May 19, 2020 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:05:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to call the city council meeting for May 19th, 2020 to order. And I would start with an announcement. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order in 2920 dated March 17, 2020. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no fiscal meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live, may do so at mountain view.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountain view.gov slash YouTube, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public can provide oral public comments during the public comment period for an item by signing up at mountainview.gov slash CC underscore speakers. Any emails received by 5 PM today were forwarded to the city council. Emails 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. All votes will be taken by roll call vote. Now I'd like to ask the city clerk to proceed with low call.

[00:06:23] City Clerk: Thank you, Council member Clark.

[00:06:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:06:25] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:06:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:06:28] City Clerk: Count some of our bad check.

[00:06:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:06:31] City Clerk: Council number McAllister.

[00:06:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Right here.

[00:06:34] City Clerk: Remember Ramirez.

[00:06:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:06:36] City Clerk: Vice, Mayor, come May.

[00:06:38] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here, here,

[00:06:39] City Clerk: Abby Koga.

[00:06:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here. Thank you. Thank you. All members are present. So we will move on to, um, actually, before we go to the consent calendar, um, it's not on the agenda, but, um, in light of the new orders from the county, uh, uh, we were asked to have a city manager, um, welcome to, um, give an update on uh, COVID-19. So welcome city manager.

[00:07:05] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you very much, Mayor. Yes, appreciate the time just to give everyone an update on the changes that will be in place starting this Friday with a new modified order. So with this new modified order, it essentially brings us into phase 2. of the 4 phases that the governor has outlined for the state. And the additional activities that will be allowed starting this Friday are that retail stores may be reopened for sales, but only for curbside or outside pickup or by delivery. So customers are not allowed to enter into the retail stores. Those stores must have direct access to sidewalks or parking lots for those pickups. And of course, face masks are required for those businesses, both for employees and customers. And businesses that support retail stores, such as manufacturing, warehouses, or any logistical operations may also resume. In terms of the car rates or birthday brigades, as they've also been called, those are now permitted, as long as social distancing protocols are maintained. And outdoor museums, historical sites and publicly accessible gardens are also allowed to reopen on Friday, but visitors are restricted to the outdoor areas. And the public health officer essentially indicated that this move towards the next phase of reopening is really possible due to the progress that we've made regarding containment of the virus, but they also emphasize that residents are still required by the health order to stay at home as much as possible and follow all of the precautions that have helped our region, make this progress, to slow the spread of the virus. So we will continue to shelter in place. And where our face coverings and do everything that we have been doing over the last several weeks. And then lastly, I also wanted to provide a really quick update on the together MV portal. Um, just because I wanted to note the um, increased number of donations that we received. So as of today, we have received 625 donations at approximately $121,000. So I did want to acknowledge that generosity by our neighbors and the members of our community and contributing to the rent relief and small business efforts. And then I will have a much more comprehensive update at the next council meeting, but I did want to at least share the changes that will be in place this Friday as well as the new donations to the portal. So with that, that, that's all I have. I appreciate it, Mayor.

[00:09:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from council members, Councilman McAllister?

[00:10:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, thank you. I just had a comment I wanted to make was the city manager was making an update and last week she updated about a lot of the stuff we're doing for the homeless and the RVs and so forth. And so, Recently, we received a letter from, um, an advocacy group that represents 3 advocacy groups, State, and they do great work, and I appreciate that they do go out there and support and, uh, work for the underprivileged, underserved, disability rights and so forth like this. But, I don't think they fully understand what Mountain View as a city is doing for our populations of the RVs, the homeless, the needy, and they start off their letter writing, being right to express concern related to the treatment of. And it bothers me a little bit because they, they didn't take, I don't think they took the time to realize the effort our council is doing how much money we're committing to it, the time of staff that's involved with it, working with the CSA and working with the county, they should be sending us a letter saying, thank you for what you're doing. We appreciate it. Here's how you could tweak it. But instead they come out and say, express the concerns. I know these times are frustrating for a lot of people, but I wanted to defend our city, our CSA in the county for reaching out and taking steps that other cities haven't done. I'm curious if this group had sent a letter to other cities to saying, what are you doing for the RV people? What are you doing for the homeless? And are you doing as much as Mountain View? So I just wanted to bring that out to say, thank you to my counsel for doing things, and for outside investigate groups, get your facts together before you write us a letter. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[00:11:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I appreciate, Council member McAllister, your comments. I agreed. All right. Thank you then. we will move on to our consent calendar These items will be approved by one mission unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless accounts member requests otherwise. Would any number of the council like to pull an item? Yes, council member met a check?

[00:12:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I just want to comment on item 3.2. Did you want me to do that?

[00:12:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yes, let me see if anyone else has any other uh, items to pull. Nope. If not, then yes, if you could, um, make your comments, that'd be great.

[00:12:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I wanted to comment on this item. We have been addressing a lot of very complex housing issues, some of which have been driven by new legislation. And I just want to make sure that every once in a while we check in on our outside legal help to make sure we're getting the best help we can find. Um, and then we don't just let inertia sort of carry us uh, in the path we are already on. Um, I think it's always a good idea to check in and with the market and make sure we're doing what's right for the city of Mountain View. Um, I know the city attorney and I are on the same page. We had a great conversation about this earlier today. Um, but, um, I just want to point out that, um, It's always good to check in and make sure we've got the best legal help we can find. Thank you.

[00:13:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you, and actually I have to open this up for public comments. So is, and if any member of the public on the line would like to provide comment on an item on the consent calendar, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. So are any members, attendees, and attendee box, interested in speaking on an item on consent, if you can hit the raise button, please, if you'd like, to speak. And I don't see anyone. Uh, city clerk, do we have any other public comment?

[00:14:05] City Clerk: Uh, we do not have the consent calendar.

[00:14:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great. Then I will close public comment and um, bring it back to council, council member Ramirez.

[00:14:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Uh, I'll go ahead and move uh, the consent calendar, including uh, item 3.3 adopt a resolution of intention to vacate public easements at 1860 to 2159 Landings Drive to be read in title only, further reading waived, uh, and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for June 23rd, 2020, and I think that's the only item that requires, um, Uh formal reading for a resolution.

[00:14:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And council member Hicks.

[00:14:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just gonna 2nd.

[00:14:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So we have a motion by Council member Ramirez 2nd by Council member Hicks, Council member McAllister. Do you have comments?

[00:15:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, no comments. I just want to clarify that now I will be voting double on 3.2. And yes, on the rest.

[00:15:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Um, If are there any other comments? If not. I'll take a roll call vote, please.

[00:15:25] City Clerk: Council member Clark.

[00:15:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yep.

[00:15:27] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[00:15:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:15:30] City Clerk: Council member Mattachek.

[00:15:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:15:33] City Clerk: Council member of McAllister.

[00:15:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, except for 3.2? No.

[00:15:38] City Clerk: Thank you. Council member Ramirez.

[00:15:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[00:15:42] City Clerk: Ice Mayor Kame.

[00:15:43] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[00:15:44] City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[00:15:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I, thank you.

[00:15:47] City Clerk: Thank you. So I should carry 7 0 with no abstensions except for item 3.2 which has one no vote.

[00:15:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. We'll move on now to. Oil communications from the public. 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. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item? If so, please click the raise hand button if you're in the attendee box. Anyone machine to speak on a knowledge on the item. You don't see any, City clerk, do we have any other public comment on non-agenda items?

[00:16:41] City Clerk: May I'm just looking for one attendee who registered, for not agenda items, but I do not see. Um, But I do not see her on the line, so.

[00:16:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No thank you. Thank you. There's 3 colors, uh, phone callers, uh, are any of those possibly?

[00:17:02] City Clerk: I don't have the information about the phone callers, but if there is someone on the line by phone, they would be to press star 9 if they'd like to speak now.

[00:17:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, last call. If not, I will close public comment or oral communications and move on to item 5 public hearing. 5.one, the Rowhouse development at 1555 West Middlefield Road, in our presenter, I believe, is Margaret Neto and Stephanie Williams. welcome.

[00:17:41] Margaret Neto: Good evening, mayor, and the council members. My name is Margaret Neto. The item before you tonight is 1555 West Meadowfield Road, a rowhouse project.

[00:17:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, Ms. Neto, before you um, continue. I did have an announcement on this project. Um, We are offering Spanish translation, which is available in Zoom, and I'd like to ask Elena Garcia from our community outreach team to make a brief announcement about the translation.

[00:18:17] Elena Garcia: Buen estabes, mi nombre, selena Garcia, y voya, proportionales, interpretación, si esque lo coupa, ni estan en zoom, por favor vayan al baj de supantaya, ibana ver una bandera, para Español, por favor, o prima la, y podemos a seguila presentación en Español. Gracias.

[00:18:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And I also need to ask, um, if any of the council members wish to make any disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits, I will disclose that I have met with the applicant? Any other council members? Yes, council member McAllister.

[00:18:55] Councilmember John McAlister: I have talked to them on the phone?

[00:18:57] Unknown Speaker: Yes, no contact with them also.

[00:18:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, council member Hicks.

[00:19:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I met with the applicant via Zoom.

[00:19:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council member Ramirez.

[00:19:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I also uh, met with the applicant via Zoom.

[00:19:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you, council member, Mattachek.

[00:19:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I traded email with the applicant.

[00:19:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Anyone else? Yes, council number, Clark.

[00:19:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I had a phone call with them.

[00:19:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Oh. Nice to meet you. Did you have a disclosure?

[00:19:35] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I did. I want to disclose that I met with the applicant via Zoom. And visited the site.

[00:19:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. All right. Sorry about that. Miss Neto, please continue.

[00:19:45] Margaret Neto: Thank you. Sure, um, again, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Margaret Neto. The item before you tonight is 1555 West Middlefield Road, a rowhouse project. Possibly 5.44 acre site is located on the south side of West Middleton Road, between Bourbon Street and San Pierre Way. The site is currently developed with 2 story apartment buildings consisting of 116, 116 units known as the metal wood apartments. The oxygen plan amendment. I mean, general plan designation, is medium density residential, and the zoning designation is R3 multiple family residential. The proposed project is to redevelop, um, the site with 115 ownership world house units. The proposed layout is configured to provide an activated street presence with individual, um, front entries along the West Middlefield, San Ramone, and San Pi. And a common open space for residents in the approximately center of the site. Pedestrian, um, 3 block connections provided from Middlefield Road to San Ramon Avenue. Here's an architectural rendering of the site from Middlefield Road. The repose band shell architecture of the development includes stucco, exterior finishes, tile roasts, metal railings, balconies, units are differentiated through massing, varied roof forms, projections, offsets, push elements, and exterior materials and colors. Besides, zoning designation is R3 dash 2 allows the maximum of 115 units on the site. Well, the German designation prescribes a range of 13 to 5 units to the acre. Actual density of individual sites is just determined by the R3 density in the zoning code. Which is consistent with the general plan density range. The proposed development complies with all the robot standards, and no exceptions are requested. Staff has been asked to clarify. How secret addresses the issue of displacement under the population and housing section of the initial study. We wanted to know 3 key issues in this in this analysis. Sequel analyzes the physical impacts on the environment resulting from the project. And is not purely socioeconomic impacts. The 2nd issue is whether there is a need, there needs to be a threshold of significance for each item studied. And how the state determines whether there is a significant impact. The agency has substantial discretion to decide, all kinds of thresholds are most appropriate for its jurisdiction. And for any particular project. It can formally adopt threshold, or it could use them on a case by case basis. Official significance can be quantitative or qualitative, and in this case, the issue was discussed qualitatively. In the case of displacement, we review 2 issues. Consistent with the analysis analysis review, the potential of this project, to displace the substantial number of the existing population. Full reduced units, such that it would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The product would reconstruct just one less unit than the housing it would replace. Therefore, the reduction in one unit was considered. Was considered was not considered a substantial amount. Secondly, per se, the analysis also looked at the potential other project. To displace existing population to the extent, it would necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere. Based on the amount of rental housing currently available in the city, including the number of cess FRA units. Analysis concluded that the displacement would not necessitate construction of housing elsewhere. Therefore, the environmental analysis determined that with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, All impacts of proposed project would be mitigated to less than a significant level. The 115 existing department units on site are covered under the city's community stabilization, and fair rent housing, and tenant relocation assistance, goodness. The applicant is also offering the enhanced trio benefits, which is beyond what is required. Neighborhood outreach meetings were held on December 11, 2019 and January 21st, 2021. The project was reviewed by the DRC on January 22nd, 2020 for the DRC providing recommendation for approval. Provisions were made to the project based on DRC direction, and are reflected in the proposed plans. The project was reviewed by the zoning administrator and subdivision committee on February 12, 2020, Where it was recommended for approval. Therefore, on this slide, Africa commends approval of this project. That concludes my presentation. The outpant is also here, um, to make a presentation as well. Thank you.

[00:25:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Ms. Neto. And yes, um, I believe, Mr. John Hickey from Summer Hill Holmes, um, is the applicant speaker. And um, We will have up to 10 minutes. Um, Unfortunately, we're not able to uh, show the time on the screen when we share the screen so that our city clerk will let you know when time is up. So welcome, Mr. Hickey. Please, feel free to start when you're ready. Can you please? There you go.

[00:26:18] John Hickey: Good evening, mayor and council members, are you able to hear me?

[00:26:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[00:26:24] John Hickey: You are? Thank you. Sorry, still getting used to the technology. Um, Good evening, Mayor of Dakoga, Vice Mayor of May, and council members. I'm John Hickey, director of Entitlements and Planning for Summer Hill homes. I'm pleased to present our proposed project this evening and request your approval. To begin, I'd like to thank Margaret Netto for her professionalism and expertise on this project. She's been a tremendous pleasure to work with throughout. We're pleased to bring you a new ownership housing project that's fully consistent with the general plan, the zoning standards and the rowhouse guidelines. The site's in a great location, just a short bike ride, the major employers in North Bay Shore, East Wisman, and downtown Castro Street. In addition, for young families, the site is just a short walk from Thorakoff and Crintenden schools. As Margaret mentioned, the project will provide 115 new row homes for individual ownership. The site plan is designed to be pedestrian friendly with front doors and stoops, facing shared landscape areas, or facing outward to the neighborhoods. In addition, the project will feature a central quarter acre open space with built-in grills, casual seatings, and shade trellises to give residents a place to gather. We believe this is the right time to redevelop the site. The existing apartment complex was built nearly 50 years ago. And the buildings, although well maintained, are nearing the end of their useful life. Like many older apartment complexes, the units don't have fire sprinklers. The complex was built before the California Energy Code was even adopted, so the buildings lack modern energy efficiency. The water pipes are old and corroded, and the owners must regularly hunt down and repair leaks. The boilers, too, are old and far from the units. So water goes to waste while tenants wait for hot water to get to the tap. And the buildings need costly earthquake safety upgrades. In addition, the existing apartment complex doesn't meet current requirements for guest parking. In fact, it doesn't have any guest parking. Unlike the proposed project, which will have 44 guest spaces. And I also want to point out that the existing complex has Ford driveways along West Middlefield, and the proposed project won't have any, which, in discussions with staff, staff was supportive of, because there's a bike lane along West Middlefield, and it will make the elimination of the driveways will make the bike lane much safer. One of the city's general plan goals, as you know, is to provide more opportunities for home ownership. This project will help the city meet that goal with a mix of new 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Excuse me. Every home. has a 2 car garage with space for bike storage, and the project will also provide 44 parking spaces for guests. plus 20 guest spaces for bikes. The project will also include a new public path across the site for the convenience of the neighbors in Rex Manor. In addition, the project will contribute more than $5000000 to the city's affordable housing fund. Our project features the latest in environmentally sustainable construction. We've made the project 100% electric, meaning no natural gas heating, and all water heaters and other appliances will operate on clean electric power. The project has been designed to achieve a rating of greenpoint silver. Every garage will have either a level 2 EV charger or B level 2 EV ready to meet future demand. will also install solar PV panels on all the buildings. We recognize that tenant displacement is a concern. And we work closely with the city's consultant, ARWS, to fully implement the city's relocation assistance program. In fact, we've gone substantially beyond what the ordinance requires. We've increased the income limit by $5000 so more households can qualify for assistance. We're providing more than $8,300 to each special circumstances household, even more than what will be required for future projects under the new Trao Amendments. We've given notice to all households a full year in advance of the date that they need to move out. And we've waived the 30 day notice requirement so that residents can move as soon as they find a new apartment. With the help of ARWS, we're also providing one-on-one assistance for households that need a little extra help looking for a new apartment. In addition, in response to the uncertainties associated with the COVID virus, We've decided to offer all residents a 3 month grace period, which will allow tenants in good standing to remain until February 1, 2021. Now the grace period will have a significant impact on the cost in the schedule for the project. But we're offering it in response to the comments and concerns expressed by the council and the community. Our project offers new, environmentally sustainable ownership housing for the city. And we're delivering it with a level of care for the tenants that substantially exceeds the city's requirements for the project. We respectfully request approval of our zoning compliant project this evening. Our consultants and the Summerhill team are available to answer your questions. Thank you.

[00:32:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Bring us back to council, uh, for questions. Are there any council members with questions for either staff or the applicant? Council member Hicks.

[00:32:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, this sorry, had trouble with the mute. Um, this is a question for staff. Is there any way that this place tenants can be given priority on our wait list? How would that work?

[00:32:41] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to answer that question. I do know that the council in the past. Sorry, um, the council in the past has indicated that they would like um, preference given to BMR tenant. I mean, 2 tenants who have been, uh, displaced. And I could, I don't know precisely how that's going to work, but we can certainly give, uh, the council, um, uh, send them an email, uh, letting them know, but I do know that we folded that into our BMR lineup. Um.

[00:33:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. And someone McAllister?

[00:33:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thanks. Uh, how many bedrooms? We're at the old apartment complex and how many bedrooms are going to be now with the new townhouses.

[00:33:33] John Hickey: Uh, Sorry, Capsule, can remember McAllister. I am still not sure whether when I'm audible and when I'm not. Uh, the, uh, existing project has 92, um, one bedroom apartments and, uh, 16, 2 bedroom apartments, uh, for a total of approximately 140. And the, uh, the new, um, proposed project will have a combination of 3 and 4 bedroom homes, 374 total bedrooms.

[00:34:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So we're more than Dublin, the number of bedrooms. Okay. And this is either for the applicant or for the staff. Uh, I received some emails. People were concerned that the housing market, rental market was hard to approach or get into. And I made some inquiries, but I wonder if staff or the applicant have heard, as a, now that, uh, shelter and place to settle down for a while and they relax the, uh, requirements for showing apartments has the rental market, comeback sort of, somewhat back to normal on showing units and renting units.

[00:34:44] Unknown Speaker: I'll respond to that council member McAllister. Um, I did get in touch with the developer and we've talked um, with housing staff as well. Um, and to see what we're seeing uh, with with our, um, uh, consultants who help with relocation. What they're indicating is that, um, yes, because, um, of the COVID issue, many tenants themselves have are not venturing out. Um, however, um, to go and look at apartments. However, uh, uh, the apartment rent owners are offering virtual, um, tours, just like the real estate agents are, um, and that's currently in place. Um, also, we've heard from the developer that summer may be a good time to look for rentals because obviously, um, with the, with the new instructions for the shelter in place. Um, we will probably see more people venturing out and looking at rental apartments, and they also note that rents are coming down and they're down about 5% currently.

[00:35:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh, I also, uh, Kevin, maybe you talked with Kathy, uh, that we had 55 heritage trees there, and I know from your arbors report, you're replacing 14 trees with 36 inch box, and I was wondering, what are the possibilities trying to get this property up to full foliage that you would increase the number of 36 inch box, gallon boxes to. accelerate the canopy.

[00:36:22] John Hickey: Council member McAllister, it's a good question. So I don't know if you're aware, but currently there aren't any street trees along the perimeter of the site, along the frontage, on any of the 3 public streets. Um, uh, we've taken a look at uh, your request and uh, we're pleased to be able to say that, yes, we would recommend uh, upsizing the street trees along the frontage to 36 inch box. That actually 63 trees would be upsized. Now, I would say that we'll need to confirm with public works and the city arborist to make sure that those trees will all be won't conflict with the utilities when they go in, but we anticipate that in most cases it will be possible to install the plant.

[00:37:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, great. That's greatly appreciated. Okay. And, um, this is for staff, and it's sort of, this brings up something, but it's not applicable really to this project, but it reminds me of the paid parking loop fees. Because they're putting in the same units or equivalent, they don't have to pay any parking loop fees. But I know we brought this up on some other projects. Will that particular item, Parkaloofies, be coming back to us in the future? I thought we were going to be discussing that fairly soon.

[00:37:35] Unknown Speaker: Uh, council member. It will be coming to the council after the summer. I don't have the specific month, but I do know that, um, CSD is working on it, um, along with, um, community development.

[00:37:53] Councilmember John McAlister: That's my question. you.

[00:37:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, good, I counselormanachek, and then counsel member Ramirez.

[00:38:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So um, a lot of my questions have been asked. So just one more on the trees. In the staff report, it says the tree canopy coverage is going from 16% to 18%. Um, But, um, I was wondering, does that include the street trees or not? And if it doesn't, what would the tree canopy coverage be if the street trees were included?

[00:38:27] Unknown Speaker: Actually, it does include the street trees, and it would be 20% because, um, at full maturity. The shoes would be 18% and then there's still 2%, um, of the existing trees. So the total canopy will be 20%.

[00:38:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So it's going from 16 to 20.

[00:38:48] Unknown Speaker: That's correct.

[00:38:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. That's it.

[00:38:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. That's where Ramirez. Can there?

[00:38:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, just a few quick questions. So, um, under, I know the state law allows conversion of garages into ADUs without replacement parking. And I recall, there was, there was a limitation. So under state law, how many garages would would hypothetically or theoretically be able to convert into ADUs.

[00:39:23] Unknown Speaker: Um, Stephanie, do you have that information? If not, we might have to confer council member and get back to you.

[00:39:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: In a in a few minutes?

[00:39:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes, let me let me look that up and I'll get back to you.

[00:39:37] John Hickey: May I may I speak for just a moment on that subject?

[00:39:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, if you have an answer,

[00:39:44] John Hickey: I do actually, because um, the question was put to us and and uh, and we looked into it, um, because it was, it was something we did not have an immediate answer to. In fact, 1st of all, just so you know, we always include in our CCNRs, a requirement that the garages be reserved for vehicles. They not be used for storage, uh, so that, um, They, you'll be able to fit 2 cars in the garage at all times. Now, I think what council member Ramirez, um, was concerned about is that, um, despite that in the context of single family homes, um, that isn't necessarily um, a restriction that can be enforced, but in the context of row homes, such as these, that provision in the CCRs is fully enforceable, so there won't be an opportunity, even if there won't be an opportunity to convert the, um, sorry, it's not just, yes, so there won't be an opportunity to convert the garages into ADUs and lose those parking spaces.

[00:40:44] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I follow-up question, that might, I remember, um, this, this came up in the planning commission hearing regarding the EDU, um, modifications, and I think a planning commissioner had asked in the written questions to staff, uh, in advance of the meeting, whether the CCNRs would be able to, to preempt state law, and I, I thought the answer was no. So, can we confirm whether the provision in the CC and ours would actually be able to prevent a homeowner from converting a garage into an ADU?

[00:41:21] Unknown Speaker: Council member Ramirez, I can likely answer that question. I think the answer to the question about whether the city can require. That in the CCNRs, the answer is no. The city cannot require it, because the city cannot require replacement parking for ADUs, um, when they're converted. However, if the owners themselves choose to restrict in their own CCNRs and prevent garages from being converted into ADUs. As a private agreement. That's a separate issue and not something the city would require. And I think that's what Mr. Hickey is talking about.

[00:42:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I appreciate that, but it's different from my recollection of what staff had shared with the planning commission. Um, I think it'd be worth corroborating because they're, theoretically, you know, there may be a pretty, pretty significant parking impact if. I can't remember if it's 20 or 25% of the units would be able to convert to ADUs, but that, that would be, I, it would be significant to know whether the CC and Rs, if they're privately developed, would be able to preempt state law. Um, separate from that. Um, so I was looking at condition number 100, which I think pertains to the bicycle pedestrian, through block connection, and I think that language is intended to, uh, prohibit, so what I, I think I mentioned this to Steph in another context. I, uh, there was a development near where I grew up, that used to allow public access, and then the HOA installed a gate, and wasn't, and the public access was, was prohibited, there was nothing the, the city can do. And so I was hoping you could walk me through the language for condition 100 to make sure that doesn't happen with this development.

[00:43:18] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, um, I think if you don't mind, we're going to confer on that as well as the preemption of state law that would prevent CCNRs and get back to you, council member Ramirez. Um, I do understand that has been some additional guidance from our consulting attorney on the CCNR issue.

[00:43:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, uh, Thank you. and then last question while you're looking into those. Um, and I, I, I appreciate that it's speculative and very difficult to know with any level of confidence what's going to happen over the next few months, but in the event, there is a 2nd wave, and, you know, a, a very restrictive shelter in place order is reinstated around, um, the, uh, proposed, um, move out deadline. Um, does staff or, or the applicant have any means of accommodating the, uh, the, the tenants? So I guess maybe another way of thinking about this is, if a shelter in place order were to be reinstated shortly before the move out date, would the move out date persists nonetheless or would there be some accommodation? Um, to allow some additional time or how exactly would that work?

[00:44:40] Unknown Speaker: Um, I would I would want to confer with the city attorney on this issue. Um, I don't know if he's able to answer it or if we need to take it, um, and and discuss it before providing a response.

[00:44:55] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Uh, yeah, this is Christian, the city attorney. It's difficult to speculate. and I want to be very, um, specific about what your question is focused on. Are you referring to the February 1st move out date, council member Ramirez?

[00:45:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, well, I'm agnostic on the move out date. It's, um, be, I mean, and again, appreciated that it's, it's speculative, but in the event, there is an, uh, a restrictive shelter and place order, um, you know, shortly in advance of the, the anticipated move out date. Does, does that put the move out date on hold? You know, is there some accommodation for the tenants or does the move out date persist and the tenants, if they're still in the complex, would they still need to move out?

[00:45:48] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: You know, this is all predicated on, uh, the inability for the city to require any, uh, accommodation beyond that, which is required by the trail. So the, uh, in this instance, the developers voluntarily offering a grace period, uh, to February 1st to move out. There's no, uh, ability for the city to require, uh, any additional condition or any additional accommodation in that regard in terms of, If there's a future, uh, order that that would not be something we could require in a condition.

[00:46:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's all, thank you.

[00:46:37] Unknown Speaker: And I also have an answer to your 1st question, which was, um, it's up to 25% of the number of existing multifamily units with a minimum of one. Council member Ramirez, I also wanted to, um, respond to the 2nd question you had, and that was, if private CC and ours can be preempted by state law, um, and I stand corrected, um, we have received advice from our, Um, council uh, on housing that, um, even private agreements cannot, um, preempt state law.

[00:47:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, sorry, just to clarify, that would mean that up to 25% of the garages could be converted into 80 use without having to replace parking.

[00:47:28] Unknown Speaker: That is correct.

[00:47:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from council numbers? If not, I will open this up for public comment. And if you, um, if you're a member of the public. In the attendee box, and would like to provide public comment, please, hit the raise, but raise hand button at the bottom. And if you are on the phone, please press star 9. And let's see, I see, one, two, three, four, five, six. City Clerk, do you have any other public comment? Um, just so I can get a sense of how many to figure out time allotment?

[00:48:20] City Clerk: Yes, sir. I, I have about 3 I, 2 emails, um, possibly 3 emails here.

[00:48:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so 246. So let's give everyone 2 minutes. And I will start with Alex Nunez and let me unmute you. If I can do that. Uh, hold on a second. There we go. Alex Nunez, you are on.

[00:48:48] Alex Nuñez: Awesome. Uh, can anyone hear me?

[00:48:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I don't. Can you speak a little louder, please?

[00:48:54] Alex Nuñez: Sure thing. Uh, so, I have a, I bought a law book uh, at one point uh, for California planning law and all that stuff and on page one, chapter one. It says the legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the city to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. It's the very 1st sentence. Um, in the Planned Unit development as well, uh, section G, uh, also, uh, describes that the permit shall only be granted if the operating characteristics do not interfere with the, uh, you know, human health and safety. I'm paraphrasing, but Christian will probably be able to, you know, tell me if I'm misleading myself on any of these points here. But, you know, I, I really see this as a choice here. This is not something that, you know, hands are tied and there's no responsibility that can be taken for this, uh, to the contrary. I actually think that. Right now, what we're seeing, if the role of the council is to protect the general welfare of current residents and of all residents, what we're seeing is the cost of redevelopment is pushing an overtaxed BMR system, where we're having to inquire if we can get displaced people onto our waiting list. We don't have units. $5 million, unfortunately, is not going to be enough to turn on the units that we need. Um, really, this is, this is the cost of development being pushed onto the people. Um, and now we're about to displace people in the middle of an uncertain time during this virus crisis. Um, you know, that that's really not acceptable. Um, it really feels and and you guys definitely have a choice and you haven't done anything. I'm not pushing any kind of like blame or anything, but, you know, when we talk about advocacy groups and about them knowing the facts, what are the facts? The facts are that there's not enough housing. The council in the past has taken decisions that have displaced people over and over again. Um, and so right now we, I ask you to please consider uh, protecting the health of the current residents who are living here. You have a choice, you don't have to approve the project. Please protect people who are living here today. Um, it would really um, change the narrative. Thank you.

[00:51:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We're going to Bruce England. Me, see if I can unmute you. All right, I'm having a little trouble unmuting you. click, would you be able to unmute?

[00:51:29] Unknown Speaker: Can't seem to.

[00:51:32] Bruce England: Can you hear me now?

[00:51:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[00:51:34] Bruce England: I am muted myself. I had that control somehow or other, so. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive. for Mountain Dew Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We submitted a letter, a comment letter, so I won't reach from that. I'll just highlight some points and add a few more. We are strongly concerned about the evictions, whether they happen in October or February. Um, as Alex said, this is a very uncertain time, and we don't know, uh, what's going to happen, and individuals are making their own decisions about whether they feel safe about going out or seeking new housing. So having that delayed, whoever takes control of that process should do so, in our opinion. Um, we were also concerned about the lack of BMR requirements. So there's already been discussion about getting people into BMR housing. So that's a good component of that discussion too. Um, we counted that there was actually a reduction in housing units. Council member McAllister was talking about bedrooms, but our count showed that it was one unit less in the new development. We would also, as far as features for the development, we would like to see ground floor open to the public. Uh, you know, retail services or whatever, amenities that are available to the public, so it doesn't function as a, like say, a gated community. And lastly, to optimize the streetscaping, for example, by putting in urban greenways on the perimeter of the project to make it more open to the public and not just sort of the people who are living there. And those are all the comments for me. Thank you.

[00:53:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. We're going to Cynthia Christiansen. See, I can unmute you or maybe you can unmute yourself.

[00:53:23] Cynthia Christensen: I think I unmuted it.

[00:53:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You are? Yes. Yes, welcome.

[00:53:27] Cynthia Christensen: Okay. My name's Cynthia Lindsay Christensen, and I'm representing Lindsay Properties, who built, and now, and have continued to own a Metalwood Apartments for the last 46 years. Allow me to take a minute to give you a little perspective. In 1923 at the age of 60, My great grandfather, Walter John Lindsay, gathered his large family together from the cattle ranges in Utah, looking for an opportunity to and moved to Mountain View. A few pieces of property were purchased, and within a year, 8 homes were built and sold. A few of these homes are still standing with families living in them just a few blocks from where you are on Billis Street. In 1923 almost a 100 years ago. Lindsay construction company was started. They built throughout the Bay Area for the next 50 years. Here in Mountain View, the Lindsays continued to build several apartment buildings in the 1970s, including Meadowwood. I tell you this because I want you to understand that Lindsay properties that own Meadowwood is not some flyby night newcomer that has swooped in to try and make a quick buck. We helped build mountain view from the ground up and have been there building for over almost a 100 years. Now, Meadowwood with the infrastructure aging. We find ourselves with buildings that are in need of significant, um, significant repair. They are needing 50 year old plumbing systems, sprinkler systems, apartments and things that need earthquake safety, 0 escape, new roofs, things that cost 1000000s of dollars, and our tenants need to find somewhere else to live for 6 or 8 months while major renovations are taking place. Over the last 100 years, our family has taken pride in these properties, and we have chosen Summerhill, who we believe will take the same pride in these, in this property going forward. And we ask that you approve this property. This property improvement and this com- this project going forward.

[00:55:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. We will move on now to Albert Jeans.

[00:55:51] Albert James: Okay. Myself? Bye. Hi, is it possible to show the slides that I sent or is that too much?

[00:55:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mm, are we able to do the sliding?

[00:56:03] Unknown Speaker: Um, I can do that quickly. I won't be able to share the timer at the same time.

[00:56:09] Albert James: okay. my own timer.

[00:56:10] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Alright, just give me one moment here.

[00:56:21] Albert James: By the way, the video and audio quality is much, much better this week than it was last week. Okay, I started my timer. Hi, I'm Albert James, you know. Um, I actually, uh, yeah, I proved this project in general, and I just wanted to say a few words about parking. Uh, ironically, I actually, Meta was the 1st place I lived in Mountain View 37 years ago. And, um, so, but I'm very concerned about the parking that we're share rate. And please take a note of the parking, current parking density that you see here on Sarah Ramont Drive. Next slide, please. Wait, what I see around Mountain View is every real house development I've seen results in completely packed streets outside. I mean, even though they have their own garages. I was interested to hear Mr. Hickey's comment that CC and Rs require people to use a garage for parking. And I'm wondering how enforceable that is. Next slide please. So here's some examples around Mountain View, and the screech, even this new development, this Wisman station, as soon as it's finished, fully apart, deck slide, please. My hypothesis is that people do tend to use their garages for storage. For apartment complexes, they can't do that on a parking space. It's just a spot, right? So they do park their cars out. That's where I did. Single family homes have driveways. They can park their cars there. Row houses don't have driveways. So if the people are allowed to park on the street, they will. Next flight, please. And this is what will happen. This is my street on a good day, next slide. Please? And this is what will happen to the people in San Marcos Circle, San Ramon. And of course, that impact street sweeping, trash collection, safety, Twitter, et cetera, et cetera. Text slide, please. Final slide, but. So, I, I would strongly urge the council to make a rec, to make a condition for approval that the developer or the owner pay for essentially a parking permit program to not allow people in these rowhouses to park on the nearby streets, since they have their garages. And I don't think the current residents should be allowed, should be forced to shoulder that burden. Thank you very much.

[00:58:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll move next to Jackie Kashan. You can unmute yourself, please. Hmm. Let's see. Jackie, could you try to unmute yourself?

[00:59:03] Unknown Speaker: I'm having trouble. Can't seem to unmute.

[00:59:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: May I think, um, our IT director is trying to assist by unmuting, so let's see, right now for you. Oh, just leave it alone. Thank you. Check, Jackie, are you able to? Speak now.

[00:59:25] Unknown Speaker: Um, Mike is still seeing. Seeing muted.

[00:59:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um. Let me. Let me go to Alex Brown and then we'll come back to you, Jackie, and see, hopefully by then we'll have you unmuted.

[00:59:42] Alex Brown: Yeah can you hear me?

[00:59:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Welcome, Alex.

[00:59:47] Alex Brown: It's so rare that I have technical issues. I love it. Hey, hey everybody. Uh, yeah. I appreciate the comments from a lot of my fellow Mountain View residents. I think that the externalities of this project are being undermeasured and I think it's unfortunate. I, I was sorry to hear that the Lindsays are unable to maintain their property, and I think that's unfortunate, that they are not equipped to rehab the units for to maintain livability and safety. Uh, I think that planning has to be done on a very long term scale. And, well, it's very nice that we're able to use the tray ordinance to help people in the short term, that we are losing a stock of affordable housing that we cannot build back up. We aren't able to build to find or pencil out affordable housing projects. Our BMR units are already, like, oversubscribed. And this is just another thing that is going to reduce the stock of affordable housing in Mountain View. I do like that they're able to get rid of driveways to make biking easier. That's nice. It's a really nice thing. But at what cost? Uh, just, there's just one more project that is getting rid of houses that people can afford to live in in favor of, you know, nice units that are expensive and prone to speculation and just raising the average cost of housing in Mountain View further. Thank you.

[01:01:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We're gonna try Jackie Cash in again. Jackie, can you?

[01:01:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, you were on for a 2nd? I'm sorry, wait, you were uh, are you talking to Jesse or Jackie?

[01:01:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I was, um, I was actually trying to get back to Jackie, but, um,

[01:01:41] Jesse Cardenas: I think that's me and I may be under a different name, so I'm sorry.

[01:01:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, no, I do see you as little Jesse. Um, so why don't you go ahead? Actually, I think I lost Jackie. So, please, Jesse and Cardinas, please go ahead. welcome.

[01:01:55] Jesse Cardinas: Okay. Um, so yeah, the, the, the thing that Summerhill was lit, uh, that the, the thing that they were listing as far as, you know, uh, the, the amenities that are around the, the current, uh, proposal, uh, you know, walking distance to schools, you know, you've got Therakov right down the street. you've got you got Clinton and across the other. Uh, and then uh, you've got uh, Safeway right down to see. those are all awesome and, you know, bravo to the people who that, uh, that, you know, will be looking forward to purchasing purchasing those homes so they could, they could enjoy that. Unfortunately, the current residents are the ones who are going to be losing that. These are not residents who can afford to purchase multimillion dollar homes. These are residents who are, are, uh, there's a lot of residents in this uh, current complex, uh, who are seniors, you've got disabled, you've got low income, uh, uh, uh, immigrants that are that are in those homes as well. So, yeah, you're giving this to other people, but you're taking it away from people who really do need it. Um, So, uh, and then you're talking about uprooting them and then taking them elsewhere, giving them 8300 bucks and here you go, good luck. Find another place that has that the same mix of of amenities as this place that has, you know? I feel very fortunate to live in Mountain View. I know a lot of the current residents do. This is a great city. We've got great schools, but they're just taking that away from these people. So just think about that. I mean, also, it's, it's, it's pretty ridiculous that during this meeting you guys spent more time talking about the trees. the, uh, uprooting trees, uh, trying to figure out what kind of trees to put back in, the sizes of the trees. You spent more time doing that, you did talk about this for a resident. So I just want that to sink in to everybody who's listening. I want that to sink into council. Um, do not take this away from from the residents who live there. This is their home. There's more to a home than how much they pay and the physical space that occupies their home. There's also, Their community, their friends, their family, everything. So just think about that. Thank you.

[01:03:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All right, we're gonna go back and try Jackie, are you able to join us? I thought I heard you heard Jackie earlier. Jackie, can you try to unmute yourself, please?

[01:04:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hmm. Um. You know what if IT staff can help here?

[01:04:25] Unknown Speaker: She was, ah, I'm muted. Um, they are going to uh, transfer into the panel. I see a computer in the panel.

[01:04:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Um. Sorry, she didn't transfer to the panel. Um, I don't know if she dropped off. I don't see her. Um, let's see. Apologies to everyone. We're looking for Jackie.

[01:05:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I, I, sorry. Um, Can she email and then you read, then Lisa read it?

[01:05:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Good, yes. Jackie, if you are on, and you'd like to email your comments. Um, please do so. I'm gonna go to our city clerk for her to read the other public comments and then we'll see if Jackie comes back.

[01:05:49] City Clerk: Thank you mayor. I have an email from Joan McDonald. Dear mayor, Avicoca and city council members. Advocates for affordable housing are aware that many of you regret that the proposed redevelopment of 1555 West Middlefield will displace 116 households of their affordable housing while creating row houses probably unaffordable for those tenants. The staff report indicates you have little choice in the matter. However, while sheltering places the norm, this seems a particularly difficult time for tenants to find suitable affordable housing. We are wondering if under the current circumstances, this might be deemed an eviction, certainly adjust cause eviction, but nonetheless an eviction, so must wait until the shelter in place is lifted, which will soon be extended. We appreciate being able to weigh in on this matter. Sincerely, Joe McDonald for AAH. The next email is from Chuck Neder. Fair council members. I'm sure it would be nice to have new luxury row homes located near Google headquarters. Now doesn't seem like a good time to start construction, approving the removal of Meadowwood Apartments during COVID-19 pandemic would put the tenants at great health risk. Residential redevelopment near Google seems like a housing development priority that can wait. Sincerely, Charles Nader, 1555 West Middlefield. And I'll just check quickly to see if I've received any additional emails. And I do see Jackie on who. Okay, I don't have any additional emails after 5 PM. So, great.

[01:07:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Jackie, welcome. Let's see if we can get you on here. Can you? Unmute yourself. See if I can find you. Okay, it should be on. Jackie. Jackie, can you speak? I think you are unmuted. No, no, she can, am I? Okay, Jackie? I don't think she can hear me now. Jackie. Can you hear? See here. Fine. Ah. I don't think she can hear us. go ahead and move her back to the 10 list. Okay.

[01:08:31] Unknown Speaker: Um, looks like she's calling in. Yeah, I think she's trying to dial the passcode. There you go. There we go. Okay.

[01:08:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I also have Chen Wang, are you here to speak for on this item? Okay, Marbury?

[01:08:56] Chen Wang: Yes. Can you hear me?

[01:08:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[01:08:59] Chen Wang: Oh, great. Yeah. It was 1st time actually for me to use Zoom to conference. I always see Google and out. Yeah. Yeah. So basically, I want to raise my concern if this, um, project is funded by measure A. Basically, I learned that if the program is under measure A.

[01:09:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, uh, Chen, this is actually the item before, I think you're here to speak on the next item.

[01:09:25] Chen Wang: Oh, okay, wait. Okay, sorry about that.

[01:09:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No worries. Thank you. We'll hear, we'll, we'll hear from you in a bit then. And then Adrian Lewis, are you here to speak on this, uh, item 1555 middle field?

[01:09:42] Adrian Lewis: I'm gonna go. Yes, I am. can you hear me

[01:09:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, thank you. Welcome.

[01:09:46] Adrian Lewis: Hi, thank you. I am a tenant at Meadowwood right now. I've lived here for the last 2 years. Um, and that with my kids and my husband, and we do love it here. Um, but I will say that, um, as is common with any building that is old, eventually it runs out and I can see that there, um, are renovations that need to be made to these apartments that really just can't be made with people living here. There are pipes get older, things like that. And so as a tenant, um, I can, I can see the need for, um, really starting over with this building and, um, while I love it here and I will be really sad to go. Um, I think that Mountain View will really benefit from, um, the beautiful homes that Summerhill is creating. I'm sad that I won't have my apartment and I won't be able to afford one of those houses quite yet, but, um, I do, I can appreciate, um, the need for, for these new houses and I can appreciate, um, Lindsay companies need, uh, to move on from this project. Um, And I, I look forward to seeing those beautiful structures. So I do hope that you approve that. That's all. Thank you.

[01:11:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Alright. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I'm gonna try to find Jackie one more time. Let's see. Jackie, can you hear me? I think I lost her again.

[01:11:24] Unknown Speaker: If she dialed in, she may need to hit star 9 to identify herself. We have some phone numbers there.

[01:11:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Jackie, if you are on the line. Could you please hit star 9 from your phone? And I think what I'm going to do in the meantime is to bring it back to council and if we do have her come on. Someone has raised their hand. Oh, great, thank you.

[01:11:56] Nucky: Hello, this is Nucky.

[01:12:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, I think she dropped off. Alright. Um. Okay, at this point, I am going to bring it back to council if by chance. Oh, here we go. Oh, no. If by chance we get Jackie. Hopefully, Jackie, if you can just call email or call in, we will try to fit you in, um, or bring it back to council for deliberation. Council member Ramirez? I'm sorry, Mr. Vosteva, did you have some comments first?

[01:12:34] Vosteva: Yes, um, just. I did want to respond to one question brought up by council member Ramirez about the public easement. Um, and I did discuss this with staff. Um, and we do have um, a connection from Middlefield Road to San Ramon Avenue. Uh, it runs about, I would say, um, alongside, um, the Stub Street, um, um, that's, that's to the west of the project, and it goes right through. Uh, and based on the conditions of approval, it cannot be gated off by the property owner, and public access has to be allowed. Um along that. Thank you.

[01:13:26] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, should I just... I can meet it. Mayor, you're you're muted.

[01:13:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Sorry about that. The applicant actually has his hand up and they're allowed a 2 minute rebuttal. So, um, I'm sorry, counselor, I just saw that. So let me go to him and then we'll bring it back to you. So, Mr. Hickey. See if you, can you unmute yourself? please?

[01:14:04] Applicant Hickey: Are you able to hear me?

[01:14:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[01:14:06] Applicant Hickey: Great, thank you very much. Yes, I just wanted to take a quick moment. First of all, to address Council member Ramirez's comment. We'll also, we can add signage too, just so the public is aware of the availability of the route through the site as well. But in addition, I just wanted to mention something that, um, uh, neglects to mention my initial comments, which is that, uh, as you know, Lindsay Companies actually owns other properties as well around Mountain View and Sunnyvale, and we have, um, worked with them, they've been able to identify recently, uh, 5 or 6 other, uh, similarly priced units, uh, that they're going to make, uh, that are coming available in June and July, and they're going to make them available 1st to Meadowwood residents, uh, who are interested, and we will continue to work with Lindsay companies over next 5 to 8 months, uh, 8 months, I assume, um, to uh, to identify additional units at a comparable price and make those available 1st to any middle interest in, uh, tenants that are interested. And actually, one other thing I just wanted to quickly mention, I don't know if I'm able to share my screen briefly. Are we able to accommodate this shared screen?

[01:15:22] Unknown Speaker: Um, yes, we'll just need a moment. Yeah, he should be ready to go. Okay.

[01:15:27] Applicant Hickey: Here we are. Thank you. So I just wanted to point out a little bit about the current tenant profile at Middlewood, because I think it's a little bit different from some of the other row house project, or excuse me, the existing apartment complexes around Mountain View. First of all, 30% of the households have already moved out. Um, and unlike a lot of apartments, the turnover here is quite high. The median tenancy is actually less than 3 year, around 3 years, a little less than 3 years. The average rents are actually within 20% of the city median, and um, Our estimate based on the data we have and that ARWS has received is that it looks as though about 75% of the tenants are actually above moderate income. So making more than 120% of the AMI. Now, having said that, of course, we're still looking for opportunities to help the tenants who are there and who need additional assistance, but I just wanted to mention that about the tenant profile.

[01:16:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So now I will bring it back to the council and Council member Ramirez, would you like to start?

[01:16:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor. And I think just by way of a short preamble. Uh, this is another one of those very challenging projects, and I'm pretty sure none of us were really enthusiastic about coming into this meeting, if uh, if anybody had the misfortune of sitting next to you, right now, I think they'd feel sort of the, the palpable anxiety I'm experiencing. But I think it's important to start off, um, recognizing that the state severely curtails the council's discretion when reviewing code compliant projects. And when we're when we're analyzing projects like this, we are limited to evaluation based on objective criteria. Um, and you know, I, I know, you know, there's some sort of an ongoing debate about, um, the value of local control. And while I do think local control can be abused. I do think that there can be a valuable uh, it can be a valuable tool. You know, if we had greater discretion in reviewing projects like this. Um, you know, I think our our conversation may be a little bit different, but we don't have that discretion. I think Steph has made that very clear. Um. And that's, that's sort of the overriding consideration and challenge. I think for the council when reviewing this project. Um, but having said that, I think what, what distinguishes this project from every other code compliant project that we have reviewed or that council has reviewed over the past several years, um, is that it's not categorically exempt from sequa. Um, and that invites greater or an opportunity for, for greater scrutiny. Um, And I did want to, uh, I, Steph kind of spoke to this a little bit. I did, uh, and I, I had shared some of these concerns with staff. I did want to share my particular concern with the analysis that's provided for one of the sequel checklist questions under population and housing. And that's the, uh, the question, would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? And if, um, if itself disappears, um, in the, uh, as page 41 or in the PDF page 48. Uh, there's some brief analysis provided there, and then at the very end of the document, um, an addendum, uh, that goes into uh, a little bit more detail. And the concern I have is, the analysis is, is very high level and doesn't take advantage of the granular detail that is available, even, you know, with, with some other city analysis conducted. So for instance, um, the sequo document references the availability of 15,000 CSFRA units. And it's, I think, incomplete in so far as it doesn't, it doesn't recognize that, we, we do have the vacancy rates available for those units. Um, and if we were to make a distinction between the fully covered CSF or units and the partially covered, so those constructed after 1995. 3.9%, as though this is from the cities mountain via rent stabilization program annual report, the most recent one. 3.9% of the fully covered CSFRA units, which is just shy of 13,500 are vacant, uh, which represents just over 500 units. Um, the annual report also provides the average rent for fully covered CSFRA units. So $2658 per month is what it says. And the challenge I, I'm having is, if we, if we consider not just the total number of, of available units, CS separate units, but focus on the, uh, the, the vacancy rights, right? The, the, uh, unoccupied units that are presumably attainable for at least some of these tenants, um, then I think the math gets a little bit more complicated, and it, it's, it's not as clear cut as, you know, everyone who's displaced is going to be able to, to find vacancy as separate unit for, for a couple of reasons, why there's the limited availability. Um, and then the industry standard that, for, for income qualify, income qualification, you have to demonstrate that you make 3 times the rent, um, uh, in, in, in income, that was the industry standard. I had to, um, uh, adhere to when, when I was looking for, well, the unit I'm living in now, um, and it's interesting that the, the applicant provides that analysis about their, their demographics, the, the sequid document estimates that, uh, I think roughly 70 households would be eligible for tenant relocation assistance. So, um, you know, I think it would be helpful to, to, Double check where, where the sequel documents, um, And that, uh, that, where that estimate comes from because of the appears to be different from what the applicant is sharing. But that's, that's a substantial number of people who don't likely make the industry standard to be able to qualify for the market, the available market, um, or the, the for the market average rents for fully covered units. Um, I mean, it gets even more complicated when you think about the cumulative impact caused by the demolition of other CSF projects over the past several years. And I think, uh, staff had shared with, with me, uh, a spreadsheet a few months ago that showed roughly a 1000 units that were, that either had been demolished or, or slated for demolition. Um, which, you know, if you think about the total number of displaced people, sort of the cumulative impacts far exceeds the number of, uh, vacant, fully covered CS separate units, which presumably are the only units that would be affordable for these folks. Um, and I think for the, the complicating factor here is, I think staff that described, there is no defined threshold of significance. Um, and analysis is still required and, you know, the analysis here in the mitigated, negative declaration says that there is no significant impact. But I think if we look, if we look at the, the quantitative data that does exist, that the city provides in the annual report for the CSF program, I'm not so sure that the analysis in the mitigated negative declaration justifies the conclusion. Um, that, uh, that, you know, that's that the document makes here. At least that's, That's the challenge I individually am struggling with. It doesn't really look at income qualification or eligibility and it doesn't examine the true availability of comparable units. And when we think about, so just the impact of this project, the, however, many 100 people, who, uh, who live here, who would be displaced, you know, that's a significant chunk of the, uh, the roughly 500 available units per the city data, but if you think about the over, you know, 1000 people who would have to find a comparable unit based on the cumulative impact. Um, You know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm really not sure we can, we can, I, I couldn't authentically come to this conclusion without greater analysis. Um, so, uh, you know, analysis, that's that's as robust as the, the analysis provided for air quality and for noise and vibration. So, uh, sort of my long winded way of saying, you know, I, I can't support approving the mitigated neg death. Um, you know, and so my preference would be to, to separate consideration of the, the initial study, MMMD, from the vote for the project itself, which I think is, you know, falls under sort of a different consideration here. Um. Just because I I don't think the analysis provided for this question is sufficient to justify the conclusion. Um, so I recognize that I think reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on this data. But, you know, as I see it thinking about and and reviewing the other data that's available, the more regular data. You know, I, I, couldn't personally come to the same conclusion that this document comes to. All stop there.

[01:25:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Any other comments by council members? Let's see, counselor Hicks.

[01:25:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I wouldn't have been able to put it in all those words, but I agree that it's hard for me to conclude that, um, significant displacement is not going on cumulatively. I just gave a double negative there. You know, I think we are experiencing displacement and, uh, I agree with council member, Ram Raz, and I, um, unless I'm convinced otherwise. I also would not be able to vote for that particular for the mitigated negative declaration.

[01:26:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any of their comments by council members? Uh, let's see, it's a someone's hand, Counselor McAllister.

[01:26:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um. I appreciate council member Ramirez's words and thoughts. I wish he was with me. 6 years ago when I constantly said, let's buy these projects, these apartment complexes when they were less expensive. and that we would be able to have control of our destiny with our affordable units, subsidize units. But, um, sometimes it takes a while to get there and it looks like it's going to continue to take a while before we can afford and buy these units to prevent displacement. I uh, I have. Um. Concerns because I've been on this council for a while and we see a lot of displacement. I think a lot of it could have been prevented. If we acted differently in prior years and hopefully moving forward. We can address some of these issues. Either through we buy our properties. Or we allow, uh, landlords to do improvements at a reasonable fair, uh, pace. I know this particular property was trying for years to try to do improvements, but there was some differences of opinion on how they should advance and how they should recover their costs. And hopefully that we can learn something from this project going forward. That, um, the RHC can learn to say, okay, we have ability to prevent this displacement, but we need to be thinking out of the box sometimes and thinking what best we can do to bring 2 sides together to resolve. Um, and prevent the displacement. Um, I'm always disappointed to see people move, but, you know, as council member Ramirez said that there are some, uh, objective requirements that we cannot set aside and that we have to follow, and that we will, you know, we will have to move forward with it. Uh, the one person made a comment about the trees, and I know, in uh, comparison of people's lives. It's it's not as important. But the, The circumstances that this project has come through, that it's a complete compliance. That there are limited things that the council can do. So myself and Council member Matachek and others are trying to improve the area and improve what we can. I know canopy and trees are important to a lot of people. So we try to improve it the best we can, given the circumstances. So, you are right. This is trivia to people's lives, but we'll do our best to try to make it important and move forward. I do like to point out that our next item on the agenda is to approve 120 subsidize units. So we are giving up 116, but we are moving forward to try to subsidize, bring a project into the city at 120 subsidize units. I also like to point out that, yes, we're losing these units, but we are still adding 1000s of units, and hopefully as those projects come align over in San Antonio and Evelyn and Villa, in California, that demand will soften, and prices will come down reasonably, and people will be able to stay in their homes longer. Those is a wish list, and I hope that comes about, but we will have to see. So I would like to make a motion. And I may need a little bit of the city attorney's help to clarify. Um, and the things that I was interested in, the adding city manager, uh, city attorney was, did we need to put the 3 months extension in there?

[01:30:25] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, and I was just about to raise my hand and assist you with that. Uh, I would like to just say some comments about, uh, Council member Ramirez and council member Hicks comments about the sequor document. The reason why projects always include a sequel determination and the resolution approving the project itself is because they travel together. And, well, any council member is always entitled to vote in whatever way they desire, in this case, with a secret document. The project resolution actually has a finding that states, the project complies with sequence. So if one were hypothetically to vote against the sequet document, that would be contradicting what's contained in the resolution for the project. Again, I'm not suggesting, uh, council members cannot vote in the way that they desire, but I just wanted to point that out. that there's a legal connection between the project approval resolution and the sequa document. So that being said, I can assist you with the add on, uh, to the motion, uh, which would be a condition added to the project. And for full disclosure, the applicant shortly before this meeting. Sent me and the city manager, the proposed language, which I have reviewed, and I believe it is legally sufficient, and I can read that into the record as an additional uh, condition for the project now. It would be as follows. The developer has voluntarily offered a 3 month grace period to current tenants of Meadowwood. period to ensure compliance with the LS Act, that's capital E, capital A, the 3 month period until February one, 2021. Will not be considered an extension of the lease, but the grace period will be formalized for interested tenants through individual written confirmations. And if I could just ask, uh, the developer, if he could raise his hand and uh, signal uh, agreement with that language. I do see his hand is raised in the 10 D box.

[01:32:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, with that council member McAllister, would you like to continue your motion?

[01:33:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, and also one other question. I wanted another clarification. The developer was willing to increase of size boxes on the trees. The 66, I believe. So does that have to be a part of the conditions also put in there?

[01:33:21] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is a, um, an additional resolution regarding the or a component regarding the tree, uh, the tree removal, I would defer to community development staff to see if that is a specific uh, condition.

[01:33:40] Councilmember John McAlister: It's true. Yes, I think we're looking at that, and I also wanted to check in with the city attorney about the enhanced trail. Which is voluntary and goes over and above. Uh, what the city requires. Um, uh, we will also add that, um, as an acknowledgment of the voluntary, um, trail, um, benefits for this project.

[01:34:09] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That, that, that, that's, that, that's appropriate. And that's listed in the staff report for you.

[01:34:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that will be suffice. Or do we need to?

[01:34:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, that, that would suffice, and if we could just get the, um, applicant's consent to, to those, those 3 items.

[01:34:33] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and and regarding the street trees, yes, we would want to add another condition of approval. Under the landscaping section in the resolution that specifies the, uh, upsizing of the, the size of the trees, I believe from the discussion, you wanted it upsized from a minimum of 24 inch box to 36 inch box.

[01:34:59] Councilmember John McAlister: That is correct. And they, they, Particularly found, you know, streets, uh, the particular uh, area along the street, along Middlefield, I believe, they were trying to up, okay. I think that will be a benefit for the public and bike riders also.

[01:35:15] Unknown Speaker: Okay, okay. We can add to the extent feasible because we just want to check with public works that the utilities allow us to do that.

[01:35:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, um, I see the applicant still has his hand raise, so I'm going to take that as an agreement with the trees, and the trio, and, uh, the 3 month grace period. If that's not correct, please lower your hand. Okay, so the hand's still up. So those 3 items are added to the motion and I believe you, if you can read 2 and 3 into the record, Counselor McCalister.

[01:35:55] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I'm sorry, I'd recommend reading one, too, on the script. It's not highlighted in red, but it should be read as well.

[01:36:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, you can read all 3, please. Mr. McCall.

[01:36:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'll be good. okay Approve a mitigated negative declaration for the 1555 West Middlefield Road, Milford World Residential Project. Two, adopt a resolution conditionally approving a plan, unit development, and development, review, prep to construct a 115 unit real house development project and a heritage tree removal permit to remove 55 heritage tree at 1555 West Middlefield Road, to be read entitled only, further reading, wave, and three, adopt a resolution, conditionally approving a vested, tentative map for condominium purposes for a 115 unit residential project, creating 20 lots and 7 common lots on 5.44 acres, lot at 1555 West Middlefield Road to be read entitled only, further reading wave, and language as per authorized by the city attorney.

[01:37:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, is there a 2nd on the motion? Or any comments? Uh, counselor on hermatic check.

[01:37:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I want to acknowledge the comments, uh, council member Ramirez said, I think for all of us, these are very difficult projects. Um, we may understand that uh, the implications of these decisions that people are being displaced. I appreciate the applicant, um, extending the leaveout period by 3 months. And I also appreciate the applicant, uh, working with the property owner for other properties that they have, uh, in the area to, uh, try to help the folks who are there, um, move into, um, a vacant unit. I think there are other property owners, uh, that would also be, um, very happy to get a call and see if they can help. Um, and I'm sure any of us will be happy to make the connections there. Um, I, I will 2nd the motion, um, and again, I just want to acknowledge that these are incredibly difficult times, and, um, this is a difficult situation, but this is a fully compliant project. Um so again, I'll 2nd the motion.

[01:38:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, so we have emotion by council member, McAllister, 2nd by council member, Medachek. Any other discussion, Councilman Ramirez?

[01:38:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, and very briefly. I appreciate the comments from council member Mattachek and uh likewise uh appreciate uh the applicant's willingness to at least extend uh the grace period. Um, you know, it's, it's all conjecture. We don't know exactly what the future holds, but I think it, it, can, it can be meaningful in the event there is a 2nd wave and, and the timing with October, um, proves to be challenging. Um, but, uh, so I, I, can't support the motion, uh, simply because I, I can't support the 1st uh, item, uh, proving the, the mitigated negative declaration. I think, um, you know, in, in future, in the event, this happens again, if we have other, uh, you know, projects that, uh, have a displacement impact and and trigger, uh, a sequa. You know, I think, analysis should, in the future, consider income qualification, just, just given the, the high threshold, and, um, uh, and the, the, sort of the, what I'll call the true availability of, of comparable units, just sort of stating that there are 15,000 CSF for units, is a little bit misleading if we don't, at the same type, acknowledge that many of them are occupied. Um, and you know, longer term. I don't know if this is something that we may want to revisit in the, um, the work plan item related to displacement measures, but I think having a standard for a threshold of significance would be important. Um, because I think reasonable people, again, can come to different conclusions about what constitutes a threshold of significance or something that is evaluated, uh, qualitatively. Uh, and and for in particular, uh, an impact like this one. Um, so I, I don't begrudge anybody for, for coming to a different conclusion uh, from the conclusion I'm coming from. I just think it means that, um, a standard would be helpful, so we could all sort of, you know, gauge whether there are true impacts better that are being, um, made and whether they're sufficiently mitigated. So, um, I, uh, can't support the motion, but, um, you know, acknowledging that it's a code compliant project. I, I, um, I know there's there's not a whole heck of a lot that we can do. Um, and uh, would encourage those in the audience who are concerned about, um, impacts like these or projects like these to talk to the state and say maybe, you know, some enhanced local control can be beneficial in certain circumstances. Thank you.

[01:41:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Bye, Mayor.

[01:41:15] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I just wanted to thank staff and thank my colleagues for, uh, the discussion and the different perspectives being brought forward to a very difficult issue. Um, You know, I think there's, We discuss lots of hard things since the pandemic hit, and I think talking about a displacement project is probably the toughest, um, discussion that we've had to have. Um, and at the beginning of last year, um, the council saw many displacement projects like the one we're discussing tonight. And, you know, conversion projects, um, from rental to to ownership. And I think it really has shaped our city council goals. And we as a as a policy making body really came together and that was reflected in the council schools that were pursuing. We're looking at displacement strategies, uh, which was number one of our, of our goals, as well as revising our, our 3 row home and townhome guidelines, which is another issue that we're seeing tonight uh, with the zoning. So, um, you know, those are in the works. Those are not yet completed. Uh, obviously, we're still trying to create those tools so that uh, we can do, I think, what's most important, which is to try to, uh, uh, have not have these types of displacement projects come forward and kind of try to disincentivize those types of situations. Um, you know, and I think the other difficult thing that we're hearing tonight as well is the inability of council to force anyone to do something with their property when they'd like to, to go out of, out of the business. Um, and I think, as was mentioned, some of the things that the applicant has put forward, um, like the enhanced trail, um, the assistance with relocation and the extension of the grace period. I think will be things that can help, um, people not necessarily maybe have the right of return to this property, but hopefully be able to move into, um, another situation in Mountain View. I think that the city attorney and staff has really laid out the kind of legal implications and, uh, the fact that it is as a co-compliant project and I, I feel like CQ is always very, uh, it's a difficult, uh, thorny, uh, policy tool. Um, but as uh, council member Ramirez mentioned, that's something that we have to bring up to the state. So I think, uh, it's with reluctance that I support the motion, more so because I wish that we weren't in the situation and that we had the other policies and goals that finished. But I do want the public to know that we are listening and we are trying to make those changes. Thank you.

[01:44:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Hicks.

[01:44:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, I'll keep it short. I will not be supporting the project over my concerns about displacement. Um, I, but I, I deeply appreciate the, um, attribute all the, the, uh, changes they've made with Trao and the, and the street trees, which I do think are important. And, um, and a number of other, the, um, the, uh, conditions on the garages, because I actually think that is important, whether they're used as closets or garages and a number of other issues. And it's, I'm not, my vote against the project shouldn't be taken as anything against the developer themselves. I think they're doing, um, wonderful work and a not like in, uh, in North Wisman and, um, I hope to work with them in the future to do projects, um, more projects like that. Thank you.

[01:45:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other council members? If not, um, I'll just add my comments, um, yes, I agree with my colleagues. This is not a happy or, um, an easy, um, decision to make. We've made these this in the past. Um, this is actually even more code compliant than the past projects we've seen. So I think we're very limited in what we are able to do. Um, but that does not, um, that doesn't, um, minimize the, the, the, that there is the impacts on, um, certain uh, individuals. And this is probably the worst timing for this project to come forward. Uh, I find this, um, kind of an example, and as council member Ramirez mentioned, of, um, the loss of local control, and also the conflict that, um, we see in terms of housing and the, you know, desire by the state and others, uh, housing advocates for more housing, development, and yet, um, uh, you know, the, the unintended consequences of that. And why, why, the way, the reason I say that is because with the shelter in place order. Um, everything had been on hold. Even construction, but the state lifted that because I believe they have an interest in continuing housing production. Um, had the, um, you know, the construction also been held up, then this, it might have impacted the, this project moving forward. Um, but, uh, the state chose not to do that. And so, I think that's the inherent conflict that we're going to continue to see, um, especially in a, like, and I've said this before many times, in a city like Mountain View, where it's becoming mostly in fill, even though we have zone for quite a few units, you know, in undeveloped uh, land, or conversions from industrial to residential, we're still going to continue to see in field development projects like this one, and that's where um, these challenges will come forward. Um, but yes, the property owner has the right to, um, leave the business. I think we, um, you know, try and. I know I understand the interests of um, certain, uh, or groups and advocacy groups, um, to minimize costs on tenants, but when you do that and you limit the ability for property owners to improve their units as well. Um, that they may choose to get out of the business as we're seeing. So, um, I, I, I know that they, um, intents are, I think, good on all sides, um, but there's unintended consequences that result, and this is uh, what we're seeing here. So I do appreciate the applicant's, um, willingness to, uh, extend a grace period and the enhance trail. Um, you know, these are things that I, uh, our city has really, again, led and led on, um, uh, other cities still don't necessarily have tenant real location assistance. This is something that Mountain View came forward and this was way back in the 20078 time period. Um, we were probably one of the 1st to require this and then to have it enhanced, um, as we chose to do last week, um, uh, following this, this applicant's, um, offerings, I think, uh, is, you know, what we're trying to do our best to help the, those who are being displaced. And, um, my hope is that, you know, uh, folks won't wait until October or January and, um, with the systems of the, um, relocation agency. I hope that, um, we can, you know, they can, uh, find another place maybe, hopefully even in mountain view. I thought, I think Councilman Ramirez here, um, data is very interesting that to, to calculate out that where are about 500 units, um, CSFR units that should be available right now. Um, I also mention that, um, I always think it's interesting when we talk about BMR units, but if you recall, we, when we, there was a, I think it was when we were doing, um, Maybe it was seismic retrofits, but there's a chart that showed that, um, CSFRA units actually go for less than BMR units on, on average. And so when folks, you know, think BMR units are aware, folks should go for the lowest cost, that's not necessarily the case. And then, um, in terms of the neck deck, um, and the findings. Um, I, you know, I appreciate counseling Ramirez, your comments. I think there's more to the equation though. Um, you know, we should be looking also at the number of units that are being produced. Um, you know, even if they're higher priced department units. The, the assumption, there could, there is an assumption, I believe, that, um, some individuals will move from lower price, price units to higher price units, if they can afford to do so, so that, that, you know, opens up more of the lower priced units. And that's the argument being made when we have folks say we need to allow for more development of units, housing units, period. So um, in light of all that, I think, you know, that's all part of this. Um, the nag deck is, it's, if there's mitigation, that makes it less than significant. I think that's what the trio and the other items um, contribute to. So, in a saying it in a long, long way. Um, I do support the project, um, and, uh, so I will be voting for it. And with that, does anyone else have any other comments? And if not, we will take a roll call vote, please, city clerk.

[01:51:31] City Clerk: Thank you. Council member Clark.

[01:51:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah.

[01:51:35] City Clerk: Council member Hicks.

[01:51:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No.

[01:51:38] City Clerk: Counselor rheumatic check.

[01:51:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:51:42] City Clerk: Council member McAllister.

[01:51:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[01:51:45] City Clerk: Council member Ramirez.

[01:51:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No.

[01:51:48] City Clerk: Nice American May.

[01:46:38] (archive recording) Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:46:39] (archive recording) City Clerk: Mayor Abby Koga.

[01:46:40] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[01:46:42] (archive recording) City Clerk: Thank you. So motion carries 52 with no abstentions.

[01:46:47] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much. Um, would counsel like to take a quick break or should we move on?

[01:46:54] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: How about a 5 minute break? Bio break.

[01:46:58] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So if we can get back. Well, I'll just say 825. Please return by 825. Thank you. Go on to item 6 new business. 6.one, the selection of a lot 12 preferred development team, and our staff presentation is by assistant community development director Wayne Chen. Welcome.

[01:47:27] (archive recording) Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Uh, thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Let me just take a moment to share my screen. And Can everyone see the screen here? Okay, if so, I'll go ahead and start. Thanks again. Um, as the mayor mentioned, um, this new business item is for counsel to consider a selection of the preferred uh, lot 12 development team. Uh, we have a few recommendations here, which I'll go over in detail, um, at the end of the uh, presentation. Um, and just as a quick reminder, uh, Lot 12 is a city owned, one. 5 acre site. It's bounded by California Street, Bryant Street, and Mercy Street, just north of the library and the Civic Center. It is in the downtown precise plan area C. Uh, the city council has held a variety of uh, study sessions for various study sessions over the last um, couple of years to define the law 12 development priorities. Uh, based on that information. Last year, we initiated the marketing process for lot 12. The RQ response period was opened May 15th through August 1st of last year. And uh, on September the 10th. Uh, the city council made RFQ recommendations about which um, respondents to invite to the RFP process. And also at that meeting, the council made final determination of the RFP priorities, which uh, made it into the document that was uh, released. The website was created that comprehensively included the RBQ RP information, as well as other related information, such as the initial sort of work and studies that the city has undertaken to get to this point. So these are the lot 12 development priorities as concluded last September. And um, there are a variety of components. 1st is, um, a residential component. Council supported up to 120 units. Um, with at least 50% of the units affordable, up to 80% AMI, and Council was flexible about the population. Council supported a non-residential component, uh, with no office, up to 10,000 square feet. Um, This element was, um, one way to get at the placemaking components, uh, there was a desire for, um, unique renovated uses. It would be for both the residents of Lot 12 as well as the broader Mountain View community. Uh, replacing all 160 uh, public parking spaces that are currently on a 12, um, has been a, um, a key element of, um, council's priorities. Council was supportive of certainly sufficiently parking the new uses. In other words, the residential use and non-residential use, but it is open to potentially lower parking ratios with robust TDM and other elements. Council did want to, and was supportive of, uh, maximize in the development capacity of the site, uh, with heights going up to 6 stories allowed, which is higher than what the precise plan allows, but, um, there, there are, um, a components in the RP that provide direction for how greater heights would be allowed. Um, the council certainly wanted excellent architecture and design, uh, paying close attention to the transitions and the adjacency with the neighborhood residents. And again, the pricemaking component could be a combination of great architecture, um, things like programming on the site, for example, public art, um, the non-residential mixed use space, um, and other, um, community, um, components and characteristics, such as community rooms and spaces, et cetera. So that's a sort of broad flexible component. Council supported having an affordable housing subsidy provided by the city. The council did support replacement parking subsidy, but did not specify a maximum amount, last September, and council did support a modest amount of non-residential subsidy, but also did not specify a maximum amount for the flexible, the ability to be flexible. The council was very clear in, um, asking the respondents to minimize the city subsidy requested and to maximize external leveraging. I'm at the September 2019 RFQ consideration session. There was a discussion about the cost of replacement parking, um, and, um, the replacement parking, um, uh, has a, um, sort of fundamental component in terms of the cost and the design of, of the project. And there are trade-offs associated with both, it may cost a little bit more to, for example, put the garage, um, uh, and replacement parking underground, but it may be, uh, a better design. And so there are trade-offs. Um, the RP did include the ability um, for respondents to include repurposing the parking facility. But it must be other lot 12 priorities. Um, we did, um, clarify in our RP that the information submitted must be very clear, and that might sound obvious, but because of the various things that were, um, um, being asked of the lotto site, um, and the importance of disaggregating the costs, for example, the residential costs and the replacement costs, uh, parking because housing subsidies can't be used for the parking subsidy. It was very important for the information to be very, very clearly submitted. Um, and based on that conversation in September, the final RFP included the ability for respondents to include an offsite replacement parking, um, um, alternative. And and so you see some of these alternatives here. So the laptop RFP allowed the respondent to do 2 things. First, because there were, um, so many ways in which developers could submit, um, a plan. We wanted to be able to do an apples to apples comparison as much as possible. So all of the developers had to, um, incorporate a base financing scenario, which includes a 4% tax credit, uh, scenario, and then they had to, um, include an on-site, uh, parking scenario, uh, The developers had the choice too, of also optionally including alternative scenarios, so different financing scenario, and, um, a replacement parking scenario that maybe has an offsite replacement or an in-roof fee payment or some other option, but that was optional and had to be in addition to the base scenario. So, so based on all of, um, that, um, input gathering and confirming of the priorities, the RP was initiated, um, December the 16th, last year, it closed March the 2nd. There was a pre-smittal conference to go over, um, all of the criteria and for respondents to ask questions that created early January. After the close, uh, we had, um, a city team, evaluate the submittals, and I should also say that would be siphold and Raju Nadwana, um, who are consultants, um, siphold consulting an IPD, who assisted staff, and evaluating the proposals, both from a financial economic perspective and from a parking design perspective. I believe is also with us on the Zoom call. Um, and then we held interviews with um, each of the respondents. There were 5 respondents to the RFP. This is a summary of the valuation criteria. It's listed in more detail. In the RP, but development program in the design, um, certainly a significant component. And then the quality, thoroughness, uh, clarity, uh, and reasonableness of the financial strategy uh, was a significant component as well. So based on the evaluation, uh, and based on the interview performance, uh, the, the city team did, um, determine that there really were 4 very qualified developers. All of these developers, um, are, are, are known and they have, um, experienced working in a variety of settings, um, that are relevant to lot 12. The city team did feel that EH emerged as a top ranking submittal. And then there's a group of, um, highly ranked, um, symbols as well with Eden. Midpen and the related, um, public housing corporation team. Just a quick summary of all of the submittals and you see them here in one place. Let me just take a moment to go over them. Um, all of them did uh, propose 120 um, units. And you see there the weighted averages, and so that gives you a sense of where the, um, the range of the affordable housing units are in terms of the income levels, so the higher their weighted average, they tend to are, um, are for higher income, um, residents, although still up to 80%. And so EH had the lowest weighted average, so is a deeper affordable targeting. Well, MidPin was on the higher range of 58% weighted average. Um, for the non-residential components. Um, um, all of the developers expressed a desire to work with the city and work with the community in terms of what what finally goes into the space. Um, they they did um, propose initial thoughts. And, um, you see what they are, are here, an age, talk about flexible uses, um, placemaking, um, Eden had, um, a few different options regarding childcare, a nonprofit cafe, uh, MidPen also had a childcare, um, uh, proposal and one to sort of activate the corner, the corner of California Bryant, as well with some, some uses, and then related PH. Had a variety of ideas as well with a cafe with community, nonprofit space, et cetera. Um, you see the heights there. They're all within the um, 6 story limit that um, council has indicated that it would support. And then with the parking, this is a summary of the parking um uh plan. All the developers did include, as required, a 160 parking spaces replaced on site. And you can see the different types of parking for the other uses as well for the residential, for the non-residential, and then the total number of parking spaces, all of them submitted concepts for TDM and robust TDM, and this was another area where each of the developer teams mentioned that they want to work closely with the city to, if selected the final robust package, what that is. Um, All of the teams submitted, either, um, um, sort of, I should say, um, acgrade and and below grade parking. Uh, whereas Midpen was the only um, team that submitted a standalone above grade, um, parking garage at the northern end of, of the site. Um, and I will mention that the related public housing corporation team, uh, did include um, sort of a novel ground lease payment option as part of their uh, submittal. Um, they did have 3 different financing strategies, the Scramleys payment, was part of each of those 3 scenarios. And um, the way it was um, articulated was, The city could take that Grammy's payment and contributed back into the development and to provide the parking on site. Or the city could have the option of taking those funds, and perhaps pulling it and building a facility, um, elsewhere downtown. And so, um, that was a concept that, um, the relay to public housing, um, the group team had. And that'd be something if they were the selected team, the city staff would have to really better understand how that would work and what it is, as it is, um, uh, a novel strategy. Um, here's a summary of the development costs, and um, the city team felt that, um, the EH submittal, uh, was probably the clearest, and and had the costs, um, comprehensively include in the RP, with clear delineation um, of the cost. So it helped. Um, the city team review and understand um, the estimates. And, um, especially the residential cost and how it separates out from the parking cost. And so you can see the variation there. Um, so the team did feel that EH had a reasonable residential cost per unit. And um, had a couple of questions um, regarding Eden sort of found their lower side estimates. Um, it wasn't depends. Uh, so you see the summary there? And then for the, um, submittal requests, you can see the the breakdown there. And just to summarize again, EH submitted one scenario, the base scenario, and they had a $7000000 residential subsidy request, and that was their only subsidy request, and they have, um, really tried to do, uh, a maximum external leveraging. So essentially, uh, $13.5 for every $one, um, request of the city. Eden had 2 scenarios, and so that led to sort of a wide subsidy range. And in one scenario, uh, the total subsidy request would be 32 million. But in a preferred scenario that you didn't identify, preferred for Eden. That drops all the way down to 2.5 million. And so part of the question if they were the selected team is to better understand the range of those subsidy requests. MitPen had one scenario, and their total subsidy request was 15.1 million, uh, 7.one for the affordable 8000000 for the um, parking garage. So if midpen were to select the team, staff would want to better understand those subsidy requests, um, including certainly the 8000000 requests for the upgrade, um, parking garage, and try to understand a little bit more for some of the other teams such as Eden, uh, E-H, um, and related, where there's a below grade parking, um, structure, but there isn't a city parking subsidy request. And again, uh, related, has 3 financing scenarios. And, um, that ranges anywhere from 4.3 million. Uh, up to 12500000 per a total subsidy request. One of the scenarios that related has related PH has, um, included an AMI level of up to 100% AMI and that's above the 80% AMI maximum in RFP. That's the version that has a 12.50000 total subsidy request. So just wanted to conclude by showing a few images here, um, with EH's, um, design. Um, in their site plan. And in a moment, each of the teams will be presenting, so you'll have the opportunity to see the images and other images as well. Um, Um, yeah, this is Eden's, um, uh, image from Mercy and Bryant. And there, uh, site plan, uh, looking down from Bob. Uh, this is mid pens, um, uh, image. This is also Mercy and Bryant, and that would be where the envisioned childcare facility would be. Uh, and their side plan with the parking garages, you can see on the north, on the north end, which is the right side of this image. And then related PH's, um, design from a different angle from California and Bright. Looking south. Uh, and then their, their site planned there as well. So the next steps, um, after council selects the preferred development team is to get everything ready and initiate the 90 day, um, uh, exclusive right to negotiate, um, process with the team. Um, we are targeting having, uh, the ground lease and the development disposition agreement, which would be developed during the negotiation process, to come back to, uh, council in the fall for consideration, uh, assuming council approves it, and we stay on track. Uh, the goal is for the team to submit a formal planning application by the end of the year. Uh, it'll take uh, regular vote over a year for the entitlement hearing process. And for council to hear that project in early 2022. Uh, building permit process complete in mid 2023. 2 years for the construction, so fall 2025, construction would be complete. Um, so the recommendation is for council to select the preferred development team. Um, and I'm also to authorize the city manager or designate to um, be able to uh, initiate the, um, negotiation agreement and to get that going. And, um, to the extent that the 90 day period is not enough, there's 4 progress to authorize a city manager to extend that period for 60 days. There's a deposit associated with both 90 day and 60 day periods. And the final recommendation is for the council to adopt the resolution, reserving $1000000 from what we have been calling the successor agency fund. Um, the, this is the official name of the, of the fund, the low and moderate income housing asset fund, and adopting a resolution will allow, um, the city to retain these funds, and to apply it towards the lotto project. That concludes staff's presentation. Thanks very much.

[02:18:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, now we will have the presentations by each of the applicants, and, um, the 4 development teams will present an alphabetical order. Each team will have 4 minutes for their presentation, followed by council questions after each presentation. The city clerk will let you know when your time is up is you probably have, um, presentations and um, we won't be able to show the time on the screen. So, we will 1st start off with EAH and I believe I have Scott Johnson as the lead presenter. And I think we need a few moments to switch folks into the panelist box. Let's see. Scott, are you with us? Oh, yes, I see you. And if you can unmute yourself, please, that would be great.

[02:19:21] Scott Johnson: I am.

[02:19:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: There you are.

[02:19:23] Scott Johnson: Okay. Well, thank you, Mayor Abe Koga, and members of the council. My name is Scott Johnson. Director of Business Development for EAH. Um, My team, uh, that we've assembled is truly top tier with the experience in the know how to partner with you to transform Lot 12 into a community gym. You know, as our team thought about how best to respond to your lot 12 goals, we kept circling back to 3 central questions which, in effect, underscore our value proposition to you. Number one, how do we reach a level of affordability that meets current as well as future community need? Number two, how do we achieve meaningful place making within the limits of cost control. Number three, how do we design an economically viable plan that reliably secures the necessary capital? As to our design approach. We envision well articulated in rooftop solarized buildings, respectful of neighboring context, where they transition in height, from 5 stories on Brian's, Bryant Street, to 2 and 3 stories, facing our neighbors to the West, mediated by a delightful interior courtyard that gives future residents, an outdoor space of their own, spanning the full length of the city block, and reaching out to overlook both California and Mercy Streets. for an interactive 2 way connection. We intend to create a community asset that, quite simply put, is an amazing place to live, work, connect, and prosper. One of the ways that we create that is to anchor the project with a generous public plaza that activates life at the corner of Bryant in California Street in tandem with the community services and neighborhood commercial tenants that will function, function within the ground floor at each end of the building. As your partner will deliver a beautiful design, integrated with a range of cost efficient, sustainable features, including all electric apartments, rooftop solar, biofiltration, healthy materials, and many more features that exceed the city's sustainability requirements. EH fully embraces Cal Green and reach standards, and we're aiming here for a very high lead rating. We propose to replace the city's surface slot with a below grade public parking facility in tandem with new at grade parking improvements. Let me call out that we've designed the at grade parking structure to allow for conversion to future alternative use, anticipating the parking need and demand, will diminish over time. Our immediate goal is to transform Bryant Street into a safe public streetscape that embraces walkability and mobility. So, Definitely. Beautiful design, inspired place making, but how does that sync with our affordable housing program? Well, truth be told? Our proposal goes right to the heart of your town's documented need and demand, and accordingly, we're proposing a community of 120 deed restricted apartments with rent tiers range of from 30 to 80% of AMI, and including a set aside of permanently supportive housing for the most vulnerable members of your community. And, and under your further direction, we're prepared to pursue a local live work preference for the lease up of the currently projected 80 non PSH set aside units. The residential mix and affordability levels that are stitched into our program will unlock county measure A, state age city, and 4% low income housing tax credits. Let me repeat, our unit mix, affordability levels, and PSH setisides are programs programmed to obtain early support from the county, which in tandem with your below market lease and capital contribution is the local leverage to the far greater capital stack, the transforms Lot 12 from vision to reality. We're honored to be under consideration, to partner with you, and we're ready to turn that vision into reality. Thank you. And I and my full team who are here with us tonight, look forward to your questions and to further dialogue. Oh, and by the way, if you're so, if you're so interested and inclined, either uh, now or during Q and A, uh, Veronica from uh, Sarah, or architects, is prepared to take you on a flight to see a video, uh, a video trip of our, of our design proposal.

[02:24:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much. Any council members with questions for EAH? Counselor Metachek.

[02:24:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I do have a couple questions. Um, I want to make sure I heard you correct, that the only units that the county would control in terms of who would be able to live there are the 40 measure A funded units.

[02:25:00] Scott Johnson: Correct.

[02:25:01] Scott: Yes, under the, under the counties, a measure type 2 program. 13rd of the units will be set aside for, uh, as PSH units, 13rd will are structured, uh, as 30% AMI level rents, and the balance, uh, up to 80%. It's the 40 PSH units that that 13rd of units that the county controls through their CES referral process.

[02:25:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, I noticed that there were quite a few of, um, Studios, one bedrooms, 2 bedrooms, but very few 3 bedrooms. Um, I was wondering if you could speak to the thinking behind that mix.

[02:25:47] Scott Johnson: Sure, yeah, happy to. Um, you know, when we came forward, we've analyzed the property, uh, uh, a number of different ways. In fact, when we came forward during the RFQ stage, we had a greater mix of 3 bedroom units. What that led to, however, um, was the need for an additional story. So we had one, we had greater mass, height, and it required an additional level of subterranean parking. So in the spirit of responding to the cities, requests that applicants look at reducing costs, minimizing, um, the city's uh, subsidy maximizing leverage, um, you know, we we retooled our design proposal and our financing proposal to be consistent with uh, with the counties type A. And in doing that, in reducing the number of 3 bedroom units, we're able to lower the height down by one level and to reduce one level of subterranean parking. The truth of the matter is, if uh, if we're uh, fortunate enough to be selected as your partner, and uh, as we get into uh, the, the further collaboration with the city, if there's a desire to uh, integrate a greater number of 3 bedroom units, we have a way of doing that.

[02:27:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And you also, um, we're including stackers. How many stackers were you, including?

[02:27:28] Scott: Um, Is it appropriate? You know, my full team is here, and uh, just by way of question, is it appropriate for me at this point in time to ask that certain members of my team be added to the conversation?

[02:27:44] Dave Egan: Actually, Scott, this is Dave Egan. I'm a director of development and construction, EAH, and I can take that question, if you don't mind.

[02:27:52] Scott: Thank you Dave.

[02:27:53] Dave Egan: Uh, we had, um, in order to get our parking requirement. We went to 50 stacker units, and they're at the grade level at grade level, and we raised the ceiling in that area for 2 reasons, ones to accommodate the stackers and 2 to create an inviting place should that space at some point in the future. be transition to a usable interior space. So that hopefully answers the question.

[02:28:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. Thank you very much. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

[02:28:27] Dave Egan: You're welcome.

[02:28:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We have Counselor McAllister, please.

[02:28:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, let me, uh, tell along with a couple of questions that, uh, Counselor Nevada checked out. Um, When you said you could do 3 bedroom apartments. Could you give me a little bit of insight on how you would do that? And how many would you put in?

[02:28:50] Architect Veronica: Not really to jump in.

[02:28:52] Scott: Yeah, go ahead, Veronica.

[02:28:54] Architect Veronica: from Sarah, Sarah, architecture. Hi, um, Good evening, everyone. So we've taken a look at what we could add as far as the number of units. Um, and you know, if we were to add an additional floor, which we could do. Um, the implications would be like we could add one level of 26 units now. I haven't broken it down into 3 bedroom units. I'd have to go back and look at that, but we could certainly add 26 more units in a full 6th floor. That would increase our need for parking by 13, which we feel we can accommodate within the space that we currently have. And then another option is we potentially could increase by half a floor, which would be, allow us to step back along riots, so we aren't as imposing on the street. Um, and that would just increase the parking stalls by seven. But we could certainly look at in that by increasing the number. As Scott was suggesting, we could incorporate more 3 bedrooms.

[02:29:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And Would it be asking you too much to sort of get an idea of the financial impact to that?

[02:30:06] Architect Veronica: That's a Scott question.

[02:30:09] Scott: Yes, it is. Yes, there would clearly be a financial impact. When we, when we reimagined our design proposal, and reinagined it from the RSQ phase into the RSP phase, that led to a $5500000 cost reduction, cost savings. By reducing one level, uh, uh, on the building and reducing one level of parking that led to $550000000 uh, savings. You know, generally speaking, uh, depending on the details of the number of 3 bedroom units and uh, the, the, the depth of the additional, uh, subterranean parking that would be required. Uh, you know, that, that would give you somewhat of a range uh, based, based on the, the initial design that we came forward with.

[02:31:05] Councilmember John McAlister: On the repurposed units, uh, parking stalls, you said that they're on the ground level, and you said they're about 50 spaces or 50 stalls at ground level?

[02:31:15] Dave Egan: There's 50 stackers. Um, uh, in a too high configuration, there's 23 residential standard stalls, which are not stackers. There's four, there are 14 public standard stalls that would serve the public uh, uh, areas. Um, but there's no, there are no stalls currently allocated for corner retailer public.

[02:31:37] Councilmember John McAlister: But I'm just saying, if you decided to reallocate, you know, down the road, future, and turn that into residential or something. How many stalls? Was that 50 stalls?

[02:31:48] Dave Egan: That would leave you with the below the basement level parking, which was 146 stalls. 146.

[02:31:54] Dave Egan: Yeah. And it would never be converted to residential, it would be more community space, retail space that the city needed at that time.

[02:32:04] Councilmember John McAlister: If the city wanted more local preference. And would you be able to do that and not base your financing on measure A?

[02:32:16] Scott: We could do that. It would the consequence would be that we would, uh, not go after measure A funds, uh, from the county, which might, uh, if we weren't able to find the gap funds, might require a, a larger subsidy from the city, and we were trying to minimize that as much as possible in our current proposal.

[02:32:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And my other one was about place making. So, And this is for all the developers, if you come along, I'm going to ask you the same question, is, this is going to be home. To 120 units, potentially to 300 people. And what in your project is going to make this a community for those people that live on site. We seem to be adding a lot of auxiliary projects on the side and on the street. And sort of takes away from these, to my opinion, that takes away from their home. What are you doing to help make this, all these 120 units people become a community that interact with each other.

[02:33:28] Scott: Yeah, yeah, great, great, great question, council member. Chris, Kristen, uh, director of resident services, is uh, also on the line. Uh, she heads up that piece of our life affirming work. Kristen, if you can. respond to that.

[02:33:46] Director of Resident Services Kristen Taylor: Sure, hi there. I'm Kristen Taylor. I'm the director of resident services with AH housing. And AH housing has been providing services for over 50 years to a really diverse population among many different communities. So we have an internal framework to deliver services where it is really built on providing a sense of place through dignity, purpose, and connectedness. So we have, uh, our purchase called Stable, where we have 6 priority areas that are really foundational, not only a housing retention, but to building that community. So, you know, while we do build in our after school programs and family engagement, we're really mindful of the local community and meeting those needs and being really aware of resident and voice and choice and what the true needs are. We don't prescribe it. You know, we are incredibly open to hearing from the folks that live there. They're friends and family. You know, we've had some initial conversations with really deep rooted providers in the area to get a sense of those overall needs and we're incredibly prepared to meet those with programming on site that really is empowering and enables people to thrive as well as bringing in the local community and really leveraging the culture, you know, and the art that's already existing. Um, you know, so that's, you know, we, we'd be really excited to continue that commitment to thriving, um, and empowerment within the community based on our framework and with the input of, um, other local stakeholders, which truly is rooted in, um, the residents who would live there, um, and if anyone else from my team would like to jump in around the design as well.

[02:35:22] Scott: Please do. Yeah, I would like to just say we do have some, some, excellent outdoor and indoor, um, tenant only spaces for them to congregate and uh, to do things and perhaps uh, it could best be described by uh, Veronica at, at Sarah, where those spaces are and how it flows.

[02:35:45] Architect Veronica: Yeah, would it be appropriate for me to share the video at this point because you can really get a sense of a lot of it if I run you through it.

[02:35:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, actually, um, we have other questions. So...

[02:36:02] Architect Veronica: Okay, sure. no problem. I'll just say then just to address the architecture of it. The way that we have designed the building, we wanted it to not be inward focused only. We wanted it to really connect the community. So it's for that reason that we created the plaza that's flanked on 2 sides by the community service areas that Kristen was just describing. We wanted there to be a lot of activity there, people coming and going. Additionally, we designed this beautiful muse that runs the length of the building at the podium level and it peaks over and you really can get a sense of the activity that's happening at that podium level because the community room is there. You going to see people outside, you know, um, interacting at that level and then looking down onto the plaza. And we we took the opportunity, you know, through our analysis of the site, to really think about greater mountain view. And, um, we located these 2 spaces, we specifically located them at this corner of California and Bryant, because it was the closest to what felt like a really vibrant area in mountain view and we wanted to have that portion of the building, really drawing attention and engaging. Does that answer your question?

[02:37:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, yes. Thank you.

[02:37:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Else Mother Hicks?

[02:37:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, Am I unmuted?

[02:37:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[02:37:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So I'll also, um, ask a similar question to all applicants, and that's, uh, maybe the opposite of council member McAllister's question about how, uh, the project will serve the residents and make them feel like a community. This project is in, I think, a special place in Mountain View. There are many special places in Mountain View, but this particular one is right next to the library. Um, uh, the pioneer park, uh, the performing arts center, and kind of the heart of mountain view with the, um, you know, where our restaurant district starts. It's a place that a lot of people 1st bring their children, that is, the library, or let their children kind of run free. And I'm wondering, would that mix abuses, how it will fit, um, into that neighborhood, uh, fit in with that community is my 1st question.

[02:38:31] Scott: Yeah, no, that's great. And I'm going to let, I'm going to turn it back over to Christian because she's, she's done a lot of work and thought and engagement already with some of your community partners in that regards, but what, what you've just uh, described as community amenities and neighborhood amenities, being right downtown, close to the library of the park. That's phenomenal. I mean, our design program is intended to uh, to support, reflect and engage directly with those with those assets in Kristen if you can, if you can share some more of your thoughts in that regards.

[02:39:11] Director of Resident Services Kristen Taylor: Sure. So, you know, we're very familiar with some of the amenities that surround the proposal with Lot 12. Like we just spoke about with the performing arts center and the library and a lot of our existing communities. We certainly leverage those partnerships, not just to bring them on site with, you know, bringing inviting the community in, but also really engaging our residents, you know, out into the local surroundings as well. You know, making sure that it's really integrated. We know that sometimes, you know, when we talk about affordable housing, we really do want to talk about we're all neighbors, you know, we are all in this together and how, how is it that we're all empowering and thriving is one community, whether it is through some type of public art, you know, we host large national nights out, you know, where we're parts of the entire community and make sure that everyone, you know, feels invited and included. Um, you know, we did originally seek out to get some input from the community services agency around, you know, not just the needs of the their constituents, but of the greater native mountain view as well, so that we can be really mindful of that as we do, you know, continue to build out this program, you know, through the design as well as. Um, you know, the the programmatic structure, um, building in the community spaces as well.

[02:40:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then my next question, you've run through this to some degree, but what, um, you know, when we're looking at this project, what sense do you, um, I always hear that we're picking a partner, but many things are flexible. What things do you see as, I don't know if this is maybe a better question for staff, but can try to answer what things do you see as, this is what we're picking and what things are flexible. You've named some of them already.

[02:41:03] Dave Egan: Sure, I'll take a stab at it. I think the flexibility, 1st and foremost, goes to the non-residential spaces that are on the street. Certainly, Kristen and Scott have engaged in conversation with several active participates within the city, and we wanted to leave flexibility. in space design, we could, we could convert it to the area along, uh, along California to a combination of daycare and some other community oriented service, the space on mercy, and Bryant could be, uh, another an extension of the library could be an arch space. It could be something related to the uh, arts, uh, theater district. Uh, it could be a variety of things, and we won't really know what the city wants until we're selected, and then we can take a deep dive in, uh, the opportunities that that lie within Mountain View and work with council, city staff, and the various players in the community itself. And then come back to you with, uh, sound ideas, and we can, uh, have a collaborative back and forth on what best suits your vision for this space. But we can find it to be flexible in that regard so that we could give you what you wanted.

[02:42:33] Scott: Thank you, Dave. Yeah, if I can jump jump it. So that's great. Yes. The design program, it has been intentionally a thought through from a flexible. You know, we already talked about how previously we envisioned 11 higher, an additional four, a story. Uh, you know, if, if, uh, if the, the, uh, the city was interested in a greater number of 3 bedroom units, for example, we could look at that. We know that it works. On the parking side, you know, I know there's been some discussion about, um, the potential for, uh, an offsite parking accommodation, perhaps partnering, with, uh, some other development, uh, interests. Uh, uh, we've, we've engaged uh, in very preliminary, uh, exploratory discussions uh, with Morwood uh, development around the potential for uh, collaborating on an offsite uh, parking arrangement. That, that would reflect uh, council member, you know, our uh, uh, desire and ability to uh, pursue solutions from a flexibility standpoint. in that regards as well.

[02:43:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You have any more questions, Council member Hicks?

[02:43:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: No.

[02:43:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Vice mayor.

[02:44:01] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I just have one question. So, um, uh, any attachment on page 13 that you submitted of your side tech when you go over the housing program and the financing strategy? I was just wondering if you could share with us, you're, you're one of 2 applicants who just came forward with one scenario. Um, one financing strategy and I was wondering if you could share a little bit more about, um, the approach that you had to, um, had to it to your submittal.

[02:44:36] Scott: In terms of an alternative, a plan B, financing scenario?

[02:44:41] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I think a little bit more about why you chose the plant, the scenario you chose.

[02:44:46] Scott: Yes. Yes. So, you know, I, again, um, from a leveraging standpoint, from a financially feasible, uh, standpoint, from what gets these, uh, this new community, uh, realistically built within budget and within a reasonable timeframe, your ability to leverage the, uh, the county funds, the, the half a $1000000000 worth of housing, bond generated. resources that are waiting for, for, uh, development proposals like this that come forward. Uh, uh, you know, your ability to leverage those dollars is in, in our view. And as we've represented it, both from a financial structuring standpoint, as well as a design standpoint, in a programming standpoint, that is a key driver to the financing structure that we brought forward for your consideration. We think that those, when the county of Santa Clara, came together collectively. And overwhelm, overwhelmingly approved that bond. Um, you know, that was a public policy direction uh, taken, we want to tap into those resources. And we want to join you in doing so.

[02:46:12] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Those are my questions.

[02:46:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, any other questions for AAH? If not, thank you very much, and we'll move on to the next development team, which is Eden housing, and I have, oh, am I? Oh, hi. You hear me? Um, we'll move on to Eden housing. And Andrea Osgard is our lead presenter. Let's see, are you in?

[02:46:43] Andrea Osgood: Just give me one moment, mayor.

[02:46:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you.

[02:46:46] Andrea Osgood: Thanks. Okay. Can everyone see my screen and hear me?

[02:47:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, welcome.

[02:47:10] Andrea Osgood: Okay, great. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Andrea Osgood, and I am vice president of Real Estate for Eden Housing. We're excited to be here tonight to discuss another potential partnership with the city, which would complement both Studio 819 apartments. Which we completed in 2015, and Lavanita, which is currently in pre-development. Um, There we go. To overview, our proposal includes all the city required elements, 160 parking, public parking spaces, and 120 residential units, along with additional community uses and features to activate all sides of the block. The childcare center is located. Here at the corner of Mercy and Bryant, and will be operated by the YWCA. A cafe and teaching kitchen, operated by a deaf community nonprofit, anchors the opposite corner of California. Along Bryant, the residential lobbies. And a small retail kiosk open into a community plaza to amly in this mid-block area. Finally, a landscaped pathway along the backs of the site provides a calm, lush buffer for the adjacent residential community. You have 4 week proposals before you, but I wanted to highlight the key advantages to Eden's proposal. First, we tailored our project to serve a variety of households, from middle income families to those experiencing homelessness, and living in vehicles. Second, the YWCA of Silicon Valley has committed to being our childcare partner. And finally, our proposal limits the amount of city subsidy required. We designed the building and programming financing to respond to the city council's goals of providing a variety of housing options in both income ranges and unit sizes, as shown here. Similar to other proposals. We are leveraging county measure A funding. But rather than serving a permanent supportive housing population. We specifically decided to focus on a rapid rehousing population. We chose this for a few reasons. First, this population is characterized by episodic homelessness or homelessness that is caused by economic hardship. rather than permanent supportive housing population, which is more chronically homeless and suffering from mental health or substance abuse. As well as population often includes children and families. Finally, people living in RVs and cars are more likely to get housing in the rapid rehousing model than in traditional permanent supported housing, which could make this project an important part of the exit strategy for households currently taking advantage of the city's safe parking program. We are thrilled to have the YWCA as a partner on this project, to operate the childcare center, that would be a benefit to both our residents and the greater community. The YWCA is a natural partner on this project, as they understand the unique needs of a rapid rehousing population and have a strong relationship with Santa Clara County. Tanis Crosby, the CEO of the YWCA, is here with us tonight, and available to answer any questions you may have. Subsidy is currently structured without any state funding sources, the required city subsidy is a modest 2.5 million. We can certainly look to add state level funding programs. However, these programs can extend the time required to complete a development. I wanted to briefly address staff concerns regarding our estimated construction costs. We worked with a GC on a budget specific to this project and also compared these costs with other projects that are currently in construction or starting soon. We're confident in the cost presented, but to address this concern, we did do some stress testing, and even if we were to assume higher costs, we would still be able to keep the city subsidy at 25 million. I'm happy to discuss that more in Q and A. Looking a little bit at design, we wanted to talk, I talked earlier about how we activated all edges of the property. We also thought a lot about the residential uses over here. And that was at that western edge. You can see that we put the main bulk of the building here along Bryant to get away from that residential use. And more specifically here in the section, you can see how we added a public pathway, which is 15 feet long, and further, put these large courtyards on the podium level, which means that we have a buffer of over 85 feet, that is either at grade or only one level up for these residential neighbors here. This rendering shows our public parking parklet or a plaza, which is at the mid block of Bryant. And this is a rendering showing the corner at Mercy and Bryant, where the childcare center will be located. And this design is just a starting and can obviously easily be adjusted with feedback from the city. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We'd like to thank staff for all their hard work on this RFP process as well. And be happy to partner with you on this important development and answer any questions you may have. you.

[02:52:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Is there any questions for Eden from council members? Council member McAllister.

[02:52:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. So I'll ask you basically the same questions that I asked the other one. Going forward. Can you do this project without measure $8 if we want a more of a local preference?

[02:52:30] Andrea Osgood: We certainly could, but I think it would take longer as we would have to go after our various state funding programs.

[02:52:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes. Okay. And Again, my question about That this is going to be housing for 120 units. This is their home and yet we're detracting their home by adding childcare at one end, some other projects at the other end. What can you do to make this physically intangible a home for these people? Not services, but the physical layout that would make this feel at home where their people can be openly and congregate together and children can play. No adults can mingle. What can you do to make this a home and not a multiplex for the community?

[02:53:21] Andrea Osgood: Sure. I mean, I'll start with design because I think, um, for any home, you need a place to do those kinds of things, um, and you need a place to do those, um, those kinds of activities together, um, as a community. Of course not right now, but um, when we're back to being able to be closer to each other than 6 feet, um, we've included 2 really great community rooms, um, that we, especially in our more family oriented property like this one would be. We would have lots of, um, enriched services offered by our in-house services agency, um, that really focuses on children allow. We have homework club, um, reading, um, literacy programs as well and, um, compu- we also have computer labs and those kinds of liter- literacy, digital literacy programs in those spaces. We also saw in our site plan, um, large courtyards with open space that are specific and um, exclusive for the residential. Um, uh, tenants that would be able to use those spaces to privately, um, relax outside, have picnics and barbecues, um, on site. As for the ground floor uses, I mean, those are meant to serve both our residents, but also the greater community and particularly with the Y WC and the CA and the ground floor. We know that many of the residents, um, will take advantage of those childcare services. And so I think that'll be a really great component of making that this home really a home for our residence.

[02:54:58] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm having, where is your outdoors? I mean, you, Let me phrase that question. What kind of outdoor space is made to make people commingle, play together, et cetera. I see one photo where it says it's a parking garage, then on another layout, it says community benefits dash residential uses, and it says common open space. So where is the open space for this project for the? People that live on this project.

[02:55:27] Andrea Osgood: Sure. I don't know if I can share my screen again, but um, it's up on the 2nd level, um, that green space, um, which would be programmed. Right now, it's just sounded kind of more generically as green. But in those kinds of spaces, we would work with the architect to add in barbecues, tables, place structures, different things like that for the residents and families.

[02:55:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Freeze, et cetera. Greenery. Trees?

[02:55:52] Andrea Osgood: Yeah, I would.

[02:55:54] Councilmember John McAlister: And would you be able to repurpose your ground floor parking?

[02:55:59] Andrea Osgood: I believe so, but I'm going to defer to William Duncanson, our architect, to talk more articulately about that.

[02:56:08] Architect William Duncanson: Uh, yes, the ground floor. Can everybody hear me? I hope unmuted successfully? Um, yes, the, I mean, if there's a future where parking is either, if there's less parking desired, um, or no parking desired for the residential portion of the building, um, that area will have sufficient ceiling height to either be repurposed for, um, you know, additional commercial activity, or, um, you know, with some more effort, conceivably more dwelling units, but, Um, uh, yes, I mean, there's there's the volume to do so and the building could be reconfigured accordingly.

[02:56:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, how many 3 bedrooms, how many 2 bedrooms? I'm, oh, go ahead.

[02:56:55] Andrea Osgood: I know that off the top of my head because it's about the financing. We have 25% of both. So 50% of the project is 2 and 3 bedrooms.

[02:57:05] Councilmember John McAlister: So 50%. So, okay. And then you got studios and one bedrooms. For the other 50? Okay, so 120 units, are they broken down 50-50, so 25% are 2 bedrooms and 25% are 3 bedrooms.

[02:57:22] Andrea Osgood: Yes. That's a requirement of the funding.

[02:57:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So 30, 30. So 60 units are 2 or more.

[02:57:30] Andrea Osgood: Correct.

[02:57:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[02:57:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Just then romantic check.

[02:57:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I also want to verify, um, as I did with the 1st presentation. Um the ability to do local preferences. So is the only funding source you have that you can't do that is the measure funding?

[02:57:56] Andrea Osgood: Yeah, for those 40 units that would be targeted to the rapid rehousing population. Yes. 40 units? Yes.

[02:58:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That was similar to, yeah. Um. So you said that that would be a good opportunity in those rapidly housing for folks who are living in vehicles. Um, potentially to go into those, and yet if we don't have a say, Over, specifically who gets to, Have those units, um, It could be, People living in vehicles throughout the county, correct?

[02:58:41] Andrea Osgood: I mean, technically, yes. But I think, Susie, if you're able to sort of talk a little bit about what we know about those populations from the county. Um, to address that.

[02:58:52] Susie, Director of Development: Yeah, I, uh, since it was morning, here director of development. Um, we talked with the, um, with the county measure A staff. Um, to try to get this answer of, uh, can we do any kind of vocal preference for measure A units? And, um, unfortunately, through several conversations, the answer keeps coming back as no. Um, but we thought that rapidly housing would be a better option than permits for housing, knowing how important. Um, the local preference is for the mountain view community. Um, You know, when when tenants are selected by accounting for permanent support housing units, um, the county is selecting, um, the chronically homeless 1st. So these are people who are living in shelters, um, who are on streets and have been homeless for more than a year, um, and have some sort of physical or mental physical disability or mental illness. So if you're someone who lives in an RV or a car, um, your chances of getting selected for a permit support housing unit are really quite low, it's after they get through the chronically homeless population. They'll start to look at this other population. Whereas with the raferee housing population. Um, you know, they're specifically targeting people who, um, kind of just need more of a hand, need, um, a place, um, to need to kind of hand up for a year or so to get back on their feet. Um, and we think that this would be, um, just a better mix or a better, better suited for, um, for what Mountain View was looking for and the type of homeless population. And I know that the city, um, is seeing a lot of, um, we can't guarantee that, um, the Mountain View, um, residents will be selected for all of these units, but in terms of kind of the best chance of getting, um, the county to select, uh, residents who are from Alvay. We thought this was the best chance of that.

[03:00:50] Andrea Osgood: Yeah, and I think, um, another thing that we could do is also make sure, um, that the folks that are living in RVs and vehicles in Mountain View are pulled from that list is to make sure they're on the list. And I think we'll have plenty of time as we work through pre-development to work with you. And the great thing is you have that safe parking program that's going on, so you know who those people are. And you're, you, we would be able to sort of coordinate, um, services effort to go out and make sure that those people, We work with those people that you have, um, information on to get them on the county's list. And then, of course, when it comes around to time to lease up. We make sure that they're doing the things that they need to do to get their application in and to get pulled off that county list. So, I think the answer is technically yes. But I think there's a lot of things that we can do together to plan to make this part of, you know, making that safe parking program, um, a real success.

[03:01:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, um, I don't know. You know the answer to this. Um, but, You know, we always have long waiting lists here for affordable housing in Mountain View. Um, are the counties lists as long as ours? With 1000s of people on them.

[03:02:07] Unknown Speaker: Um, I believe so, Susie.

[03:02:11] Susie, Director of Development: Uh, yeah, I'm not sure. I would imagine so, unfortunately.

[03:02:15] Susie: Okay. Um, We do know that the, the tenet population or the popul- the household type between permanent supportive and rapid rehousing is quite different, um, and that the rapid rehousing, um, list is much larger, um, families, um, and people with children. And I do know that the county list is not 1st come 1st serve. So just because you're already on it doesn't mean that you're at the top of the list and they're continuously resorting to match people with the right type of housing.

[03:02:47] Wayne: Okay. Sorry, this is Wayne. I wanted to just add a couple of comments. Um, um, we have worked with the county and I believe Consuelo Hernandez, um, is also on the Zoom call and could potentially provide some additional color. Um, but we've worked with her and her team closely, um, to, um, uh, work in finding employees and residents of Mountain View, who can, um, occupy county funded, um, units. So, just as an example, in Eagle Park. I believe there are 16 units that are funded in partnership with the county. Um, and there is a limitation on the formal limit work policy. Been working with the county and doing targeted outreach and working with, um, with their queue. We're able to occupy 14 out of the 16 units with Mountain View residents or employees. And, and I think that's an approach, um, generally with the projects that we're looking at. It would be the proto we would want to continue to work with Consuelo. So, although there may be some, um, policy limitations from a, from a, from a practice perspective, um, there are ways that we can, we can partner together to really maximize the number of Mountain View, uh, residents and employees, and, um, uh, yeah, so, consumer those on the line and it would be helpful for to add some color. I don't see her on my screen here, but I think she's on.

[03:04:19] Unknown Speaker: Yes, um, Ms. Hernandez is an attendee box. Um, I can make her, I can make her a panelist if you'd like, Mayor, or can I mute her? however you'd like to proceed.

[03:04:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I'm trying to review here. Oh. Miss Hernandez, can you?

[03:04:37] Acting Deputy Director Consuelo Hernandez: Yes, can you hear me?

[03:04:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, great. Thank you.

[03:04:40] Acting Deputy Director Consuelo Hernandez: Good evening, mayor, members of the city council, Consuelo Hernandez, acting deputy director for the office of supportive housing. I 1st wanted to say that I appreciate the developers so far trying to explain our very complex system. Um, and I appreciate the council's questions in terms of whether we are able to have a preference on the units that are set aside for supportive housing. And I did want to mention, um, that although we do have a preference, through our continuum of care and queue for the supportive housing units, Measuring actually funds not just those units that are set aside, so the 40 units that both developers have spoken about, but the ELI, and the VLI units that are included in their proposals, are also covered through measure A by way of leverage. So even though we're not referring people into those units. We count them towards our progress and our goals from measure A. So I'm happy to answer any questions about the way that the process works, in terms of the referrals, I can echo what, um, Wayne just mentioned, mentioned about the number of people that we've served, um, so far, in addition to the Eagle Park, with measure A, there are 3 other households from Mountain View that have been served. Um, 2 of them are currently living in villas on the park in downtown San Jose, and one is in um, being served in the city of Morgan Hill. So even though they might not be served directly in one of your mountain view sites, they are being provided with housing throughout the county.

[03:06:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I just want to clarify when you said that you count the other units that are not technically measure A funded towards your progress. I just want to verify that you do not control any sort of wait list or anything for those units with measure.

[03:06:36] Acting Deputy Director Consuelo Hernandez: That is correct, council member. What we try to do is work with the city staff. If there is a local preference that we work together to implement that and enforce it on the non-supportive housing units.

[03:06:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And then, um, a question about the open space for next to the childcare. Um, Is that limited in terms of its use by the children of the childcare or could that be used by people who live in the complex?

[03:07:10] Unknown Speaker: Um, I believe it needs to be limited to the childcare. Um, Tennis, um, Crusty is the CEO, if you could confirm that or if there's any opportunity to share on the weekends.

[03:07:22] CEO Tennis Crusty: Hi, good evening. Thank you, mayor council member. First of all, I want to share how delighted I am to be part of this project. The YBTA is very committed to affordable housing development into providing a full continuum of service to families and to the community. So to specifically answer the question about the use of the playground site. We currently have this very issue with a site that we both own and operate in downtown San Jose with respect to affordable housing and childcare. Predominantly the space is used by the childcare because we must not fail to comply with licensing a provision of safe playground. However, there has been opportunity to speak of flexible option on weekends. It would just require a lot of tenant communication, programming, support. So generally speaking, we keep it limited for the playground use to ensure that we must not fail to comply with health, safety, and licensing. However, there have been possibilities where we can, with planning, make it more possible. But here the benefit is we are a strong partner with Eden, we have been for many years. And so I believe that lots of options and possibilities are possible with great communication and robust management, and the high quality management that we've experienced with Eden.

[03:08:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. That's all the questions I have.

[03:08:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And your council number Hicks?

[03:08:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I won't be laid with the question because I asked it earlier and I assumed you were listening. I assume you were listening in, but the question is that this is a special place in the city with the, where a lot of people let their children run free, middle schoolers, grade schoolers, library, uh, park, and then the restaurant district starts there, what, um, care of you and to make sure that it'll be a good fit in the, with the neighbors and in the neighborhood.

[03:09:25] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I think we strive, um, to fit into all of our neighborhoods across, um, our development pipeline, but I think specifically here, that was why, one of the reasons why we chose the rapidly housing population, um, just because it felt like, um, it would be more family oriented and family friendly. Um, and so that is a big part of, you know, 1st starting with that tenant population. And then, of course, working with our architect on some initial thoughts around, um, how we're activating the street. And, um, adding into what's are already really great amenities around. Um, but thinking about how we could complement those amenities as well.

[03:10:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Uh, let's see, Counselor McAllister next.

[03:10:17] Councilmember John McAlister: A couple of like to follow up with Castello, Romatichex questions for Casolo, Castello. Who pays for the rapid rehousing? There's measure A. Once the housing's there, who provides the services and who pays for them?

[03:10:33] Acting Deputy Director Consuelo Hernandez: Thank you, council member. Great question. So measure actually can't be used for services. So the county through a combination of continuous care grants and county general fund pays for the services.

[03:10:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And a question for tennis? Is yours childcare 100% subsidized? It's

[03:10:54] CEO Tennis Crusty: um, our current continuum of service is upwards of about 80% subsidized. We also provide sliding scale tuition for families that do not qualify for subsidy.

[03:11:06] Councilmember John McAlister: How much are... If you gave a percentage, how many are 100% subsidized?

[03:11:12] CEO Tennis Crusty: About 80%.

[03:11:14] Councilmember John McAlister: About 80%. Okay, thank you.

[03:11:16] CEO Tennis Crusty: You're welcome.

[03:11:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, I'd like to ask a follow-up question on the childcare issue. So we have a, um, the city has a childcare center that we've opened and have an operator running and we've, over the years, set aside certain percentage for, um, lower income families, but the challenge has been that, um, the families are unable to get subsidies to use those spots. So, how do you go about um, getting subsidized spots for the children?

[03:11:56] CEO Tennis Crusty: What an excellent question. So the question is, how do we get subsidized spaces for the families that qualify? And it's through a variety of means. We have state funding. We are a licensed childcare provider for the California state preschool program. We also work with local subsidy providers. There's also a net new state program that has more flexible subsidy. We were ranked in the top 10% of applicants across the state and are awaiting the funding award amounts. So the YWCA provides a variety of options for providing subsidized care. I'd also like to share that we provide a sliding scale tuition and one of the few providers that do. And this is because families that earn less than about 48,000 a year do not qualify for fully subsidized spaces. So the YWC provides sliding scale tuition for families that earn less than the average median income. So if you make less than 70,000 but more than 48, We provide a fairly robust subsidy up until those who make twice the median income. We are committed to quality accessible developmentally appropriate childcare. And at this site, our plan is to provide 90 licensed spaces of childcare for both the residents and for the community.

[03:13:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions for the Eden team? No. All right, well, thank you very much, and we will move on to our next development team, which is mid-10 with Jan Lindenhull as the lead. Welcome, Jan. Take a few seconds to switch folks. Into our panelist box. Oh, okay. And there is Jan. Welcome. Please feel free to start.

[03:13:55] Jan Lindenthal: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Great. Okay, I'll go ahead and start sharing my screen. Good evening. My name is Jan Lindenthal. I'm the chief real estate development officer at mid-penhousing. 2020 marks mid-pen housing's 50th year. And in fact, midpen developed our very 1st community here in Mountain View in 1971. Since then, we've partnered with the city to not only develop new communities here in town, but also to reinvest in them, and add density such as what we did here at Paulson Park and what we are currently doing now at Shorebury's apartments on Shoreline. We are invested in the community. Our staff live here. Our property management and services teams build relationships with our neighbors, community partners and residents, relationships that are more important now than ever as we support our residents during this crisis. Our work on this proposal started with conversations. With elected officials, community leaders and local civic institutions. This is foundational to our approach to any new development. This is how we do our work. These conversations inform every aspect of what we are about to show you. We've consulted widely and we would intend to continue to do so. There are 3 key elements to our proposal for proposing ground floor childcare in partnership with the Santa Clara County Office of Education. What makes them an outstanding partner is that they not only come to the table knowing the need they want to serve, which is providing a wide range of childcare options for Mountain View families. But also with the resources to do so. Of course, we're also proposing 120 new affordable homes, and I'll share more about that in a moment. Our parking solution is proposed as an above ground structure, and we chose this for 2 reasons. 1st way finding. If the public can find the public parking spaces, they will use them. Second, it affords a flexible ground floor use that can not only support the current farmer's market, but can also adapt over time as parking needs change. And we recognize that there are trade-offs with this approach. $8000000 is the all in, actual cost of the public portion of the garage. That's the lowest cost to construct on a per space basis period. We chose to lead with a conservative and realistic financing approach. However, there are several additional ideas that we can explore to reduce that all in cost. First, we could include the replacement parking in the tax credit basis. This is an emerging and as yet untested approach. As a result, we did not lead with this, but we have been watching this approach carefully and believe it shows, believe it shows promise, so much so that we are now considering using the structure in downtown San Mateo, and should we do so here, it will reduce the all in cost by nearly half. Second, we assume that the public parking remains free. However, if the city wished to charge for the parking, we could leverage a loan against that parking revenue to further reduce the upfront cost. Now to our affordable housing program, which has been designed to support and preserve the economic diversity in Mountain View. We are building units. The market straight up doesn't. Specifically, 25% of our proposed homes are 3 bedrooms, in addition to studios, ones and twos. This is because we know what the need is. Our wait list for 3 bedroom homes in Mountain View is 5 times the number of homes we have available. The inclusion of 3 bedroom apartments is also critical to our competitiveness for tax exempt bonds, something that is crucial in the current finance and environment. The household incomes we serve are evenly distributed from extremely low to missing little and 100% of the homes will have a preference for people who live or work in Mountain View. We're also proposing to include a preference for homeless families in the Mountain View Listman school district. This is the kind of targeted local preference that you are not able to do with measure A funds and that could be easily expanded to include other districts in Mountain View. Mid Penn has financed 35 projects in the last 5 years. We have direct, comparable, and current experience realizing projects just like this, and we have a local development team that is ready to get to work. The lot 12 RSP required. We put our ideas on paper, and we welcome the opportunity to dialogue with you, to test and improve upon those ideas. Thank you very much.

[03:19:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Any questions from council members? Mid pen, mid pen, team. Mm, Counts Mari McAllister.

[03:19:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I might as well be fair with everybody, and that's the same question, so. Jen, you should know what's coming, so I will ask you the 1st that this is a community. This is somebody's home. And you are adding auxiliary uses on the side. So how do you physically? With open space and indoor space, make this feel like somebody's home with 120 units that live there?

[03:19:51] Jan Lindenthal: Thank you. I'm going to ask Felix How Young, our director of business development to take that question.

[03:19:58] Director of Business Development Felix How Young: Hi, um, thank you. And um, we have thought about this very deliberately and created um, a great public and private separation uh, between uh, the different uses. Um, and without the benefit of being able to show um, the design, but you have that in your packet. Um, the residents are really in the middle of the, of the block. Um, there's a, um, private courtyard area with all of the, uh, resident amenis at that same level. Um, so they can flow in and out of their, um, private courtyard in, uh, and there are many amenity spaces. Well, the 2 ends on the public streets on Mercy and California have their own functions and each relating to the, um, uh, the amenities and adjacencies next to those areas. Um, so this kind of actually addresses both um, council member of the callisters and council members, Hicks questions about the, the private, um, residents as well as the, uh, the how it relates to the neighborhood. And I want to turn this over to John, architect, from Perkinson Will, to talk a little bit more about it.

[03:21:08] Architect John: Great, thanks. Thanks, Felix. Well, you pretty well covered it all. I mean, I think it's the key thing about this site is that it is 450 feet long and it's not the same site end end. But we've done a very good job, I think, of making a real front door for the residents right in the middle of the block with all of their services, their own community. Um, whereas, and then we've kind of given back to the city, both ends of the site, uh, for much more public phasing uses. So I think that's the real that's the real trick.

[03:21:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So I'm looking at the slide here, number 4 on your presentation, and it shows a courtyard. Is that, how many stories up is that? Is it that is it ground level?

[03:21:56] Architect John: The courtyard for the residents as well as the play area for the childcare are both ground level. It flows in off the street.

[03:22:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So the buildings that where it says office and fitness and community room. All that buildings there go up.

[03:22:08] Architect John: They're all it's surrounded by 4 story buildings. 6 story on the front, on Brian, and then 4 story on either side.

[03:22:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so the whole, it's all 6 stories. Okay. Is it all 6 stories where it says community reel? That's all 6 stories?

[03:22:25] Architect John: Yes, right there it is.

[03:22:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so the lobby, that's all 6 stories too.

[03:22:29] Architect John: Yeah.

[03:22:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so. Okay. And I just got to ask you about the aboveground parking garage. Um, Why did you? I mean, you talked about it. Other people went below ground. Had that been a consideration?

[03:22:50] Jan Lindenthal: Yes. Um, we, Gave it a lot of consideration. Um, 1st and foremost, we heard from the folks in the community that we spoke to about the desire to maximize the number of homes that could be available to Mountain Bee residents of the live work preference. So that really drove us to look for the most cost efficient parking solution to really minimize our dependency on most county or other state sources that would bring with them some the strings that might impact that implementation of that local preference. That was the decision 1st and foremost. Um, and I'll let Felix, um, add to that.

[03:23:36] Director of Business Development Felix How Young: Yeah, I think, um, we are flexible, and so we have, we are currently working on an underground garage, um, in Belmont, uh, and we've done underground garages, um, and, um, we've done podium garages, and we, we are doing um, uh, above ground structures, standalone structures in downtown San Mateo. And based on all of those that experience, we know where each one prices. Um, and uh, we know that the structure parking is the most cost effective to park this number of uh, vehicles. Um, And when we looked at the, um, the program that's um, prescribed in the RFP in terms of the number of units and the number of parking stalls and the amount of, um, community serving uses. Um, we worked with the architect and figured out this, what we're proposing, um, that fits on the site, uh, and it fits in the volume, um, without having to go underground and and incurring additional cost. Our experience is by undergrounding a stall, um, it doubles the cost relative to, uh, structure parking. So that's what we were trying to avoid. But, um, but and I think simultaneously, we also wanted to make that as much of an amenity to the public as possible. Um, so I think, you know, uh, it's an, it's an opportunity for uh, public art. Um, and it's an opportunity that we, we're using to create this flexible space on the ground floor, that's open to the, uh, to the streets, um, so that it can be used for special events. Um, and, um, it has other benefits of, you know, throughout the entire block, um, having one single curve cut that enters into our parking structure. Um, So I think there's a lot of, there's some benefits and there's certainly some uh, uh, drawbacks as well. But that's something we want to explore with the city.

[03:25:34] Councilmember John McAlister: And the last question. Oh go ahead.

[03:25:36] Jan Lindenthal: I was just going to add that, you know, that's, that's one of the challenges with an RSP processes, where we've got to put our ideas down on paper, and it, it, it's, it doesn't give us the opportunity to really have a dialogue around some of those trade-offs, and so we, we definitely want to express that we understand that a standalone parking garage on that corner has to be done very thoughtfully and intentionally and successfully from a design standpoint, and that there may be other solutions that are, Really worth exploring and having a dialogue around those kinds of trade-offs, and that's exactly what we've done working with the city of San Mateo on the project that we're doing there, where we've presented different solutions, what the potential costs and impacts of those are, and made decisions collectively through multiple study sessions with the council and planning commission. And that's the kind of process we would look forward to here. So we're not wedded to a particular approach absent that kind of dialogue and discussion.

[03:26:32] Councilmember John McAlister: And the last question on childcare is that you have saying subsidies requests, most subsidies requested for childcare. Uh, was that for the, uh, children or what were you referring to? And would your your school be 100% paid for?

[03:26:50] Jan Lindenthal: Yes, so Molly Neighbor is here and she's our senior project manager. They'll be working on this project and has led the work with the Santa Clara County Office of Education, so Molly, I'll let you take that question. Okay, we might be having trouble getting Molly. Uh, audio. Nevada is our director of health and development and has also been very involved in this aspect of the project, so Nevada, would you like to take that question?

[03:27:24] Director of Health and Development Nevada: As I heard the question, I was asking whether or not, um, the cost to operate or to construct the childcare, that we would be bringing that source with the county office of education, is that, is that your question, sir?

[03:27:37] Councilmember John McAlister: No, the question is for the children, would their tuition be subsidized?

[03:27:43] Director of Health and Development Nevada: Oh, subsidized or referrated or? Yes, so in connection with the way the county operates their program, um, they have, um, spaces identified for families earning at different uh, areas along the income spectrum. So, um, we do have the superintendent from the Office of Education with us. I believe she's making public comment and can pub, can speak to more specifics about, um, how, how they serve families throughout the, throughout the region.

[03:28:16] Councilmember John McAlister: So it's only for a few slots. It's not for how many children were you planning to be able to, uh,

[03:28:22] Director of Health and Development Nevada: their 60, 60 seats at this, uh, propose to facility.

[03:28:26] Councilmember John McAlister: And is it from 2 year olds to 5 year olds?

[03:28:29] Director of Health and Development Nevada: It's 0 to 6.

[03:28:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, 6 weeks? 6 months. Oh, 6 years. Sorry, 0 to 6 years. I thought you had to be at least 6 weeks old. And so of those 60 slots, how many would be fully subsidized?

[03:28:45] Director of Health and Development Nevada: I think that's a program that we would leave to the county office of education to determine, based on the needs of the, uh, the, um, area. But it is intended to be mixed income, so to provide some subsidized and unsubsidized, and that would be the program the County Office of Education is bringing. They're also bringing with them capital dollars to build out the space. So there's no cost to the project of either providing a subsidized slots for the construction of the childcare facility.

[03:29:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[03:29:16] Unknown Speaker: Would you like to hear from the county superintendent on more details about the childcare? She's available?

[03:29:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so I would appreciate that.

[03:29:25] Unknown Speaker: We're in the attendee box, so let me switch over and see if I can get her. Thank you. Might need your help. Oh, yes, Dr. Dawan?

[03:29:40] County Superintendent Dr. Dawan: Yes. Can you hear me?

[03:29:41] Unknown Speaker: Yes, welcome.

[03:29:43] County Superintendent Dr. Dawan: Great. Thank you. Um, so yes, the, the intent of this design would be to, um, be able to offer mixed income, so it would be a combination of subsidized, um, seats, although all the seats could be subsidized if that was the need of the community. Um, but our goal is to um, offer a mixed income opportunity. And so there would be a sliding scale available if the need of the community and the interest of the community is there. We would be able to serve, um, individuals who who live in the development, who live nearby the development or are employed nearby. the development.

[03:30:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Does that answer your questions, Councilman McAllister?

[03:30:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, would the county pay all the tuition? No subsidize fees.

[03:30:39] County Superintendent Dr. Dawan: Yes, the tuition on the subsidized fees would come from a combination of state and federal dollars for those seats. Thank you.

[03:30:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Oh, let's see, we'll move on to other questions from council members, council member Hicks.

[03:31:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my 1st question is for Jan Lindenthal, it's just something I heard you say, but I didn't quite catch. You said that, um, I think this was talking about the, um, funding or mix of families that you would serve, you said, um, that, that, the principle you were using could be expanded to other districts in Mountain View. Do you remember what you said at the end of your presentation and maybe you could fill in the details on what that meant.

[03:31:32] Jan Lindenthal: I was referring to, um, the partnership that we've struck so far is what the Mountain View Westman school district. But we recognize there are other districts operating in Mountain View and so we could expand that program to serve homeless families with children in the other school districts, including the high school districts.

[03:31:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, and then, um, you, you had, so my, my general question is how, uh, you've planned this project to be a good neighbor to, you know, the live pioneer park and so forth. You answered that a little, but if you want to go into more detail, you can. My last question is about the, um, the parking garage. I've heard some comments on the, the, open ground floor of that, and I'm wondering if you, um, imagine, if there was any flexibility for, um, uh, Partially closing it off, or program, making sure it had programming, there was, um, I heard some concerns about vacancy at all hours.

[03:32:39] Jan Lindenthal: Okay. I'll let Felix, um, kick off this answer and then also invite John to weigh in.

[03:32:46] Director of Business Development Felix How Young: Yeah, I think so currently, um, it's an open parking area. Um, so people can walk on and off that parking lot, um, you know, without without a lot of hindrance. Um, and I think the, the vision is to enable that function in the future, um, so that it can continue to serve that, um, that function for potential special events. Um, we can have um, food trucks potentially because it has a 17 foot ceiling. Um, you can have pop-up tents. Um, you can have, you know, a smaller version of the farmer's market um, held inside it, and people can still walk on and off the sidewalk uh, into that, that area. Um, and I think we're certainly open to creating, um, potentially either removable barriers or temporary barriers, if that, um, gives residents a better peace of mind in terms of separating, um, that, um, you know, uh, parking from from the sidewalk. Um, and I think that's something we want to reach out to the Chamber of Commerce, have that discussion. You might also see there's a little kiosk there in that corner, um, that we can see either the city or the chamber potentially operating, um, as a, as a kind of a, um, uh, info guiding area. Um, and from that kiosk, um, in either direction on California and Bryant. We could be putting some type of separation, um, you know, either, uh, like a small physical separation just to delineate the space, um, or or use some other, um, methods to do that, like, um, like changing sidewalk color or something like that. So, John, other thoughts you have.

[03:34:16] Architect John: Yeah, I think that's that covers most of it, Felix, is is just this great opportunity to have a space that, you know, basically just by not parking cars on it. You have this great space over the weekends where you, that is lit and it is covered that you can have year-round activities. And even the kind of, you know, there might be even storage for the kind of paraphernalia of weekend of screens and tables and all that sort of stuff in the back of the garage where you don't really have that anywhere else. Um, So, you know, it's, it is, it's flexible. It's kind of a flexible idea too, but it looks like it's on the track to be really successful.

[03:34:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Uh, Council member Manachek?

[03:35:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I want to disclose that I did meet with uh, midpen. Um, I have a couple of questions. Um, you talked about the partnership with the Mountain View Wisman school district, and in the staff report, it says, uh, 16 units for persons with intellectual development disabilities, or for homeless families referred from the Mountain View Wisman school district. So um, how would that work? Would the uh, families from the school district um, still be subject to all of the same requirements as anyone else? In terms of income and any other requirements there might be?

[03:35:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, they would still have to go through our, um, the our tenant screening process. The opportunity that we see is that the district through the program that they're already implementing with homeless families in the district would be making the referrals.

[03:36:05] Unknown Speaker: Yeah and the 2 populations are separate. So there's 8 homes for each population. Um, on the, um, the school district side. We're modeling this after another program that we've implemented in San Mateo with an organization called hip housing. Um, and um, that uh, organization or that agency would have the ability to do a direct referral, but it would still have to go through our screening process and income qualify. Um, potentially, uh, the uh, local lift work preference, um, uh, would also layer on top of that. Um, so all of, you know, so it gives, um, with those families that are being referred from the district, uh, an opportunity to get in without going through the general um, wait list and application process. So they would be, it's a separate list for 8 units. It's 8 preferences or preferences on 8 units, yes.

[03:37:03] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um. But they're not guaranteed because they would have to meet the other qualifications, right?

[03:37:11] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Which are income only.

[03:37:15] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Well, that's what I was asking. Is there anything other than income?

[03:37:21] Unknown Speaker: So the answer is no. Yeah. Okay, there is nothing else other than any help. And if there was some, if there was a, if the school district made a referral, and there was, um, some, that, that family didn't need the income requirement, the district had been like another referral. So the, the intention would be to continue to take referrals from the district until we filled all 8 units, and then as any unit turned over, we would get more referrals.

[03:37:45] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Um, and let's see. I noticed that you had a lot of studios in the plan. I think it was 40. What was the thinking behind that? Felix?

[03:37:58] Felix: Yeah, so we wanted to balance between serving families, which we heard was an important priority. and so we have the same 25%, a quarter, 3 bedrooms and a quarter, 2 bedrooms. So half the development is for families. Um, but we also have a mix of studios and ones. Um, and that's really for, um, um, the workforce, uh, for seniors, for a single uh, households uh, that might be working uh, near the downtown. Um, it's just that we wanted to create a good mix of both unit types, um, and income bands, um, that can capture kind of the whole of mountain view community. And especially in a downtown location like this, we just see such an opportunity to create affordable units for those young employees that are working in the downtown businesses that can't afford to be able to live on their own, maybe living with their parents or commuting in from out of town. So we, we really like that combination of studio apartments in this kind of downtown setting for that workforce.

[03:39:01] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Sorry, I did have another question about the school districts. Um, if you expanded it to other school districts. Would you then say it's um 16 units, if you expanded it one more, um, or are they both being prioritized for 8 units?

[03:39:19] Unknown Speaker: I think we would be totally open to that to expanding that. I mean, to be honest, it's so often when we're building a community that has homeless units where we are, um, required to use a referral process where we don't, we're not able to necessarily serve homeless folks from that community. And there's a huge need for that. For families that are at risk of homeless, are living in their cars, you know, are couch surfing are very vulnerable. And so the opportunity to be able to directly refer those families into affordable housing to us is like the holy grail of an opportunity here. And so if, if it was the council's wish that we expand that by expanding the districts that we're working with, we would be all over that.

[03:40:03] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, and based on our conversations with Dr. Rudolph, um, the, these, um, um, preference units would be in, um, all the different income bands, um, because, um, the families could be making, they, they could be dual wage earners, um, who are, you know, making minimum wage. There is a variety. So I think, If we were selected, we would be working with the school districts and with the city and with the community, determine what that need is and the number that is assigned for that preference is flexible.

[03:40:36] Unknown Speaker: Okay, but it would have to be just up to 80% AMI, right?

[03:40:40] Unknown Speaker: Up to 80, yes. Okay. Um, how did that one even come about with the Mountain View Westman school district?

[03:40:47] Unknown Speaker: Well, we had many conversations with council members, and, um, one of the things that was, um, highlighted, uh, was Dr. Rudolph's testimony at council about the families that are living in their vehicles. And that made an impression on a lot of the council members that we spoke with. Um, it was a it was a huge challenge when we heard it, we were like, ah, that's that's kind of hard to do. Um, and so we we really thought about it, um, and we went through our portfolio, and we found this example of how, um, we have this direct referral, um, with an agency, um, this arrangement, uh, that's working, um, that, you know, that we have a legal opinion on how it works and why, why it works. Um, and we figured that there's a lot of parallels between, um, how that program works. And so we had a conversation with Dr. Rudolph. Um, we made, you know, we made an assessment that, uh, the programs that they're already running for homeless families, uh, where they're, um, giving special attention to the kids, uh, and trying to assist the families. Um, could, you know, be of good parallel to the program that we already have. And that's how this came about.

[03:41:58] Unknown Speaker: So, um, do you have to get special, um, permission or some sort of, you know, formal process you go through to do a program like this?

[03:42:09] Unknown Speaker: We would have your lenders. You would have an agreement with the agency. Um, but it would also be in the regulatory agreement from the city. Um, so in in the case of the um, the Sweeney Lane projects in, in Daly City, um, the county wrote into their um, regulatory agreement, some language around this program. Um, and here, the city, um, if this is a program that you want to support, can write this into the regulatory agreement, and then I think we're on our way.

[03:42:39] Unknown Speaker: Okay, great. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:42:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other questions for mid pen?

[03:42:48] Unknown Speaker: No.

[03:42:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much so much. We will move on to our last development team, which is Colorado Housing slash related and the lead. Is uh, someone we know. Pretty well. Mr. Randy Tuda. And let's see if you are in the box.

[03:43:15] Unknown Speaker: Mayor, he should be coming up, I think, um, under a different listing, but he should be here just momentarily. Yes, I see him build it.

[03:43:24] CEO Randy Souter: Okay. For some reason, we have apparently 3 Bill Whitties, but I, obviously, am not Bill Whittie. Uh, hold on one sec. I will share my screen. Uh, Lisa, it's saying host disabled screen share.

[03:43:52] Lisa: Sorry, one moment with that confusion. I just didn't quite get there, just one moment.

[03:44:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Hey. Hey, Randy, just for your site. That's what the Tetons look like without the clouds.

[03:44:16] CEO Randy Souter: John, I took notice of that, yes, as soon as the meeting started.

[03:44:23] Lisa: There you go, Mr. Snow, you should be all set.

[03:44:25] CEO Randy Souter: All right, thank you. Okay, can you see the screen? All right. Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. I'm Randy Souter. I'm the CEO of Palo Alto housing and tonight representing the related Palo Alto housing partnership. What I want to do today in the 4 minutes is just quickly highlight some of the key points that we hope you'll consider as you deliberate on, uh, lot 12. You know, one of the things we have tried to do is in this, in this, as we crafted the proposal, is we were, looked long, looked long and hard in understanding the communities. Desires and issues. You know? We, we believe this partnership leverages the best of both organizations, leverages the experience and uh, experience and expertise of related, along with Palo Alto housing, 50 years as a local community-based affordable housing nonprofit. And obviously, as you know, it, uh, I bring my 20 years of what I'll call hyper local experience in serving and living in Mountain View. We, we obviously have met all the requirements of the RFP, but I think what we want to really show you today is how we've done that in a way that's sensitive to the community and understanding of the city's key issues. Um, and you will see that in our emphasis on quality architecture, on, on the uh, urban design aspects of the proposal and the placemaking that we've, we've incorporated into the project in an effort to carefully weave the project into the downtown community. So moving on to design, our, our building, we believe, gracefully integrates with the neighborhood, it steps down from 5 stories to, uh, blend east to west across the site. If they integrate with the homes next door. We have pushed the rear townhouse building away from the rear property line, allowing for us to incorporate a mid block crossing or a garden use, potentially a community garden that would be open to the public. And then, The design program also emphasizes the fact that we have wrapped all the parking with active uses. We have provided the parking on site in at grade and below grade, all of which is screened from public view. We've also provided an alternate offsite parking option that's included in our proposal. And in our proposal, there is a sketch showing how that ground floor parking could be converted to roughly 11 or 12 additional parking units, should the parking demand reduce in the future. Yeah, we've taken a lot of pride in reaching out to community organizations, such as CSMA, the CSA, and Ada's Cafe, and looking for great local nonprofits to take space in the building, in our community serving commercial space. Uh, this is leveraging the, our philosophy of utilizing this site in both, both the indoor spaces and the outdoor spaces, to meet the needs of both our residents and the community. And if it is the desire of counsel, we would, of course, be willing to uh, look at, including daycare into our proposal also. We've included 3 scenarios in our proposal. It's really wanted to demonstrate our flexibility and our capability to deliver on any one of these, uh, scenarios based on council's, uh, determination of the needs of the community. Um, All of these, we we have the flexibility to do all any of these scenarios. I want to point out that scenarios one and 3 fully meet and accommodate the city's live work preference. And and we provided the detailed financing plan that really builds upon related expertise. And in, in, and financial strength, we've provided a detailed analysis, realistic costs based on estimates provided by 2 contractors, and and worked hard to minimize the requested city subsidy of $4.30000 for scenarios one and two. So with that, we are achieving a leverage of almost 25 times the city's investment through our use of outside funding. So what we'd like to leave with you today is that we know this proposal is a starting point. It's the starting not the ending. We have, Mountain View has high expectations, and we're standing ready to work with the council, and with all of, uh, and the community, to really mold and shape this into a project. That will make mountain view proud. Thank you.

[03:49:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any council member questions for the. Hello to related health development team. That's not McAllister.

[03:50:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Eddie, uh, I got to, uh, I met with the applicant via Zoom. So I've already had a chat with them, so. Um, Randy, so I've asked everybody the same questions, so I might as well be fair with you. You know, this is somebody's home. They're gonna live there. Um, I'm trying to visualize it for them and not try to add all these other things to it. So, physically and in the space, how are you going to make this a collaborative community for the people that live there and not have to feel that they're sharing their property with people coming and going all the time.

[03:50:51] CEO Randy Souter: I'll respond to that in a couple ways, you know, 1st on the physical design, we have, we have incorporated a full half acre of open space into this project. Some of that is, is space that is shared with the community as a whole and uh, and a full quarter acre is, is dedicated to resident serving space. That's the common open space that's between the 2 buildings. That space that currently, as, you know, again, as an initial concept shows, the incorporation is seating areas, 2 barbecue areas, communal dining facilities and things like that. That's one of those key things that would be that would evolve and be modified based on the council study session and input through the DRC process. We've also, I think, in our experience, part of building community is also the services that we provide, how about the housing resident services will be the, uh, will provide the resident services on this site. We've been doing that for 50 years. And with our resident services program. We emphasize community building and building a social ties throughout, through the residents, in through a variety of programs. We provide after school academic support and study study hall. We provide financial literacy, training. We provide community building events. And I think importantly, um, one example of that where we build ties between our residents and the community as a whole, is the family leadership conference that we host every year in partnership with the Palo Alto unified school district. It's a conference, uh, that we host with the school district designed to enable, uh, those of lower incomes or families, uh, where English is a 2nd language. Um, or special needs children. We provide them a specialized trading and and counseling on how to best leverage the services that are available to them through the school district and other outside agencies. So that's an indication, these are just some examples of the types of programs that we run in, uh, in in properties that are served by our resident services division. So we see if this is a combination of both the physical design and also the residential services that we provide.

[03:53:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Under scenario one, you're saying that of your scenarios, that is the one that gives the city the most local preference.

[03:53:30] CEO Randy Souter: Correct. Scenario one is the scenario that does not incorporate misery funding, uh, so that would make it eligible for, um, make all the units eligible for the city's live work preference.

[03:53:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And uh. Yeah, that's just in the bedrooms, we already have this. Council member, Matt, check, we'll ask about the bedrooms. The number of 3 bedrooms, right? There's 50% or 25% of the total units.

[03:54:02] CEO Randy Souter: It's 25%, uh, 2s and 25%, 3 bedrooms.

[03:54:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[03:54:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I met a check.

[03:54:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, I'll disclose that I also met with the related Palo Alto housing team. Um, but I have a few more questions. Um, and one is, you heard, uh, the previous team talk about the program with the school districts. And I was wondering if you have any experience doing something like that. Um, and if not, are you open to it?

[03:54:38] CEO Randy Souter: We're certainly open to discussing that uh, with now the Wisbon school district and uh, and the high school district. Um, Yeah, I've talked about our partnership with Palo Alto unified school district. I will ask Anne Silverberg from related if they if she would like to comment on school partnerships also.

[03:54:59] Anne Silverberg: Yeah, no, I I think that uh, we're certainly open to any, uh, can you hear me? Yeah. We're certainly open to any kind of partnership like that that provides housing to folks who are in Mountain View, who need the housing, and whether it's folks that are, uh, school district employees or school teachers or just members of the community because they work in the in the community or they live or live in their cars in the community, they all need housing. So we're absolutely open to working with the school district.

[03:55:29] Unknown Speaker: Council member, if I may, um, in a number of our projects, we have partnerships with local school districts, not just on the residential side, but in providing space for school district run programs, often they have a need for space. We can provide the space and in this case, a resident population that can benefit. So it's a little different spin on that, but we've done that a number of times.

[03:55:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, I guess, that was my only question. Thanks.

[03:56:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's number Hicks.

[03:56:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I was wondering, in terms of flexibility, whether the uh, scenario that involves permanently supportive housing, whether you could, uh, substitute rapid rate housing, as I think that may serve the population in Mountain View, some of the people that we're trying to serve a little better, particularly at this location. So that's question one. And then just I've been asking how the project is a good neighbor in this particular area, you know, near so many of our public amenities. So you answered that a little. But if you want to add detail to that, that's my 2nd one.

[03:56:50] Unknown Speaker: Sure, I'll answer the 1st uh, uh, the 2nd question first. In terms of, yeah, we've really, one of our key values was, is, uh, really trying to integrate and and stitch this project into the into the community. We did that in in several ways, um, by incorporating a public plaza, uh, at the corner of California. And, uh, Bryant, we've, we've done that through, uh, the, the mid block crossing slash community garden space at the rear of the project, that will be open to the community, and we're really trying to do that through, uh, through flexible use of those community or organization spaces. You know, we, we see that as a way of bringing, uh, the mountain view community into the building, into the project itself. And also just want to point out, we have some flex space that currently is uh identified in the project. This is space that is really uh, intended to be used for variety purposes, such as classes. Um, and our discussions with CSMA. They talked about having, um, potentially art classes, using, utilizing it for art gallery, art display, space. We can have small performances in there. So it's yet one more way we are trying to leverage the, this, this property leverage our building to provide spaces that both benefit our residents, but benefit the community as a whole. And I'll turn to N if you want to comment on the rapid rehousing.

[03:58:29] Unknown Speaker: Sure. Yes, we can accommodate rapid rehousing instead of the PSH model that works with the county with measure A and we're happy to do that. Um, we, you know, we, we, this theme of flexibility, it's been talked about tonight and we, we, we are flexible. We tried to demonstrate that with a variety of scenarios. We figured 3 was enough, so we didn't, we didn't model the rapid 3 housing, but that certainly would work in this, in this location as well.

[03:58:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I had one. Um, I was hoping you could explain the, I think, is it $1000000 um, refunding? Um, that could be used to back into your project or for parking. Um, is that basically, uh, in, in, I guess, looking at it in a different way as a, another, as a subsidy from the city, or is that, um, in addition to, Satisfying the parking requirements by building the parking spaces on site as well.

[03:59:39] Unknown Speaker: So we thought long and hard about the, you know, again, taking the council's goal of trying to minimize the city investment. We took that goal very, very seriously. Uh, so we thought long and hard about how, how we can creatively, um, how, how we can creatively help the city, um, subsidize the costs of, of the project, and potentially the parking. So we, the approach that we've uh, proposed is essentially a prepaid ground lease. So we would prepay, uh, a ground lease for the property of rough just over $1000000 for the, for the term of the term of the ground lease. Pay that upfront in a lump sum. That goes to the city and the city could then turn around and reinvest that into the parking. Uh to help offset the costs. Invest that in the project to help offset the cost of the parking. And that will work if the parking is on site, and if it is the council ops for offsite uh parking solution, that that money can then be put into the pot, along with potentially another developer. Uh, as, as we pointed out in the proposal, we've talked to 5th development, and also, I also had a conversation with Marwood, about potentially teaming up on a public lot on lot 6. So if that were to be pursued, that $10000000 prepaid ground lease, could also be put into the offsite parking solution.

[04:01:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is that, um, some kind of, um, financial or funding, uh, what's the term, a strategy that, then it helps you, the project, um, like, why would, the other projects seem to just absorb that cost or they're asking for the, a sub, you know, city subsidy, but the prefunding, this, is that just like a, um, some kind of financial, is there a financial benefit to doing it that way?

[04:01:48] Unknown Speaker: So I think there's, well, I think again, it allows the, it allows leverage. It allows us to leverage funding from from other sources. Um, rather, we, we could have, the city could, we could request that the city increase the subsidy, um, uh, we chose to provide this, uh, this approach of leveraging outside funding sources. You know, and and, and, you know, the prepaid concept is one that the city used for the Google. Um, Google, Charleston East lease also, where that was a prepaid lease for the initial term also.

[04:02:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions for. A lot of housing related. Counselor McAllister?

[04:02:38] Councilmember John McAlister: This is actually for staff. We hadn't talked about leases. So, did I read the lease was a dollar a year or was there more? About the leases that you guys could tell me about.

[04:02:51] Wayne: Uh, sure. So, for, um, Basement Council's direction that this is not a revenue generating project, um, there's an expectation, um, um, uh, a low, uh, these payments of the city. So something like a dollar a year. Essentially, that's a way to, um, uh, subsidize and um, help make the project financially feasible. Uh, related, um, PH, um, has taken a different approach with this ground. Um, at least kind of lump sum payment up front. So that is different than the other 3 teams that have, uh, looked at a dollar a year, um, a Grammys payment to help uh, pencil the project.

[04:03:41] Councilmember John McAlister: So I was looking at the cost of these projects. So if we required a conventional lease, of whatever, how much would it add to the cost, how much are they saving by going a dollar? So I know Randy did a project on El Camino, and it was, what, $90000000 or something like that, Randy, or or for the land, it was, it was a chunk of change. And so, um, They lost the subsidy on that. How much of a subsidy are they getting by us giving them the land per unit, could you say?

[04:04:17] Wayne: So, I'll offer a general framework, and we also do have Libby Sypho, um, on the call and she could, um, potentially add some additional color. Um, but if you were to assume that for a one. 5 acre site, It's anywhere from, say, 10 to $150000 an acre, um, or possibly more. And then you divide the cost of the land by the number of units, that sort of backs into the per unit cost of the land, which is quite high, given, uh, let, let's just round number say it's $10000000 per acre for one. 5 acre site. It's $15 million. Divided by 120 units. So that gives you a sense of the amount of the land cost that is not in the project, which helps the project pencil. And then maybe if you have any additional thoughts to add, um, please feel free to do so.

[04:05:15] Libby Sypho: Hello, council members, can you hear me okay? Sorry.

[04:05:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Wins, wins, nodding.

[04:05:24] Libby Sypho: So, um, we did speak with the real estate division about market value of land and we did, um, get a range of 10000000 to 1500000 an acre. So to build on what Wayne just said, a 10000000 an acre, that would be about $125,000 per unit.

[04:05:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, I just took 12000000 divided by 12, I think, so it's $100,000. And so on this chart wing that you made, says residential cost per unit, we have one group is at 744,000, another group of 550,000, another 634, 100,000. And so those are taken consideration that a $100,000 subsidy.

[04:06:21] Wayne: Yes, so in their pro forma, they they factored in essentially the cost of the land or the lease payment, which is essentially, um, um, not part of the project. And so their their estimates and the pro forma has factored that in.

[04:06:37] Councilmember John McAlister: So, Randy, I'm going to ask you an unfair question. The property on El Camino, what was your unit cost? Do you remember?

[04:06:47] Randy: Uh, are you speaking of on Eagle Park?

[04:06:53] Councilmember John McAlister: No, the one the Taco Bell.

[04:06:56] Randy: Um, the one that we have, the one we're hoping to get going on next month, um, that one, as I recall, was around 800 also. I'd have to go look that up.

[04:07:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I'm just that I know, so I'm just using as a frame of reference for that. Okay. Thank you.

[04:07:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, any other questions, sir, council members for BH? Nope. All right. Well, thank you very much. We will, uh, close. This section and are there any council questions for staff? At this point. Counselor Ramirez.

[04:07:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Um, and just following Council member Matichek's lead. I also want to disclose that I've met with all of the applicants. Um, and I'm also grateful for all of your questions. I think we got a lot of good detail. Um, I have a just a couple of questions for staff. Um, and and the 1st I think, has been made pretty clear, but but just to make sure I'm on the same page with everybody else. So, even after we select a, a developer, we still retain a lot of discretion to explore some of the, the mixing and matching of ideas, right? So, um, alternative funding sources or, um, uses for the commercial space. Uh, the, you know, an alternative solution for, for parking, uh, the bedroom mix, whatever we want more, you know, family units, all of that, you know, can change regardless of which developer we select. Is that is that right?

[04:08:43] Wayne: That, that's correct. The framework that we're, um, we've been articulating is the minor variations, um, under the framework that has been put forward by the, um, lot 12 RP. And so the, the examples that you've mentioned, and that, um, the, um, development teams have, have mentioned, um, appear to fall within that framework. Um, and then, depending on if there are things that were much larger, then it would be a question of whether it's still a minor variation. Um, but the examples mentioned here tonight that you've, um, uh, summarized here appear to fall within that framework.

[04:09:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. No, that's helpful. I guess the way I'm thinking about it is we, we don't, it's because it's hard to pick between 4 good proposals if we have some flexibility and discretion to change things that, um, it's, uh, I think it helps us, it gives us an opportunity to mix and match some of the good ideas. Um, and then I guess a question for, uh, Consuelo, um, uh, regarding some of the county, um. Issues. So, and I'm, I'm going to struggle to articulate this. I, I, I know the county has, has done or worked in partnership with cities on outreach to, um, you know, I, I don't know if this is just in the context of measure A, but for, for other county, Um, Or, you know, when there's a financial component in the county for affordable housing, there's been like a concerted outreach component within the city, and I'm wondering if you can speak to any efforts in mountain view, and then, uh, you know, if you've, if you've done similar kind of outreach in other cities, how successful, successful they've been in increasing the, sort of the, the housing of. folks from within that city or within that community and in a given development.

[04:10:55] Consuelo: Can you hear me now?

[04:10:59] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[04:11:00] Consuelo: Oh, great, perfect. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Yes, absolutely. We have our, our, um, outreach team that their sole focus is working with city partners to identify areas that, um, homeless people reside in when we start leasing up a property. And I think the best example in your community of that partnership really is Eagle Park, where 16 of the units are dedicated to the county's permanent supportive housing efforts, and 14 of the households in those 14 of the 16 units are, um, you know, the people in the units are people from Mountain View, and that's through our efforts to target specific outreach areas. You know, this is a combination of working with your safe parking partners, working with your local police department, your housing staff, um, and some of your planning staff to help us identify the areas in your community, where homeless people congregate. Um, so it really does become a partnership and in the spirit of like flexibility. I did want to share with you that as you select a developer and, you know, there is, uh, an interest in having measure a funding and allocating some of those units for supportive housing. It doesn't have to be all 40 units dedicated to permanent supportive housing or 40 units dedicated to rapid rehousing. It's a combination and we're happy to work with staff and the council to come up with that right balance of mix. I also wanted to mention that we have partnerships with other county departments, to leverage their resources and hours, to partner together. We have 3 programs currently for families with um children in their in their families and are connected to your school districts. So we would be happy to explore a possible partnership. Um, it all is connected to our coordinated entry system. So the families do have to be in our program or they have to be enrolled. Um, and to give you a sense of the numbers. Currently, we have 5747 clients in what we refer to as the Community Q. And of those, 271 have an affiliation with the city of Mountain View. Um, and so when you think about Eagle Park, where 14 out of 16 units, um, are for, end up, we ended up housing 14 mountain view households. I think that shows what we're capable of providing the city mountain being in the way of partnership.

[04:13:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And so, and just to make sure I, I am fully understand that the 16 units were, there was no local preference. But with the partnership, you were able to house Mountain View to to provide. You know, I don't want to say local preference because it sounds like it doesn't, but how's 14 of the 16 despite the lack of a specific local preference policy? Is that is that fair?

[04:14:07] Consuelo: That's fair. It's, unfortunately, we aren't able to guarantee similar to, um, the proposal offered to you by midpen, and the preference that is given to a mountain view school or school district. Um, we can't guarantee that, but we do everything possible within the limitations of our program to outreach, target that outreach when the units are being leased up, um, and successfully try to place as many people in those units that are from Mountain View.

[04:14:38] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you very much. That's all.

[04:14:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's not a bad check. Thanks.

[04:14:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You know, I actually think other folks raise their hands before me if they wanted to go ahead.

[04:14:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, they come up uh, on the list as you raise them, so you're an X and Q.

[04:14:59] Unknown Speaker: Oh, okay. Um, just a couple questions. Um, You know, on the Eden proposal, for the number of rapid rehousing units. Um, I thought it was 26. Not 40. So when, when they were, when everyone was talking and folks said 40, I thought, why did I put 26 in my notes? And on the staff report, on page 15, it says 26. Um, I'm double checking on my screen, but I'm wondering also if it's possible for, um, Andrea Osga to, um, respond directly. I don't see her on her name. Is there someone from the, Eating team who can respond?

[04:16:01] Unknown Speaker: Actually, I see her on mine with her hand up.

[04:16:03] Unknown Speaker: Oh, great. Oh, at the very top, at least on my list. I see her. Thank you.

[04:16:14] Andrea Osgood: Okay, can you hear me?

[04:16:16] Unknown Speaker: There you go. Yes, yes.

[04:16:17] Andrea Osgood: All right. Um, yes. So for the, we had 2 different scenarios, but for our preferred scenario, I should have clarified, it's 26. Correct. Because our preferred scenario is a hybrid. Um, which combines a 4% project and a 9% project. Um, technicalities, but essentially, we're really focusing on that 4% side of the project as being our measure A project. And so a 3rd of that project needs to be um, rapid rehousing.

[04:16:50] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Um, and then um, I want to make sure I remember the, um, what we decided in terms of the parking for the Marwood project on Evelyn. And, um, As I recall, um, we were not going to require them to do a joint garage with the, um, build the new building next to them, and that they were going to build parking elsewhere. Is that correct?

[04:17:37] Unknown Speaker: I'll offer just my my understanding of it, but perhaps I'll ask RT Shabastova to to comment, but I believe there's summary is correct. Um, they, they're exploring, um, the ability to, um, pay an in the fee, um, and to explore using that, uh, amount for a facility, uh, a lot 6, um, an ACRT on here and I'll, I'll, uh, hand it over to her.

[04:18:05] Aarti Shrivastava: I'm gonna have to go back and look at the exact conditions of approval for the project, but yes, the council was open to, um, having them explore, and I know they had brought a couple of options during the council goals discussion. Um, and we are to fold that into the downtown strategy. But if I'm not mistaken, the original project had proposed parking, um, uh, in, um, you know, underground, um, and connected to the Hope Street project. So this would be an amendment to the project, that the council was um, um, open to exploring.

[04:18:44] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And what is the timeline for um taking a look at parking downtown? to assess whether or not another parking structure, um, taking the units needed that they need with potentially the 160 from here, with any other we might want to add to it.

[04:19:05] Aarti Shrivastava: We had hoped to bring this to the council this year. Um, uh, but we're trying to fast track a couple of projects, one of which is the small business strategy. And so the downtown parking strategy, since the same team is working on it, will probably be a little bit delayed. Um, I, and and we believe it's going to come in the beginning of next year. Uh, but we are, we are continuing to work on it and we do have a consultant, um, uh, a parking consultant who's helping us.

[04:19:38] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay, thanks. That's um, those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

[04:19:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye, Slayer.

[04:19:51] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. My questions are for Consuelo, if she's still on. Um, I had a question about, um, the AMI percentages. So, um, one of the things, um, I know for the measure A funding would be, um, folks that would qualify would be 30% AMI and below, um, and I know that for one person, that'd be about $33,000, and then I think for a family of 4 that'd be about $47,000. Um, in the populations that you've been working with, and it sounds like you have some recent experience in Mountain View. Can you maybe share some of the professions that folks within the AMI range have for us so that we can kind of better understand the population.

[04:20:44] Consuelo: Yes, absolutely. Great question. You know, one of the programmatically what we've heard from our partnership on the safe parking program, um, and some of the lower income households in your community is that, um, they are, You know, underserved in various in various ways in that they might be undocumented and so qualifying for a unit that has a project-based voucher in some instances might disqualify them from being placed into housing. Um, so it's not just the AMI level that that proves a challenge for them, but really it's their residential status. Um, which is one of the reasons why I think having a combination of rapid rehousing and PSH would address the ELI population in your community the most. Um, you know, and this is anecdotally from from our program managers, what I've heard in terms of how, you know, we had, we started off with a partnership in Mountain View with 20 case management slots. So this was the county, the city paying for 20 units or 20 case management spots. And through our work, we would find them a permanent housing location. And we indirectly served over 45 households. But in terms of permanently housing them, the challenge became the residential status.

[04:22:11] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, and then Part of my question was also the, um, the income level. So for the folks that, um, were able to be housed and weren't facing the same challenges of kind of, um, residency status. What were the, do you, were those, were certain industries? Was it service industry for those folks who are in that ELA population?

[04:22:43] Consuelo: Yes, it's primarily, it's primarily um, single income households. And they, um, you know, once they graduate from a program, whether that's, you know, typically it's the rapid rehousing that has the opportunity to increase their income, um, through employment initiatives that we partner with. Um, when they graduate, they come out of the program at that same 30% AMI level. Um, so their income is that low that they can't necessarily, um, achieve a higher income overall to step into the next income bracket.

[04:23:20] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I see. Okay.

[04:23:22] Consuelo: And and we also have, uh, you know, there's when we think about the disabled population that we serve. In some cases, it's an adult with a disabled child, and so they're unable to work because they have to take care of that child. Um, and so realistically in the long term, their ability to increase their income is, is not, you know, it's not fair to compare that family with somebody who might, I believe, Eden was describing, you know, the needs of the rapid rehousing families. In some cases, their acuity level is lower. Um, but they still have a member of their household that has special needs.

[04:24:03] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: And then, um, just last question for you, Consuelo, thanks so much for staying on the line with us so late. Um, I know that in Santa Clara County in particular, um, the, the kind of quote unquote face of homelessness has changed significantly than perhaps what might be traditionally thought of. Can you maybe share a little bit about what you've seen, you know, maybe even in reflection of the, of the recent pandemic in terms of folks who who would be falling into the quote unquote homeless category?

[04:24:36] Consuelo: Yes, that's a great question. Our most recent data shows that for every single household that we assist or that, that we provide either case management or housing placement, 3 new families or individuals enter our system, and the majority of those that are entering our 1st time, you know, it's the 1st time they become homeless. So we are struggling with keeping up with the pace of the number of people that are at risk of homelessness and becoming homeless, and the pandemic has accelerated that where, um, and, you know, we've been working with your staff and others across the county to think about homelessness prevention, and that is really the most recent gap that we're seeing because of the pandemic, is families that were already on the brink of homelessness are now becoming homeless because of the current health crisis.

[04:25:30] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. And then I did want to disclose that I uh, met with uh, virtually met with uh, midpen and Palo Alto housing slash related.

[04:25:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Council member Hicks?

[04:25:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So now I want to uh, follow up on the vice mayor's question. Could you give me, because I hadn't heard that before. Could you give me a little more detail on how the combination of rapid rehousing permanently supportive housing would best. Basically, I want the, whatever program would best house the, the growing number of people who are experiencing housing problems in, you know, in our city because of it, they are growing so much. I didn't quite understand why a combination of rapidly rapid rehousing and permanently supportive housing would you thought might best do that. Is it, does it involve um, income and the fact that maybe, maybe you could flush out a little more what each of those are. I don't know if it's, um, the inability of some people to raise their income or whether it's immigration status and how those 2 categories or maybe it's something else, but how those 2 categoric rehousing and permanently supportive housing, um, you know, how they differ on how they serve different populations.

[04:26:55] Consuelo: Absolutely. Great question, council member. You know, we at the county. We manage a supportive housing system that carries a variety of housing approaches. So to give you some context of the number of people that are currently enrolled in our programs. We have 84 households that have an affiliation with the city of Mountain View that need permanent supportive housing. And then we have 25 households that need rapid rehousing. These are only people that are currently enrolled in a program with the county. And so ideally, we would be looking to support housing developers and housing development projects that can address that need in your community, that are people that are in our programs that we can quickly help. And if you um, decide to have all of the units be one or the other. You kind of limiting your ability to respond to that need. And the way that our NOFA works is you could have of the 40 units, 30 B PSH, and the balance be rapid rehousing or the reverse. So, in both instances, we provide measure funding, in both instances, we pay for the supportive services for those households. And I think that combination and flexibility will allow you to address the 84 households that need housing in the permanent supportive housing category and 25 that need rapid rehousing. And again, these are just the people that we're aware of that are enrolled in the housing program in the county's system.

[04:28:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So are you just saying a combination would work best because then it would allow us to access from both of those lists. Is that?

[04:28:38] Consuelo: Yes. You know, one of one of the one of the comments that was made by one of the development teams is this idea that Mountain View essentially would be able to address your local housing need for your homeless population by building rapid rehousing or, you know, having the units be rapid rehousing. And I want to make sure that you're aware, because our system is so complex, that you would have the ability to serve your homeless population with a combination of both interventions. Permanent supportive and rapid rehousing in one building.

[04:29:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, now let me ask you this, because when I met with some of our, um, RV residents, they told me that they were, and this was, this was, um, people with, uh, some disabilities or, uh, with children in our schools, they said they feared that they were, um, kind of, uh, that they would not score well on the, uh, rating system. that would get them into, um, permanently supportive housing, and that they would be kind of, they would not be able to access that. is because they, they said there was a rating system with points that they did not have enough problems to get enough points. Do you think that's an accurate assessment on their part?

[04:30:05] Consuelo: Unfortunately not. I think this is where the terminology confuses people and we are changing the way that we talk about our housing interventions because the rapid rehousing is a permanent program. The way that the way that the measure a rapid rehousing units, the families that are placed in that unit can stay there as long as they income qualify. So I think there is this thought that if I, my acuity level, meaning my mental health, the combination of my disability and the period of time I've been homeless, all of those factors are variables, determine my acuity level and whether I score at the permanent support of housing intervention or rapid rehousing intervention. And a lot of people, primarily our clients, don't understand that way of thinking. So I think it's best to share with them that, you know, if they are placed in a rapid rehousing program, it leads to permanent housing. And it's not based on, it's based on what program they're enrolled in and not the type of housing. Um, which I think is confusing.

[04:31:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, but they were telling me is they thought they could not score high enough to enter into the system. They thought other people had a longer list of problems that would give them a higher score. Um, but I don't know whether we can pursue that now. Um, I think that's my question. Thank you.

[04:31:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions for staff? If not, um, I'm gonna open this up to public comment. And if you are in our attendee box on Zoom, and you would like to make a public comment, please hit the raised hand button at the bottom of the box, or if you're on the phone, please hit star 9. And I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. I have 9 and city clerk, do you have other public comment?

[04:32:12] City Clerk: I have one email to read into the record.

[04:32:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. So we have, um, I'm gonna give everyone. Let's see, let's go with. 2 minutes. And we'll start with, um, Miss Consuelo, I, I, I'm assuming you're not, in the queue for public comment. Or are you?

[04:32:39] Consuelo: Thank you, mayor. I wasn't sure if I was going to have the opportunity to answer questions and I just wanted you all to know that I was here and happy to answer any questions you might have and very much looking forward to partnering with your staff, um, and the council.

[04:32:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much and thank you for staying with us so late. Um, so I'll go next to Mary Anne Dawan. If you could, there you go.

[04:33:06] Mary Ann Dewan: Um, good evening, Mayor Akakoka, Vice Mayor Kame, and Council members. I'm Dr. Marianne Dubon, county superintendent of schools. At the Santa Clara County Office of Education, we believe in making sound investments in our primary stakeholders. The children and families we serve. We do this in many ways from initiatives that provide professional learning to educators. To also providing services to students in direct and indirect support services and through research and advocacy. In the area of early learning, we have been proactive in leading and managing a master plan with the goal of increasing access to inclusive, high quality, early care and education. For our county's youngest and most vulnerable children. The research shows that children, especially those from low income families who receive high quality, early care and education, are more likely to start kindergarten, ready to learn, and with the social emotional development needed, to interact effectively with their classmates. Low income children who receive high quality preschool are more likely to meet academic milestones, such as reading at grade level by the 3rd grade, and graduating from high school. The stakes could not be higher. In 2017, our office commissioned to study the early learning master plan around facilities. We learned that there were 28,000 children under the age of 3 that did not have access to childcare, in Mountain View, that represented 653 children. We also learned that for many childcare providers in the county, the single greatest obstacle to them expanding was the lack of facility space. Our findings make it clear that if we're going to ensure all children have access to childcare, we need to think bigger. We appreciate local officials who are willing to prioritize early care and education in their development plans. And we need to continue to explore and support unique partnerships, such as the ones discussed this evening. Thank you.

[04:35:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next, we'll go to Mary Kwan. You should be.

[04:35:23] Mary Kwan: Can guys hear me okay?

[04:35:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[04:35:26] Mary Kwan: Okay, great. So 1st of all, I'd like to appreciate the city mayor, the council members taking this matter, seriously. And again, um, the citizen residence here. Uh, a venue to share our voice. So 1st of all, as a homeowner in Mountain View. I was very attracted by the vibrant MSC downtown. So I, when I visit here for healthy search, I can meet a picture myself, uh, eating at a downtown restaurant. Commute to my work in Silicon Valley and see my kids running around in the downtown area. So, I am very concerned about having measure A residence. Um, mixed with a typical Silicon Valley restaurants here. So if I were a young tech workers here, I would not consider renting a place next to a measuring residence. And I would say that by having a project like this is going to transfer, transform our downtown into a Ghost Town rapidly. I am very concerned. I understand that developers are looking to funding to maintain business under country environment, but after you leave, right? So think about the housing price and think about the population here. I am really concerned that, The business on Castro Street is going to be impacted by the homeless population. Um, and uh, so I just want to let you know that, if this is the case, I would not feel comfortable to tell my kids going to library, and uh, if I am going to bring my clients for downtown dining, I will not bring some trend on to you. So, With that, I just want to urge, uh, the city council to reconsider, um, the leverage of major aid funding. I just don't want to see a nice downtown being a ghost town. That's what I have. Thank you.

[04:37:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We'll go next to Ray Bramson. You should be able to.

[04:37:35] Ray Bramson: Can everyone hear me?

[04:37:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, welcome.

[04:37:37] Ray Bramson: Thank you very much. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor council members. My name is Ray Brampson. I'm the chief impact officer with Destination Home, a public private partnership that's focused on creating deeply affordable housing and providing supported services to homeless individuals throughout Santa Clara County. I want to hearken back to council member McAllister's comments from the beginning of this meeting, and I really do think that the city council of Mountain View should be commended for the work that you've done over the past few years at both the staff level and at the council level, um, for both providing support and services to the homeless population, but also creating housing opportunities and deeply affordable housing opportunities. And I think lot 12 that you're listening to, that you're speaking of tonight is another amazing, amazing opportunity to create deeply affordable housing that's desperately needed for Santa Clara County residents, while also leveraging Measuring funding. We've worked on projects in 6 cities from Cupertino, to Dilroy using measure funding to build high quality developments in a variety of different neighborhoods, both urban and settings. I think for our part, a destination home. If the council were to select a measure a, a development that was proposing a measure a funding source and developing a measure a project. The destination home is completely committed to working closely with the city of Mountain View and seeing if we can leverage outside external private funding sources, further reduce the subsidy. So once again, we want to thank you, again, for your consideration of this important project and the work and time you've put into this. Thank you so much.

[04:39:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, go to Bruce England next.

[04:39:24] Bruce England: can you hear me

[04:39:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[04:39:25] Bruce England: I had to unmute myself again.

[04:39:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: seems to be working just fine.

[04:39:29] Bruce England: Thank you. Okay, so uh, Bruce England, Wisman Station Drive, and I'm speaking again for uh, NVCSP Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. We didn't submit a comment letter on this, but I'll just make a few points quickly. Redeveloping lot 12 provides a great opportunity to put housing close to services, transportation, and amenities, and to address the enormous need for more affordable and supportive housing in our community. And the city clearly has multiple strong proposals to consider. As Destination Home has pointed out, it's great to see multiple highly rated proposals submitted that we leverage measure funding, and this will enable development, maximizing the number of extremely low income and supportive housing units, and achieve the deepest level of overall affordability. Um, MBCSP has a safe parking community task force, and we've identified lot 12 for potential safe parking when possible during the development process. We urge you to consider this option as part of the project scope. That's it for me. Thank you.

[04:40:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We'll go to Michael Garcia. And if you can, and there we go.

[04:40:40] Michael Garcia: Yes, hello. Good evening, Mayor Abi Koga, Vice Mayor Command Council members. 1st off, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment this evening. My name is Michael Garcia. I'm the director of childcare planning and support for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. And in this capacity, I also support the local early Education Planning Council. The planning council is a county level collaborative with representatives from the early care and education field, including parents, childcare providers, businesses, and government. We are overseen by both the category of supervisors and board of education. Our primary responsibilities include assessing global childcare needs, setting priorities for the use of state and federal dollars for subsidized childcare programs, and advocating for public policy decisions regarding early education. Given the presentations and proposals heard this evening. I'm here to speak in favor of the development teams that propose to building childcare for the ground level non-residential use. I believe affordable housing, coupled with co-located childcare is one of the best ways in which we can work towards a highly beneficial solution that addresses to the greatest barriers affecting low income children and families in our county. The lack of affordable housing and the short supply of affordable childcare. If selected, either development team proposes to build childcare facilities that is to be operated by a state subsidized childcare provider, I believe that's an important detail that should be taken into consideration. According to the latest data from my office, less than one% of now used children under the age of 3 qualify for state subsidized childcare, while higher, that also applies to 44% of children of preschool age. Uh, just for reference, uh, family of 4 for subsidized childcare, um, qualifies for subsidized childcare, their family income does not exceed 80,000. And amount of year alone. 729 children under the age of 6 who meet that income criteria, who may be forced to go without care simply because their parents cannot afford it in closing. You could address some of that need this evening by selecting the development team that proposes to build affordable housing that includes childcare and in doing so, you'd be investing in a family friendly development that provides in the central service as needed now and will certainly be needed in the future. Thank you for your time.

[04:42:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So now too, again, Dave Rudolph. If you can unmute yourself, please.

[04:43:04] Dave Rudolph: All right, good uh, good evening, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Um, you have a bunch of great proposals information. Um, and so I'm not gonna speak on the validity or why each one is deserving. Obviously, we have a need within our community to make sure that it's enough affordable housing and I applaud city council for working on this. I do want to highlight one thing though. Um, we have 14 new homeless students in our district, um, as of today, which brings our total up to 175, which is up from February from 161. And there are a lot of our homeless families are now saying, that they do not want it to know, that they've moved out of Mountain View or where they are currently living. And so I think a plan that encompasses a preference or approach to address the homeless students that are both shared from Mountain View, Whisman, and Mountain View, Los Altos, as well as early childhood, early childcare, for families is a viable option, and it's not to knock any of the other options that are out there, but it's just simply to say that I believe that this one not only addresses the needs of our city, but also addresses the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, which are our students. So I would strongly commend just to sim- uh, similar to the letter that I placed uh, in their packet, uh, and that I sent earlier today, um, that you, that you support uh, the midpen project. Um, with a strong preference for uh, homeless students in Mountain View, Westman, as well as Mountain View, Los Altos, as well as the early childhood care, uh, childcare. Thank you.

[04:44:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We go to Chen Wang. Lisa, mute yourself.

[04:44:54] Chen Wang: Okay. Yes. Oh, thanks for the opportunity, let me speak. I think it's a good, uh, great idea to build, uh, for the house, for people to provide public service to mountain view residents, to be for those people, like the teachers, and the firefighters. But I do have a very deep concern for the measure A funding, because of all this project. I learned that if we use measure A, the county will decide. Uh, I think that the 40 units will be decided by the county who can rest, who can be rested there. So that actually makes this, that's, uh, we have much less resource to actually serve this for the house, to other, uh, uh, people who actually provide the public service to monkey residents. So for the best interest of mountain residents, I think we can, we should not accept a measure A. We should fully control and make sure it's all, if the Mount View restaurant has higher priority. The teachers, firefighters, have high priority, could be the resident of new for the house. At one point. The 2nd point. I think that, um, this issue is not really very notified or become awareness of all the mountain residence. Based on the public comments here, the only very few comments among your residents. So I'm not sure if it's, we still have enough time to actually broadcast these to more people who live in mountain view and get more input from mountain view residents. Thanks

[04:46:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We're going now to Alex Brown. Please

[04:46:46] Alex Brown: and Good evening. Good evening. I'll wait for the time to reset. Did he click, could we reset the timer? There we go. Thank you. How's going? Uh, so yeah, I just wanted to open, uh, with an acknowledgment to the mayor and council member McAllister that, uh, you know, I give you, let's go with Guff, uh, often enough for various projects and things, but I want to commend you for taking the time to do something good that is, you know, public housing that especially supports people who are experiencing homelessness right now. I think this is a dire need for a lot of people. One thing that I can't let stand is just, There's a miraculous alchemy that happens. When you provide housing to people in a city, that they become residents of that city, because they reside there. Definitionally, that is how housing works. And so having a preference for people who formerly lived in Mountain View, where people who are residing in Mountain View, in unstable housing situations, is nice, but as soon as they have established housing in Mountain View, in permanent supportive housing, in affordable housing products, in any sort of residence, they are citizens, there are neighbors, there are people. And the idea that we have to find people who serve the more, uh, the more deserving residents of Mountain View as a public service in order to justify their not being on the streets. Um, is just morally reprehensible. I don't I don't, I don't like that. Uh, these are people, these are, these are our neighbors, as soon as we have housing for them, and they live there. They are part of the city. They are residents. They're, they, they're, our community, and I think we should do everything we can to foster that and to support them, and to welcome them, and not try to means test and restrict and scrutinize every single person who needs help. Thank you.

[04:48:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We're going out to Luis Katz.

[04:49:05] Luis Katz: Thank you. There we go. Yes, thank you, mayor and council. On behalf of Liverpool Mountain View. We've submitted a letter, and I just wanted to, um, say that we, uh, support the excellent design of the related Palo Alto housing scenario one, which requires no measure A funds and fully serves local needs. In the alternative, the midpen project, which also uses no measure A funds, as the others do, would also accomplish the same goals. Why should we support that? First of all, as was explained, the Palo Alto housing scenario one, as the same cost, as their scenario 2, which has measure A funds. It means that we will not save any money by using measure A funds. And as much discussion tonight has been about the difficulty of maneuvering within the controls that come with measure A. Um, just like tonight's earlier discussion about the replace, about the develop new development, mountain view residents have come to the city council meetings, often by the 100s, over and over, asking for low income, affordable housing, for struggling residents. Displaced residents, and those who work here and have brutal commutes because of affordability. I have not heard anyone asking for housing for those on a countywide list, whose qualifications were the highest level of need, based on problems and conditions that rendered them the most difficult to house and employ. Measure A funds criteria could very easily exclude those who are employed here and within with low and moderate incomes. Retail, cleaners, grocery clerks, hospital, teachers, aids. These are the people who provide what we now clearly know are essential services. And we would like to see them served. And thank you very much.

[04:51:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We go now to Kim Donovan. And she should be on. welcome.

[04:51:12] Kim Donovan: Thank you. Good evening, and I live on Bush Street downtown and work on El Camino. And I realize that this is something that was set by the city in the RFQ, but I would like this to be considered in the proposals, and that is the parking situation downtown. In my opinion, we've had a long term problem regarding parking. And prior to the current emergency, of course. Um, of course, from my house, I'm fortunate enough to be able to walk downtown, but if I'm coming from my office or someplace else, I need to drive there and time and time again have had real difficulties trying to park for a lunch meeting or dinner meeting so much so that people say we can't meet in downtown Mountain View. Um, additionally, my husband's disabled and trying to find disabled parking in downtown Mountain View is virtually impossible. I end up dropping him off, parking back in our home, walking and then having to reverse after dinner. So, I, I, would like that to be considered, and in my experience, the situation is only worsened recently. Um, in the last 6 months again prior to the crisis. Cars have been parking on my street throughout the day. And, um, and it's made it increasingly difficult to be able to have friends and so on, park near my home. Um, I attribute part of that to the new project at St. Joseph's, and I think the situation will only worsen with the Wells Fargo project. Um, the number of parking spots for 120 units. Ranged in these proposals, and this is pursuant to the RFQ. I understand from 73 to 90. And here, what the recommended project is the one with the least number of parking spots. Um, and I understand that replacement of the surface parking is provided in all of the projects. However, based on the combination of residents and the community use, I think that the need for parking in the area will again be increased. I realized that the council and the community, many people believe that between technology and public transit will have a decreased need for parking. But I think that that has been projected for a long time, and the reality that we've seen.

[04:53:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Good time is up, thank you very much,

[04:53:43] Kim Donovan: no problem.

[04:53:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We go now to J H initials. And you should be on.

[04:54:00] J H: Yep. can you hear me

[04:54:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[04:54:03] J H: Yeah, so I'm a resident of the Questa Park neighborhood, Mount View. I find it ironic that, you know, prior to this debate, we were considering, you know, raising, uh, old housing, old apartments to put in expensive apartments that, and our townhouses that probably those residents won't be able to afford. I mean, as a homeowner, Mountain View. I feel that homeowners aren't being well represented here in terms of having our voices and concerns heard. We already have a very lax RV policy here that completely undermines Macon's law. and other provisions that keep us safe. Uh, we have arguably the premium location of Mountain View, where homes, walking distance from the site that we're talking about, you know, run up to $2000000 or more. And yet, uh, we're, of all locations, we're talking about putting affordable housing there. Uh, it just seems that it's not the right location. It's it doesn't make sense already today. It's difficult in that library area because of all the RVs and all the people using library services, library restrooms. Um, It's already, it feels like there's an impact. And um, it doesn't seem like this is really the right place to be put in it. This is downtown Mountain View. It's an area where businesses reside, where people are trying to tax paying people are trying to conduct their business. And uh, it just seems like it's completely ignoring the people who actually pay the bills, which are the homeowners who pay property taxes. I would echo also that we have teachers and public servants who cannot afford to live in this area. They're excluded from this. So, you know, I don't think that anybody should be getting a handout. But especially not people who just are not contributing to the tax base. And so those are the comments that I had. I feel that there needs to be more awareness for all homeowners in Mountain View because I don't think enough homeowners know about this. Thank you.

[04:56:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we go to Dan.

[04:56:06] Dan: Hello? can you hear me

[04:56:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[04:56:09] Dan: Okay, my 1st point is, I think we need to consider. I've heard all the comments, and I'm really, those are very, all very nice, and thanks for the opportunity to share my comments, but I think I would like to emphasize on the parking issue. This location, lot 12, is reading one of the rare large property in downtown Mountain View. I think on the my hand, I fully support providing affordable housing. But I think at the same time, there's an opportunity for the city council to request, uh, the parking owner being, being paying special attention. For example, not only we would want to have 160 replacement parking, but maybe there's an opportunity to ask the developer to put more parking. Uh, so this is why I think I prefer the midpen, uh, uh, uh, proposal because it does provide the parking structure easily visible to the public. And with the COVID-19 problems, there will be a need to help downtown businesses and providing sufficient parking really will help those businesses. And at the same time, taking into consideration of providing affordable housing. So that's my number point number one, which is if there's an opportunity, whoever we're working with, MidPen or somebody else, whether the city council could provide an incentive or something else, or paying some, putting some of his own money to provide more parking than the 160 that's, that's required. And my 2nd point is, I think, having Mountain View resident being the, uh, uh, uh, affordable housing gave them a priority. I think it should be the starting line, starting point. Uh, we know we've talked about displaced residents from the earlier discussion, as well as need to maintain housing for teachers, firefighters, uh, you know, 1st line, grocery clerks, these are the people that work and live in mountain view, they really should have priority for housing at this particular location. And I think that should not be a really a discussion. This is an opportunity for the council to require that as a baseline, not a sort of a discussion point. Thank you very much.

[04:58:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? If you're in the Participant box. Please hit the vase hand button. I don't see anyone else. Uh, city clerk. Do we have any other public comment?

[04:58:25] City Clerk: Yes, mayor, I have one email that I'll read, uh, into the record, um, that arrived after 5 PM. Um, dear, this is from Steve Chandler. Dear council members regarding item 6.one for the selection of Lot 12 preferred development team. I want to strongly urge you for you that you choose the developer that has the best potential for protecting our city's most vulnerable and ensuring that there is a space for them to not only live, but to prosper like many other families around us. Other neighbors need your help. Please choose the best developer for underprivileged Mountain View residence. Let's put priority on helping the low income at risk and homeless, houseless families. Sincerely yours, Steve Chandler. Thank you.

[04:46:09] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I don't see any other public comments, so I will close public comment and bring it back to council. Um, we've been going 3 hours. So I was going to suggest a break. Um, If we can do fight, well, at 1130, so 6 minutes, how's that, that work?

[05:47:27] Unknown Speaker: okay

[05:47:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Thank you. So we'll be back at 1130.

[05:47:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Bill credit for up to 4000 qualifying small business customers in our service area. We also, um, are going to create a workforce relief fund 1500000 to provide immediate financial relief to the contractor workforce and expand awareness of electrification technology through training. So we're creating these training programs and if you, if you go through that, then you'll get a, um, I think up to $500 at the end. Um, And then we also will be uh, creating a community energy resiliency fund of $5000000 to member agencies. That means the cities and the county that are part of um, SVCE. And this is to provide project support that increases resiliency in local communities to deal with the PSPS events. So, if our city has a resiliency project, we will get funding for that and that's going to be divided up, um, by our, um, our, our, our size, and for Mountain View, total with all of these 3 projects, uh, programs. We should be seeing over $1000000 coming back to our city. So um, that's pretty good news. Um, we did do a mid-year budget review, and uh, we approved a 4% rate discount from PG&E, um, And then, and then the, the resiliency or the, um, COVID relief fund programs. And we also, uh, approved another 20 year solar plus storage contract with next era energy, and this is to continue to, um, fulfill our, uh, um, requirements for more uh, renewable energy sources. So, um, that was exciting, exciting news. And then I did attend the cities association, um, we had the legislative action committee, where we took an opposed position on AB 1279, that was, that's the, um, Bloom Bill that calls for high resource areas to increase housing opportunities. Um, and then, uh, we had a selection community committee meeting, and I want to congratulate uh, council member Medichek for being reappointed to the airport land use commission. And um, Those were, yeah, those were the main items. And then finally, um, you may have heard, and I know it's been in the paper, uh, we continue to have our mayor's call with um, county supervisor Chavez, uh, every Saturday morning now to talk about testing, and they are exploring, uh, testing a mobile testing site in Mountain View, um, where we apparently have, uh, some hotspots in the North Ring store neighborhood. Um, so I know our city manager's been working with county staff on the details of that. So um, we should be hearing more details soon. Thank you. And counseling on McAllister.

[05:50:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Are they gonna do, is anybody gonna do an antibody test or are they all just doing a viral test?

[05:50:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, they're, they're all viral at this time, although Stanford does offer the antibody test. Um, I, I'm a patient there and I was offered one. I did have a test for the regular test and they're really pushing the regular test. Um, not so much the antibody test, but some facility for it.

[05:51:24] Unknown Speaker: You're a mute, Margaret?

[05:51:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry. City attorney, do you have a closed session report?

[05:51:30] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report tonight.

[05:51:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. So then we, adjourned at 1216 AM, and uh, we are still trying to pick a date for our next city council meeting, so I won't announce that date just yet, but thank you all. Thank you for hanging in there and have a great evening. or morning. Take care.

• ← Previous
• Next →