbers because I knew we were not correct, and if you talk to the city manager, they got them up to date. So if you looked at the numbers, they're much more favorable for what they're doing. So, that's what I thought we were hitting more people than we were. They were, SA was helping more people. So it wasn't, uh, questioning them. I just wanted to make sure they were current, and so they did bring them up more current.

[05:09:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, there's not a time issue, right? Like, the moratorian, the, the end of May, I don't know what, we haven't talked about it, and I don't know, the state hasn't said anything beyond that, so they spent, uh, folks are, you know, in need of offending soon, um, and so that's really the, the, the real interest is, you know, how can we get sex into hands of folks as quickly as possible, so they don't, You know, get even more backlogs. I can help, you know, if we can help with it, and a little straight fee or what not to help with, wrapping up, I'm, you know, I'm open to that, and that was my point. Oh, go ahead.

[05:10:39] CSA Executive Director Tom: No, I just wanted to bring up the, the and I think that, that, that, that's the key is that we were finding that we were getting backlogged in, inputting data. So instead of it being, you know, 197 or whatever it was that, went out initially with the packet, it's actually 238 checks have gone out the door. So, uh, uh, it is actually better, better, uh, uh, data, uh, and that's much more accurate data that what you see uh, as of May 1st was 238 checks out the door.

[05:11:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, the question, then, Dan, the staff, can they allocate some money, too, administrative fee, to get some more, you know, font, or to reach out to subcontract, and those funds available, are they restricted to that, or are they pretty liberal? So, Wayne, you said you did some more research, so, would that be allowable?

[05:11:40] Wayne: Oh, and um, I just offered a thought and and perhaps Tim has some additional information, but what would uh, occur now would be the use of DMR funds um, for, for this additional funding. And, um, I would just want to check with Tim whether, uh, those DMR funds that is flexible enough to provide for, uh, staffing to help facilitate, um, disbursement for some, uh, a rent ready fund.

[05:12:09] Tim: Thank you, Wayne. I am not sure. I don't think that question has ever been posed. So, would have to do a little more research in in regards to administrative costs for the BMR fund. I can suggest that maybe council can give us some direction. Um, we would see this more as a lump sum amount from that 1000000 because I think it'd be hard to take the entire amount and then try to do a percentage because, as you know, we don't have enough, uh, BMR, CDBG funds, uh, we manage this crape together, whatever we can, but we do want to make sure we're, uh, funding CSA to the extent feasible, so if you give us some general direction, we can include that in the contract. After making sure that we can use it for the purpose. Um, and then we can work on a percentage. Um, you know, I know that little programs that are revolving tend to have higher percentages maybe up to 15, if they're one time grants, they tend to be a little bit lower, um, and we can work with CSA, um, on the exact amount.

[05:13:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Hey, we'll move on to counselor Metachek.

[05:13:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, a couple questions. When the city has a project, don't we, um, include, uh, like an administrative project management fee on that, and what's the percent for that?

[05:13:46] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I, I'm gonna go, you know, um, I'm gonna do this from memory. From the last time I was here, I know it's a CIP project, for example. It ranges between 6.5 to 15% um, you know, depending on the, on the project.

[05:14:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay. Um, so, um, I do believe other cities, um, have also been talking about this lately, um, and I think some of them have, uh, also tapped into CSA, so, uh, I was a little bit worried that too many cities are counting on you, um, which was part of my concern about, do we need to help you, you know, get more focus on board to administer our program. Um, but I am curious uh, for the other cities, if staff has been tracking this. Um, to see what they've done in terms of rent really.

[05:14:44] Wayne: Uh, yes, have a part, um, that shows what other cities have done in terms of rent relief. Uh, not so much the administrative cost, but since.

[05:14:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I was just talking about what they've done, not necessarily administrative cost.

[05:15:02] Wayne: Tim should have a background slide, I think.

[05:15:26] Unknown Speaker: Tim, you're muted.

[05:15:38] Tim: Okay, thanks.

[05:15:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, that's very interesting to see. Um, um, you're muted and can you make that slide bigger? We can only see the small part of it.

[05:16:09] Tim: Uh 2 slide. Sorry, I apologize for that. No, it's it's a one slide. Um. Sorry, some technical difficulties, but that is up to date as of yesterday with different cities and there, um. future or present or future actions, which they plan on using for rent relief.

[05:16:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I thought, um, Los Altos allocated some that CSA was working on. Well, Southos, uh, did,

[05:16:50] CSA Executive Director Tom: oh, oh, I'm sorry. If you'd like, I have some answers there. I have some answers.

[05:16:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, no, feel free.

[05:16:59] CSA Executive Director Tom: Yeah, well, also good allocate funding to uh, uh, a Los Altos COVID relief fund. Uh, the funding to CSA was uh, uh, $75,000. Uh, not all of that was for rental assistance, although we do have rental assistance cases that come from Los Altos. Uh, this will help with some of those because we continue to get those Los Altos rental assistance cases, uh, coming to us. Uh, but uh, but obviously that's very separate and it's much, much smaller than, than where we get from Mountain View.

[05:17:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Well, this is great. Nice to see Mountain V at the top there.

[05:17:39] CSA Executive Director Tom: Don't give it at the top. In fact, I will tell you that among the emergency assistance network executive directors, Mountain View is the topic of conversation, how this city has stepped up to the plate and how CSA has pivoted to keep up. We should all be, all of us be really, really proud of that.

[05:18:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks very much. This was very useful.

[05:18:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Hicks.

[05:18:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yep, I am very proud of that. Um, So, I have, I wanted, I have 2 questions. One is, uh, I wanted to hear a little more. I am supportive of uh download uh percentage of some uh going to CSA for staffing resources, but I had also heard you said that you had been using uh some city staff. I wanted to hear a little more about that.

[05:18:37] CSA Executive Director Tom: Sure, we currently are using, maybe weren't not able to. sorry, I'm sorry, council member Hicks. I missed the last part of your question.

[05:18:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was wondering if that, uh, people who, staff members who haven't been able to do their, you know, their normal work from home because it doesn't, wasn't possible or, or have that worked.

[05:19:06] CSA Executive Director Tom: The city could probably talk about the mechanics of how they allocated city staff to us. I know that in the case of both Mountain View and Los Altos, uh, that we utilize them in different ways. Uh, for instance, today, there was a big food distribution at CSA, and we were utilizing city staff with different language capabilities, uh, within the food distribution to help with the flow there. We have city staff that are delivering uh, food from the senior nutrition program to uh, to seniors in the community. Uh, and uh, the Los Alto city staff have been involved with the rental assistance program already. So.

[05:19:51] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And I would just add, if I may, um, Tom, hit it on the head. So what we've done with staff is really look at what community-based organizations may need help. Um, so everything that, that Tom just mentioned, we have staff um, helping with that and also with uh, senior center, the, the food delivery, the lunch, um, the grab and go lunches. Um, we're also continuing to look at any other community based organizations that made me, may need help. And then I mentioned previously, um, we are also using staff to, um, staff the small business call center, um, where we have up to around 18 people who will be calling all of the small businesses that have under 25 um, employees in town and letting them know about the resources that are available. So, we are getting creative, um, with ways that staff can help the community, whether it's through community based organizations or other ways. So, um, yes, that that is definitely part of what we're trying to do.

[05:20:53] Unknown Speaker: And I might add also that we're, um, working on providing translation services and and working with, um, communities and and folks that CSA work with that may need, um, translation into other languages such as, um, Mandarin and Spanish.

[05:21:11] CSA Executive Director Tom: Yeah, and I'll point out, too, that the case managers that we have on staff, we are trilingual in our case management. We do case management in English and Spanish and Mandarin as well.

[05:21:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. My 2nd question is, I wanted to understand whether I, I wanted to know whether I understood it correctly. Uh, uh, Tim, were you saying that if, uh, if we hadn't done this really? If we might have understand that.

[05:21:50] Tim: Can you repeat your question? Yeah, I apologize. You broke up, and I didn't hear the question.

[05:21:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: All right, my internet has been saying it's intermittent. I was wondering whether I understood correctly, um, you're saying that if we hadn't done the research, we might have lost the successoration team, money, did I, did I understand that right or wrong?

[05:22:15] Wayne: I, I think that was, I think that was me um, providing some context of, um, of, Tim had mentioned sort of the, um, um, the dispersement requirements that the, um, SP 341 has and, um, it has some, some, some nuances there, and so I think this gave us the opportunity for folks who, um, haven't, um, plugged in necessarily with successor agency funds as part of our normal funding process to kind of surface in day like that. Um, going forward, will, will, will know that or will have a process to make sure that we're, we're ongoing tracking that, but, um, typically the funding has been with our hasn't packed fees and our BMR fees and not as much of the successor agency funds, they have been utilized for the 250 year for the, um, excellent homelessness response work from the city manager's office. Um, but, but now we've had the opportunity to identify, um, and it really daylight, the, the wider variety of uses of successor agency funds. And, um, and so I think that, that was part of my, the, the, the comments that, that, that I was making that, we know we have successor agency funds. They have largely been used for homelessness response. Um, that's sort of the the nuances of SB 341 that this process allowed us to really understand them. We work with finance to really understand it and then we'll have ongoing monitoring. We'll have sort of more real time, um, um, understanding of what needs to get this 1st and one and fold that into our funding mechanism. I'm going for, for, for, for housing projects.

[05:23:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, good. That sounds good. Thank you.

[05:23:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions from council members? If not, I will uh open this up for public comments. Any members of the public in the attendee box wishing the state, please. raise, hit the raise, hand button,

[05:24:15] City Clerk: um, I have Alex Brown, so I can get you unmooded. There you go.

[05:24:21] Alex Brown: Hey. Uh, okay. How's it going? Hearing about all the different services being handled by the CSA, uh, nutritional systems, care for people experiencing homelessness, senior care. I can't help but think that diverting the efforts of their staff to send affordable housing funds. Landlords is one of the worst things on which we could focus. Our rent suspension and forgiveness program could alleviate the harms to individuals, keeping them in their homes, producing their stress and psychic burden of the ballooning death. And this could free up CSA care workers to care for our neighbors, not landlords bottom line. Thanks.

[05:24:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item? I see, no, uh, city clerk. Do we have any other public comments?

[05:25:06] City Clerk: We do not.

[05:25:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. If not, uh, close public comment and bring it back to council, uh, captain on McAllister?

[05:25:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, I would like to make a motion. That the city appropriate $1000000 So, is this information correct on the, or has it been changed now that the successor agency has been modified? Then maybe you can queue up the, uh, recommendation slide? Because you mentioned successor agents, Funny Agency Fund. I thought you were taking it from another source, and I just want to make sure that we get this right. Did I just go with what I have in front of me, then?

[05:26:03] Unknown Speaker: Excuse me, Councilman Room McAllister, no, there is a different recommendation. 10, you're on mute. Um, and so I, I, I think maybe unmute yourself and, and pull up the new slide with the new recommendation.

[05:26:23] Unknown Speaker: Council member, McAllister, can also read, um, if he is the staff report that was sent to us by Lisa Mutish.

[05:26:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, should have that too?

[05:26:34] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's in the last page.

[05:26:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. Let me pull it up.

[05:26:47] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And John, in the, if you're looking at the agenda blow, it's item 2 is the relevant, um,

[05:26:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh no, it's um. I had only one of those, I think.

[05:27:01] Unknown Speaker: Item 2 has to be changed to... Yeah, item 2 and not changed. Take that. Sorry, I apologize. I've been having some technical difficulties. Let me pull up the recommendation right now. And. There you go.

[05:27:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh okay. Well, it went away. Okay, I'll read it then. Council, I make a motion that the council allocate $10000 from the uncommitted balance of the below market rate. Housing fund to the COVID-19 rental relief program. and direct staff to negotiate a percentage for administrative fees out of the $1 million.

[05:27:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, is there a 2nd Counselor Clark?

[05:28:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll 2nd it. I would just say that, um, you should put a limit, if you're open to it, John, just put in a, they, uh, negotiate a, an administrative fee not to exceed like 15%, um, and they can figure out. what that is, and RT jump in if you think the wording should be different, but.

[05:28:23] Unknown Speaker: I think that's fine. We can work with that. That's right.

[05:28:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great, uh, council member, Clark, uh, edition.

[05:28:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I'll check. to our ability to use those funds. Yeah, if it's possible. yeah.

[05:28:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so there's the motion they come from, McAllister and 2nd advice counselor required was there to discussion for the discussion vice mayor?

[05:28:52] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, I just, uh, I didn't have any questions. I just wanted to, um, think, see if they, especially since it's still, I think, it's not midnight yet, still given Tuesday, and so, uh, hopefully, uh, we'll have, you know, we'll be good, and, and help fully with this, uh, for the allocation. Um, you know, I think that, um, my only comments are, you know, typically I would really hope that we would keep these sponsor of the in our program and projects, but I think we're kind of moving through outstanding times right now. Um, you know, the most important thing, which, I know, Mr. Magnus talks about, which is keeping people have is the most important thing, so I'll be supporting emotion. Thank you.

[05:29:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Ramirez.

[05:29:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to support the motion as well and I just wanted to uh thank everybody for uh consideration of of uh for this idea. I think CSA has done a phenomenal job responding as quickly as possible to, uh, um, to the pandemic, and I think, uh, say staff, you know, equally as much in designing a very flexible program, uh, and they hope that, um, if we're able to provide an administrative fee that it can help, um, scale up the program, even further, uh, so thank you uh, very much.

[05:30:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mr. Hicks. That's number here. Are you...

[05:30:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Sorry, sorry, I was sorry, you can hear me now?

[05:30:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, we can hear you.

[05:30:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I hear you, okay. So I thank everyone involved when that is muted. Um, I will be supporting the motion. Um, it's, it's, uh, kind of a nail writer for me. I'm, I'm, um, sorry to save the money, continually slip away from affordable husband funds. Um, uh, I was reassured to hear that, uh, staff learned a lot about the, and that we have different pots of money, but about the successor agency funds. So I'm just hoping that, that learning that allows it, so that we're not actually, a lot of us have smarter use of those funds, so that we're not actually using affordable housing funds. And then I, I just, I guess my, my other reservation that I wanted to state is that, I think even though we're doing more than, um, any other city of our size, that this just, Most likely does not respond in any way to the magnitude of the needs, you know, we're asking people, because of the pandemic, to shelter in place. But if people don't have a place to shelter in, um, then they can't shelter in place. So it's a, uh, a public health problem and I, I just hope that we can pivot because we can't continually be giving, um, you know, as we've seen from the previous item on our agenda, we can't continually give away, you know, another $1000000 every month. Um, I, I hope we can pivot to other policies. Um, and probably not on the, the city level. Um, other probably, whether it's not mean for better, federal stimulus, or support, like the, I think Tim has a, in state, statewide has a 25% rent reduction, a, a bill that would negotiate a 25% rent reduction, um, or a longer repayment period. I think we have to pivot or or I know supervisor submittian has been holding weekly meetings that we can join on. I think now, that, like that, have kind of a, can have kind of a large magnitude, then we can possibly pull out of our own budget. So the best.

[05:33:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I am going to assume you were done, Counselor Hicks, because you've frozen, so I'm going to go to counselor without a check.

[05:33:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And so that was a great read in. I don't know if anyone else has heard about this, but there's FB 1410 and uh that has been introduced at the state level uh to cover 80% of rent owed during April 1st and October 31st. Um, and it is one of those, um, looks like I got a replace bill, but it certainly looks like this is something that, um, perhaps we want to lay in on. Um, it was introduced in February, but then it was changed in April, and um, as council member Hicks was just saying, you know, the city of Mountain View can't continue to allocate so much to this. Obviously, we want to, we want to keep folks in their homes and we want to help as much as we can. Uh, but this is a huge issue, and so if the state or the federal government could step in, that would be great. So, um, I don't, I don't know if we need to add that to the motion, but I think it'd be great if we look into this, and see if we wanna, you know, send a letter of support, uh, talk to our state representatives, uh, that are interested in this. Um but I think we should absolutely look at it. Um, and I want to get back to the earlier conversation we had, this evening, um, and I want to add at this point, but I think one of the other things we talked about doing is having the city look into whether or not we can, uh, provide a bit more education to the housing providers about, not just the, um, dental addictions, which was, the moratorium on that, um, but their role. and the rent relief program, because we heard that, um, you know, they do play a role and we need them to move fast, so that CSA can move fast. So I want to look to see if we have the ability to help educate them on that part of it. I'm not sure that needs to be part of the former motion, either one of those, but I just want to throw them out there now. Thanks.

[05:35:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor McAllister.

[05:35:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just, uh, hopefully I get the final word, but, uh, Jack Siegel always said Mountain View was a small city with a big heart, and this definitely, uh, demonstrates it, um, yeah, it's never our intent to continually find something, but, Tom knows that, uh, I've always constantly said rapid rehousing, and it's much cheaper. So our $1000000 to take, try to keep as many people in, as much, uh, so wise use of money versus going elsewhere, and to Alex's comment or to other people's that say, hey, we're paying landlords. It's not the landlord's for us, that the fibers came along. We're just trying to help the people that need it, and sometimes I think people are short sighted of what their, what our goal is, and that their biases get in the way of doing the right thing. So, I know we're doing the right thing. Our motivation is right. And if they have, think that we're doing something else, then they need to re-examine their, their reasoning of why we're doing it, because Mauji has always been helping out people. And our motive is, is pure, that we're there to help those who can't help themselves. so. All right, let's go for the roll call and get it done.

[05:36:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, before you do that, I want to add my comments. Thank you, Counselor McAllister. I'm gonna mute you now. I like this ability I haven't used it yet. Um, I just want to thank staff for um, coming up with this, uh, funding source, uh, when we 1st discussed it. I, you know, I was frankly skeptical that we would find another $1000000 but um, that did it and so I'm really quite amazed and um, and also pleased um, at, at this proposal. Um of course I'll support it. Um, I, I do want to thank CSA for all, and Mr. Myers for all of your hard work, and I know that you are working, you know, that, that, you can work, um, and, um, so, yeah, I would be happy to support a administrative, see if we can do that, um, to help you if you can step up to little things more quickly. Um, I was gonna add that, um, you know, when we 1st discuss this, um, idea of rent relief. Um, you know, my, I knew, but I think we all knew we wouldn't be able to help every single person, the need is so great. Um, but my hope is that we could add to the pot and um, you know, there should, there, there should be some assistance coming from the federal government and and the states and so forth and so by cobbling all that together. I hope is that we could help as many folks as we can. And I am proud that we've done what was done and yes, we have a big heart of the city. Um, I know this can't continue, um, but, you know, we, I think it was important for us to do what we could, um, in terms of the, comments of, um, Alex, the public comment. Um, I prefer to look for solutions that are not gonna be punitive to, you know, one side or another. frankly, I'm, you know, just another, uh, I, I would like for us to move on from that, that, that's been going on for, you know, a couple of years now in this community, and, um, I prefer to look for solutions that, you know, can help, all sides, and in regards to, like, uh, rent forgiveness, my understanding is that's not legally possible, and I'm not gonna do something, that, that would put the city in legal jeopardy, but more than that, I think. you know, as Counselor McAllister said, it's not, you know, anyone's fault that this happened. And so I prefer not to try look at ways to punish one side over another. So I felt that this was a very, um, you know, a positive way to support, um, and help folks in need. And um, so that's why I'm more than happy to do this. As far as, um, the funding, being, uh, taken for, for the housing projects. Uh, yes, that's true, but I'll also say over time, we had many years where we had lots of funds and no projects to fun. There's actually council members, Siegel, to help and ask, you know, um, or say that the money doesn't do any good if it's just sitting in the, uh, in a bank account and actually loses value. So, um, you know, uh, that's something to be mindful of, and frankly, I think when it comes to housing projects, um, they're expenses, they help a few people, um, but they take many, many years, and I have a sense that, you know, the housing market is gonna change, and we may not see a lot of housing projects coming forward in the next, during this recession, and so rather than having funding fit. In a bank account, you know, I'd rather use it um, where it's most needed right now. So, um, with that, uh, I I fully support this notion, and if there's no other discussion, I would ask the city click for a real call vote, please. Thank you.

[05:41:02] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[05:41:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[05:41:05] City Clerk: Council member Hicks. Council member. Council member Hicks?

[05:41:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[05:41:17] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek. Council member McAllister.

[05:41:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah?

[05:41:22] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[05:41:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[05:41:25] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Kameh.

[05:41:27] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah,

[05:41:27] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[05:41:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I...

[05:41:31] City Clerk: Thank you. We got your vote, yes, verdicts. Thank you. So, listen, passive 70 with no extensions, and that concludes this item.

[05:41:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Thank you, Steph. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. That would be good best of the evening. Uh, we'll move on to item 8, cancel the committee reports. Are there any supports from customers? Yep. Oh, cancel number, man a check.

[05:42:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, I couldn't get over to that, so I had to raise my hand fast enough. Um, 2 things. Um, I, I do want to follow up on FD, 1410, um, and I think it'd be great if the mayor, um, you know, could take a look at that and either take it to the cities association for support, um, or, um, if we, as a council, could send a letter of support. Um, I think it's consistent with our policy, so it wouldn't have to come back to the council for action. Um, but I will leave that up to you to decide, but I think it'd be great to take a look at that. I have no idea if it'll go anywhere, but if it did, that would be awesome. Um, and the 2nd thing is, um, we had a meeting of the legislative committee of the Santa Clara Santa Cruz County roundtable, and we are sending in our, um, inputs on a proposed rule regarding the noise levels for supersonic airplanes, uh, when they take off and land. We think they should be quieter. That's it, thanks.

[05:43:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And before we move on, so, city managers uh should, what should we do with SP 14? Should we have staff look at it and if it's, uh, aligned with our, consoles will just go ahead and sign a letter of support?

[05:43:31] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I think that's the thing to do, that's it's um already in the works, so great, thank you.

[05:43:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, uh, counseling the counselor.

[05:43:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, um, I just want to make a, my view got some uh great publicity when we sent out that we were doing the small business uh relief plan, and uh, I was approached by Telemundo and KTVU, and I did TV interviews, uh, support, you know, just discussing what we did. I'm listening. I look at all your faith and you're all laughing, so you're all getting tired. But, uh, kind of one dope. So, um, it was great too that we got the publicity and was able great to, uh, Be proud of Mountain View and tell them what the great things we were doing. So, if you had a chance, it was last Friday, and, um, it was absolutely fabulous. I was, it was my honor to represent the city of Mount View.

[05:44:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for being such a wonderful spokesperson, Council member, McCaster. Anyone else with reports?

[05:44:41] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I just had a quick one, a couple, um, uh, last Friday, I had another meeting regarding Silicon Valley Strong, the other funding, raising, um, effort, and, um, so, they made, originally raised the $11000000 that most of that was extended, uh, through Sacred Heart community services and destination home. Um, they reported out that 70 pipe 5% of that funding was for San Jose, and so they've, um, learned and they heard from other parts of the county. Um, and so I know Mr. Myers has been on some conversa- with in some conversations with uh, the organizers and um, there's actually on Friday gonna be a call. Um, I'm happy to. I think I can send that around, but um, they've raised another 14000000 the total 250000 and the 2nd round they uh, would like to um, make a better effort at making it more regional. And their focus is gonna be on, um, folks who would not get assistance from other sources like the federal stimulus package or the steak. Um, so, um, they're also looking to expand um, the different nonprofit agencies that they want to work with to get that funding out to um, those individuals who wouldn't get uh, assistance otherwise. So, um, I think, um, I'm hopeful that we will have more of our Mountain View residents, um, served. Um, the other, uh, issue, uh, was involved in a, um, conversation with county supervisors, travels and civilian, um, with all of the, uh, at least 10 of the mayors from, um, the 15 cities. I think I reported out that, um, we've had some conversations about testing and the, uh, interests and having more testing sites, uh, particularly in North County, uh, we wrote a letter, died by all 15 layers to the county, asking for guidance on that. As a result, we had this meeting, um, and then, uh, if you may have come across the board of supervisors, uh, meeting today, they wrote out a plan for, um, testing. Uh, there's, uh, uh, designated as point person, uh, former public health officer, Marty Femsterchide, is the type person for testing. Um, they reported out that they now have capacity to do the 4000 tests a day, which was their goal, um, but the issue now is actually getting people tested. So, um, the, uh, agreement was that we will be meeting weekly now with the county, uh, with supervisor travel, and this next meeting on Friday, we expect to talk about communications to get the word out and get the message out. So, um, yeah, I, I think there's some movement there on the testing issue, which will hopefully get us out of sheltering in place, um, sooner than later. So with that. See anyone else? Is there a closed session report?

[05:48:04] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no post session report tonight.

[05:48:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And then we adjourn this meeting at 1213 AM and the next city council meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 630 PM. Thank you very much everyone. Stay safe and healthy and we will see you soon.

• ← Previous
• Next →