October 13, 2020 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

• Pre-Meeting: Holding screen before the meeting officially begins. (00:00:00)
• 1. CALL TO ORDER & 2. ROLL CALL (5:00 P.M. Study Session): The Mayor calls the meeting to order and the City Clerk takes the roll call. (05:53:53)
• 3.1 Lot 12 Remaining Development Priorities: Staff presentation on Lot 12 development priorities followed by public comment and council discussion. (05:54:42)

Transcript

Pre-Meeting

[00:05:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Good evening everyone. Welcome to our meeting of October 13th. Happens to be my older daughter's birthday. Many birthdays we've spent here at City Council meetings. But I'd like to call this meeting to order. We will be starting with a study session, and my announcement is that this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the City Council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for the item by signing up at mountainview.gov/cc_speakers or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 912-9819-0494. Any emails received by 5:00 p.m. today were forwarded to the City Council. Emails received after 5:00 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Now I'd like to ask the City Clerk to proceed with roll call, please.

[00:07:19] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Thank you. Councilmember Clark.

[00:07:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:07:22] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Hicks.

[00:07:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:07:24] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Matichak.

[00:07:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[00:07:26] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember McAlister.

[00:07:27] Councilmember John McAlister: I am here.

[00:07:29] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Ramirez.

[00:07:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:07:32] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[00:07:34] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:07:35] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[00:07:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:07:38] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Thank you.

[00:07:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All members are present, and we will go onto our item three, our study session. Our first one of the evening, 3.1 on lot 12, the remaining development priorities, and we have a staff presentation by our Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen. Welcome, Wayne.

[00:07:56] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Let me just take a moment to share my screen. Okay. Can everyone see the screen here? Great. Then I'll go ahead and jump right in. Yes, as you mentioned, this item is to discuss the remaining development priorities for Lot 12.

[00:08:22] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: As a quick summary of the background, in May 2020, Council selected Related/Alta Housing as a preferred developer for Lot 12 as part of the RFP process. And at the meeting, there were three remaining items that were being discussed. Whether the replacement of the 160 public parking spaces should be placed on or off-site, evaluating child care as part of the Lot 12 development, and the question of Measure A funding and the subtopics of the tenant population and the City's ability to implement its live/work preference. Staff was directed to return to Council in a study session to finalize the remaining items, and that is the purpose of this meeting tonight. Since that time, staff has held ongoing meetings with the developer over the past few months to talk through these items and the various items related to these topics.

[00:09:22] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Just a brief summary on the submittal that the selected developer provided as part of the RFP process, and there are many aspects to the project, but these are the key items: 120 residential units, all of them affordable to households earning 80 percent of the area median income or less, and there would be 85 residential spaces for those residential units. It does include just over 4,000 square feet of non-residential community-serving commercial uses as requested in the RFP. And the developer did provide a flexible strategy that could allow on or off-site replacement of the 160 spaces via an innovative ground lease payment to the city of 10 million dollars. The total city subsidy requested by the developer, they had submitted three different financing scenarios, range from 4.25 million to up to 12 million dollars for one of the scenarios, and this would be a combination of subsidies for affordable housing and the non-residential uses.

[00:10:37] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: The COVID-19 considerations as related to this project is that the pandemic has certainly impacted the economy and lower-income jobs, especially service-related jobs, and those are the folks who really need stable affordable housing, so there's an increased need for such housing. The developer has been closely monitoring the impacts on funding sources during the past few months, and it is anticipated that there is an increased subsidy gap due to the decline of funding sources like the tax credit program and the amount that can be generated through that program, and then the uncertainty of funding for other sources of funding. There is uncertainty regarding downtown parking demand. There has been demand on downtown parking in terms of a decrease in the demand given shelter-in-place requirements, and it is anticipated that the decrease in parking will remain in the short and medium term, although it may flux. But it is uncertain whether the decrease in demand will be a longer-term sort of permanent change, and we have a separate team working with consultants on a downtown parking strategy and this is certainly part of that process in terms of putting together an integrated comprehensive downtown parking plan. And then finally, child care operations and financing, those elements are in flux, and we'll talk about that in a moment when we get to that item.

[00:12:18] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Moving to replacement parking, staff did spend some time right after the May meeting to talk through the ground lease payment. The development team had more time to talk to state funding departments and to make sure that it didn't pose any issues in terms of being competitive for those state funding sources, and it does not appear that the ground lease payment would cause any issues for competitiveness or eligibility for funding sources. The developer does note that if the replacement parking were placed off-site, there would likely be some cost savings to Lot 12 simply because it would be simpler construction without having to build underground parking, and there would likely be quicker delivery of affordable housing with off-site replacement because there would be no need to build that underground parking, so it'd be quicker and a bit easier to develop. If the spaces were replaced off-site, this information would be incorporated into the downtown parking strategy that I was referring to just a moment ago. And then any details regarding that strategy and if it led to a third parking facility, the cost, location, timing, design, etc., would need to be determined through a separate process separate from Lot 12. Based on the quicker delivery, some cost savings that appear viable, it is recommended to move forward with the 10 million dollar ground lease payment and to replace the parking off-site, and the question for Council is does Council support this recommendation.

[00:14:02] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Moving onto child care, as mentioned, child care operations and financing are in flux, shelter-in-place provisions and still social distancing measures are part of the environment in which child care services are being considered and hopefully part of returning back to normal or new normal. We have had staff take a look at initial concepts and design criteria and components as part of Lot 12. The developer has worked with their architect to do some initial design iterations. And based on staff's initial review, we would certainly continue to work with the developer in terms of the location of the child care use. We would need to take a look at the interior and exterior space and other requirements regarding, for example, per child requirements for interior and exterior space. Staff did have initial input on needing to pay attention to parking the use, potential queuing and drop-off and pick-up zones that will enable effective functioning of child care, and just to note that the developer did look at the Mercy and Bryant corner for this use. And certainly, factors that relate to the adjacency to the residential neighborhood, all of those elements would continue to be part of the Lot 12 process. And there is general consensus that child care is an important need and that it would need to resume services in order for the economy to fully recover, and this could be useful for Lot 12. Should residents in Lot 12 who may have occupations that require them to be on-site, having this type of service may be particularly helpful for Lot 12 residents. The developer will continue to evaluate child care as part of Lot 12, and they are very open to additional conversations with the County and YWCA, but also other service providers as well.

[00:16:24] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Regarding Measure A, the developer did submit three financing scenarios in the RFP response. Scenarios one and two are recommended for consideration because they focus on the 80% AMI or less group, which was part of the RFP requirements. They both have a variety of different funding sources, but Scenario 2 did include Measure A whereas Scenario 1 did not include Measure A. Just to note, Measure A does fund two different types of housing for homeless housing. One is permanent supportive housing, and the other is rapid rehousing, and there is a definition that refers to the county guideline definitions in the staff report. There would be limits on the city's ability to implement its live/work preference on those PSH and rapid rehousing units if Measure A were funding those units, but again, in coordination and in conversations with the county, there would be a commitment to incorporating targeted marketing and outreach to Mountain View residents to enable the ability to really have Mountain View residents access those units.

[00:17:37] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: There are three possible project types if Measure A is supported. As mentioned in the staff report, there is a Type 1 project, which is a focus on permanent supportive housing. There would be a 50 percent requirement of such units in a Type 1 project, so for Lot 12, 60 units of PSH. A Type 2 project has a 1/3 requirement for units that would be either PSH, a combination of PSH and rapid rehousing, or just rapid rehousing. With this 1/3 threshold, it would mean 40 such units in the Lot 12 project. The third approach is an approach that the county is very willing to further discuss and potentially consider, although it's not guaranteed at this time, it is a programmatic approach that looks at achieving up to 250 units of permanent supportive housing and/or rapid rehousing citywide, and this was identified as a goal in our affordable housing investment plan. And if this was the approach that was directed for the developer to take, then we along with the developer would have conversations with the county to understand how that would work. And if it could work, with the notion that Lot 12 would be able to contribute to that 250-unit goal, but it could provide less units than either the Type 1 or Type 2 required number of units.

[00:19:05] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: And so other considerations as mentioned is that there may still be limitations on the live/work preference even without Measure A, it just depends on the ultimate set of financing sources. And then Measure A may indeed be one of the few external funding sources that could help close the increased subsidy gap. We did have conversations with the developer over the last few weeks, it's one of the topics that we always touch on regarding the nature of funding sources, and based on their scan, it does appear that external funding sources, there may be a limit on what can pick up the increased gap, and Measure A does appear to be one of them potentially. So the second question for Council is does Council support Measure A for Lot 12, if so, is there a preference for a Type 1, Type 2, or this third option as mentioned.

[00:20:00] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: In terms of next steps, the goal is to after this study session to as quickly as possible initiate the 90-day negotiation period. It would be initiated and it would start with the developer paying the nonrefundable 50,000 dollar deposit, and there is the provision to extend the negotiations by 60 days if it looks like there's good forward progress but not quite there yet, and there would be an additional deposit of 25,000. The goal is to come back to Council early 2021 regarding the DDA and ground lease. So this is the summary of council questions and that concludes staff's presentation, and happy to answer any questions you may have.

[00:20:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you very much, Mr. Chen. Um since this is a study session we will go to uh public comment first. And so um, if you are in the attendee box and would like to comment, please raise your blue hand. And if you are on the phone, please hit star 9. And we will start let's see, you could raise your blue hand I get a sense of how many folks are interested in speaking. See I see two hands. So um we'll go ahead with the three minutes, and we'll start with Ray Bramson. If you can please unmute yourself to speak please.

[00:21:26] Ray Bramson: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. I want to thank you this evening for your thoughtful consideration of Lot 12. My name is Ray Bramson, I'm the Chief Operating Officer with Destination: Home, a public-private partnership that's focused on addressing deeply affordable housing and homelessness issues in Santa Clara County. I believe that the options before you with this exciting parcel represent a step forward in our community. As you heard from staff this evening, Measure A, the county affordable housing bond, has long been a resource since 2016 when the voters approved it to fund deeply affordable housing. Since its launch, there have been 27 projects in seven cities throughout Santa Clara County that have been able to utilize this funding to build extremely low income, very low income, and supportive housing. The opportunity before you today with Measure A funding and the considerations that are available represents a chance to think about a new type of partnership that the county's offering. I think option three under consideration this evening, the idea of a programmatic approach, is something new, it's something the county Office of Supportive Housing has been working with to see how they can more deeply partner individually with cities and provide a new type of support to use rapid rehousing and supportive housing to build more options for Mountain View residents in need of support and vulnerable. Destination: Home has been working closely with the county on this effort and is looking in the coming months as we hope to come back to you and talk more about the community plan to end homelessness and our overall strategies, how we could see if it would be possible to partner more deeply. And if you took on this programmatic approach to identifying housing opportunities throughout your community, if Destination: Home might be able to consider the City of Mountain View for a capacity building grant. So we're excited to see that this option is before you, we hope you consider it deeply, and we look forward to future opportunities to work together. Thank you so much.

[00:23:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I will go on to Louise Katz. Please unmute yourself Louise.

[00:24:02] Louise Katz: Yes, thank you. On behalf of Livable Mountain View, thank you very much, Mayor. We've submitted a letter with more details, but I think what the important points that we wanted to emphasize, especially after hearing the staff report and the prior speaker, is that the goal of our affordable housing effort in Mountain View has been promised over and over and over that it would be for Mountain View residents, having top priority who would have the need based on the cost of living and/or having been displaced because of ongoing development. And we don't see that at all in this project. What we've been told is that the county will commit quote unquote to marketing, that we will have the privilege of marketing this project for them. But there is not going to change anything as that exists in terms of giving priority to Mountain View residents. So no matter how many people we sign up that need these services that live here and their kids would be in school here, we can still lose these people 100 percent because their numbers will be diluted by being put into a county-wide list. And again, this was this was not what we were promised over the years. We also wanted to mention that we fully support the rapid rehousing, but not to use Measure A funds for this resource if it requires us to also have the permanent supportive housing. Our housing should be dedicated first and foremost to the families who have lived in Mountain View and or live here now, we have pools, we have libraries, we have community centers, we have schools, we have all the things that families should be given first choice to be part of. We also wanted to mention that this piecemeal approach to whether we move parking or not has not worked before and it's not going to work now. We have a problem that we've just been told we're gonna have a consultant, we're gonna have a strategy in place at some point in time, yet we're being asked or the Council is being asked to make a decision now as to where parking is going to go. Again, that's piecemeal, and it won't work, we just keep kicking the problem down the road, let's worry about it another time. We feel very strongly if there's going to be retail, if there's going to be commercial use of the property, we need to have parking. We're whittling away at the parking that will eventually destroy our downtown. There's no mention in this report of the 100 spaces that we're going to be losing in the transit center, the hotel that's being built, more offices that are being built. So we would like to see this matter be part of a comprehensive proposal and plan and not any more piecemeal decisions. That everything, we have one chance and one chance only. Thank you.

[00:26:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go on to Alex Bram. Please unmute yourself.

[00:26:57] Alex Bram: All right. Was getting really close to start. Okay, use that county money. Build that housing, help vulnerable people, and as soon as they're housed, they're Mountain View residents. Let's welcome them to the community. Don't tell people in need that they're not worthy of help just because of where they happen to be from most recently. Build more housing, public housing, affordable housing. Let's do it. Let's go. Yeah.

[00:27:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, anyone else from the public wishing to comment? If you can raise your blue hand or press star 9 if you're on the phone. And I don't see anyone else, so I will close public comment and bring it back to the Council for questions. Let's see why don't we start with any questions first. Council members, if you have questions, if so please raise your blue hand. I see Councilmember Hicks.

[00:28:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Hi. Tell me if you can hear me, my sound's been fluctuating. Okay. So I've asked most of my questions earlier, but I did have one remaining, um, a couple one or two remaining questions now that I've seen the presentation. First is, there are a lot of people, I've spoken to people who are with the Mountain View Tenants Coalition who are not homeless, but because of COVID are very fearful of becoming homeless. They're unemployed and and have been for some time. And I'm wondering how those particular individuals or family members would qualify. Would they qualify, if they're do people on the verge of homelessness as opposed to already homeless qualify for rapid rehousing? So that's one question.

[00:28:59] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Thanks for the question, and I also meant to note that we have folks from the development team who can help respond to questions as well as Consuelo Hernandez from the county Office of Supportive Housing, so I may ask her to chime in on this one as well. But the way that we've been thinking about rapid rehousing is it could also be used as a preventative tool for folks who may be on the verge of homelessness for a variety of factors. Of course, Lot 12 would also have other units that would be, even if there were Measure A or rapid rehousing units, there would be non-rapid rehousing units where folks can also apply for and have access to should their income qualify. But, let me see if Consuelo has any additional thoughts regarding the eligibility of rapid rehousing units.

[00:29:59] Consuelo Hernandez: Hi, thank you, this is Consuelo Hernandez, Acting Director with the Office of Supportive Housing. Apologies, I was still on the public speaking side and had to be updated to a panelist. So, to answer your question, Councilmember Hicks, it depends on the individual household's acuity. That will determine the housing intervention. So assuming that the individuals that you are referring to are have a minimal intervention, meaning...

[00:30:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Consuelo? We lost you.

[00:30:44] Consuelo Hernandez: Can you hear me?

[00:30:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: There we go. Oh, you're cutting in and out.

[00:30:52] Consuelo Hernandez: I hope this is better now.

[00:30:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Better, thank you.

[00:30:55] Consuelo Hernandez: Great. I'm not sure how much you heard, but in short, it depends on the household's needs and what they qualify for in terms of intervention. So when we think about intervention in the supportive housing system, it's based on their needs and their history of homelessness. So Councilmember Hicks, to answer your question, the households could possibly qualify for rapid rehousing or minimal intervention. Minimal intervention means as Wayne pointed out, extremely low income households that can't afford to stay in the area, but need an affordable unit.

[00:32:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So let me see if I understand that because I did miss a little bit of it. So if somebody had been employed before, maybe at a fairly low income, and then unemployed for some stretch of time, but we're not less yet homeless but but they see that as a possibility in their future, they they may have enough acuity to qualify for rapid rehousing? Is that what you're telling me?

[00:32:44] Consuelo Hernandez: No, they would benefit from other services. So they would benefit from homelessness prevention, and you know we're exploring different models to help people that are in crisis now. If they are not currently assessed and we determine through an assessment that they qualify for rapid rehousing, that would then move them into a different type of intervention. It's kind of hard to answer the question without knowing the history of the families, or the individuals, but generally speaking, we would assess them to determine their level of need or their housing intervention. And then from there, if it's minimal intervention, we have homelessness prevention programs, and we have the ability to connect them with extremely low income units. If their acuity level is you know higher than that, then they would qualify for rapid rehousing.

[00:34:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So can you tell me what some of the conditions are that would make their acuity level higher than that? Can you just give me a short list of common things that would make a family or individual have a higher acuity?

[00:34:15] Consuelo Hernandez: Typically it's associated to a household, like if the household has a disabling condition, and a disabling condition can be anything from a physical disability to a mental disability, with one member of the household. So you may have working parents with a sick child for instance that prohibits one of the family, one of the parents from working because they have to stay at home to care for the child. So in that instance, the household can't generate enough rent, you know, enough income to afford a standard or market rate unit in Mountain View for instance, and they need an extremely low income unit in order to not become homeless again. That's just one simple example.

[00:35:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So it sounds like you're telling me rapid rehousing is not for people who are just extremely low income and long-term unemployed due to COVID. They have to have some additional acuity. Is that true?

[00:35:28] Consuelo Hernandez: I'm so sorry, I'm having serious issues. It could be a factor Councilmember Hicks, it can be a factor. It's not as simple as a yes or no answer. It really depends on the household. So it can be a disabling factor that prevents a household from not becoming homeless again. So if they have a long period of unemployment and they're unable to enter the workforce again but they but they might not have a serious mental illness, then they would qualify under rapid rehousing. And then the rapid rehousing program connects them to other services which includes workforce development, case management, other health benefits.

[00:40:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so there is not already an existing list that people get added to, you are creating a list, and people both living and working in Mountain View, as well as folks outside of Mountain View, could potentially be on those lists, but it's prioritized based upon acuity.

[00:40:44] Consuelo Hernandez: That is correct. That is correct. And and the program type. So in this case if just for simplicity purposes, if we're talking about rapid rehousing, they would have to score within the range of rapid rehousing. And and I understand that people, people in the community don't understand the benefits of being assessed. They basically enter the program. They enter our system, and they may be housed indirectly through that partnership. And I'll give you an example of a contract that we currently have with Mountain View where we serve 20 households in your community, right? But indirectly, we're serving over 40 households. They're just not all housed in Mountain View. Right, so you only pay for the 20, but ultimately the county pays for the others through other programs that we have, they're just not housed in Mountain View because there's no unit available for them. Does that does that help?

[00:41:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yep, yep, thank you. So then, um, I found an interesting in the staff report in the, I can't remember what page, but talking about permanent supportive housing. And it said that the use of services was voluntary. And I guess I thought permanent supportive housing meant you were sort of obligated to take advantage of the services that are offered. So, um, permanent supportive housing is, is that mostly helping with the financial aspects of it, that's the permanent part of supportive housing, and not necessarily the other services or how does that really work?

[00:42:41] Consuelo Hernandez: Sorry, I just want to make sure, should I answer that question, Wayne?

[00:42:46] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Yes, if you want to take a shot at the response, and I think Councilmember Matichak, you're referring to I think the definition we pulled out from the Measure A guidelines, is that the section that you're referring to, just to make sure.

[00:43:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I believe so. I didn't point page 7. 6 or 7, um. Yeah, it is the first bullet point on page 7 where it talks about the um, access to onsite or offsite services that are flexible, voluntary, and individualized. So people that live in permanent supportive housing and not make use of any services, and then what is supportive about it, is that I was wondering if it's just the financial support so to speak to live in that unit.

[00:43:42] Consuelo Hernandez: Great question. So the services that are offered to the individuals are voluntary. They, we do provide on-site services, and the I guess the easiest way to think about it is service-enriched housing where they benefit from having an extremely low income unit that has a permanent subsidy, so they don't financially have to worry about paying for the rent. They are required to contribute something towards rent, depending on their income and what they bring in, um and the services, they are not required to, but we find that over time, that's part of the case manager's job, is to build up rapport and relationship with the individuals, households and group therapy, and and however they respond, and building that trust and relationship with the unhoused population takes time.

[00:44:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see, and then sort of switching topics here, um, there was a comment about parking and...

[00:45:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: For the ground floor uses that are not housing, will on-site parking be provided for those if the replacement unit, replacement parking is done someplace else?

[00:45:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think I heard the question. Would the parking for the uses on the ground floor be able to be parked at the ground level if there were no underground parking and because those spaces would be off-site elsewhere in that scenario?

[00:45:35] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, yes, would people who are visiting the restaurant or the cafe be able to park at that location, it could be underground, or do they have to go someplace else including if the replacement parking was done at a different location?

[00:46:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Sure. I believe that based on the developer's current design and layout, that there would be some number of units that would be at grade that would not require below-grade parking to park the uses for ground floor non-residential uses. I'll turn to Randy in just a moment to comment.

[00:46:30] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If the spaces, if the replacement parking spaces were replaced on-site, then certainly folks can park underground and use it as well. But if they were not replaced on-site, then there would be some number of spaces, as I understand it, that would be accommodated at the ground floor. I think Randy is sort of in the other bucket of participants, so maybe I'll ask if the clerk can elevate Randy to comment on that as well.

[00:46:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So while you're doing that, I just want to clarify. I guess I'm just interested in finding out if people who want to partake in whatever services or goods are offered on the ground floor, if they can park at that location, whether it be ground floor parking or underground parking. I just, okay.

[00:47:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do we need Randy or can we move on to more questions?

[00:47:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I think I'm good because I think I heard that they will be able to park there unless Randy had some other comments he wanted to make. And I think for the moment, that's all my questions. Thanks.

[00:47:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Randy, did you have some extra comments?

[00:47:54] Randy Tsuda: The only comment, Councilmember, is yes, the intent would be to supply, some of those at-grade parking spaces would be available for the ground floor uses. Depending on Council's direction, you know, if the parking is consolidated off-site, that eliminates some of the parking ramps and so we would need to restudy the design of that, which would actually potentially open up some additional parking spaces.

[00:48:15] Randy Tsuda: I can't give you the exact number that would be made available for ground floor uses, but that's the intent. The other variable is child care and, you know, working with staff on how many parking spaces they would want for that. And that's another variable for which I don't have an answer.

[00:48:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you.

[00:48:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Thank you. Let's go to Councilmember McAlister.

[00:48:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so staff, I had a bunch of questions and I'd like to get some more clarity on them. On the first question, it says up to 10,000 square foot of non-residential community-serving use. And in the staff report it says 4,200 square feet. So where did we get the extra 6,000 square feet?

[00:49:13] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The RFP allowed up to 10,000 square feet of non-residential, but a developer did not have to incorporate up to 10,000 square feet. Related and Alta included 4,250 square feet. So that's the distinction there.

[00:49:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. Thank you. Also, on the, I'm trying to get a better handle on the parking because when I asked the question how much cost per space above and below ground, you told me approximately $63,000 below ground. But you didn't give me the answer for above ground. So what's the cost for above ground?

[00:49:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Sure. The 63,000 is based on the estimates that the developer had for the actual underground proposal. So we were able to estimate that and it's reflected in the amount of the ground lease payment that they are proposing of 10 million. So we're able to calculate a 63,000 per space cost there. The developer did not include a scenario that had above-grade parking for replacing the spaces, so there isn't an estimate for that.

[00:50:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We know that different projects, different estimates in general, above-grade parking is lower cost than below grade. But the actual amount of the cost per space can vary widely depending on the project, depending if it is just a parking structure, depending on how it's configured or designed. So we weren't able to provide an estimate, a precise estimate, but we were able to provide a precise estimate for the underground parking because we had that information.

[00:50:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So if I understand it, you're estimating the cost based on what the developer proposed, not from independent research. Yes or no?

[00:51:06] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, the 63,000 is based on the development cost estimated for Lot 12.

[00:51:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So the reason I ask the question, I'll follow it up with is the grade is lower. And yet you go over here in a further question, I asked the question how much would the cost of going off-site reduce the cost of the project? And you came up with what would be the cost savings if it was off-site, and it said, you don't know, you would need to determine via a separate process. So I'm confused about why one minute you say you lowered the cost, but then you say, well, we're not sure how much it would cost. And I mean, this is a very complex project and we're making it into a very complex project. And so I would think we would want to have a little bit better financial information going forward instead of, well, we'll determine that as we go down because it sounds like funding is going to be a critical issue on this one. So how do we, when we determine in a separate process, that could be months away, years away?

[00:52:15] Aarti Shrivastava: If I may sort of respond to that, we've been working on the downtown parking strategy and we'll likely have more information about that. And then we're also working on the potential cost of a third parking structure. So when Wayne mentioned that we don't specifically have the cost of parking spaces for off-site, he was correct in that we don't have those numbers yet.

[00:52:45] Aarti Shrivastava: As far as the on-site spaces, I think that the developer and Randy could respond to as to how they came up with that. So just wanted to say that while we have a general sense of how much of a subsidy could be provided for those off-site spaces, we don't yet know what the, how much the off-site garage would cost because it hasn't been designed. We don't know how big it is. We don't know the structural components, and we don't have that estimate.

[00:53:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I understand that. Also when I asked the cost of this off-site parking, there's opportunity cost, which I say is, okay, if we don't do the underground parking and we build above ground, we are taking a potential property and what we haven't studied the full impact or the best use of that property if all we're thinking about is we go above ground and we're going to make it a parking structure. So is that a factor that, I mean to me that would be an important part to say, here's a true picture of if we don't do below parking, we're going to be and do the above. So has that even been discussed or thought about or is that to be determined in a separate process?

[00:53:57] Aarti Shrivastava: Well, I think we kind of listed that multiple times in the pros and cons. One of the pros of having the parking on-site is, of course, the ability to get the parking online at the same time. But one of the cons is the ability to build a third parking structure or their inability. This 10 million could be used a little bit more flexibly.

[00:54:20] Aarti Shrivastava: As Wayne said, the cost of an above ground is less than the cost of a below ground, that we know for sure. How much it is, we don't know. So we also have the ability to partner with other developers, and we actually have one developer who is interested. So we have some opportunities on one side and one on the other, a whole bunch on the other. And we're generally asking the council for which way they want to go. It's not a slam dunk on either.

[00:54:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. What would, what's the scenario now if the project goes forward and the parking garage is not built? I mean, it happens in Mountain View quite a bit where we okay something, but we forget the important part of parking. So how does the, how does the staff see if this goes forward with the developer with no underground parking, where are these people supposed to park?

[00:55:18] Aarti Shrivastava: Well, it would take a little time to come online with a new parking structure. But we have the ability to take the 10 million dollars and partner with another developer who's actually interested. So we felt as staff that there was a little more certainty on our ability to get an actual parking structure than we knew previously because we didn't have the money at that time. So that's why we're recommending moving the parking off-site because it gives us more flexibility and working to provide more parking spaces than just 160.

[00:55:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. How many parking spaces are underground for the tenants? Or is all that parking above ground for the tenants?

[00:56:07] Aarti Shrivastava: Wayne, maybe you can answer. I don't know. Did you mean the ground floor tenants?

[00:56:11] Councilmember John McAlister: No, the people that are living...

[00:56:12] Aarti Shrivastava: Okay. All of them. I think there's 85.

[00:56:16] Housing Director Wayne Chen: There are 85 spaces for the tenants, for the 120 units specifically. I'll ask Randy, it looks like he's still on, to comment about the exact location of those spaces.

[00:56:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, are they on-site? You don't need to...

[00:56:33] Housing Director Wayne Chen: They would be on-site. They would be on-site. Yes.

[00:56:37] Randy Tsuda: Yeah, the parking for the residents is on-site and it's at grade. It's not underground.

[00:56:43] Councilmember John McAlister: At grade. Okay, thank you. Randy, so when I also asked the question, how many units would be reduced if the child care was put in there? And when I was talking, the staff said zero, but when I was talking with Ms. Tsuda earlier last week, she said there could be up to four or so many units reduced to make space for child care, put also along with the outgrown space. So is there, has something changed since talking with Mr. Tsuda versus staff?

[00:57:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think in terms of our ongoing meetings with the developer, we haven't had in, or have not yet talked about, potential or actual impacts, whether there'd be less units. It may be so that Randy and team, as they're iterating with their team, that they're looking at different options and maybe that's where a difference in numbers has arisen. But I don't think there has been that conversation yet with staff that there would be a reduction in the number of the 120 units.

[00:57:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[00:58:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Let's go to Vice Mayor.

[00:58:04] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. So I wanted to follow up with the developer about the child care component. And so my understanding is that there may be a cost to the city should we choose to go that route. Could you share a little bit more in terms of if there's a range of in terms of price that that would be for the city?

[00:58:30] Randy Tsuda: Yeah, we put together a general, or came up with a general range of the cost for the child care. Just the affordable housing funding sources can't be utilized to pay for the community non-profit space, nor for the child care space.

[00:58:50] Randy Tsuda: So the general range that we came up with was in the order of 1.8 to 2.5 million dollars for the cost of the child care space. And that's based on some of the costs that Related is seeing at the child care they're incorporating in a few of their other projects. So that's the general range and that's for a 30, 30-child facility.

[00:59:14] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And was there also perhaps an estimate to share for the community-serving space? So I know that if we do a community-serving retail, would the city also have to subsidize those as well?

[00:59:27] Randy Tsuda: Yeah, I think that was in our original proposal. I believe that was, Wayne, you'll need, or Wayne or Andrew, I think it was in the order of 2.5 million dollars or so.

[00:59:39] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I think that was for the affordable component and it's 1.7 for the non-residential.

[00:59:45] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So for, should we choose the child care of about 30 children as well as a community-serving retail space, we're looking at upwards to 3 to 4 million dollars in that range if we choose to go down that route? I just want to give my rough estimate there. Is that correct?

[01:00:08] Randy Tsuda: That's correct, and that assumes that the tax credit market returns to normal, whatever that means.

[01:00:17] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Right, right. Okay. Thank you. And then I had a question for Ms. Hernandez, if she's still able to answer. So should the city look at Measure A funding, how much per unit are we looking at in terms of, I think you had mentioned in earlier answers it would be 20 units. Is that right? So the cost per unit depending on if we go, for example, rapid rehousing. Is there kind of a general idea of how much that might be?

[01:00:57] Consuelo Hernandez: Great question. What we've signaled to the housing team is we have a per unit subsidy of roughly $200,000 per unit. It will really depend on what the ask is. And then if you are looking at rapid rehousing, depending on how we fund those services, either in conjunction with the city, with your local tenant-based rental assistance program, or whether the county provides that directly.

[01:01:30] Consuelo Hernandez: There's also that non-Measure A subsidy. The other thing that I wanted to clarify is the extremely low income units and very low income units are also eligible for funding. And those units are not technically considered supportive housing, so you would be able to apply whatever local preference, if it's possible, to apply to that. So they're technically Measure A even though they're not supportive housing units.

[01:02:05] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much for adding it. That was going to be my last question, which is, you know, one of the things mentioned in the staff presentation as well as the staff report was looking at kind of an option three. Um, and so I didn't know if there's anything else that you wanted to share with the council as we're going to be deliberating that tonight.

[01:02:29] Consuelo Hernandez: Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The one thing I would like to share is the county is very excited about a possible partnership with the City of Mountain View. I think your staff has been really great in trying to come up with solutions and options, and it's very difficult to think about the financing in an open conversation, but we at the county are committed to finding a partnership with Mountain View for this property.

[01:03:00] Consuelo Hernandez: You know, even talking through some of our housing intervention programs, I don't mean to be evasive and not answer the questions. Councilmember Hicks brought up some great questions earlier and I want to make sure when we refer to disabling condition it's not a box that we check, right, it's anything the household deems that they are unable to work full time. So some of those, some of the examples that Councilmember Hicks provided would be considered disabling conditions and they would qualify or score under rapid rehousing. So there's a lot of details with the program. So we are excited and happy to be partnering with Mountain View.

[01:03:44] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. And so, that just prompted one last one. So it sounds like there is some flexibility. Is that correct?

[01:03:55] Consuelo Hernandez: Absolutely. Especially with the rapid rehousing program.

[01:03:59] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Those are my questions.

[01:04:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Right. Anyone else with questions? I actually have a few. So start with the child care. When we're talking about the subsidy from the city, is that because we're looking at a subsidized child care facility or is this supposed to be a for-profit child care facility?

[01:04:28] Randy Tsuda: It's really neither. It's that the sources of affordable housing funding aren't allowed to pay for things like space for other non-profits and for child care operations. So the pro-rata share of the hard costs and the costs to get cold shell to fit it up for tenant improvements and things like that, there needs to be another source of funding to cover those expenses.

[01:05:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess what I'm trying to get at is if it's a child care facility and if it were a for-profit, something like, well I guess the one we have at Rengstorff is a non-profit. But is there a possibility of actually getting a return, some return based on, if there were a profit made at the child care facility? Could it be a city that loans out the funding initially, but then if it were for-profit or however that works, some of that funding would be reimbursed over time? I guess I'm not really clear on this child care concept. And I know that we had the Y and the County Office of Education interested initially, it sounds like that may not be the case. And so if that's not the case, then are we still looking for a non-profit child care partner or are we looking at an even a for-profit child care center, I guess is the question.

[01:06:09] Randy Tsuda: Yeah. And it might be helpful to have Anne or Andrew jump in to share their experience because they are incorporating child care into some of their other affordable housing projects. You know, we, it isn't that the county is not interested, it's that we haven't, we're far too preliminary stage for us to have selected an operator at this point because we haven't received direction from council on whether that's going to be part of our project.

[01:06:40] Randy Tsuda: So certainly those are still possibilities. And our intent would be to solicit input and proposals from other operators to see what works the best. You know, our specific conversations with the county, they clearly pointed out that they don't have the funding to pay for the cost of the shell space. They may have some funding, a partial funding available to fit up the space, but again, they made it clear that they incorporating them into any of these projects does not come with construction funding, construction costs.

[01:07:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I just, I'm thinking about our facility at Rengstorff, I think we do charge a rent. And so there is some kind of payback. I know that we put some of that back into the subsidy for lower income family slots. But I guess that's what I'm asking is trying to get to is is there a way of getting reimbursed for some of the up-front cost the city might put up initially? At this point, if the clerk could elevate the folks from Related, they can probably share their experience with child care in their projects.

[01:07:58] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Mr. Tsuda, could you confirm the names of the folks that are from Related?

[01:08:04] Randy Tsuda: Anne Silverberg and Andrew Schorfhaar.

[01:08:07] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Thank you.

[01:08:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Then while we're waiting, I wanted to ask, do you need a yes, definitive, we want child care only, or do you need a, or are you okay with look at child care but you can look at other options too, answer? I guess yeah, what kind of answer do you need this evening?

[01:08:28] Randy Tsuda: Yeah, what we're looking for is a kind of a path of travel, you know, if we don't need a hard yes or no, clearly we can continue to study this. We do want to make it, we want to be transparent that child care does come with a cost unless by some we can find some other funding source. But short of that, it potentially may come with a request for additional city subsidy.

[01:08:55] Randy Tsuda: And, you know, and it comes to some changes to the design of the project, right? So there's dedicated and reserved space, outdoor space that needs to be incorporated into the project. Things like that. So again, we've looked at the project, we know we can incorporate it if that's the direction of council. We just want to make, in spirit of full disclosure, that that there is likely to be a request for additional city investment short of finding some other funding source.

[01:09:25] Randy Tsuda: So you know the council's direction could be incorporate it but you're not interested in subsidizing it more, investing more, so that if we can't find that source, then that ground floor space along Mercy and Bryant would revert to units and common space for our residents.

[01:09:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Andrew or Anne, did you have further comments about child care? I don't see Anne, I see Andrew.

[01:10:05] Andrew Schorfhaar: Yes, I think am I on?

[01:10:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[01:10:09] Andrew Schorfhaar: Okay, just got in. No, I think just echoing Randy's comments and expanding just a little bit, most of our child care providers, sometimes we are able to have them come in and provide some tenant improvement costs. So they might be able to do that. A lot of our child care providers still do pay a reduced rent, so a below market rate rent. So most of those situations don't allow debt to be supported to pay for those cold shell or warm shell costs that Randy spoke about. So yeah, a lot of the facilities that we have operated and the conversations that we've had with other child care providers seems to be in line with that situation.

[01:11:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess my question is, even if it's a subsidized rent, where does that rent go? Does it go to you the developer or does it go to us the city?

[01:11:10] Andrew Schorfhaar: Yeah, sometimes it depends on a little more detail on the funding, the flow of funds. But the reduced amount of rent obviously pays for operating expenses going along with, you know, the management of those commercial spaces.

[01:11:30] Andrew Schorfhaar: And then most of the time that commercial income still flows into the project, which eventually is repaid other debt, like the city subsidy that may be supporting the affordable housing component as well. So there is repayment happening, although it's just happening through the housing component.

[01:11:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, great, thank you. I'm going to go on to Measure A funding, and it might be mostly for Consuelo. So I was looking at the, we recently had an update on all of our potential NOFA projects, and it looks like we have 1, 2, 3, 4, we know about, plus we have our own eventual VTA Evelyn site project. So I guess I was just wondering, and these projects would look like theyre mostly asking for about 15 to 20 million apiece, is there a limit to how much one city can receive, or is that a calculation in your deciding which projects get funding? You mentioned there's 27 projects in 7 cities so far, but do you have some kind of some limits to how much one city could apply for and actually receive?

[01:12:59] Consuelo Hernandez: That's a great question, Mayor. We don't have a distribution by city. We do have a goal of funding at least one Measure A development in every board district and in every San Jose City Council district.

[01:13:20] Consuelo Hernandez: I will share with you that we have seven cities that we have a Measure A funded project approved, and we are targeting the balance of the cities. And most recently our efforts are in Mountain View and Los Altos in the North County, and then in South County doing some additional work with the City of Gilroy. So no cap, but we have that overarching goal.

[01:13:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so then we would have potentially five. So for one city in North County. I'm just wondering, you know, what the possibility of getting all that is, and if we should really be looking at which project we really need the funding mostly for, because some of these other projects are asking for $20 million. I think this one was around $3 million. And in addition to that, my other question was, we just received the Project Homekey grant funding, but we're also asking for Measure A funds, I believe, for that project too. So, in total, like have you looked at the total amount that could come out of, requested from Mountain View, and how are you going to, how you're going to decide which projects are going to get the funding or are we going to get all of it? Is the question.

[01:14:38] Consuelo Hernandez: Great question, Mayor. For the Project Homekey, I just want to clarify that the ask from the city is for service operating dollars, and Measure A cannot be used for that. So we are looking at other funding sources, other grants that the county has received.

[01:30:16] Councilmember John McAlister: And yet we're still trying to, you know, we have a shortage of housing and yet we're trying to make this project a answer to all the questions, you know, it can do this, it can do that. We need housing. Let's focus on the problem and let's make it simple. We're going down rabbit holes all over the place with these questions... and we need housing.

[01:30:38] Councilmember John McAlister: So I want to see as much housing as possible there. And that goes into what I'm talking about, childcare. I own a childcare and here I am going to be advocating no, no childcare. There's too many unknowns.

[01:30:53] Councilmember John McAlister: You've already seen all the questions about well can this, this, this... childcare is an important issue. But do we want what, what are we trying to solve? We're trying to solve housing. So if you say, well, we're going to put, do this, we're going to take that, oh then we're going to take some massing, well if we put the playground in that's going to take out some more space and then it's going to cost a subsidy.

[01:31:16] Councilmember John McAlister: So what are you trying to achieve my fellow council members? You know, we want the housing, here's a great opportunity. Councilmember Ramirez says I want housing, but let's take some over here. No, you were correct the first time, Councilmember Ramirez, housing. And we need big, you know, they can go to six stories, they could be more massive, but we're there trying to solve a housing issue.

[01:31:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Community benefits, rooms here and there. Hey, if we can get those, if we can get more housing units in there and make it a great project, you know we're always talking about let's make it a great project. They need open space on the site even though it's next to a park. So um so childcare is a divergent, it's going to take money away from providing housing.

[01:32:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Parking. I'm glad Mr., up, Councilmember Clark and I have been around for eight years on council and planning and everybody says, yeah we're going to get it, we're going to get it. It doesn't happen. This is a sure thing to get the parking on site. It's very important to get it because even the staff report says we don't know how much it's going to cost, we don't know where it's going to go, we don't know who's going to fund it.

[01:32:27] Councilmember John McAlister: And then what happens if you build the this complex and then there's no parking? And then one of my questions was, hey the parking this, how long is it going to take longer? It says three months. I think you know with way things are going in the economy three months is not a big deal. So we need to have the parking on site. It makes it a nice complete project.

[01:32:50] Councilmember John McAlister: And again to Councilmember Clark's thoughts, we don't know what's out there. The opportunity cost, we may want to put housing out there. Or we may want to put a parking structure that can be converted to housing. But there's again we have too many unknowns. You have financial constraints that you're going to be dealing with, I'm going to be gone but you're going to be dealing with it. So how are we going to fund this? And all of a sudden you go well, you know, that parking garage that's that's going to be down the pike. I mean how long have we been working on Mariposa to try to get them them parking? It's been a long time and I don't see staff having the resources to get to that point right away.

[01:33:26] Councilmember John McAlister: So build the parking underground, make it a comprehensive package, make it the best you can. And then again minimize, try city subsidy. So the question is, uh, and then the other one is measure A.

[01:33:44] Councilmember John McAlister: So measure A I want as much control as we have over these units. We're dealing with people that are homeless, we're dealing with people in RVs. And so why don't we address the people that live in the community now? And yet measure A says okay we're, you know, we can fund it and so forth. I say I want to do as much control to take care of the people that are in Mountain View now. Yes, I agree there's a bigger problem in the county and so forth, but this is our community and I'd like to see them have the control over taking care of them.

[01:34:18] Councilmember John McAlister: You know I'm a big believer of rapid re-housing. When CSA asks for money I say let's give it to them, give it to them, to do what we can. Uh even though these will can be converted into long-term housing if people stay up to the rents. But I want to make sure that we, we work our way and if we can avoid measure A I'd like to make sure we do that.

[01:34:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Um, so I guess I've answered all the questions, you know the massing. Um, the SB35 if that works, I'll trust staff on that one. I'll trust, uh, Councilmember Ramirez, he's more knowledgeable on that subject than I am, so I'll let it go at that. Uh, but I think I've answered the two questions.

[01:35:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Off-site replacement, no we have to do it on site. It's a sure thing. We need the parking, it's, the area's going to recover. And I said no on measure A. We can... one thing else that you guys got to take into consideration is the development of housing funds. Even though we say we're going to do this stuff with SB uh, what is it, 380 or something, 30, the one that says you got to replace the units, we've already seen that um Summerhill has backed off on their project a 463, we're going to see that going down the road.

[01:35:34] Councilmember John McAlister: We're also seeing, we're going to see a slow down in development of housing for the next 5 years. So you might as well, what, you gotta be very cautious of how you're using your funding going down the road because you're not going to get that kind of uh fees that you had in the past. So, that's it in a nutshell. Thanks.

[01:35:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Let's go to Vice Mayor.

[01:35:56] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, uh, thank you. I just want to thank uh, staff and the developer as well as the county for being here to answer all of our questions tonight. It's really critical to have your point of view. Um, and so I'll just move right into the first question.

[01:36:16] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So, um, when we were reviewing uh the lot 12 RFPs, from what I can recall from that discussion, we chose Alta Housing because of the flexibility that we were searching for, uh, as well as the replacement parking. And so, um, again I, I echo Councilmember Clark and Councilmember McAlister's comments on pursuing on-site parking.

[01:36:43] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: You know, my, my direction to staff would be, you know, looking with the applicant on the usage of, of lot 12 currently. I know that it's uh, used for City Hall, the Performing Arts Center, the library. And for me, um, what's best for the residents is the most important and I understand that there's a cost component and there's also a time component, but I think that the kind of care and diligence necessary to make sure that we are creating something that's really exceptional for the community takes precedence.

[01:37:20] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Um, for question two, um, I'm most interested in um, working with the county on a possible third option. I think something that really has me encouraged by both the county and Destination Home is access to resources. I think one of the things we've heard from the developer is how difficult it is um, right now to have any type of financial assurance.

[01:37:45] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Um, but with Measure A that was, you know, $700 million. Um, not even half of it has been allocated yet, I think only maybe 370 million have been allocated, which means that there's a large portion that um, Mountain View could be able to qualify for. And I think that um, it's really an opportunity to begin a conversation on how we're able to bring um, people who are unstably housed into a more stable condition.

[01:38:12] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: So if um, option three doesn't garner support, I would be interested in type two with the focus on um, rapid rehousing.

[01:38:22] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: And then um, for the childcare component I am interested. Um, I am also interested in the community uh serving non-nonprofit space. I know that that didn't really come up, but um, I'd also be asking for the creative ways that we might be able to pay for that, given the conversation tonight. Um, since it'll it sounds like it'll be anywhere from 3 to 4 million. So what are the resources that the city can use to to pursue that?

[01:38:49] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: And then in terms of um, the streamlining process and utilizing utilizing SB 35, you know, my hope would be that our working relationship with the applicant would be such that we don't have to use it. But I understand um why they want to, um you know, the sooner we get moving on the project, the more kind of stability there is, and I and I understand that point of view. So um, due to that I, I am comfortable with um the streamlining. Thank you.

[01:39:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Let's go to Councilmember Matichak.

[01:39:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I didn't think I was next. Um, okay, so uh parking. Um, I am leaning toward uh off-site parking for the replacement parking. And the reason I say that um, is because um, I don't want to just replace the 160 spaces that we're losing here, but we're also, as was mentioned earlier, losing spaces with the transit center redesign, as well as a number of development projects we're sort of chipping away at our parking downtown.

[01:40:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And um you know talking with our wonderful small businesses, uh when this all recovers, and I'm confident it will, uh the biggest issue they have is people not being able to find parking space, because we are a destination area downtown. It's not just the local community, uh people come from all over uh the Bay Area to frequent our downtown. And you know, when they can't find a parking space, they go home. And that's lost business for our businesses.

[01:40:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And so I do want to make sure we have enough parking, especially at the peak times. Um, I do agree with the comment about um, you know, if we did do a third parking structure that we should do so in a way that um, when everyone gets out of their cars, uh, the structure can be reused for something else. Uh, you can't reuse underground parking, but you could reuse above-grade parking in a structure. And so I'm interested in going down that path.

[01:41:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, when it comes to childcare, um, I feel like I was a big supporter of this, um, and I still am, but I also get that uh, it has an impact that might not be what we're looking for on this project. Um, and so I guess I would say I'm sort of willing to let go of that for this, even though it's disappointing. Um, because of um, the, I guess higher priority for potentially larger units or a few more units. Um, so I'll I'll let that one go if that's uh the best course of action.

[01:41:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, when it comes to the development process, um you know I feel like, um, as was said earlier, I trust staff and the applicant on that one. Uh, I don't have a uh strong perspective either way. Um, so I trust staff. And then uh in terms of funding, I do have concerns about using Measure A funding here.

[01:42:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, I don't think I'd necessarily feel the same way about other locations, but in this location I would like us to have um complete control over who is able to um, who will be living uh in this complex. And so um, I am not supportive of using Measure A funds for this. There are lots of other opportunities, as was mentioned by the Mayor, for use of Measure A funds in other locations in Mountain View. So I'd rather see that some place else, but not in this location. Did I get them all? Great, thank you.

[01:43:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Let's go to Councilmember Hicks.

[01:43:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'll answer uh question number two first. Um, which is does Council support Measure A funding for lot 12. So my top priority for this project is really to serve the the uh vulnerable families that um that particularly that have been struck by COVID and also that have been displaced you know over the past uh year or two, um people who go to our schools and and work in in Mountain View.

[01:43:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so I would I, my top priority is to have more family units. Uh, if possible. And if that means letting go of the childcare or uh or or something else, I would be willing to do that if if that gets us larger units. Um I also want maximum flexibility for us to be able to choose who we um, who we choose for this this housing.

[01:44:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, if we could do that with option three, I I think I would do that, uh otherwise I would forego uh Measure A funding and use it in some, one of the many other projects that we have uh coming up. Um, and then oh and I would like yeah if if we do have any Measure A uh housing I would like it to be rapid re-housing. Um, and I am open to uh the expedited process the SP35 expedited process.

[01:44:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, as for uh parking on site, um you know I, I think parking is very important because we need to reopen our businesses and if we don't have uh enough parking um people will go to other cities. But um, but I I wonder whether parking on site would um make it less possible to do the kind of family units and choose the the people that you know the people that are like I said hard hit by COVID and that have been displaced.

[01:45:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm leaning towards doing a a um parking offsite that we can um that we can convert to some other uses some other time. Did I cover it?

[01:45:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Thank you, Councilmember Hicks. Um I think I'm the last one. So um I'll add uh uh for parking I uh support off site um for the reasons mentioned. Um I think um in light of technological advances um I think that the possibility of converting down the road to housing is um high.

[01:46:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh we have a potential uh prototype of that happening with the Google project. And so um, as someone mentioned we can't do that if it's in the basement, underground. Um but we could do it in a structure. And frankly for me it's about uh the cost. Um, and you know I've been quoted about that the cost difference between underground and and uh a structure above ground is 30 to 50% difference.

[01:46:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And that's a huge, that's a big amount of difference, and you know, it could potent-, it could really reduce the amount of subsidy that um would be needed to make this project happen. Um, the other part of it too is that um, we do have another interested developer and they're waiting to um you know, look at uh helping us build this parking uh structure.

[01:46:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I actually just recently um met with uh another um downtown business, um, and I you know, I need to talk with Aarti about this um business, but they have a very small parcel, and they re-, recently they've been told that they have to have parking on their site. Um, and it's a very smart small parcel, so I don't see how they could do an underground parking structure, or a parking for that site. And so there's no real option for them otherwise, and um, unless we offer this off-site parking structure option.

[01:47:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Otherwise I don't really know and I need I guess I need to talk with staff about you know, what the possibilities are, but I don't want to preclude um businesses from you know wha-, wanting to stay and expand, um because we're going to now require everyone to do underground um parking. And so um this structure I think gives that flexibility and opportunity to businesses of all sizes.

[01:47:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And the final piece to it is um, you know, there's definite interest I believe in keeping Castro Street closed to through traffic. Um, which also means the parking would be eliminated from Castro Street potentially, and so we need to look at uh replacing those spaces. So I just don't see um you know, being able to do that in a cost effective manner um underground, and I think this we need to look at a a structure. And I've been, you know, we've been talking about this for a while, I I think it's you know, past time that we do this, we are zeroing in on lot 5 it sounds like, so it's not like this is just you know loosey goosey there's no parameters, I think we're getting there, I think we just need to make a decision as a council that we're going to you know, move forward.

[01:48:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, that's um, my preference. Um, in terms of child care, yes I think it's a great um idea, and it it came about I guess it came about for me from hearing the proposals by the um applicants. Um but if it's not possible, um for you know the various reasons, um I'm okay to um you know, have other uses for the space. If it's more units, that's fine.

[01:49:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, you know, my original thought was if there's some kind of space that could be helpful to our downtown businesses like a demonstration kitchen where you train folks you know, to work in the restaurant industry. Um, or I know there was the Ada's Cafe model that we let we had talked about, so I'm actually open to any of that, um, I think childcare is great, but um I wouldn't want to slow down the process um because we can't find a childcare operator.

[01:49:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, the other part too is, I really want to be mindful of the subsidies like I'm looking just in my mind calculating not calculating because I don't know all the cost, but it seems like a lot of these pieces are are requiring subsidies. And I just don't know how much, you know, as a city we have in our in our accounts to subsidize all of this. And frankly a long time ago, you know it was um, when I first started we had talked about downtown you know, city properties being a way of rev-, revenue generation, and we've moved away from that which you know, I'm okay with because housing is a need. But I don't want it to become a, you know, huge hit on the city's finances. So I want to be mindful of that and minimize, as as the RFP said, minimize the subsidies as much as possible.

[01:50:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, measure A, um, I, so I'm a little, I guess I'm a little confused because I had thought the county knew about these other projects in the works, especially Eden Housing, I think is on our agenda coming up soon. Um, so I'm a little surprised to hear that perhaps they were not aware of that, and you know, I've been getting calls from like Destination Home and others at the county saying please you know, take measure A funds for this downtown project.

[01:51:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: But I I guess I didn't realize they maybe they're not aware of all the other projects that are in the works, and my concern is that if I totaled up, you know, just back of the envelope, we're looking at a 75 million to a 100 million dollar request with all of the other projects in the works. And I just, you know, without getting clarity on whether we're going to get all that funding for Mountain View or not, I just don't want to you know, use it up here when I think we have other options. Um, and then, you know, not have another project be able to move forward because we had assumed that we were going to get the funding and then find out we can't get it.

[01:51:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So in light of that, I'm okay with type 3, if that can be worked out. Uh, but um, if not I think um, you know, I'm fine to let go of measure A and let's use it on some of the other projects that we have in the works because I think there's going to be bigger need for those projects.

[01:51:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then uh, SP35 uh yes, I I think as long as it's friendly, I'm okay with that. So with that, um yes Councilmember Ramirez, you had your hand, you have your hand up?

[01:52:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: There we go. Thank you Mayor. Just a quick question about um, so the uh, I guess the the last point that you made about um, you know I guess not having the cap on potential county funding. Maybe a question for Consuelo, so I I don't really have a good sense of how much money the county has provided to other projects and whether we've seen um you know, limitations because you know one city has gotten you know a significant amount of funding.

[01:52:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Can you, can you help me understand what what constraints or parameters you know the the board has in in distributing measure A funds and at least what we've seen in other in other distributions?

[01:52:59] Consuelo Hernandez: Great question if I may through the Mayor uh respond.

[01:53:05] Consuelo Hernandez: Thank you. And I I wanted to clarify um I am aware of 10, I think, possible housing development projects in your community. I just wasn't sure which four you were referring to. The Eden project um we the board has approved a preliminary allocation for um one of their developments in your city. I just didn't want to speak out of term and talk about the four without making sure that we were talking about the same four properties.

[01:53:34] Consuelo Hernandez: And then in response to the cap, the board is not given us direction that we that we place a cap on any specific city. Um I think if I had more information on the four properties that you were talking about Mayor then I can answer the question better.

[01:53:49] Consuelo Hernandez: Um, I think we have a commitment of providing uh the gap in Mountain View for all of your projects and it's just a function of working it out with how much funding you have, can we connect it to your housing plan which identified 250 supportive housing units. I think it's a function of an ongoing discussion and and how we present that information to our board for consideration.

[01:54:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That helped. Yes, thank you.

[01:54:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so um do would you like me to summarize what I I took notes? Yes city manager.

[01:54:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um thank you Mayor yes it would be helpful to summarize. I have that summary as well and I also wanted to just touch base about the um development process. So uh and I also want to turn it over to our community development director to touch base a little bit about process and timing.

[01:54:45] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Because this is quite a faster timing process that that we would normally have. So I think it would be helpful for council to also provide direction to staff to work uh with the applicant on what the time frame and process would look like. So I would like to have um our community development director to speak on that a little bit.

[01:55:09] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, thank you, um, uh City Manager. Um I I did want to let the council know that um I talked to the developer, I talked to Randy this afternoon and committed to sitting down to look at a timeline uh to make sure that we have an expedited process.

[01:55:25] Aarti Shrivastava: We talked about SP35 and I've talked to our planning manager and we have other options as well. Um, just to let you know, I think we have two phases. The council as wearing the landowner hat might want to look at the design of the project before it is submitted. Because once it is submitted, we only have 90 days to bring it to council. Which means which means month two is a ZA hearing and month three is a council hearing. There is no time to talk about design or any other item.

[01:56:03] Aarti Shrivastava: So I want to make sure that the council is interested in seeing this project and the design and I have talked to Randy about building that in prior to the submittal. We would like a study session because the council has expressed interest in this project. Um, I've also mentioned to Randy that we do need some studies done before because we have a very expedited timeline for completeness.

[01:56:29] Aarti Shrivastava: So we have a number of items, I think Randy's preference is to see if we can get this done by June in order to be in line for the funding. And we'll do our best. But it will be up to the council to see if they like what they you know when the council sees this in a study session, probably late Jan early Feb is the earliest we can bring it. And also the latest that we can bring it if we want this in line for a June approval.

[01:56:59] Aarti Shrivastava: And so before we commit at this meeting I'd like to work with Randy and his group on something we need to see how complete their application is to see if we can bring it to council, once council sees it, if the council's okay he can submit. If the council wants a a a revision then we're going to have to come back um at a second study session.

[01:57:20] Aarti Shrivastava: So we can't commit tonight to a process. Um and I did want to say it's not whether the SB35 is friendly or unfriendly. It is just short. And leaves no time for any information or exchange of information. You know we put our conditions and requirements together and we're off and running. Um and we want to use the time before the application to make sure that uh Randy and his team have a chance to put together a successful project that they can actually build once they get the conditions of approval and and can't not have a very smooth building permit process because I've seen projects that it's very hard to actually meet those conditions of approval sometimes because we haven't had the time to review. Um and we're doing a lot of redesign in the building permit phase which is not what we want to see. So ultimately I think we're all committed to a smooth process um and I don't necessarily want to say yes SP35, yes June, yes, because we haven't looked at anything yet. Um I just wanted to let the council know that we're committed to working with the team.

[01:58:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So um does this developer has the the ability to though to just not to man, but or you know, make it an SP35 project or can we say that no we we're not going to do it that way?

[01:58:45] Aarti Shrivastava: Well the council has the ability to direct the pre-application piece because you're wearing your landowner hat. Wearing the landowner hat allows us to bring it to you in a study session. We can't bring it to you in a study session or talk design um um and then and then go back and and make changes in the actual formal stage if it's an SB35 project. And that's why I talked to Randy about literally I think we you know Don and I talked about putting somebody on this project tomorrow, that's what we need to do. I have to find staff to be reviewing this project uh in order to get this to an early date and so I I still need a little time and we're I think Randy and I talked about day one sitting down and talking about a timeline. Uh but um I hope I've explained the process a little bit better Mayor.

[01:59:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so yes, so in terms of the SP35 process then do we just want to not comment or just remove that item?

[01:59:49] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I I would say that we hear you and we hear that you're committed to a streamlined process. Um, if we can work out something with Randy and his group, um, we've done DDA's in the past that look at timelines. Um I think really the key is getting this to a study session. Yes. And having a relatively complete application so that um the the process SP35 or otherwise we could always commit to a 90 day timeline if everything's in place. So um I would recommend that we not decide right now but allow staff and the developer to work together.

[02:00:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm comfortable with that, does council, if you can just give me a thumbs up if you're comfortable with staff's recommendation? 1, 2, 3, 4, let's see everybody except Councilmember McAlister so I'm gonna take that oh as a yes. All right. Um so then what I had for parking is that there were four for off site and three for onsite. Um childcare, we had one who said no, um six who had said yes if possible, and three who said um they would let it go for other reasons, one was for more units, um one was for um just feasibility, um I can't remember what the other one was but I hope that's clarity enough.

[02:01:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um and then measure A I had two for type two, four for type three, and four for no. So I think the type 3 was a preference, but if not possible um then we go to no. There were two definite no's I believe, and then the two who were who were open to either type three or no. And then we talked about SP35, so does that sound right? Anyone have any yes, City Manager?

[02:01:40] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor sorry, I don't I have my, I can't raise my hand in that function. Um I did also just just want to note, just a little word of caution just about workload. So this process on a very sped up time frame is is like home key on a sped up time frame with a lot of the same staff. Um that are working on this. So, so I just want to note that we will do our very best as the Community Development Director noted to bring this but we may have to assess um other current projects that are underway and what the staff workload is if some things have to be pushed back further.

[02:02:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I did want to make sure that um council is aware of that, that that we do have these two very quick projects moving through that that we wouldn't normally uh be moving this fast. So it may it may cause other projects to be a little delayed but um we can bring an update to council about that once we know more information.

[02:02:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay uh yes we we understand staff the staff workload challenges so um yes that would be helpful if you could bring it back to us with the the choices we may have to make. Um all right, is there anything else? Um, did that answer all of your questions staff? Yes, alright anything else from council members? All right, if not, I'm going to conclude the study session. Um why don't we take a 10 minute break, or let's come back at 7:10, um into our regular session. And thank you very much everyone, thank you staff and thank you Ms. Hernandez and uh Randy and your team.

[02:17:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I invite to call the regular session to order. It is 7:12 PM and I have my announcement. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the City Council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube, and on Comcast Channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period for the item by signing up at mountainview.gov/cc_speakers or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 912 9819 0494. Any emails received by 5:00 PM today were forwarded to the City Council. Emails received after 5:00 PM will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. All votes will be taken by roll call vote.

[02:18:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And let please join me in the pledge of allegiance if we are able to get the flag up. Thank you.

[02:18:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

[02:18:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We will now go to our roll call, please. City Clerk.

[02:18:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark.

[02:18:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[02:18:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:18:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:18:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak.

[02:18:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[02:18:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[02:18:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Here.

[02:18:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[02:19:00] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[02:19:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[02:19:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[02:19:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All members are present. We will go on to Item 3, 3.1. We have a proclamation and recognition of October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And during the month of October, Mountain View firefighters and police officers participate in National Breast Cancer Awareness Month by wearing pink on their t-shirts and uniforms. Firefighters and police officers have raised thousands of dollars through their nonprofits for this worthy cause through the sales of these t-shirts. I'm wearing one right now. Normally we all wear one when we're in person at the meeting. And then the patches, the pink patch here.

[02:19:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Breast cancer is the second most commonly occurring cancer in women. About one in eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. The good news is that many women can survive breast cancer if it is found and treated early. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a chance to raise awareness about the importance of early detection of breast cancer. Thank you John McAlister for your costume change. And so we are proud of our police officers and firefighters who have taken part in this worthy cause to both honor those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and to bring attention to the need for early detection through examinations and timely treatment.

[02:20:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I am not sure if we are... I saw our Fire Chief this evening, but well there he is. Yes, thank you Chief for joining us. Um, we are honored to have you representing our fire department and our police officers. And we thank you for... oh and there's Tida, our mascot fire dog. And we want to thank you for your support on this ongoing battle against this disease. Um, this is a personal for me as many of you know, um, I am a four-year survivor of breast cancer. And thank you, thanks to fairly early detection, um, I was able to get treatment and um hopefully will be cured for a long time. And so um, I hope that we can continue to raise awareness and for women um to please be sure to get your exams regularly, um as early detection is the best way to um combat this disease.

[02:21:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I do want to mention that although this is about breast cancer awareness this month, um we want to recognize all cancers. Um, and I know in November we do... our staff recognizes... they do Movember with the mustaches to recognize I believe prostate cancer. Um, but regardless all cancers are varied and very critical for us to combat. So thank you again to Chief Diaz for joining us this evening. Um, I'm going to take a quick screenshot. We normally do this in person as I mentioned, but since we're not able to gather, let me just do a quick screenshot. If you have a shirt on, please show it proudly. And there we go. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[02:22:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And let me read the proclamation while we're at it. Whereas breast cancer is the second most common cancer in women and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death, and whereas doctors estimate that about 5 to 10% of breast cancers are hereditary, and individuals whose family history puts them at increased risk for breast cancer should discuss this with their doctor or qualified health professional, proper prevention, and early diagnosis strategies. And whereas during the month of October, the bold pink ribbons displayed proudly in the community, family, friends, and neighbors stand in solidarity with breast cancer survivors and reaffirm our commitment to raising awareness of this disease. And whereas National Breast Cancer Awareness Month serves as an opportunity to increase awareness of the disease and to encourage individuals to have a plan to detect the disease in its early stages. For these individuals and for their loved ones who give their unwavering support during the most trying times, we recommit ourselves to the essential and necessary work of forging a future free from cancer in all its forms. Now therefore I, Margaret Abe-Koga, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Mountain View, and ask the community to join in activities that will increase awareness of breast cancer prevention. Signed and sealed this 13th day of October 2020. Thank you very much. Thank you Chief.

[02:24:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. We will move on now to item 3.2, and we have an update by our City Manager Kimbra McCarthy on COVID-19. We got some good news earlier today, um, we're in the orange tier now and um, Ms. McCarthy if you can um... yeah fill us in on more. Thank you.

[02:24:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, thank you Mayor. So I am here to present the latest COVID-19 update and yes we have had quite a few developments since our last council meeting and I will talk about that in further detail as we move forward. The first thing that I wanted to do is to recognize staff that really have been working so hard over these last several months and through all of the challenges that we've experienced these last several months and this year. I want to start highlighting the work of staff that a lot of people don't know about. Um, they might not necessarily be front and center with what's happening in the city, but our water distribution staff in particular continues to provide a very high level of service to the community.

[02:25:10] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And as you can see from these pictures with masks on and social distancing in place, these dedicated crews really continue to make sure that our water system components like our valves and hydrants, um and repairing water main leaks, making sure that they are working in the city. So in the picture on the left, um, you can see that, actually it's in the middle, Nick Caruso, Gary Wheaton, Fabian Rios, Carlos Baharas, Eddie Lopez are repairing a leaking water service on Ramos Court. And you'll also see in the left picture Sam Canales wrapping up a water main repair on Spring Street. And in the picture on the right, that is James Austin working on a water service line which provides water to the safe parking area off Crittenden. So these are staff that are working hard every day um serving the community and making sure that everything is safe for our community and I did want to highlight their work.

[02:26:22] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So moving towards what you mentioned Mayor, the latest development in the county. It is very big news actually in that our revised risk reduction order goes into effect tomorrow, and that is because the county has now moved into the orange tier, the moderate tier. So this is a less restrictive tier than the red tier that we were currently in, and it's really based on as you can see from this chart here, the number of adjusted cases. It's based on a seven-day average of cases per 100,000 people with a seven-day lag. Then it's also based on the positivity rate being between 2 and 4.9% of positive test rates. So right now we're at a 1.7 positive test rate and so we will stay in the orange tier for at least three weeks before we can be considered to move into the yellow tier.

[02:27:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So what does this mean moving into the orange tier? The biggest changes are to indoor gatherings and indoor dining. So right now outdoor gatherings of 200 people are allowed under the new tier, and indoor gatherings of people up to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer, is allowed. So this would apply to movie theaters, churches, or cultural ceremonies, and the state is still generally prohibitive of other gatherings. For indoor dining, that's also 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is fewer. Also college sports activities without fans um are now allowed following county and state requirements. And there is no capacity limitation for malls or other retail businesses.

[02:28:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Some of the requirements that are new for businesses are that new social distancing protocol requirements must now be completed. So a new social distancing protocol for each facility is required to be submitted within 14 days of this revised order. And the county website has these uh documents that our businesses can go to to file the revised order, it's covid19prepared.org. There also um is a requirement that all businesses and governmental entities, so even the city, is legally required to report to the health department within 4 hours whether any workers or employees are confirmed to be positive. So we also have to alert workers, um other employees, to let folks know if their fellow employees test positive. And then lastly, all businesses are still required to telecommute, um telework to the extent possible, um just to continue to maintain that lower positivity rate and the testing.

[02:29:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So essentially all of the work that we've been doing has has really been helping us. Uh, the county health officer Dr. Sara Cody noted that we are the first uh large county to move into this orange tier. So uh we are certainly doing our part and I want to thank our community and residents for really doing everything possible to make sure that we can safely move into this orange tier. And of course the same um the same elements are still at play where we still want people to wear masks, you still need to make sure you're doing things outdoors as much as possible more than indoors, and still maintaining that social distancing, and that's going to be even more important going into these next several months. So that is certainly a bit of good news today.

[02:30:15] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: In terms of the numbers, um, you'll see that the latest numbers as of yesterday, the case numbers are slowly trending down as far as the daily case rate countywide, you'll see that it's 97. And when we started these counts several weeks ago, they were in the 100s. So the county's average daily positive rates is actually going down as well. So it's it's a good sign that we're under at least 100 for yesterday. In Mountain View, we do have 615 positive cases, so this is an increase of three um over the prior day. And I think I had mentioned before that we were averaging around seven um an increase of seven per day, so hopefully we are also following the same county trend where our case numbers are trending downward daily. As far as the state goes, we're around 850,000 cases, and as I've mentioned previously, you'll see that the age of confirmed cases over 500,000 people still continue to be in that younger 18 to 49 um age range. So still continue to really focus on the messaging and targeted um outreach to people in that age group to make sure that they're doing the proper things they need to do to be safe and healthy.

[02:31:42] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: For a testing update, I'm really happy to report that we have tested or provided almost 7900 tests since July 20th. And this is an increase of a little over 900 tests since our last report out. And our most recent uh testing that we provided at the Center for the Performing Arts had over 600 tests in that one day. So I'm really happy that we have still seen a really uh great number of our residents or members of the community going and getting tested. And just a really quick reminder, we do continue to have the testing Tuesday through Thursday at our Shoreline Athletic Fields, the drive-up testing from 8:00 until 12:30. El Camino Hospital still has their ongoing appointments Monday through Friday from 7:30 to 7:00. And then the next uh appointment-based testing opportunities that we have at our Center for the Performing Arts are October 20th and November 3rd, and both of those are from 9:30 to 4:00 PM. And these are the um testing opportunities where we've had over 600 people the last time, so um hopefully we still continue to have that many people tested as the weeks go on.

[02:32:56] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Also a reminder that the county is offering free flu shots at the fairgrounds every Saturday, drive-up uh flu shots from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Then in terms of updates on some of our COVID-19 programs, our rent relief program, you can see has now hit the $3 million mark. So we've been steadily progressing since March and right now we've cut over um 1450 checks. And you'll see that the remaining funds available, and this is funding that's not only the funding that the city has given, but also from private donations. Um, the remaining funding is around $876,000. So um that program does continue to um get inquiries. You can see that there's still 381 inquiries in process now. Um, so there are folks still needing help and we are still continuing to um cut checks so that people can make their rent.

[02:34:00] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: In terms of our safe parking update, right now we have 65 vehicles parked and around 140 that are sheltering in our safe parking lots. And that's an increase of 10 people since the last report. For our small business action plan, one of the things that council wanted to do was to make sure that we were providing an update on our efforts after you passed the small business action plan a couple weeks ago. So what we have done is uh start a number of different programs. The shop local program, we're partnering with the Chamber and the Downtown Business Association and they're really leading the efforts to create and maintain an e-commerce website um for all Mountain View businesses. So the Chamber is going to use DEI Creative to develop this website and pay for the initial setup costs as well as the annual usage fee, and this is offset by various corporate sponsorships. So we're really excited that this web page will be in development and launched, um I think it'll be a real asset for the businesses.

[02:35:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Within the city, we've also created a small business action team, and the Castro StreEATS team is working with downtown businesses to create guidelines for using tents during the winter months. And then those guidelines will also apply to the Outdoor Mountain View program. And just as a reminder, the Outdoor Mountain View program is essentially allowing businesses to operate outdoors with fees and permits um being relaxed. We're also developing a two-page newsletter um and identifying content to put in the newsletter for businesses, and then we are continuing to refine the small business resiliency program to figure out what we can do to launch the second phase of that program.

[02:35:54] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: The other thing that we have done is create the second round of our small business outreach efforts. So if you recall at the start of COVID, we created an interdepartmental team, um at that time primarily made up of library staff, who reached out to every small business in Mountain View. So we launched another round of calls to make sure that businesses knew about the resources that were available to them, talk to them about some of the small business action plan items, um and really just doing a touch base with them. So those last round of calls just happened as of last week. And staff have called 629 businesses and they reached almost 400 businesses. So there are still about 349 folks that um still remain to be contacted. Or excuse me, that are open, um the businesses that are open. 27 businesses have temporarily closed, and out of those folks that we talked to 11 have permanently closed.

[02:36:54] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And we are receiving some feedback from the businesses, um some of the feedback has indicated that a lot of the businesses have modified their hours, um some have recently been able to go back to regular hours. Um several have lost staff or have had to reduce staff, um even some are also having staff that are working remotely. There are also some that have um found it difficult to operate indoors. So having that outdoor space, some businesses don't have um a great outdoor space, perhaps like that we might have downtown. So we are trying to work to identify what other options businesses have in areas that that might not necessarily have the most ideal outdoor settings.

[02:37:44] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, we also have people that um are concerned about keeping their customer base as the months go on, um just making sure that people still visit our businesses even when it starts getting darker earlier and in the colder months. So we really are are trying through our our small business action plan efforts to make sure that we are hitting all the businesses in Mountain View and and reaching them. So I think this is a good at least start for us to be able to call this many businesses and reach out to them.

[02:38:18] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I also wanted to make sure that the community knows that we have a couple of our Council Neighborhood Committee meetings, these rotate every other year depending on the neighborhood. We are doing the virtual meetings this year. So we have the Grant Road/Sylvan area meeting on Thursday, this Thursday, October 15th at 4:00 PM. And the Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street neighborhood is on Thursday, October 29th at 4:00 PM.

[02:38:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Also, there has been a significant development with the census as of today. So just today, the Supreme Court announced that this count, that we all know just happens once a decade, will not be continuing through the end of October. So if you recall this has been kind of a back and forth in the courts over the last several weeks and the presidential administration had asked the Supreme Court to suspend the district court's order which did permit the census to continue through the end of this month. And the court ruled today that the head count needed to end immediately so that the Census Bureau has time to crunch the numbers and add everything up before this congressionally mandated deadline. So we are encouraging everyone to just please take the census before the self-reporting portal closes. And again this just happened today, so staff is still awaiting word on the actual date this is closing. Is it tomorrow? Was it today? So this has just been an ever-evolving development. But essentially the top line message is to please report, use the portal, call the 800 number if you haven't taken it yet, 844-330-2020. But essentially the census count is going to stop as of today.

[02:40:21] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: And then lastly, just a reminder to everyone that voting has started in California. And we do have drop off ballot boxes at City Hall Plaza, the Library, Fire Station 4, our Community Center, and the Computer History Museum. With that, that ends my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[02:40:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you very much. Are there any questions from Councilmembers? Yes, Councilmember McAlister.

[02:40:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Can you unmute yourself, please? So I'm sure everybody else said keep quiet John. So as a small businessman that's not in the core of Castro Street, and you spent a good deal about what you're helping downtown, how is the city helping people outside the Castro Street center?

[02:41:16] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Well I think one of the big things that we're working on the OMV the outdoor Mountain View, so working on the lessening of the permits and the fees for people to operate outside. So that's not just downtown, that's throughout the city to try and help ease those restrictions. The small business resiliency program, once that relaunches, is obviously available to any business in the city and not just focused on downtown. So I think we really are trying to focus on all the businesses and obviously also calling all the businesses in the city to let them know about the resources that are available to them. We're just trying to do different efforts to reach all the businesses that aren't just located downtown.

[02:42:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thanks.

[02:42:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Anyone else? No? Are there any members of the public wishing to comment on this item? If you're in the attendee box, please raise your blue hand, and if you're on the phone, please hit star 9. I don't see any, so I will close this item. And thank you very much City Manager. Always a ever-changing situation, but sounds like we're trending in a positive way. So thank you and thank you to our community for all of your hard work in making that happen.

[02:42:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We will now go on to item 4, our consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? I have Councilmember Matichak.

[02:43:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'd like to pull item 4.11.

[02:43:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And Councilmember McAlister?

[02:43:09] Councilmember John McAlister: 4.3 and 4.8.

[02:43:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 4.3, 4.8, 4.11. Are there any members of the public... I'll open this up for public comment. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on any item on the consent calendar, please raise your blue hand. And I have Albert Jeans. Let's see if we can unmute yourself, please.

[02:43:35] Albert Jeans: Okay, can you hear me? Great. How much time do I have by the way? Okay, thanks. Okay, I'd like to comment on 4.6 and 4.9. They're actually related. 4.6 is the ballot measure to fund Caltrain for the sales tax. And I, I'm all for mass transit. I love taking the trains when I go to Japan. I think it's the way to go in the long run. But Caltrain, you know, it serves what, 60,000 people a day. But the three counties which are being taxed have three and a half million people. And this is a sales tax. You know, sales taxes are notoriously regressive, you know, hitting the lower income people a lot more than the middle and higher income people. And this is going for 30 years, 30 years. And so I just object to the whole principle of taxing people for a service that very few people can actually use. And with COVID and everything, you know, things are changing, you know. And so if just like 20% of the people work from home indefinitely from now on, traffic, there aren't gonna be traffic tie-ups, which is going to cut down on the number of people that will want to ride Caltrain. And you know what does Caltrain fit into? You know the reversible bus lane going to the transit center. And you know, you've heard me talk against the bus lane for years now. You know, there's not a need for it now and it was being built for a future need, a possible need, and now that need is even more, you know, distant in my opinion. Because again if 20% of the people at Google work from home, there's gonna be no traffic jam on Shoreline or 101 or 85. And so there's gonna be less of an incentive for people to take mass transit. I'm not... I'm not sure many Google people took Caltrain to begin with. And so the reversible bus lane makes even less sense. So you know, why pay $300,000 which I think in the next couple years the city could really use to fund this... I mean to pay these lawyers to get the property to do the bus lane. Why not just wait a couple years, see how this whole COVID thing plays out, and then see whether we really need to take this land away from the business owners on Shoreline. And um I think my comments echo those of Joel Dean. He sent his comments in by email and so I hope you all consider them. Thank you.

[02:46:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And I forgot to mention we don't have the timer on screen this evening so our city clerk will let you know when your time is up, but thank you Mr. Jeans. And we'll go on to Alex Brown. Please unmute yourself.

[02:46:22] Alexander Brown: Choo choo. Yes, trains. Please support measure RR. Uh long term, we need to support public transit and make it easier and cheaper. It should be free for access for everyone so that people, everyone can access it. Uh it helps for environmental reasons, it helps for connecting cities. It's good, support it. Uh yeah sales taxes are regressive. We should fund it in a bunch of ways. Uh, but for now, support RR. Yay. Choo choo.

[02:47:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Are you done? All right, thank you. We'll go on to Adina Levin, please unmute yourself.

[02:47:10] Adina Levin: Good evening City Councilmembers. Adina Levin with Friends of Caltrain, and I would like to agree with the previous speaker. I agree that sales taxes are inequitable and not the ideal way of funding public transportation, but this is a 1/8% sales tax, that's the equivalent of one penny on an $8 lunch, and really importantly the funds would enable Caltrain to fund the recent equity policies and programs that the board has just approved. That would make fares more affordable and also improve local transit connections for low-income people who depend on that local transit access. And also actually relieve VTA and SFMTA of the obligation to pay for the operating cost of Caltrain which will save services that are at risk during the recession as well. Um, this is something that, will Caltrain before the pandemic kept four lanes of car traffic off the road, so if the pandemic lifts and Caltrain, where the finances are in really bad shape because of the pandemic, if Caltrain is down it's going to be down for two and a half years or more. And if Caltrain is down as the pandemic lifts, the traffic is going to be really terrible and it's going to be really hard to meet our goals for the environment, to meet our goals for housing and to meet our goals for being a place that you can live happily with fewer cars. Um, so I strongly encourage you to support measure RR.

[02:49:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to the Caltrain user, if you'd like to unmute yourself, please.

[02:49:08] John Inks: Yes, good evening council and everyone out there in Mountain View Zoom land. This is John Inks, Caltrain user. I always take Caltrain to the Millbrae station to get to San Francisco airport and to downtown San Francisco. Uh no driving, no parking, no hassle. Quality service, um quite economical for me with the discount fare that I have. Um however even though I'm quite satisfied with Caltrain service as a user, uh Caltrain operates under a problematic governance structure and has significant cost management issues. Therefore you know I'm not voting for a sales tax increase to support Caltrain. The Joint Powers Board involves seven public agencies with competing and conflicting uh priorities and you know it's just not operating with effective cost controls. In fact, even with the recent steep decline in ridership, Caltrain has had no layoffs because they're keeping people on the payroll with federal handouts under the CARES Act. So um, you know, notwithstanding you know another possible service, Caltrain just does not have a record of managing costs. So I'm voting no on measure RR. You know, I agree there could be some alternative governance and operation for Caltrain, but measure RR is a bad deal for taxpayers. I mean there's no rational basis to impose a higher sales tax on business and their customers to subsidize what is otherwise um a bankrupt railroad. So um we should relieve these other agencies that are responsible, they should get their act together, but in the meantime vote no on measure RR. Thank you.

[02:51:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, let's go to David Watson. If you can unmute yourself, please.

[02:51:14] David Watson: Hi, this is David. Um I uh I'm just hearing people speak against Measure RR which is uh really flabbergasting to me. I uh I'm absolutely in favor of Measure RR. It seems like considering this uh uh this I think everyone here uh uh I've I've spoken to at one time or another and you you've all seemed supportive of Caltrain if not of Measure RR specifically. So uh I I think this is a a really obvious uh uh thing for the city to support. It helps keep traffic off of um 101. I I don't see why uh why we wouldn't support it. So uh that's that's it. Thank you.

[02:52:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we'll go on to April Webster. Please unmute yourself.

[02:52:07] April Webster: Hello, I just wanted to speak up quickly in favor of measure RR. Um I live in Mountain View. One of the reasons is to be close to a Caltrain station. Um I don't need to um take Caltrain to the city but I really enjoy doing it. I wish there was better transit in the Bay Area. I often take it to go to SFO, once upon a time when we could travel. Um and then to go to SF Jazz, um go to the Symphony, go out for food. It's just such an enjoyable way to travel in the Bay Area. Um I would be really sad to to see um a loss of something like the Caltrain. I I really wish there were better options and more options to be honest. Thank you.

[02:52:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? If not, I don't see anyone on the phone, so if not I will bring it back to council. And uh let's see I can entertain a motion for the balance of the consent calendar other than item 4.3, 4.8, and 4.11. Yes, Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:53:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'll go ahead and move the balance of the consent calendar. And let's see if I can do this right. Um that would include uh 4.2 adopt, uh adapt a resolution approving salary plan documents from fiscal year 2016-17 through fiscal year 2020 to 21 to comply with the Public Employees Retirement Law to be read in title only, further reading waived. Um and does anything else require a reading?

[02:54:05] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, there are just items 4.8 and 4.10 which require five votes to pass, but you got the only resolution, so you read that out.

[02:54:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great, thank you.

[02:54:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And Vice Mayor Kamei?

[02:54:26] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: I just wanted to second the motion.

[02:54:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Any other discussion on the balance of the consent calendar? Motion by Councilmember Ramirez, second by Vice Mayor. Uh, could we get a roll call vote please.

[02:54:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark.

[02:54:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[02:54:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[02:54:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:54:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak.

[02:54:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:54:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[02:54:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[02:54:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez.

[02:54:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:54:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[02:54:57] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:54:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[02:54:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye. Thank you. Motion carries 7-0 with no abstentions. We'll go on to item 4.3. I believe that was Councilmember Matichak, you pulled this? No. Oh, okay. Um, was it Councilmember McAlister?

[02:55:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Good guess, Mayor. Good guess. So I had, you know I was going to give some comments and shorten my discussion but I just had a... I had a question on 4.3 and it also related to 4.6. And I'll basically, I'll just make comments, I won't pull... you know comments on this one. So on 4.3 it's an improvement at Shoreline Amphitheatre and I put in there, they made a financial decision based on a concept. They based it cost on a concept. And I was going hmm. Um and so that was interesting. And then when I saw 4.8, they came along and they also said well we're going to waive some fees on the project Homekey, mid capital projects, and they wanted to make the project financially viable and I'm going okay, to me theyre sort of related in that how can we be one making estimates on something that's only a concept and waiving fees on something where we don't know what the true cost is going to be and the city is going to subsidize it. And with financial constraints that are going to be coming down hard, I think the council makes, needs to make sure that as a process goes through and they evaluate projects, that they get the answers in front of them to know what the dollars are. Because you know a couple hundred thousand here or there is going to make a difference on funding that affordable housing unit or building parks or maintaining certain services. And this what I saw was somewhat of a, I hope it's not a pattern going forward, where they're talking about well you know we're going to estimate this or we're going to do that. Um it's not the city's job to make a project financially viable. That's not our job. Our job is to provide essential services to the citizens of Mountain View. So going forward I would appreciate that council keeps an idea of what they're trying to do with their money and make sure that staff stays you know, a better standard. Now these are all pretty broad and I'm sure there's more detail involved in there but it's just when I saw those two, it was a concerning thing. So those are my comments, it's just be aware of what you're reading and how it will get you the information you need to make that critical uh decision. Thanks.

[02:57:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So was that on 4.3 and 4.8?

[02:57:54] Councilmember John McAlister: They were both somewhat tied together, um but I think Don's down there now, so I don't know if Don are you on 4.8... Was that under you or was that under another department?

[02:58:09] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Well 4.8, Project Homekey, this is sort of a joint item from both Community Development and Public Works.

[02:58:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well, that were their general comments, but I do want to make one comment on measure RR. You know, I'm the VTA rep for North County, and some of the people I support RR. Couple of reasons. One, not everybody has a car, so when mentioned that hey there'll be less traffic, not everybody has that opportunity. And the Caltrain around from San Francisco down to San Jose is going to be integrated part of a circular part of the transportation. And the second point is that right now VTA contributes 10 to 20 million dollars a year to the operation of Caltrain. VTA right now is under its own financial constraints, and it needs every dime it can get to manage its own routes in Santa Clara County. So from a selfish point of view, measure RR is going to help Santa Clara County maintain or improve its own transportation system. So that's another reason to support RR. So that's my pitch. Thank you, Mayor.

[02:59:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We already passed 4.6 on measure RR so, but thank you for your comments. So 4.11 and let's see if maybe we can pass all three at once. Councilmember Matichak.

[03:00:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: You know, these work plans, some of them are pretty ambitious. And I'm concerned that the workload for staff, you know, we talk a lot about trying to reduce the workload. And I feel like it has increased to a certain extent because of COVID, because we're having to adjust things. And I'd like to see if we could, you know, take a few things off staff's plate. And the group that I was most concerned about was the HRC. And that is because, and I don't really know if this was meant this way, but there are a lot of events that are planned. And I'm thinking we might want to cut back on those a little bit. Although I'll quickly add, I'm not sure they would even happen given COVID, but I don't want to set the expectation that we would do them if things change and we could do them. So on page 12 of the work plan deck, item B, we've got two events. And then if you keep on going, there are four listening forums as well as a civility roundtable. And that just feels like a lot to me for staff to support for one advisory body. So I feel like I'm very comfortable with the listening forums and the civility roundtable. But I kind of feel like that could be it for this year, and not have other events as well. Those are ones that are, I think, very important right now, very timely, and we should go forward with them. But beyond that, I would remove item B that's ongoing events. I don't know how others feel about that.

[03:02:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:02:10] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, the first thing that... I hope I'm looking at the right location, so the listening forums have already been complete. I think Audrey is the staff liaison. Is that right? I don't know if she's available to answer questions, but...

[03:02:35] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I am here.

[03:02:37] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay, great. Thank you. I guess looking... Philosophically, I'm a little reluctant to pull items from the work plans without having a full understanding of context, how much work has been already done, and whether there are plans for some of these things. But my recollection is there's a civility roundtable that's already complete but has not yet occurred. And so I guess the question for you, Audrey, would be, thinking about Councilmember Matichak's concerns, do you feel that staff has the capacity to do the work that's proposed in the work plan? And to what extent have some of these items, you know, already been...?

[03:03:29] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Thank you for the questions, Councilmember Matichak and Councilmember Ramirez. The ongoing item that's typically in the work plan is to do up to two either civility roundtables or other types of community convening events. And as Councilmember Matichak notes, in addition to that, there was an item that was planned for last fiscal year that did not take place due to COVID. And that's the one that's carried forward, which would be in addition to, potentially in addition to, two other civility roundtables. The one that is carried forward is specifically on the topic of implicit bias. And that is mostly planned and a date is set. You are going to hear about that very soon with a save the date announcement for December 2nd. And we are fortunate to be able to utilize Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, which is the agency that we've also been working with on the listening forums. And so that plus the fact that there was a lot of upfront planning already done in the last fiscal year has not made that item a significant workload impact, that civility roundtable. Councilmember Ramirez, you're correct that the four HRC listening forums have been completed, and there is one more event which will be the reporting out on the themes of the stories that we heard through the listening forums and the online platform. That is scheduled for November 9th. And so what remains is whether or not there would be additional civility roundtables or other community convenings to take place throughout the balance of the fiscal year after December. I know that the HRC has an interest in seeing implicit bias kind of as a series of things, and that it's a very broad topic, and so that was their intent to be able to do follow-on events in that series. And we don't have budget or an intention to use the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center on those future events. And so those will take staff time. And if we were to hold to our typical process of having two such convenings, we wouldn't do an additional two, we would just do an additional one. So that's a potential compromise position. Another position is to say, well with all of the listening forums, we have above and beyond had those kinds of convenings. But at the point of having those completed, we will still have the whole second half of the fiscal year where it would be possible to support likely one additional event.

[03:06:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: How would you like to... Councilmember Matichak, does that satisfy your concern? Or do you have a suggestion?

[03:06:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, you know, I appreciate staff always wanting to basically do what we're asking them to do. But I do feel that sometimes we have to say, it's up to us to cut back on our requests so that staff has some breathing room to do the daily operations, especially in light of COVID, and all the additional work that has come about because of that. So I do feel like we could cut back on these events. That's my opinion. There are seven of us, so if others are okay going forward, that's what we do.

[03:07:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other council members feel about this item? Councilmember McAlister. Can you unmute yourself, please?

[03:07:48] Councilmember John McAlister: You know, you don't make friends when you tell me to unmute. To Councilmember Matichak's point about keeping the time really... the timekeepers really... because staff will always do what we want them to do, and even though they'll try their darnest and their best, and we always appreciate that. Sometimes we just need to look at some items and say, are they reasonable to defer or to reduce? We just heard earlier today that the city manager was talking about lot 12, it's a compressed time frame, people are going to be working on that. We saw the county opening up a little bit, so there's going to be some changes in there with what the city... So if there's something that is reasonable to say, hey, let's allow staff to focus on projects that are deemed more important... You know, I'm not saying the ones that HRC is doing are not important, they are very important, but if there's some way that we can help manage the time and take the responsibility off the city manager, because she's always the bad one that says no you can't do it, or the good one saying you can do it. So I'm open to hearing working with everybody to see if we can make things a little streamlined and easier for everybody in the near future like this.

[03:09:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I have a question. Let me get clarification first. So the civility roundtable on implicit bias has been planned, so that could move forward. The other item was the report out from the listening tour, so that could be the second event. Is that right? If I heard correctly.

[03:09:40] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, that's not how it's presented in the work plan. But there's options to look at those series of events as fulfilling the responsibility... not the responsibility, but the ongoing typical item to have two civility roundtables in a year.

[03:10:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So is it possible then to just move forward with those two events for now, and then revisit the work plan if HRC and staff feels that they can handle another event in the new year? I just think there's so much uncertainty with COVID that I'm okay if we just revisit this later once we have a better sense of where we're going in the new year. Is that something that we could do?

[03:10:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, if I may. I think an option that council has, and we've talked about this a little bit before... So when we set the goal setting cycle and council thinks about the two year process for goals, I know that that's going to give council an opportunity to really think through what the more realistic workload can be for staff over the next couple years, and certainly I think we'll probably have some carryover items. That's just workload in general. As far as these yearly advisory body work plans, what I think it would be helpful for staff is, these are definitely items that are going to impact normal work along with COVID, and so we could bring an update to council in February with the mid-year. And then if there are any items that would need to be pushed off that staff is going to be unable to get to or complete before the end of the fiscal year, then we could bring council an update at that time, because we'll be presenting council with other mid-year updates in February as well. But obviously if council wants, we can change the number of events or forums that are held. But we can certainly bring an update back in February with a recommendation on what should be deferred.

[03:11:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember McAlister. Unmute, please.

[03:12:08] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm done. I submit my piece. Thank you.

[03:12:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilmember Matichak.

[03:12:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, I appreciate the suggestion from our city manager. I guess I want to convey the message that I'm okay with us cutting back on activities. We do need to address workload here. And I'm okay if some of this is not done. It is not my expectation that staff will be able to support all of this. And I feel like I really want to make that message very clear. I'd be okay cutting back to the items just listed on page 15, so the civility roundtable that's going to happen and yes, I get the listening forum things have already been done. That's a lot of work. But if we want to revisit this in the mid-year, that's fine. And I'd say take a look at all the work plans. Thanks.

[03:13:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is that a motion, Councilmember Matichak?

[03:13:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Do we need a motion, or are we just... like the city manager said, we would just revisit this at the mid-year?

[03:13:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do we need a motion to revisit this? No? I thought I heard...

[03:13:39] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I think you could make a motion for the three remaining consent items with an additional component to 4.11 to revisit the work plans for all of the advisory bodies in the February time frame.

[03:14:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Does that sound... You want to make that motion?

[03:14:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure.

[03:14:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilmember Clark.

[03:14:12] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll second it.

[03:14:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Any other discussion? And so, could we go ahead and make the motion including 4.3 and 4.8? Great. Any other discussion on any of these items? If not, could we get a roll call vote, please?

[03:14:29] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Clark.

[03:14:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:14:32] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Hicks.

[03:14:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:14:35] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Matichak.

[03:14:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:14:37] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember McAlister.

[03:14:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[03:14:39] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:14:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:14:43] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[03:14:44] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:14:44] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[03:14:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye. Thank you. Motion carries 7-0 with no abstentions. We'll go onto Item 5, Oral Communications. 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 three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. If there are any members of the public in the attendee box that would like to speak, please raise your blue hand. And if you are on the phone, please press star nine. And let's see here. Let's see how many we have. So let's go with, I'm going to go with two minutes this time. Um, we'll start with Eugene Bradley. Please unmute yourself to speak.

[03:15:35] Eugene Bradley: Good evening council members and Madam Mayor. Can everybody hear me? Yes, I'm Eugene Bradley. I'm the founder and CEO of the Silicon Valley Transit Users. I want to thank Mr... Councilmember McAlister for serving not just Mountain View, also serving North County on the VTA's board of directors. It is our hope and desire that Mr. McAlister support whatever measures he can to help prevent even further service cuts that VTA is proposing. In case for those of you that don't know, VTA is proposing service cuts up to 30% throughout the county. That includes ending the 52 bus line that connects downtown Mountain View with the Foothill College. That would be a very good thing, especially post-COVID when and if classes at that college do return full-time. So I'm encouraging Mr. McAlister to work with Cindy Chavez to work on a plan to not have these service cuts come February. And I'm also challenging his managers, residents such as yourselves, just like you watching here on Zoom and on channel 26 to ensure that Mr. McAlister do the right thing and help save VTA bus service not just in North County but throughout Santa Clara County. Thank you.

[03:16:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We will go to Shabana Ansari. If you could unmute yourself, please, to speak.

[03:17:07] Shabana Ansari: Thank you. Good evening, Honorable Mayor, council members, and the members of the public. My name is Shabana Ansari, and I am a resident of Mountain View since 2019. Today, I stand here as an advocate for victims and survivors of domestic violence to commemorate Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I represent Maitri, an organization devoted to serving victims and survivors of domestic violence, and want to take a few moments to talk about an epidemic that is pervasive in our homes, cities, state, country, and all over the world. Domestic violence is an ill that exists in all communities irrespective of culture, religion, sexual orientation, financial status, or immigration realities. A survey conducted by National Network to End Domestic Violence reveals that in 2019, in a 24-hour, domestic violence service providers served 77,226 individuals with their needs. In California itself, we had 5,644. The survey also reveals that 59% of callers reached out for housing services, whereas 25% reached out for immigration help on the survey day. This was before we entered shelter in place. Increased requests for intervention and legal remedies over the past few months have shed light on the ongoing need for resources. There has never been a greater need for prevention focused activities. State-based responses, community-based organizations, and members of the community in general, we all have our parts to play. And we thank the city of Mountain View for providing much-needed assistance in many areas. I request the city council to consider the following. Enact policies that support an intersectional approach to address domestic violence. Support funding for domestic violence service providers at the federal, state, county, and city levels. Rethink law enforcement responses to crisis situations with a special focus on stopping brutality against people of color. Evaluate and improve language access at every facility offering training on cultural responsiveness to local government employees and agencies. Involve non-governmental organizations as thought partners while planning city activities. Uplift the voices of minority groups whenever possible as they lack representation in policy making space. And to the community members, I urge you to recognize domestic violence as a pressing issue. Model healthy relationships for the children at home. Elect leaders and policies that contribute toward building a just and equitable future for all of us. I thank you for your time.

[03:19:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Mary Dateo. If you can unmute yourself, please.

[03:19:43] Mary Dateo: Hi there. I'm Mary Dateo. I am coming to speak tonight... We're going to have another speaker in a few minutes also talking about green... creating greenways in our city. And I'm coming to speak in support of a connected network of walkable, bikeable greenways throughout our city. So walking is the most popular form of exercise in our country and running is not far behind. Walking especially is a physical activity with very low barriers to entry, making it available to people of all age groups and all economic groups. Developing a connected network of greenways in our city, using some of our existing public space to do that, especially overly wide roadways, is key to several of the city's current goals and policies, including the Vision Zero policy that has just recently been set. The current major goal to develop and implement comprehensive and innovative transportation strategies for mobility, connectivity, and safety for people of all ages. The city sustainability goal to reduce vehicle miles traveled, because we need to offer people a more attractive alternative in order for them to have something to choose besides driving. Our goal to prioritize safe access to school for school children, and our goal for increasing the urban canopy by 5%. So certainly with the current pandemic, we see how access to the outdoors and nature is filling a critical need. Trees especially are key to the success of this connected network and should be considered a foundational feature. Some of the benefits include providing beauty, filtering air and water pollutants, reducing the urban heat island effect, and having a positive impact on people's mental and physical health. And generally, studies have shown that tree canopy is found to be measurably sparser in low-income areas. With all the benefits of trees, it's critical that all of our citizens benefit from them. So... my time is up. Thank you.

[03:21:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Joyce Yin. Please unmute yourself.

[03:22:03] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh, thank you very much. Lisa, I think you wanted me to remind you that there's a little slideshow that's just going to run. It doesn't relate to the talking points, but if that can be done, great. I know you were having issues earlier.

[03:22:16] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: I am. I think I'm having issues with sharing my... just a small portion of my screen, but not with my full screen. So I think I can make this happen really quick. And then I'll set the timer for two minutes.

[03:22:28] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Oh great, wonderful. Before I start, I just wanted to be transparent. And some of you may know that I'm on the EPC, but I'm here as a resident.

[03:22:38] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Okay.

[03:22:42] Commissioner Joyce Yin: Good evening, council members. I just wanted to talk about an idea that can help lower greenhouse gas emissions, aid in stormwater management, increase health and safety, and increase equity among residents, which are all major goals of our city. Just envision a network of greenways threading through the city, linking all our parks and green spaces. And I propose we utilize one of our greatest public land assets, our existing public streets, to act as those threads. It was really great when Councilmember Matichak, as mayor, signed the 10-Minute Walk campaign, which challenged our city to provide everyone access to a quality park within a 10-minute walk of home. I say we challenge ourselves to make the journey every bit as green as the destination, to make that 10-minute walk a literal walk in the park. Walking is the easiest and most widely used form of exercise that the greatest number of people can do. Walkers want tree canopy for shade and beauty, and it's a bonus to get a little place to rest now and then. Trees not only shade us, but they suck up carbon dioxide, slow water runoff, provide habitat for wildlife, and have been shown to lower stress just by looking at them. And by thinking of our public streets as park-like corridors, we provide equitable access to those benefits. Mountain View has a lot of streets that are wider than they need to be, I feel. Some residential streets are 40 feet wide. We only need 20 feet for fire lanes, and 7 feet for a parking lane where desired. So that leaves us room for opportunity to add tree canopy and plantings. So just imagine that everyone need only step outside their home to enter into a network of urban nature walks and linear park corridors that lead us to our city parks and open areas. That take us through neighborhood pocket parks, tree groves, community gardens, and the like. Just imagine these places sprinkled with artwork, educational opportunities, small game courts, resting stops, and more. It's a pretty picture and a sustainable and equitable one to boot. And it's very doable. Thank you.

[03:24:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to comment on oral communications? I don't see any more blue hands, and no one on the phone. So I will close oral communications and move it on to item 6, public hearings. 6.1 is on Citywide School Strategy Precise Plan Amendments. And we have a staff presentation by our Principal Planner Eric Anderson. Welcome Mr. Anderson.

[03:25:17] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: He's on his way in.

[03:25:20] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Okay, thank you. Sorry about that.

[03:25:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: While we're waiting, I just want to point out all the wonderful public art in the slides we just saw from Joyce Yin. Did you see the benches? They were artsy. I thought, boy, that was fabulous. So thank you, Joyce, for sharing those. And send them to me if you can. Thank you.

[03:26:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mr. Anderson, welcome.

[03:26:18] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Thanks very much, Mayor Abe-Koga. Thank you City Council. Let me get my slide deck shared, just a moment. Okay, can people see that? Great. So thanks again, Mayor Abe-Koga, thank you City Council. This is for the Citywide School Strategy Precise Plan Amendments. My name is Eric Anderson and I'm joined by Community Development Director, Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava. As a reminder of the city's legal constraints, state law states that the city can't deny or condition developments based on school capacity. In effect, school size cannot be part of the city's land use deliberation. The power to mitigate impacts to schools lies with the state. So the city can't use the school strategy to evaluate projects, and developments have to be allowed to provide no dollars in public benefits or any other school contribution in addition to state fees. Back in June, the city council adopted a council policy for a citywide school strategy that included policies around shared open space with the schools, transfers of development rights to support school site acquisition, and incentives for development dedication. It also identified a projected need and funding gap analysis, which could inform voluntary contributions. It also identified sources of ongoing city support. There are several precise plan amendments before you this evening from the North Bayshore and the East Whisman Precise Plans. In general, the precise plan amendments remove school strategy development requirements and remove direct community benefits language. They do, however, maintain and coordinate language between them that refers to city actions from the citywide school strategy, and that also reference the citywide school strategy. The EPC reviewed proposed precise plan amendments on September 16th. The version the EPC reviewed took a more thorough approach to separating land use decisions from school policy. The EPC recommended approval, but also recommended modifications to better reference the adopted citywide school strategy if appropriate and legally defensible. Upon review, staff determined that the precise plans could discuss city actions, as I said, but could not apply developer requirements. Based on this, the recommended amendments include the citywide actions from the citywide school strategy and the references that I mentioned. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, we reviewed the EIRs for both of these precise plans. They did not include specific new school facilities, and they could not have under state law. So therefore, removing any school strategy language from the precise plans would not identify any new... would not create any new unidentified impacts. In closing, here are staff's recommendations to adopt the proposed resolutions to the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans. This concludes staff's presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

[03:30:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council members? I don't see any hands. So if... We'll open it up for public comment. And if you are in the attendee box and would like to comment, please raise your blue hand. And if you're on the phone, please press star nine. And we'll start with... let's see, let's go two and a half minutes. And we'll start with Nellie Meyer. Please unmute yourself. Welcome.

[03:30:56] Nellie Meyer: Good evening. Thank you Mayor and council members and city staff for your work during this difficult remote time. My name is Nellie Meyer, and I'm the superintendent of the MVLA High School District. And tonight I would like to address 6.1 in order to thank the Environmental Planning Commission for their considerations and the revisions. We appreciate you listening to our concerns and challenges, as well as including within the documents many of our requested revisions. On behalf of the MVLA High School District, I want to also express gratitude to the city council for listening to the district's concerns. In conclusion, the partnership between our schools, the city council, and the city staff has been invaluable and appreciated. Thank you.

[03:31:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we'll go next to Laura Blakely. Please unmute yourself.

[03:31:57] Laura Blakely: Good evening City Council. I just wanted to thank you... Well, first to thank the EPC for advocating for the changes that were recommended by the two school districts. And I should have introduced myself. Laura Blakely, and I'm a trustee on the Mountain View Whisman School District. So I wanted to thank the EPC for advocating for those changes and thank staff also for incorporating most of them in this revised... the revised plans that you now have before you. I just wanted to say on behalf of myself as a trustee and the school board, we very much value our partnership with the city of Mountain View and just really appreciate the fact that you take our concerns seriously and incorporated them into these revisions. Thank you so much.

[03:32:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we'll go to Dr. Rudolph. Please unmute yourself to speak. There you go.

[03:32:55] Ayinde Rudolph: Alright, good evening everyone. I just want to echo both what Dr. Meyer said and also what Trustee Blakely said. I just want to thank you all. Thank you to the EPC, as well as city staff, who... Eric and I have been in these meetings for the past, I don't know, two to three years going back and forth. And so I really appreciate the EPC as well as city staff amending the precise plan. We do understand legally that there are some constraints, but the fact that city council is willing to consider keeping it within the plan or somehow mentioning it in there sends a strong signal. Aarti, I just saw you on the screen, so thank you also for your work. I know you haven't been there as long, but I really appreciate it. And again, just really grateful that you're signaling to developers that the goal for creating a complete community is important and that schools are included within that. So thank you again.

[03:33:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to comment on this item? I don't see any more blue hands and no one on the phone, so I will close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation and a motion. Yes, Councilmember Clark.

[03:34:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think this has been a long time coming. And it looks like the EPC has some changes that everybody is pretty happy with and were ultimately incorporated by staff. So others can speak if you want, but I'll go ahead and just get the motion on the table. I'll move that we adopt a resolution amending the P39 North Bayshore and P41 East Whisman Precise Plans consistent with the Citywide School Strategy to be read in title only, further reading waived, attachment 1 to the council report.

[03:34:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And Councilmember Matichak.

[03:34:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I will second that motion. And I just want to add that I watched the EPC meeting where this was discussed. And I want to thank Chair Cox and Vice Chair Cranston for the great conversation that was had at that meeting. Those two probably said the most. But I appreciate everyone participating in this. I think the changes that were recommended and that staff made are spot on, and I appreciate everything that was done. So thank you.

[03:35:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. There's a motion by Councilmember Clark, second by Councilmember Matichak. Any other comments? I'll just add my thanks to everyone, to staff, to our school district partners. I very much appreciate our partnership, and I appreciate the EPC members and their suggestions that were incorporated. I think this makes it a great document that does signify our city's commitment to partnering and supporting our school districts. So with that, if we could get a roll call vote, please.

[03:35:58] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Clark.

[03:35:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[03:36:00] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Hicks.

[03:36:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:36:03] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Matichak.

[03:36:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:36:05] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember McAlister.

[03:36:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[03:36:08] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Councilmember Ramirez.

[03:36:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:36:10] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[03:36:12] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:36:13] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[03:36:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye. Thank you. Motion carries 7-0 with no abstentions. We will move on now to item 7, new business. 7.1, School Allocation of 355 and 415 East Middlefield Road Project Community Benefits. And we have a staff presentation again by Mr. Anderson.

[03:44:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Unmute yourself, please. I reluctantly ask you. I know you're losing friends. Last time I couldn't keep my mic off and now I keep turning it off. So on slide 3, you presented a discussion about community benefits. And that all the money, other than the 1.5 going to the schools, would be needed. Why wasn't that presented as a presentation to us as Option 3, that we keep the money to take care of this neighborhood? So why was that left off the table?

[03:44:59] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: So the council direction back in June was to return with essentially the school allocation for this specific project as part of those... that council direction to work closely with the school districts on closing some of these funding gaps. We did provide an alternative to basically not proceed with any allocation. But we thought the best way to move the specific council direction forward was to basically build options off of what that direction was back in June. But it's always council's prerogative.

[03:45:00] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, the, uh, the direction from City Council back in, um, June was to bring back some options for how to allocate some of these funds. Um, and so, uh, staff has has prepared those options and is, is recommending a couple of different ways to interpret how the, um, how those options can or how those funds can be calculated.

[03:45:30] Councilmember John McAlister: But I mean it, it doesn't give us a true picture. Okay, well, that's for comments. We'll we'll let that go for now. Um, is there, the big, I guess the big elephant in the room is that SummerHill is putting a pause on their project. And you said the the uh, permits are good for two years. Are they also allowed to uh extend those? Can the is there some uh Zoning Administrator extended or something, how's that how's that work?

[03:45:59] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah, the zoning ordinance allows, uh, extensions. Uh, for projects the, uh, there needs to be some finding that the the project is moving forward in order to approve the extension. Uh, so there has to be some progress on the the conditions. Um, but in general those are routinely approved. Uh, and in this case the extension would probably be for one year because there's a subdivision involved. Uh, but for other projects where there's no subdivision it can be for up to two years.

[03:46:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Would that come back to Council for approval to extend?

[03:46:31] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, no, those those do not go to Council, those get approved at the ZA.

[03:46:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Um, since we don't know when the funds will come in or so forth, you know, we because, uh, based on SummerHill, and I guess the funds won't come in. So we have immediate needs for infrastructure. The school district is developing their plans. Is there a way that the city can use the funds, uh, immediately, but still put in an IOU or budget, a reserve in the City Council budget to have those funds available when the school district needs them?

[03:47:17] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, I'm not aware of any process there, but I would defer to others that may know the budget process a little better.

[03:47:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, is it possible?

[03:47:28] Aarti Shrivastava: Councilmember McAlister, uh, within the scope of this project, it is not. However, the Council can take it up later as part of a future item.

[03:47:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, but if we want but that that's part of the consideration for tonight. Could we say...

[03:47:45] Aarti Shrivastava: Right. As part of the scope of this project, the Council could decide not to provide the funds for the 2.5 million, but direct staff to come back with an option to look at other ways to fund the schools. And so that second part would have to be taken up separately.

[03:48:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. And... page, I think. Um, okay, so the options, so could I see screen 3 again, please?

[03:48:19] Councilmember John McAlister: I think I think it was East Whisman Community Benefits.

[03:48:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And you said, for all this to, so, you have a a proposed plan if the money is there to take care of all these particular projects, is that correct? You said because it would use all the money, so does that mean that you have all these projects in mind?

[03:48:51] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, yes, we have these projects in mind. Again, the it was a very back of the envelope calculation that we did, and it's it's still uncertain, um, what the actual prices or what the actual costs will be and, um, and how they might get paid for by any number of different funding sources.

[03:49:14] Councilmember John McAlister: And when you do your back of the envelope, did you look three years out, four years out?

[03:49:21] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: We looked at all of the proposed projects in the Precise Plan that were specifically identified, and we looked at the, uh, projected housing and office growth. So it it's a, you know, it's an nth year, you know, the build-out of the Precise Plan, basically.

[03:49:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and do we have a any update on the school district enrollment?

[03:49:49] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, no, we don't. Uh, I'm I'm we don't we don't have that information right now, though.

[03:49:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, maybe uh someone else from the school district can give us an update as we proceed. Thank you.

[03:50:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I have a a question that's uh just a detail I think, but um, you're asking us one of the questions you're asking is how directly uh serving East Whisman students has to be to this um, you know, this particular community benefit. And I'm wonder I guess option B2 is uh less direct, uh just you can serve the students in some way and rearrange the boundaries. I'm wondering if we even have to stipulate that. Can it just be I mean I'm assuming that we would trust the school district that they would be spending it on um serving students. And as, and I'm assuming this would be for, you know, it's for housing that's being built. So, I'm wondering if we could even uh drop the part stipulating the boundary changes, or whether we need that partic- there's some reason for that particular connection.

[03:51:00] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Uh, the reason is because the community benefits are intended to serve the East Whisman area because they're coming out of the East Whisman area. Um, however, uh, you know, the City Council is free to um identify any terms for the agreement that they like.

[03:51:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So we could make it even more general if we wanted.

[03:51:24] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Mhm.

[03:51:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Just about indirectly serving East Whisman students. Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

[03:51:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions? I have one, um, would you mind putting up the slide of the different the options for the funding? Um, so, I I guess my specific question had to do with the TDRs. So, in light of the, the notice that we received about SummerHill not continuing with the project, um, are they still trying to sell the TDRs, what is the status of the TDRs?

[03:52:09] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: So whoever, um, acquires the permit also acquires any conditions of approval related to the permit, and so those conditions of approval include stipulations that you buy the TDRs from the Los Altos School District, that you then have the right to sell them, uh, and that, um, if you do sell them, you would you would donate that those funds to the, uh, to the school districts. So all of that is baked into the conditions of approval, and so whoever whoever took the, uh, project would take all of that over.

[03:52:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then for option A1, um, why isn't the TDR resale value included?

[03:52:56] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: So because the minimum school strategy was, uh, is is applied in A1, um, we kind of took the minimum and the maximum school strategy amounts, the 2.56 to 3.84, as bookends because those were the amounts that, um, were from the funding gap analysis. So if we subtracted again the TDR, and for some reason the builder, SummerHill or whoever, is unable to find a buyer of the TDR, or is unable to find a location to land that TDR that the City Council approves, then if we had subtracted it out of this calculation, then the school districts would be getting less than 2.56 million.

[03:53:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, ready. Thank you. Any other questions from Councilmembers? If not, I will open this up for public comment. If there are any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, please raise your blue hand. Um, I know there was a question, I don't know if we still have school district rep- representation. Oh, yes, we do. And there was a question by Councilmember McAlister, if one of you would be able to answer that, that would be great. And let's give um let's go with let's go with three minutes. And we'll start with uh Laura Blakely. Please unmute yourself.

[03:54:26] Laura Blakely: Thank you, um, Council. Um, I don't have the answer to the question about the enrollment, but my my understanding is that those projections still are valid, but I would have to defer to Dr. Rudolph and his staff and have somebody get back to you about that. Um, I did want to say that the district's need for, well, the full 2.3 million um, is as essential as it always has been. So we would respectfully ask that you allocate the larger option A2 amount, but if you only authorize the lower 1.94 million dollar amount, um, in the hope that the TDR, the $400,000 TDR, will um come through, I'm confident that our staffs can work that out. Um, regarding option B2 or B1, um, I'd respectfully ask that B2 be authorized because that is how the district, um, must use its statutory fees. So basically, if we had to, it just using Vargas as an example, if we had to um transfer, redraw our boundaries um, and allocate kids that are currently attending one school that's closer to the East Whisman area to a different school, that's the indirect allocation. But we would still need to accommodate those East Whisman kids. And so, um, it seems fair and appropriate to allocate it that way, the way that we would use school developer fees. So I would ask you to approve, um, options A2 and B2. And again, as I mentioned earlier, we very much appreciate our partnership with the City. Thank you.

[03:56:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, we'll go to Nellie Meyer, please. Unmute yourself.

[03:56:15] Nellie Meyer: There we go. Thank you, thank you. Um, first of all, our enrollment is, um, 4,545. We anticipated, um, it would be a little bit higher. So we anticipated it would be in the 4600 range. It is still up from last year, but it is a slight decrease in the projection, um, so we're calling it flat at this time. Um, regarding the comments, um, I agree with, um, Mountain View Whisman. Um, we we thank you for your partnership and thoughtfulness on this topic. Um, I'm going to briefly address the amount of funding and the use of funding. Uh, MVLA, we support option A2 and option B2. Uh, our district needs for funds to support the schools, uh, continue to be ongoing and critical. And we're planning for the future as we work to build an additional high school, and are analyzing all of the costs associated with that, which as I've said, I've stated here before, are upwards of half a billion dollars. Um, regarding the recommendations, we support option 2, including the 1.94, with the hopes of the additional TDR funding amount, but and we also appreciate the need to work within those confines. Our preference of course would be for the full amount of the 2.34. Regarding the use of the funds, uh, we respectfully ask that B2 be considered for district flexible use of fees. As Ms. Blakely mentioned, this flexibility allows our district to proactively support the ebb and flow of enrollment, and allow us to adapt as needed to constraints that we may have in place, including any available land and housing as we as we continue to grow. Thank you very much.

[03:58:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Fiona Walter, please. Unmute yourself.

[03:58:28] Fiona Walter: Thank you, I think we're set. Hi. Uh, good evening, thank you Council for for having both of these items on tonight. Um, I don't have to go into the details, I will just add another voice advocating for A2 and B2. And extend a huge thank you to all of you for two to three years of effort on this behalf and working with the school districts in this way. We really, really appreciate it. And I'm speaking for the full board for Mountain View Los Altos. Thanks.

[03:58:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we'll go to Ayinde Rudolph. Please unmute yourself.

[03:59:02] Ayinde Rudolph: All right, well thank you for for considering this and having me again. Uh, to answer uh John's question on enrollment, um, it's down slightly. But we're noticing that enrollment is down actually in our youngest grades, um, primarily because they're parents had concerns about whether or not their child should be in front of a computer, um, and compulsory age in California is actually six years old. And so kinder is not uh a requirement, and so that's where we saw the sort of the sizable drop. Um, with that said, um, I do want to point out that uh North Base, sorry, East Whisman is uh projected to produce about 728 students, um, for elementary schools as well as 349 students for middle school. Uh, Vargas is actually almost at complete capacity. Uh, it only can hold an additional 100 students. Even if that projection doesn't reach its fullest potential, um, it still requires us to have a um, a land or a school within the East Whisman area, which is our board's goal. Um, we are starting to move into the process of purchasing land and looking at um an urban school solution, which requires us to be on a six-acre plot um for to start looking at a school. Therefore, uh, the district um is in support, similar to MVLA, of option A2 as well as B2. Um, and setting aside this 2.4, 2.34 uh million dollars uh for us means that the school is specifically served the East Whisman area, um, as opposed to, I know that middle school as well as the high school have different needs just because of the size requirements, but the elementary school for us would actually be served in there. And so we just asked that you authorize um uh the staff to continue uh with the process and support A2 and B2. Thank you.

[04:00:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? I don't see any more blue hands and no one on the phone. So I'll close public comment and bring it back to Council for deliberation and a motion. Who would like to start? Councilmember Hicks.

[04:01:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll I'll start with something short and see what other people think. I am uh starting with uh B2. I am I would be in favor of that uh to create maximum flexibility for serving um East Whisman and other students. Um, and I do have some concerns about the amount uh in terms of uh option A1 or A2. I have concerns about funding uh other amenities in um in the East Whisman area. The transportation, the small business, the uh parks, and affordable housing. I'm very committed to funding the schools, but I think that there are other places we can draw some of those funds from. I'm particularly interested in Share Shoreline funds, we're not going to talk about that tonight, but um so I'll just bring that up. I would um I would prefer to leave uh some additional uh funding for the infrastructure needed in East Whisman. Thank you.

[04:02:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I also uh have concerns um about the community benefits uh needed in the East Whisman area. Um, while it has quite a bit of infrastructure in comparison to North Bayshore, um as we add significant housing there, um as well as redevelop the office space, there's definitely the need for additional uh amenities, as Councilmember Hicks said. Um, and I feel like this is like a a really tough no-win situation, because both the city and the school district need money. So, um, I personally feel like I'd rather just uh split the difference here and each gets 1.25 million. Um, because it's an easy solution, we don't have to talk about low and high, let's just split it. Um, and I'm okay with um I think it's B2 uh in terms of um allowing the district's flexibility. Um, I think it it's especially needed when it comes to the high school, because um we don't really know where a third high school might go, if we have one. Um, whereas we have a lot more of the um elementary schools. Um, so actually I'm happy to make a motion if you ready for one, to say let's just split the difference and do 1.25 million to the school districts and 1.25 million to uh the city for community benefits in the East Whisman area. And option B2.

[04:04:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so that's a motion from Councilmember Matichak. Uh, Councilmember Clark.

[04:04:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, yeah, I'll make a just comments at this point. I also support B2 by the way. Um, I'll throw that common in. But on um, for option A1 versus A2, I'm just curious, um, Councilmember Matichak, so, and staff, correct me if I'm wrong, but the the developer contribution is 1.5. So would it be half of that? Or or um for each side to add up to 1.5, or is there another 1.5 here that I missed that gets us to three, and or or um, sorry, the 1.25 that Councilmember Matichak mentioned. I'm looking at the slide math, I should pull up the actual staff report math, too.

[04:05:05] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah, so the 1.5 million uh is is done. That's that's money that developer has already offered to the school districts. Uh, there's a 2.5 million dollar requirement that the project give to the city. And so Council...

[04:05:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see that number now. Yeah, okay.

[04:05:28] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah.

[04:05:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Yeah. So we're talking about the, I got confused on the the slides. I was looking at the A1 slide versus the um the overall background slide. And um, I just wanted to make sure those added up. Um, you know, I I think I would I would generally be um okay with that. I think in in that case it would just mean that if there is any um that would be the the 2.5 in community benefits. But then if there is a residual um TDR value, that would that would come back to us, and we could either utilize that or decide something decide what to do with that at the time that we we know what that value is.

[04:06:15] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: No, the the TDR value would still go to the schools.

[04:06:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: The full value?

[04:06:22] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: Yeah.

[04:06:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, because what I was thinking earlier was, you know, you estimated it at 0.4, but it could end up being higher. And so, um, does that, does whatever that amount is have to go to the school district, or are we are could we say, you know, up to 400,000 of it goes to the schools, but anything over and above that ends up coming back to us?

[04:06:49] Principal Planner Eric Anderson: If you wanted to... well, in order to do that, we would need uh to hold on to the community benefit funds a little bit longer, to determine if and when the TDR ever gets sold. Right. So if the TDR... if if SummerHill's holding on to their, or whoever's building the project is holding on to these TDRs looking out for a buyer for three, four, five years, then we wouldn't be able to transact the community benefit funds. Um, because we can't go back and change that condition of approval that says they would give the TDR funds. So if you wanted to make the the community benefit funds dependent on the TDR value, that would that could potentially hold up those funds.

[04:07:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: That creates a big issue. Yeah, I guess what I was I was getting at the concept that the the um the additional um TDR ended up impacting the neighborhood pretty significantly, right? And so I was trying to figure out a way to sort of tie that directly to the the community benefit as opposed to the the school district there. But um, I think I'm I'm generally open to Councilmember Matichak's concept if if that ends up being the easiest and what others um feel is feel is fair. Um, but I, but in terms of the the I I do agree with the having with the school district having maximum flexibility to uh enter equity for basic option B2 on that front.

[04:08:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so um, Councilmember Matichak made a motion. I have not heard a second yet. Is there a second on that? All right, Councilmember McAlister. So let's continue with discussion. Vice Mayor, you're next.

[04:08:38] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. I I just wanted to ask if that was going to be the motion, or if we could bifurcate A and and B. Um, but it I guess if we keep, I guess we'll just call the question since the motion got the second, is that right?

[04:08:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I can ask the motion maker if she would be willing to bifurcate the the options, on the A options and the B options.

[04:09:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I I guess I think it's okay to leave them together.

[04:09:14] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I I'll just make my comments then now before we we take the vote. So, uh, I won't be supporting the motion. Um, I support option A2 and option B2. So, since it's a a motion as a whole, I just wanted to clarify that I'll be voting no on the entire motion even though I support B2, since it's uh, it's tied with option A1. Thank you.

[04:09:40] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:09:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I'm really struggling with this. Uh, and the primary reason is, when when I was thinking about this during the the staff briefing we were provided, it it feels like there's a risk of the East Whisman community being impacted twice by this. First through accepting uh sort of the lion's share of the transfer of development rights from the San Antonio area where there is no community benefit requirement. The community benefit of those development rights is the creation of a school in the San Antonio area, which has no value to East Whisman. So there's the taking in of all of that development. And then on top of that, a portion of the community benefits from the, uh, the portion of the development that is subject to it, being invested in another neighborhood that gets a new school, where the benefit to East Whisman may be increased capacity, so some additional students could be, you know, accommodated in a school, but East Whisman wouldn't derive the benefit of the, you know, facilities from from that new school if it's not within the area. Um, and correspondingly, because as I think it's been pointed out that it's a zero-sum game, um, we'd have less revenue to invest in a lot of the infrastructure that that was mentioned earlier. Um, so I I feel I feel very concerned about making what I feel is like a commitment to East Whisman and that if you're going to take in all of this development that you have at least the reinvestment of that community benefit funding right for the purpose of creating new infrastructure and, um, additional open space, affordable housing, the things that we were hoping to invest. Um, you know, if we if we reduce the community benefit obligation that's invested there, then um, it feels like we're we're not really fulfilling the bargain that we've made. So what I was um, what I was hoping would come out of this, is it sounds like the Council generally is comfortable with B2. Um, I understand why. I I don't have a problem with sharing more of the money, as long as there is the assurance that that money is going to directly benefit East Whisman, right? I would rather have the geographic constraint and give the districts more money knowing that a new school will be built there and you could have, you know, the shared facilities, open space, and that kind of thing. Or maybe the creation of a school could also include some of the other infrastructure that we were hoping to provide, uh, you know, if it could be reinvested in transportation safety to help get kids to that school. I that strikes me as sort of the win-win where at the very least, you know, the school district gets a new school, the neighborhood gets uh the additional infrastructure and new public amenities and facilities, um, and uh, you know, and we can sort of make everybody as whole as possible. So I, um, I want to hear what everybody has to say, I don't know how to vote on this motion. I think, you know, that the funding, you know, I think splitting the difference I can understand, because the desire is to balance the needs of the school district with the needs of of the East Whisman area. Um, but I feel more set on the geographic restriction where at least we're guaranteeing the investment in the East Whisman area. I don't know how I'm going to vote yet, but I hope um there can be some additional discussion on this. Thank you.

[04:13:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember McAlister.

[04:13:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Hey, yeah, I turned my mute off this time. Hey, um, a question for Councilmember Ramirez. When you said geographic distribution, are you talking about the neighborhood? I mean, I I when you said the the geographic distribution of the money, so, uh, could you explain that a little bit for me?

[04:14:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Sure. No, uh, I I have greater comfort with I think it's option B1, where we say that the money has to be invested within the boundary that has a clear nexus to East Whisman. So you couldn't for instance build a new school in Monta Loma which would have the impact of, you know, depending on how you draw the boundaries, it may create capacity that would help accommodate the new students that we'll see in East Whisman, but the school will be located very far away from East Whisman. So the residents that will be, you know, in the new housing uh will have no access or will have no benefit from the new facility that we're creating. I would rather see new facilities that have a direct benefit to East Whisman residents.

[04:15:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so you yeah yeah okay, so you were just referencing the money for the school districts, not the other community benefits for the the East Whisman neighborhood.

[04:15:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I I think if it becomes less of a zero-sum game, if the money is invested in East Whisman. So even if you give 100% of the money to the school districts, if the facilities that we're creating are close to the neighborhood where the residents there can access the open space, or if we can also use that money for instance to help improve transportation infrastructure to get the kids to the schools. I I feel like that's the win-win. It may be very challenging logistically, uh, so I I would defer to staff on whether that's even feasible, but I I like that as a as a solution where everybody can get something that, you know, the the community benefits achieves the intent, you know, when we approved the Precise Plan.

[04:16:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Well okay, thank you, that was helpful. Um, my comments are, um, East Whisman neighborhood has been clamoring, begging, requesting that the city spent spend money in their neighborhood to make it more viable, more financially uh desirable, and just and bring that neighborhood into part of the city, so they're sort of a little bit isolated. Um, I went to dinner over at a restaurant over next to uh Carl's, and it was a restaurant had been there for 24 years. It was a um Asian spicy chicken sort of place. And we showed up and said, well, what's on the menu? She said, well this is our very limited items. Chris, you might you might know about the place. They said, no, this is our limit, we are closing tonight. After 24 years, we can no longer stay in business. And I'm going, whoa. And here is an area East Whisman that's struggling, and yet this business dies, their rent went from 2,000 to 8,000. All kinds of things. So, um, there's another blow to this particular neighborhood. And I like Lisa uh Councilmember Matichak's Solomon approach. Let's fare that um everybody gets something, everybody gets more than what they expected, and I think it's a fair distribution because East Whisman to uh Councilmember Ramirez's concern is, they're going to be impacted immediately if this project goes through. If the other project on Logue goes through, I mean all these things are their transportation needs speak to yeah, absolutely. If we can get kids into some community bus and get them safely off to school, I mean we got to do that and that was one of our deals with our community shuttle. Here's an opportunity maybe to use some of that community benefit money to help transport kids to the junior high or so forth. So, I think investing in the community, I'm always a big believer of get the infrastructure in place before you build the housing or whatever we're doing. So I I think we can accomplish giving the school districts more money. I um I have no preference local I mean if they I would prefer as you see Councilmember Ramirez to keep it in the neighborhood, but you wanted this, you know, confess where the new units are being built. So, but we really don't have any idea uh, based on their projected uh enrollment, where that growth is going to occur sooner or later. And so we um, if they say they're in the process of buying schools. They already have a school there, the old Slater, I mean the old, what is it, Slater School, um, that is rented out to Google. So they do have facilities there that they could turn into their school. I know they would take a hit on the financials because of the rent, but they do have a facility there. So I'm always concerned about them buying land when they own land. And does the cost of the new land exceed the cost of what they have and to recover it. So, uh, I think the approach is fair, everybody gets more money, we get a little bit of money that we need to reinvest because that neighborhood again, as I said, has been getting hammered and they would expect to get a lot more going through. I mean we just had units just open up off of Ferguson, so we need parkland, transportation. We got the property of the project on Logue is coming through. So we're going to be adding a lot of, you know, a lot of properties over there. And I think we need the infrastructure. So I support the motion. And uh, I'll leave it at that.

[04:20:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm going to jump in before we go, second count. Um, I will not be supporting the motion. I appreciate, I do support um B2. I appreciate Councilmember Ramirez, your comments. Um, I think it's a a lot of it has to do with opportunity and that um where land might be available for facilities. And you know it, as much as I would like to see it in East Whisman, that's not always possible. Um, if you look at the Los Altos School District and how long it took them to find land, and how it came about, um, I think that's an example of, uh, a good example of how challenging it can be. And so um, I would be inclined to allow the school district that flexibility to meet the needs of the students and families best they can in in however they can. So um I would support B2 in the motion. Um regarding the allocation, I would a- I was going I was to support option A2. The larger amount. And the reason being, you know, I appreciate we talk about infrastructure and roads and parks and so forth, but I look at schools as also part of that infrastructure. And um you know this is the area that where when we talk about housing, north Bayshore versus East Whisman, you know I always thought East Whisman was where we're going to see the housing built first, and it looks like that's happening. Um, with the other project that we're aware of, um, some of these other issues like open space and parks and and retail and um even non-profit spaces um, is included in that project. I know we still have to decide on that, but I think the needs are being satisfied in other ways. But the school districts don't have that option. They, this is really it for them. Um, and you know we have our our transportation um, our business license tax that goes to transportation and housing, we have other funding sources that we're able to to um tap into for these other other needs, but again school districts are relying purely on on what these fees are going to be. So I, my perspective is you know their infrastructure, school districts don't have that option. Uh, I appreciate Councilmember Hicks's comment about Shared Shoreline. Um, you know that's a longer-term conversation I would I think. Um, I just think that the housing here is going to come up a lot more quickly than um you know, than than we might even be able to finish that conversation on. So um I'm inclined to just go ahead with the higher allocation A2. So I will not be supporting the motion. Thanks. Councilmember Hicks, you're next.

[04:23:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just got the button. Well, at this point I may be repeating, but I I um, you know Council Member Ramirez had asked for our comments and I guess I I find myself kind of on in the opposite position on both points. I think that um it's really important to give the schools flexibility to build a school wherever they um see is most important. I would hate to virtually force them to put a a school in a particular place. On the other hand, I think I think we do I am fully committed to getting them the I do see schools as infrastructure, and I am fully committed to getting them the money. But I think that there are other places we can do so, um, and the Shoreline funds are are to me one of the major places we can do that. I think though that the uh infrastructural needs are not completely fungible. I don't think, you know, I I see the schools kind of um struggling in terms of being able to provide parks to the general public. Um, you know, I mean just lately because of the fencing issue, there uh the general public feels they don't have access to those parks. And I want I want enough money for um so that people in East Whisman have real parks, and I don't think the safe routes to school will be adequate, you know, I don't think we'll be able to say that those will meet the transportation needs. And I don't think we'll be able to meet small business needs, or affordable housing needs through the schools. So I would prefer to fund the schools in some other way, you know, fund them with some money now, and also in some other way. But make sure that we make East Whisman the the really good place that the Precise Plan promised it would be. And that's why I would be supporting the motion.

[04:25:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: So briefly, I, regardless of what we do, um, I I do think that we should go with B2. The the school district has a fiduciary role, needs change over time. We were talking earlier about how we want to be good partners with the county, but we don't like having our hands tied with fiduciary funding and it doesn't necessarily recognize all the needs of a specific community, and the school district is going to have specific needs over time, and I think they should have the flexibility to utilize the funds in a flexible manner, um, because we can't predict their needs in the future. There there is, I just wanted to throw out there, to muddy the water, I mean, there there is maybe another path that will make absolutely no one 100% satisfied, which is if you, um, look at the recommendation number 1, um, the the difference between A1 and A2, um, if you just split that difference, um, ends up being 1.5 um, million, I believe. So the allocation to them would be 1.5 instead of 1.25. Um, I don't know if that would be any more palatable to anyone, um, or if it's, um, if folks really feel strongly about A2, um, I just wanted to throw that idea out there that might be a little bit more palatable.

[04:26:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Uh I just want to uh reiterate um that you know I think both um groups need the funding, and uh, you know, we saw from the chart that Mr. Anderson put up uh all of the projects that are needed in East Whisman. Um, that we would use community benefits for. Um, I I feel like I don't want to tie the hands of the school districts in terms of where they um either uh re- revive a school or put a new school. Um, especially in the East Whisman area since there are two properties that are where there used to be schools. Uh, but um, you know, I'm open to Councilmember Clark's suggestion. Um, you know I had a feeling we were not all going to agree on this, and so I was trying to come up with uh sort of something that I thought maybe we could agree on, like something in the middle here. Um, I'm fine with the suggestion that Councilmember Clark had. Um, I'm happy to revise the motion to be that. Um, if that brings some more folks along. Um, but uh, are folks okay with that? Uh, let's see, Councilmember McAlister, if I revised it to be 1.5?

[04:28:08] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm fine with that.

[04:28:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah.

[04:28:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So the, the revised motion is 1.5 instead of 1.25.

[04:28:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. I'm fine with that. Thank you.

[04:36:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: 8.1 is the R3 Zoning District Update and we have a staff presentation by our Advanced Planning Manager Martin Alkire. Welcome Martin.

[04:36:42] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Good evening Mayor and Council. Uh again Martin Alkire, Community Development. Uh I'll be presenting tonight's item along with Aarti Shrivastava. And also with us tonight are uh Stefan Pellegrini and Tony Perez uh from Opticos, who are our main consultants on this project.

[04:37:04] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh I'll be presenting on the first two uh bullet points there, just very high level and then uh we'll follow up with a presentation from our consultant team on uh form-based codes.

[04:37:18] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Just as a reminder um on the screen is the City Council's goal for this project. Again we are uh reviewing and proposing revisions to the R3 zone standards that consider form-based zoning uh with the purpose of incentivizing stacked flats and updating our rowhouse guidelines.

[04:37:38] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh as a brief overview of the R3, uh on the screen is a map of the R3 zones shown in orange. Uh again scattered throughout the center of the city. Uh and in these zones there is uh quite a lot of residential variety as Council is aware, spanning from single-family homes, duplexes and both small and larger apartment complexes. You see the number of parcels and units in the zone on the screen there, and note that these do not include condo projects since they would be uh much more difficult to redevelop due to the uh ownership patterns there.

[04:38:12] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um just want to touch on at a high level uh some of the key findings uh the team has come up with to date. Um the first uh point is uh the R3 zone regulates diverse developments in many contexts. And um uh in those sub in those R3 zoning uh district areas, some are near transit or services or along corridors or adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in in many different contexts. And there's a wide variety of lot sizes as well, from small narrow lots uh you know say 5,000 square feet, up to much larger uh lots uh spanning several acres.

[04:38:52] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um so because uh the R3 standards are so broadly applied, uh the team is recommending a more fine-grained what we're calling a sub-area approach to R3. So we'd like to explore the different R3 standards for different areas that account for for this wide variety of lot sizes and contexts to help create uh hopefully some more focused and responsive uh development standards.

[04:39:16] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So the work started off with um some feasibility analysis and I should note that this is just one part of potential changes to the R3 uh zone area. Other factors such as you know the adjacent development or character, lot sizes or how much change or preservation is desired can influence overall project feasibility and we'll be uh diving into that in the next uh uh proposed uh level of work.

[04:39:43] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh the feasibility focused on two uh two things. First, physical testing, how the R3 building uh prototypes uh that we developed could fit within both existing or new R3 standards that were modified. And then the second was financial testing, how would these new developments perform given local market conditions as well as things like project costs and revenues.

[04:40:07] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: On the screen is a very simplified table from the staff report. Um it it basically lists out the standards such as density, setbacks, parking, etc. I'm not going to read through all of them, but it just gives a general indication of what would need to change to help achieve new R3 development. Again the column to the right are those potential influences on feasibility for each of those standards that would need to change. Um broadly most standards would need to be less restrictive or loosened in some way uh in order to incentivize new development. Again this is an initial assessment and as we do more outreach and look at different sub-areas, these standards will need to be calibrated for those different contexts that I I mentioned earlier.

[04:40:49] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So the R3 team wanted to update Council on the project status before moving ahead with public outreach. Uh details of the outreach uh are listed in the staff report, but but basically uh we are proposing to include information on form-based codes, which is why we also will be hearing a brief presentation from Opticos tonight. Uh and on the screen lists uh those upcoming Zoom meeting dates and high-level topics we'll be discussing with the community. Um community meeting number one October 26th and meeting number two on November 16th.

[04:41:25] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh the slide here just lists out uh those uh key next steps in the process. Again following the community outreach we'll be working with the team to refine the draft R3 standards and then we'll be bringing that information forward to EPC and City Council in winter 2021 where we will also be starting the CEQA work and then hope to wrap up the uh adoption hearings for the project in late 2021.

[04:41:51] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So again here's the uh just the broad question uh from the staff report that we have uh tonight, uh just any Council comments uh on the initial findings uh or the proposed outreach strategy. Um and at this point that concludes my presentation and um uh perhaps Mayor or um uh Aarti uh if at this point we'd like to uh pause uh and perhaps uh uh turn it over to uh Stefan Pellegrini of Opticos, um who will provide an overview of uh form-based codes. Uh and Lisa, I'm not sure if you can um switch him on at this point.

[04:42:35] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Yes, they are both uh on the panel. Thank you.

[04:43:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mr. Perez. Mr. Pellegrini. You are both co-hosts so please um hopefully you can share your screen if you need.

[04:43:19] Stefan Pellegrini: Great. Thank you very much Mayor Abe-Koga and thank you to Martin. Um I have a a very brief presentation on form-based codes which I'll share, it will take about 5 minutes and then uh be happy to uh support Martin and Aarti in uh answering any questions that you might have on the project to date.

[04:43:56] Stefan Pellegrini: So hopefully everyone can see my screen. Uh Martin and Aarti asked us to prepare a brief presentation uh um uh providing a little bit of information about form-based codes and uh how they work. And uh we speak to you as professionals who have been working with form-based codes for about 20 years and uh also uh Tony and I uh are both active members of the Form-Based Codes Institute, which is a non-profit think tank uh that works to um make good form-based codes around the country and around the world.

[04:44:35] Stefan Pellegrini: Um this is the official definition of form-based codes that um the Institute provides. Uh they are codes that foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm. Uh they use physical form rather than a separation of uses as the organizing principle for the code. Um and form-based codes are seen as a regulation as opposed to a guideline uh and uh that can be adopted into city, town, or county law.

[04:45:08] Stefan Pellegrini: And one of the reasons why we think about uh prescriptive standards when we consider form-based codes is that many of the tools that conventional zoning use are blunt instruments uh in determining uh the real built outcome uh of the built environment. Um these are a couple of examples that start to demonstrate the limits that uh conventional uh uh uh regulatory standards have.

[04:45:38] Stefan Pellegrini: Here you have two very different buildings in uh very different contexts uh that are operating with the same density of 30 dwelling units to the acre. The one on the left a conventional apartment complex providing 60 units per building. Uh the one on the right a 5-unit uh what we would refer to as a multiplex uh compatible with a single-family environment uh both delivering 30 dwelling units to the acre.

[04:46:08] Stefan Pellegrini: FAR is another tool uh very broadly used and widely used um in uh zoning codes today. Um here you can see two projects with a very similar FAR of about 0.6. Uh the project on the left has two units within a two-story building. Uh the project on the right has is a 24-unit apartment building uh uh um uh with three stories and both of the same FAR.

[04:46:36] Stefan Pellegrini: So when we think about form-based codes, uh the work that we'll be doing in Mountain View uh will try to emphasize the following uh principles. Um Martin spoke a lot about the context that R3 is uh operating in, a lot of different environments in the city, and is being asked to do a lot of different things. So it will be important to consider rules uh that understand that uh building form can be important in sort of um uh providing an acceptable and reasonable context.

[04:47:07] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we also have an opportunity to emphasize a mix of housing types. Uh we know that there's opportunities to promote um the construction of new units that are uh in various stacked flat configurations uh and we'll be looking at opportunities to do that.

[04:47:24] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we also have an opportunity for design standards to pay attention to streetscape uh design, uh the role of both private frontage, how buildings orient to the street, um and public frontage, uh how they actually uh might help to improve the sidewalk and uh pedestrian environments within neighborhoods.

[04:47:45] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we'll be looking at standards that uh will work to uh provide acceptable context as I mentioned, and we hope that this work can be sort of informed and vetted uh by uh input and conversations that we have uh with the community and with stakeholders.

[04:48:04] Stefan Pellegrini: Um it's important that we think about what the physical outcome uh that we want the uh the zoning to create, uh the kinds of environments uh within Mountain View uh that we uh want to envision and what the regulations can do in response to that.

[04:48:24] Stefan Pellegrini: Um these are um essential elements of a form-based code, again that the Institute helps us to define. Um and I'll touch on all of these briefly to sort of close out uh my presentation. Uh we're hoping um that we'll have an opportunity to uh consider standards that are included in each of these categories as we do our work uh in the R3 zone.

[04:48:48] Stefan Pellegrini: Um one of the most important things to consider is the regulating plan. Uh this is going to provide us with an opportunity as Martin mentioned, to think about the R3 zone which is more or less homogeneous today, um as uh a set of acceptable sub-zones uh that might be more responsive uh to local context. Uh we uh usually think about the zoning map um for um uh what we want to uh apply form-based codes to as a regulating plan in that we can actually provide additional information, provide additional guidance about the built form and the built character um beyond which uh conventional zoning maps might provide.

[04:49:33] Stefan Pellegrini: Um these two pages are demonstrative of how we think about um form-based standards. Uh these are providing guidance for uh how buildings can be placed on parcels, um how their frontage should work, and where sort of key features of the project can go on a parcel, such as where can parking be located, where can frontage and encroachments be located and how do they work.

[04:50:02] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we really strive to make these standards as objective and clear as possible, um and where we can, we uh organize them into easy-to-interpret, easy-to-use tables uh that are accompanied by graphics and diagrams. Uh these are really uh intended to sort of communicate the intent of the regulations for the built environment um to all of the users who actually might be needing uh to interface with the code: the development community, members of the public, the planning staff, and so on.

[04:50:37] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we also provide specific standards for components um of buildings and these are two pages that actually demonstrate how we typically regulate and control frontage, um how buildings actually meet uh the public realm, how the front yard is defined um in different contexts.

[04:50:57] Stefan Pellegrini: And I do want to say that many of these elements are uh currently considered in many of the existing sort of design guiding documents that you have. Uh for example the rowhouse guidelines. And this project will provide an opportunity to think about what can be pulled forward into uh actual uh design standards uh to be incorporated into the new zoning.

[04:51:22] Stefan Pellegrini: Um we also have an opportunity to include civic space standards. These are usually incorporated into uh projects that occur on uh larger sites uh that are large enough to accommodate and incorporate new publicly accessible open space um into the design of these projects. And we can provide specific standards for uh uh these spaces and how they actually might be uh organized and included in larger projects.

[04:51:51] Stefan Pellegrini: Um one of the sort of key tenets of FBCs is that they can be used within walkable environments. Uh this means that they can actually be applied to existing walkable neighborhoods, what we use the term neighborhoods that have good bones uh that are already within an area of um high connectivity uh with a connected network of streets and blocks and a pedestrian orientation to development.

[04:52:16] Stefan Pellegrini: We can also use them and apply them to areas of the city uh where we want um it uh a pedestrian orientation to improve over time uh through new development. And this has a lot to do with again um how development can present itself to the street, um how it actually can be organized and designed uh for a pedestrian scale.

[04:52:38] Stefan Pellegrini: And FBCs, my colleague Tony likes to say they can be dialed up or down uh to meet um the uh the desired level of regulation uh within uh different topics and within different environments. Um and so we're going to have an opportunity to do that as well as we consider um the different sub-areas within the community uh where R3 is currently applied, that might be sort of more important in some areas over others and how we can sort of extend specific attention and specific design regulations uh to those elements um in order to have a um a good outcome uh for that specific environment.

[04:53:24] Stefan Pellegrini: As I mentioned before, uh Mountain View has a lot of experience uh with the form-based approach, uh particularly within the context of uh many of the precise and specific plans uh that have been adopted over the years. Uh there are also regulatory elements which are embedded within many of the city's design guiding documents, which have an opportunity to be pulled forward um into the R3 context. So I appreciate your time tonight and uh look forward to speaking with all of you uh about this project in the coming months.

[04:53:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mr. Pellegrini. Is that uh the conclusion Mr. Alkire of your presentation? Okay great. Um any questions? Actually this is a study session isn't it? So we'll go to public comment first. So uh if you are in the attendee box and would like to comment please raise your blue hand. And if you're on the phone please press star 9. And let's go let's see. Got um let's let's go two and a half minutes and we'll to go with Raj Abhyanker, sorry if I mispronounce it. Abhyanker. If you can unmute yourself to speak please.

[04:54:41] Raj Abhyanker: Yeah, hi. Um I'm I'm Raj Abhyanker. Um I own uh two R3 zone lots in um in this uh in Mountain View near Caltrain. Um you know and I think you know what I'm struggling with right now and I really applaud the the council for for taking this on. Uh and I'm not alone, I've talked to other R3 owners. I have a property with 13 existing units for the last far part of 50, 60 years and under the current zoning I could I'm told I can only build four units on the lot. So it's very difficult to see how it um can be redeveloped.

[04:55:17] Raj Abhyanker: So as I've been working with architects now to come up with plans, um I've had I have three concrete recommendations if we want to do more stacked flats, particularly on lots like mine, which is a 14,000 square foot combined lot size uh on Villa Street um right in front of Google. Um so one thing that we can do is if we are able to increase the lot coverage from 0.35 FAR to 0.65 FAR, which is what many cities already have for this type of stacked flat development, that will allow us to have enough square footage on each floor to allow stacked flats to be possible. Um that's my first recommendation if the city council considers it.

[04:56:02] Raj Abhyanker: The second is construction costs. I've gotten very deep now into construction costs. I can tell you that to build a 5-story building versus a 4-story building, it's not incrementally more because the entire structure can be built with wood. Uh wood frame construction. And to the extent that you know we're thinking about making four stories, to make these projects really pencil out now, especially given we have COVID, we have handicapped people, people are wanting larger units, um for us to make it pencil out, normally the plan for developers like small developers like myself, which I'm a new small developer I guess, but I have friends who are, they always tell me get the units small so we can make the most money.

[04:56:43] Raj Abhyanker: I don't necessarily want to do that because it's not conducive to families. And so if you want to build encourage people to build larger units, then we need more FAR. We need that fifth story to make it pencil out. So I can you know make sure that I can get units that are larger. The economics are not as good if they're larger, but it's still better for families and we're able to even give affordable units that way. So my second recommendation is that's one. Consider lot coverage of 0.65, especially areas like mine which is within a half a mile of Caltrain, within 0.3 miles of Castro Street. Consider uh

[04:57:18] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Your time is up. Thank you.

[04:57:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, last comment, I have is just uh I'm sorry your time is up. So thank you very much. We'll go on to Albert Jeans. Please unmute yourself to speak.

[04:57:35] Albert Jeans: I unmuted. Oh I have a presenta Can you show a couple slides Lisa?

[04:57:41] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: Yes I'll bring them up and then I'll set a timer. Thank you.

[04:57:44] Albert Jeans: Okay I got a timer here too.

[04:57:53] Albert Jeans: Okay. Uh yeah Albert Jeans again. Um turns out I spent the last few days walking through uh precinct 3492 which is a I a very typical R3 zone. It was the first time I even though I live in Sterling of Safe which isn't that far away, it was really instructive to go through there just huge variety of housing and buildings and it just struck me that you know you really need better zoning for this kind of area, especially since like a couple of really big redevelopment projects are going on there on Rock Street. By the way this is Rock Street and Sierra Vista, that area. Next slide please.

[04:58:30] Albert Jeans: I saw some really nice older buildings. This is uh part of a large complex, I think that they're condos on uh Middlefield and Rengstorff and Rock. It's very even though it's three stories, it doesn't look like it at all. It looks like you're in the middle of a forest. And you contrast this with the next slide please.

[04:58:51] Albert Jeans: This is Reflection Circle. It's a typical kind of a rowhouse I guess development and it's just there's not much room for vegetation, everything looks the same, it's very dull. Um actually off to the upper right you can see the other place. Next slide please.

[04:59:09] Albert Jeans: And then we have tons of these rowhouses there and they're they're really ugly. And then you know part of the thing on table one of the staff report you know the consultant makes very recommendation recommendations to how you could make the things more feasible. And of course it's all making it more dense, more tall, reducing the setbacks, eliminating open space in favor of private open space. And you know all that I think you know we have to consider quality of life. Yeah we want to build as much housing as we can, but we don't want to put people in you know what they used to refer to in Japan as rabbit hutches. And you know I hate to see more of this kind of stuff going in and if they decrease parking well I had a hard time parking in some of these places. You'd have to find someplace to park so you could then walk around. And if you decrease the parking you know it's just going to overflow onto the streets and it's just going to again ruin people's quality of life.

[05:00:00] Albert Jeans: So anyways I look forward to participating in the community workshops on this R3 um zoning and I hope people will really think about you know what are we trying to build here in Mountain View? Do we really want to build an environment that will last you know 50, 60 years and it'll still look even great at that time. Thank you very much.

[05:00:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh David Watson, please unmute yourself to speak.

[05:00:28] David Watson: Hi, I'm David Watson, I'm a member of Mountain View YIMBY. Um I had a I've got a whole comment here but before I was going to get into that I I think I may have lived in some of the um the homes that uh that Albert just pointed to as as being a a rabbit hutches I believe. I'm not sure what he's getting at there, I think uh my quality of life there was terrific. I had the uh probably the shortest commute of anyone of anyone I knew at my office. And I think that uh I I have a lot of friends who who sit in their cars 45 minutes a day each way at a minimum. And uh I think that calling that a a a improvement to quality of life over a a townhouse that uh is uh a 20 minute walk from work is is wild. Uh so there's that.

[05:01:21] David Watson: But uh into my actual comment which is uh as uh Mountain View YIMBY said in our letter, uh we're excited about form-based zoning. Uh we we really like that uh it clearly lays out the physical properties of buildings that the community is interested in so uh developers can understand what the city wants from uh from buildings in terms of what they look like. I we think that's a really terrific uh way to do things rather than worrying about exactly what the family dynamics within a building are. Um further uh as we mentioned in our letter we recommend uh removing density limits and uh focus as focus on the physical properties of the buildings uh probably again to allow uh to allow um more people to fit into to close to where they work.

[05:02:07] David Watson: We also would recommend um uh increasing height limits where possible. Uh finally I it's a it's a sort of a design element that we're kind of interested in, that we think is kind of neat uh is uh uh architectural arcades. Um uh we uh we mentioned them in in our letter. There's examples pictures if you wanna wanna look at those. Uh but we think it's a it's a really great way to uh improve the pedestrian experience and walkability in our city. It's uh something that was actually previously mentioned in uh in the visioning process for Terra Bella. It was just in there's a one of the slides I believe from um from staff that was presented to the public back then was it as just an you know offhand option for something that might be cool was uh was these arcades and we think it's uh one thing that you know maybe maybe uh you could consider as a as a as a form to offer to uh to for development because again we think it makes for nice pedestrian experience. Uh and also really makes for distinctive looking, interesting uh interesting buildings um that uh is is kind of fun. So uh that's uh that's it for us. Thank you very much.

[05:03:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Adam Klett. Please unmute yourself.

[05:03:40] Adam Klett: Uh good evening council. Um yeah I just wanted to say uh thank you for um you know looking at this district um for um zoning codes. Um I also think that this is a great place to be looking in the city to add density. Um so my wife and I own a small lot in the R3 district currently.

[05:04:02] Adam Klett: Um I just wanted to bring to the attention of council and the uh presenters um that these there are a bunch of these smaller lots as mentioned that are five and 6,000 square feet currently. Um if you're less than 6,000 square feet or sorry less than 7,000 square feet you have to be developed as an R1 zoning code. Uh but you don't get the land use of R1. So it's actually the most restrictive zoning, residential zone in the city right now because you can't have um accessory dwelling units on it. Um and you also cannot have secondary or third dwelling units. So for us to actually modify our conforming uh duplex, we would have to eliminate a housing unit in this zone. So just wanted to remind you to consider these smaller lots. Um and that's pretty much all I want to say. Thanks a lot. Bye.

[05:04:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll go to Alex Brown, please unmute yourself.

[05:05:03] Alexander Brown: I unmuted. Do you muting muted me again. Hey. Uh yeah as as always I appreciate Albert Jeans's slides. Uh I love that he puts the effort in for the presentations. Uh I don't always agree with his uh the his view of the source of the problems but you know communication is great.

[05:05:23] Alexander Brown: Uh I'm all for form-based codes and making it better to develop uh more housing and nicer buildings in the city. Uh I just want the form to be not rectangles with other rectangles slightly raised from the facades because that's what every new building looks like and it's hideous. And I want more interesting buildings. So can the form just be new, just just nice looking but but like weird, a little a little fun, quirky, keep it interesting, not like rectangles on rectangles on rectangles. Thanks.

[05:05:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? I don't see any more blue hands so I will close public comment and bring it back to council for uh comments. So nothing no action on this item is just comments that you were looking for Mr. Alkire.

[05:06:20] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Great.

[05:06:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilmember Ramirez.

[05:06:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I didn't see any hands in the queue. Um I don't have any questions if that's okay.

[05:06:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's fine. Yes please proceed.

[05:06:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um I I I don't have a tremendous amount to say. I I feel like as a check in this was helpful just to give us an understanding of what you're evaluating. Um I support the direction that staff is going in. I really appreciated the um uh the presentation from from the consultant since I think it it does a good job showing what I think we're all trying to achieve right, which is well designed uh development. Um and I reading through the the question submitted in advance of the meeting somebody asked you know what is our goal? And I think that's that's exactly the right question to ask you know what what are we trying to achieve?

[05:07:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And in my mind I think what we're trying to achieve is just knowing that there's incredible the redevelopment pressure for property zoned R3. We've seen a number of them and they've all been fairly similar right, a lot of them have resulted in a net reduction in units, we've seen displacement of existing people. I think um you know Mr. Jeans had a very compelling presentation showing that there's there's a lot of um uh sort of sameness that plagues a lot of the newer development. I don't think that the existing code is is achieving our community goals. And so I think the objective is in in updating this this particular zoning district in particular, is you know what do we want the outcome to be right, what should the projects look like, you know and what other community goals can we help achieve?

[05:08:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And so um the direction provided um or that that we've seen in the presentation I think is is the right way to go. Um I would say you know the the development standards that we've used um haven't helped helped us uh you know move in the direction that I think we'd like to move in as a city. I don't see a lot of need for a density limitation or an FAR limitation if it doesn't result in superior development and I would rather focus on the things that people actually notice when they walk by a building right. They notice the height, um they notice setbacks, right they notice tree canopy. So I think those are much more meaningful development standards.

[05:08:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um and uh and you know also I think as Mr. Jeans pointed out, retaining development standards that have the that that mitigate impacts right, so I don't think we're talking about eliminating parking for instance, but you know retaining that as a as a development standard that helps mitigate an impact of new development. Um so that seems reasonable. But but by and large um you know moving in a direction where we're talking about what is it that we want the buildings to look like, how do they integrate in existing neighborhoods and and look pleasant, be pleasant places to live. Um I think that's that's that's what we should strive to achieve.

[05:09:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think the only question I would I I I sort of thinking about is um you know we we have the development standards that that exist now and and you know I can't imagine that those are the only development standards that could possibly exist. Is it reasonable to look at something like tree canopy as a development standard? You know like what are what are other kinds of things that we should think about um you know instead of just the ones that currently exist that have these numbers that really don't tell us what the product is going to look like. Is that a reasonable question?

[05:10:24] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yes, I I think that's very reasonable and certainly uh in working with um the community as well as with uh Opticos, I think we could come up uh with perhaps some additional development standards beyond the normal ones that that you have been uh looking at.

[05:10:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. I think that's all. Thank you very much.

[05:10:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[05:10:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I wanted to start off by um thanking staff for choosing Opticos as a consultant and also thanking the rest of Council for putting this on our work plan. I've kind of looked at Opticos websites and I've seen some of your webinars uh over the over the years and um it's a it's a company that I've always uh appreciated.

[05:11:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um I I also uh I think it's really important well I'll say put it this way, I was also walking in the neighborhoods that Mr. Jeans said he was and I find that um those are neighborhoods that are particularly compelling very different than the neighborhood I live in which is downtown. They're particularly challenging in terms of walking around um and also the public space seems to be lacking and I think this is one of the things that we can get from a form-based code, you know better public spaces and uh more pleasant and places to walk around.

[05:11:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um so that's one those are some of the things. I like also your well your your emphasis on um the public realm. So those are that plus the uh possibility of adding additional units are the things that I um that I appreciate about this work.

[05:12:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um my questions are I um I'm wondering if you can give me a little more information on well no I'll ask this question first. How do you, it seems like when you're trying to fit um more units into uh a particular form, the incentive is to do smaller units. And I'm wondering since uh as somebody mentioned before, particularly with COVID there's a there's really a need for more family units in Mountain View and and people um are not really appreciating particularly tiny units right now. So is there anything you do to make sure that the size of the units are fitting the need in the place that you're working?

[05:12:49] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh maybe I'll defer that to to Stefan or Tony in your experience working with uh form-based codes.

[05:13:00] Stefan Pellegrini: Sure. Um thank you Martin and um thanks for that question. And uh Tony please um feel free to to pitch in here. Um you know I would say that in principle one of the we often see situations where um density control existing density controls are actually uh encouraging uh larger units um which um because it becomes difficult to um uh obtain re reach the the zoning envelope that sort of limiting factor on the zoning envelope is often the density factor. So um for one it actually is possible to achieve denser buildings um that actually um have a smaller or a more compact zoning envelope. Um and there's definitely sort of some benefits to that as the form based code can sort of uh focus on sort of building massing.

[05:14:01] Stefan Pellegrini: Um and I think what you are describing is uh the flip side of that, which is actually um the need and sort of what can be done um to encourage um larger units. Um and um uh we do see some situations where additional layers of standards that uh can for example can provide um a minimum number of family units or larger units um that uh can uh become components of a building proposal. That can sometimes be used as sort of a foil to end up with a building that actually might all be sort of single occupancy or studio units for example. Um so that is one thing that we see when density controls are lifted uh sometimes there are additional standards that can be created um to um uh to have sort of a nominal number of of units that are of a larger size. Um the other thing I think that

[05:15:00] Stefan Pellegrini: ...we try to get out of our form-based codes which is not always sort of well regulated in other environments is uh sort of usable and functional common open space uh within a project. Um, and I use the term civic space and I just want to mention this sort of really quickly because um often what happens uh in uh when open space requirements are met in conventional projects is that each unit gets a very tiny space um that is sort of individual to that space but it's um not providing much benefit beyond sort of that unit. So what we actually sort of try to do is encourage um public open space or publicly accessible open space or even shareable open space within a project that is dimensioned and designed and uh usable um uh by the folks that actually sort of are using um that that project as an amenity. Um, and that I think part of this sort of goal for larger units, it can also sort of be um how you actually take advantage of or um that the kinds of spaces that you actually might have um that are forming part of your development or part of your community. Um, and so we this focus on the public realm and FBCs, it can be on public space but can also be on these sort of shared spaces in these projects um that can sort of help alleviate or provide some additional space um that um units can benefit from.

[05:21:51] Councilmember John McAlister: So based on the size, okay, so a lot of the standards will still stay the same of you got a single-family neighborhood, the zoning will still be somewhat compatible?

[05:22:03] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yeah, that that'll be a key a key thing we're gonna bring forward. Yeah, and and to get that input.

[05:22:08] Councilmember John McAlister: So one of my questions is, put in here the uh zoning over a long-term development horizon. What do you consider a long-term development horizon?

[05:22:22] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Well again, in our current situation there's not a lot of development happening. We have the public health crisis of course. Um, so again we're looking at developing standards that over a long a long-term period be it uh the part of the housing element, the next housing element cycle to 2030 and even beyond. What are those standards that uh the Council wants to see that will result in a long-term uh redevelopment in some areas that makes sense to to Council.

[05:22:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. You know, my observation over my time on Council is that we've had Councils say you gotta maximize the density on a property. But I my remember if I remember correctly, most developers say, no we don't want to do that. We'd rather come in with a what they call a better quality product. So is that still going to... I mean because you put in here on one of the questions, you say sometimes when you apply these minimum requirements, don't always produce the best outcome. And the question was what are we trying to achieve? So we're trying to, you know, based on that comment are we trying to maximize the the units or are we trying to find that balance of let's increase the density but still have quality units coming out of it? And then who defines that quality of a unit?

[05:23:51] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Well I I think regardless of of where we end up with draft standards that we come back to Council with, it will all be predicated on a quality building environment. That's kind of a Mountain View tradition as you know we like to to say with all of our design standards and our precise plans. So regardless of what comes back to Council we will be emphasizing high quality uh high quality development.

[05:24:13] Councilmember John McAlister: That was one of my questions and I think I did use the question high quality in there to say that we were known for that. But isn't there a possibility that I mean I'm looking at your chart and you know I I can see the units increasing, stories increasing, but when I start seeing the reduction in setbacks, okay so you're making a property more you're increasing the FAR, you're reducing the open space on the site, and yet it sounds counterproductive, is that we're trying to increase the parks, the open space because if we increase density we still want those people to have ability to feel to relieve stress and so forth. So how do you guys offset that we're going to reduce your open space and yet still provide a quality of life out with our goal of open space for parks and so forth going on in the run, in the public realm it might say.

[05:25:11] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Well I think uh Stefan presented uh you know his concept of civic space for example, and uh we believe by updating these these standards which frankly are as we mentioned are very broad and are quite outdated to say the least, that uh you can perhaps have new forms that are more efficient that that use greater efficiencies in terms of site layout um where you can still achieve say an increase in densities in some areas, but still have um some uh civic space or uh you know usable shared open space as Stefan said. So uh you know they may not be the large uh uh suburban type of uh areas that um some of these apartments have developed in the 60s or whatever, but uh again on a continuum of these different subareas we feel you can have new new standards that that could still achieve some some good quality open space.

[05:26:07] Councilmember John McAlister: So we've been having a discussion back and forth about developers come in with a project 300 units or whatever, and then they want walkways to be considered part of their open space so they don't have to pay park and in lieu fees. How are you going to balance that where you're saying well we want you to reduce your space so they're going to ask for as many uh waivers as possible and yet we're still going to be putting in this, well the public walkway is going to be acceptable. I don't see how that balances with the quality of life or quality product.

[05:26:41] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Yeah, no, that's that's a good point and we're aware of that kind of um dynamic and we will certainly update the Opticos team on that and as we look at these standards we'll we'll definitely consider that factor.

[05:26:54] Councilmember John McAlister: So my I'm closing up there, Mayor. Uh with the 12,000 potential new units, plus the 10,000 plus potential units in North Bayshore, plus the potential units in East Whisman, we're looking at a boatload of new units. Where is the infrastructure coming in to support over quote say 25,000 new units? Where do you put that in context?

[05:27:26] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So um some of the... a lot of the infrastructure uh needs to go along with those units have been considered uh both in our general plan update as well as our East Whisman and uh North Bayshore precise plan, and we'll be taking a look at that as well when we do the CEQA for the this R3 work.

[05:27:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, SB 330 even though it expires in five years, more likely could be expanded, how would that put a effect on all your this density increase?

[05:27:58] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Right. So um our strategy is to to go out first to the community and uh create these draft standards, get input, and then bring it back to Council. Uh and then we will also interface with the housing division on that very issue in terms of replacement requirements. So we want to get the form and the character and the standards uh right. We want to get those uh kind of solidified and then we'll be looking at, to answer your question, how do we uh address those issues of of replacement units.

[05:28:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And my final comment is, you know, what are you trying to achieve? Thank you uh Councilmember Ramirez. What are you trying to achieve? And I think quality of life is very important and I just don't think you know, if you I'm looking to make sure that balance is in there. That you just don't add density for density's sake. That you actually will try to improve the product. I know it was interesting it was sort of ironic is when we were taking down apartments, the one bedroom or two bedroom apartments there was a fury of oh you're taking these units, displacing it. And yet we were putting in family units and actually the density was increasing because you were putting in a four bedroom unit or a three bedroom unit which held more people, and yet you were achieving greater density but people were upset about it. So, uh just an observation but thank you and that's it.

[05:29:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. We'll go to Councilmember Clark.

[05:29:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'll be uh brief. I basically agree with what um Councilmember Ramirez had had shared in his comments. I I think this is on the right track. I'm excited that we're moving this forward and I just want to mention that it's um it'll be I just looking at the timeline staff representing should be quite timely um because um I know you're sick of me saying this but you're going to hear a lot about RHNA numbers in the next few months and next year, and this is going to get you into a place in a year or two where um you know in order to put that housing element together and um meet those um meet those requirements you aren't necessarily bound to build really super high density complexes to or zone for those in order to to meet those allocations. So I think this is a this is a really key way to you know preserve a lot of the features that we love about Mountain View but also densify a bit and ultimately end up with a a good long-term solution that meets all of our requirements. So um I think this will this is actually quite timely and I'm I'm glad that we're still moving this forward even during the pandemic when there isn't a lot of development interest now but it'll really be really good to have in place so that you know as we've said before we don't end up with all these you know smaller developments, but because of our standards now are so old everyone wants all the exceptions, they want the sidewalks to be counted as, you know public open space. And so by updating all of our standards now you know we can prevent all of those from having to come to Council and we can actually get I think a better end product with some additional density in a lot of these areas. I think the only thing that I would add would be um you know one of the things that you might look at would be um ere- is you're looking at subareas, prioritizing areas that maybe are um um you know approaching the end of their useful life. Um some of these complexes that are probably not um not seismically um up to code and would probably be too expensive frankly to retrofit, and they're going to be looking at a situation where heaven forbid we have an earthquake, it's red tagged, it's going to be too expensive for them to do anything with it and then you're just gonna have buildings that are sitting empty um you know in that scenario and I would um and then you've taken housing offline um with no viable way to redevelop it other than through a gatekeeper process or all these exceptions that we've been talking about. So um you know maybe prioritize areas that are um you know probably approaching the ends of their their useful life. And and I um related to that I wouldn't um I'm a little um I know you really need to focus and so if that means excluding all condos and so be it, but there are there were a lot of condo conversions of a lot of those apartments that were built in the 50s and 60s that are approaching the ends of their useful life and I know they're ownership units but it's going to be nearly impossible for that HOA to retrofit um all of those um those units and a lot of times they aren't a massive number of units it's maybe 10 or 15 condos. But um I I I'm just saying um you know they're they're probably some condos out there that aren't seismically safe um that um may or may not survive the next big earthquake and those HOAs just aren't going to be able to um even though they're ownership units they're not going to be able to do anything there. So I think maybe maybe including some of those especially if they're immediately adjacent to apartments because in a lot of cases those conversions are you know they're just a portion of what used to be a larger um apartment complex or an apartment development. So it might be worth including some of those just so that um um those adjacent structures are also included in the eventuality that it makes sense for them to sell and and those owners to all sell and redevelop. So those are the only sort of minor things I'd add.

[05:32:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[05:32:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, um, I think there's been a lot of really great comments here uh tonight from my colleagues, and there's a couple uh I want to um very much agree with. Um, I do want to make sure we focus on more than just the building, um, and think about the overall um, character of the uh new developments, including things like trees, and um, the look and feel of the buildings so that um, we have really great neighborhoods and people enjoy living in them. I don't know if it's possible to include anything about architecture, but I want to make sure we are not um, incentivizing a bunch of buildings that all sound gonna look alike um, since we um have had that issue before. Um, I think it's very important to think about what happens in the public space. And so, um, I appreciate the comment about, you know, can we have development standards beyond the ones that are listed in this table to um, to really focus on that character and the look and feel of uh new buildings and new neighborhoods, and new uh character of an like a new neighborhood. Um, I also want to make sure we really think through the implications of these changes, um, or proposed changes. Um, you know, we talk a lot about um, public transportation and putting you know more density near public transportation and yet, we don't have great public transportation. Um, and so let's really think about, you know, maybe scenarios um, in terms of um, what if VTA continues to pull back the bus service in Mountain View and um, that form of public transportation goes away? Uh, what happens if light rail, you know, also goes away? Um, you know, I feel like I wanna see scenarios about what could potentially happen, um, and therefore how we might wanna change the development standards um, or not change anything at all in an area because we really um, don't know what's gonna happen with a lot of things that exist within Mountain View, um, like basically transportation is one of the big ones. Um, I also want to make sure we do outreach beyond the groups that were listed in the staff report. And I suggested some, uh, Livable Mountain View, the neighborhood associations, but, um, I feel like a, a very, um, important, uh, group that we should be reaching out to so much sooner than later is the school districts. Um, if we're talking about, um, 12,000 more units, uh, that has a, a huge impact on the schools. And so let's make sure we have factored them in right at the very beginning. Um, I also, a little must say I'm a little bit concerned about 12,000 more units given that we already have, uh, rezoned quite a bit of property and we haven't seen the, um, projects come forward to really un- and be built to understand the impact of all of that, um, that has been enabled before we start doing more. Um, so I'm a little bit nervous about that. Um, and so I guess, you know, I'm not totally convinced that we should be doing the EIR on uh 12,000 new units, um, maybe it's something less than that. Um, I also sent in, um, my concerns about using online tools. Uh, you know, we really don't have a way to limit input to an online tool to residents. And I'm mostly concerned about what residents have to say about this, um, rather than folks who might live in surrounding cities who, um, want to tell Mountain View what to do. Um, I wanna hear from our residents. And, um, see, it's kind of a high-level summary, but I really appreciate, uh, a lot of the great comments, um, from my council members. I want to make sure I emphasize that. Thanks.

[05:35:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Vice Mayor.

[05:35:30] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Uh, great. Thanks. Um, I actually was pretty encouraged by the uh, stakeholder comments that we got tonight. And so, um, I do agree with Councilmember Matichak that we need to build upon that list. Um, in the staff report it's noted that, um, the team could make a presentation to our Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Race Equity and Inclusion. And I, I do think that there is a good synergy there in terms of what, um, the subcommittee is working on and, um, trying to break down kind of the systemic right, uh, redlining that's happened in communities all across the country. And so, um, I just wanted to iterate that I saw that and that I think that that's a good idea. Um, but I do, um, particularly on Councilmember Matichak's uh, comments about the school district making sure that we have I think everyone engaged and involved is important. Um, I would also say though that I, I'd want that to be coupled with what we're doing related to displacement strategies kind of overall. And so, I know that we've made um quite a bit of, of outreach to the community and we've tried to provide that in multiple languages, um, but I think it's not I wouldn't want us just to be doing this this outreach related to R3, I think that overall council has been looking at R3 as a way as as part of the toolkit for, um, trying to mitigate, um, uh, displacement, and so I really feel like those need to go go hand in hand. And so when this came up to council I believe at our last, um, meeting, uh, you know, one of the things I appreciated is that the two teams are are working very closely together, um, and there is, um, active and ongoing communication and would just, um, continue to encourage that. I think the more that we can do that, the more there could be, um, some, you know, security for for our community. I think that if there's anything we've been learning in this pandemic is that every day it feels like there's something new being thrown at us and trying to provide some stability um for folks is is really critical. Um, in terms of um, the council question and and any other comments, I think staff heard us clearly and are moving in the right direction. So I really want to thank staff for bringing this back, um, you know very quickly. Um, and nearly in tandem with the displacement strategy, I think it helps, um, council to hear those two back to back to, uh, be able to be thinking about those same policy questions, um, together and then provide the best feedback to staff. Um, so thank you and appreciate also the, um, presentation from our outside consultant. Thank you.

[05:38:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Um, I would just add a couple of thoughts. I I appreciate I also appreciate our my colleagues um great comments and um would just echo my interest in um I think it was Councilmember Ramirez meant talking about uh canopy. Um more and more I hear um from residents who are um concerned about um all the trees that we have to eliminate when we have new developments and so if that can be somehow incorporated to save the trees as much as possible and build around them, um and if this form-based code would allow for that um better, I I would appreciate that. Um good design and variety, um yeah it was striking to see the the photos I think it was Albert Jeans' photos, but and I I do as I walk around I there are developments where you just you feel like you're in the same, it's like every house looks the same and so um I hope that this could uh um you know improve upon upon allowing us to have more that variety. Um I did have one question in terms of the um allowance of the extra the 12,000 units. Um with this has to do with ABAG, RHNA, um as we go into the next cycle um you know we've zoned for a 15,000 and it looks like RHNA there our requirements are going to maybe be lower than that. Um if we were to add this 12,000, does that get counted in this cycle or is there a way to get credit for it for the future? I guess I don't I was hoping to get a better sense because I don't see really the upside right now of doing more than what ABAG you know RHNA what requires us to do. Um I feel like the more we do the more we get um our requirements increase and so is there some better is there a way to pace it or or just you know be able to get credit for the fact that we are looking at upzoning so much more.

[05:39:39] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um Aarti, I don't know if you want to respond based on the timing there.

[05:39:44] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, um, we we can certainly craft our housing element and focus on the site housing sites that the city wants to focus on regardless of the rezoning. Um, we also have to work with HCD, um, because sometimes they want cities to, um, nominate sites that are greater than the number of units, um, allocated by RHNA because not all sites will redevelop if they, for example, have office uses on the sites. So, I think one of the reasons we're moving, uh, uh, forward faster with the housing element consultant is to be able to start doing that early. Um, so that, um, you know, we can decide as a city and the council can decide, uh, which sites they want to allocate in the housing element. So we don't have to allocate all of them, um, because you do want the opportunity to reuse them for future housing element.

[05:40:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Good. Thank you. Um, any other comments from council members? Staff, do you have what you need? All right. Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you to, um, Mr. Pellegrini. Um, appreciate your presentation and we look forward to, uh, the next round and, uh, results from the community input. So, and Mr. Perez, thank you so much for being here. Uh, I will close this item and we will move on to item nine, Council Staff Committee reports. Do council members have any reports? Yes, Vice Mayor.

[05:41:28] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. I just wanted to, uh, update the rest of council, um, on our Race Equity and Inclusion subcommittee that met last Monday. We heard, um, an update in discussion of where we are with our Racial Equity and Justice Action Plan. We also heard an overview of equity-based budgeting, the police department budget overview, and gender-inclusive pronoun use in city policy and documents. Uh, the last was, uh, the only item that required any action and the subcommittee, uh, unanimously approved, um, moving to gender-neutral, uh, pronouns. Uh, our next meeting is November 19th, uh, from five to seven pm. Thank you.

[05:42:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[05:42:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Uh, just two things. Since the last council meeting, I've attended the Airport Land Use Commission meeting where we once again talked about updating the comprehensive land use plan for San Jose Airport. Uh, the airport is making some physical changes to the airport, and so the, um, comprehensive land use plan gets updated as a result. And, um, we also had a meeting of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority. Thanks.

[05:52:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I regret that my storytelling ability is not as good as Councilmember McAlister's so I'll, uh, I'll be a lot more bland. But, uh, I've been participating in this, uh, County Unhoused Task Force for several meetings now. Um, and I think kind of going in not fully appreciating, uh, what the intended outcome was and I have a better sense of it now. Um, the long and short of it is we're focusing fairly narrowly on how to increase the capacity of emergency shelter and interim housing countywide. Uh, and I've been very well supported by uh, staff. Kimberly Thomas in particular has been very helpful and um, uh, has in fact, um, presented to the task force sharing a lot of the good work that we've been doing here in Mountain View. Um, I don't know what uh, what ultimately we will be bringing back to our councils. Um, so as I learn more I'll make sure everyone is is kept in the loop but so far it's been primarily uh context setting and just giving us all a, an appreciation for the work that the county has been doing and uh helping us understand some of the processes and um, you know the cost-benefit analysis of of various types of uh emergency shelter and transitional housing.

1. CALL TO ORDER & 2. ROLL CALL (5:00 P.M. Study Session)

[05:53:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: um but uh looking forward to uh to hopefully bringing something useful uh back to the council once our work is done. Thank you.

[05:54:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[05:54:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have uh once or twice advertised a webinar series uh put on by Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities on Green Streets.

[05:54:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I wanted to announce that our City Manager Kimbra McCarthy uh made a... did her talk at the last uh session of that of that uh trilogy of of webinars.

[05:54:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And they are they are all up on the Transportation Choices um website if if you missed it and you want and you want to see what she had to say. It was a...

3.1 Lot 12 Remaining Development Priorities

[05:54:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: on funding green streets, that particular part of the webinar. And then I will be speaking on Thursday on for the nonprofit Canopy on the topic of best practices for the development review process and expanding and maintaining the tree canopy, and you can find a link to that talk on their website, the Canopy website. And that's it. Thank you.

[05:55:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And I will report out that I attended the Cities Association board meeting last week where we voted to move forward with continuing the planning collaborative on housing. This is the modified version, it started out as the RHNA subregion, but it became a planning collaborative where the cities, and I know Aarti has been involved in it and is one of the leaders of it, they are getting together to talk about best practices on housing. And they wrote the letter in response to the original or the ABAG methodology recently.

[05:55:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so we voted to continue that. There is a funding amount, every city that is part of it will be asked to pay into it. And it's a tiered funding fee. And I believe our city's amount will be about $10,000. And then for reporting purposes, I did attend the California League of Cities Conference, although it was very short and ended up not getting to the workshops due to my commitments on other regional boards and having those meetings, but I did attend to be the voting delegate.

[05:56:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And there was one resolution on the docket, and that was to amend the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to require social media companies to remove materials which promote criminal activities. And this, I think it came about as a result of some of the peaceful protests from the earlier in the summer around race relations turning into more violent demonstrations and whatnot when folks get on social media and talk about these activities.

[05:57:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I know that our Council voted to take a support position, but we actually ended up having quite a lengthy deliberation discussion on this issue. And quite a few of the cities, especially around here, in our neck of the woods, took a no position, mainly because of concerns around freedom of speech. So I actually ended up taking an abstain position because after hearing both sides. We did not have a quorum, so it ended up just becoming an advisory vote, but I did want to let you know that I, after hearing all of the pros and cons, I thought that it was best to take the abstain position, so that was what I did.

[05:58:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So with that, are there any comments from staff? And is there a closed session report?

[05:58:28] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report tonight.

[05:58:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Then we stand adjourned at 10:54, and our next Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 27th, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a good rest of the evening, stay safe and healthy, and we will see you soon. Take care. Bye-bye.

Unknown

[01:21:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh I also um I really like the Eagle Park uh comparison because that I think is a good demonstration of how we can how we have already used funding sources that don't allow a local preference so any project funded with project-based vouchers or HUD VASH disallows a local preference and despite that we've still been able to to occupy a significant number of those units almost all of them with Mountain View affiliated households. Um and this is something that I've seen in my day job. It's it's a different kind of scenario but you know one of the concerns with the the Bridge Housing communities the interim housing for homeless folks is a lot of the people who are in the the neighbors you know closest to those projects have been concerned that well it might mean we're taking homeless folks from a different part of the city and housing them here. And so we've we've worked very aggressively to make sure that the the homeless folks who are going to be occupying those communities are in the vicinity right? We want to house our own. You know and it's the same sort of outreach model. I I can't I don't have the technical expertise that Consuelo has but I would imagine it's it's something substantially similar where we're able to conduct outreach to the communities that we want to prioritize and even if we don't have a technical local preference allowance we still are able to just in in the context of that process make sure that we we get a significant number of the the targeted community you know uh housed in the units that we're creating. Um so I I I think we could make it work. I think I think Measure A is is the right way to go.

[01:23:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Where I you know I've been thinking a lot about the different options. I have a personal preference for type two. I think it it strikes that reasonable reasonable balance between you know the set-aside for you know Measure A uh supportive units or rapid rehousing and then two thirds of the units would have a local preference and we're talking about three different types of uh product I guess. There's the uh you know the supportive units or rapid rehousing one third and then extremely low income one third and then the final third would be between 30 to 80% AMI. So I I really like that spread. But I think I know there are a lot of different perspectives on this and I would be happy to to work with you know I I want to work with you I want to make this work and so whatever option that the majority of the council is comfortable with I'll be fine with. Um but I I do think that leveraging the funding is is extremely important.

[01:23:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um I do want to provide if it's okay comments on a couple of other things. Alta had made a request for sort of a friendly SB 35 process and I want to signal my support for that. Um and the primary reason is because I think we've selected a development team that knows the city very well you know Randy and Alta have done a lot of work in Mountain View obviously. Um we have we retain a lot of leverage in the subsidy that we provide we own the land and the fact that they are uh it's it's not just a pure SB 35 project it's not sort of a hostile uh process like we've seen in in Cupertino and Los Altos perhaps um but instead a modified version of SB 35 that allows us to deliver the project more quickly uh and provides opportunities for the community to you know to weigh in. So I I I really like that idea I think we can make it work and and SB 35 can be a very powerful tool to help us deliver the project more quickly.

[01:25:50] Aarti Shrivastava: Mayor, I I we would like input from the council because it will help us at least bring a couple options if the council doesn't is not interested then we don't have to worry about that and just go with the developers program. Um, it will certainly help us um you know craft the project in a better way.

[01:26:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'd like to continue exploring it. Um, I I I really like the idea. I think it it's something that would uh provide a tremendous benefit not only for the residents of the project but for the community at large and if we could make it work that that would be my preference. Thank you.

[01:26:34] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes um so for question one um I'll be consistent here I I still um I still think the parking should be on site. Um I I as Councilmember McAlister mentioned earlier in questions I I I just don't like the opportunity cost associated with using a piece of city land to build a parking structure. I just think it's um it would be much more valuable for us to use that for for other purposes. There's no guarantee the parking structure will get built. Um you know and uh it may get built but I don't know on on what timeline and I just think you have you have a developer who's willing to go underground and just provide the the original parking and the um replace the replacement parking plus some additional parking to serve whatever retail or child care ends up being there as well. Um for an extra two or three months timeline, um it it may be more expensive in the long run but I think having it there um when the economy does come back is is just a better um uh a better option and and I I I felt the same way with the Marwood project and I feel the same here I just think it's better to get the parking in and done and um and be able to use our lots for for other purposes. It could still be used for a parking structure someday if we really need it but I just don't feel like um off site parking is the right answer. If I'm in the minority which I very well may be um I just hope that we add it to the parking study so that we add that structure to the parking study so that we are looking at our parking downtown comprehensively um and not just thinking about it on a project by project basis.

[01:28:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: Uh for um I I do for question two I do support using um Measure A funds. Um I think like Councilmember Ramirez I'm most comfortable with a uh either a a type two project which I think would probably best end up um helping us with our our housing element and and some of our requirements going forward since it checks a number of boxes but if folks are most comfortable with um also working with the county and staff on a on a on the third um option that's been explored and the county seems open to then I'm fine with that as well. But um I think it would be a as Councilmember um Ramirez said I think it would be a mistake not to utilize the Measure A funding because you know we're our new um the RHNA allocations are coming, we're gonna have a new housing element and I would hate to be in a position four or five years from now where we had an opportunity to utilize Measure A funding to meet a lot of those needs and we and we didn't do it and and then we're in a uh a crunch to find other funding sources for those things. Um I understand the the desire to have as much local preference and and control over that as as possible but I think in in some instances where I think if if if we do a a lot of projects that way we're not ultimately going to meet um a lot of our our goals and requirements that we have in the in the long run.

[01:29:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: So um childcare I think I still think it would be great to have a a childcare facility um in the downtown area near all the transit amenities and and folks who work downtown. Um if it's still a viable option, if if it isn't then um you know I'm open to other uses uses for that space whether it's retail or um or additional units. But um I would still like to explore the the child care opportunity and to to also agree with Councilmember Ramirez I think that the modified SB 35 process here is appropriate given that we um you know we have control here through the ground lease. I I'm not too worried about us losing control of the entitlement process so I think being able to expedite things a bit um utilizing that in this case is is appropriate. Thank you.

[01:30:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so I got uh I got my comments. So the first question when we put in council questions I said and and the way I approach a lot of things the pragmatic way is what are we trying to solve. And so I asked staff what do you what do you think we're trying to solve and there are their bullet points were

School Allocation of 355-415 East Middlefield Road Project Community Benefits

[03:36:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Thanks.

[03:36:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: All right. Thanks again. Uh, still me, Eric Anderson. Still joined by Aarti Shrivastava, the Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director. This item is the school allocation of the 355 to 415 East Middlefield Road project community benefits.

[03:37:19] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, the image here shows the project site, uh, which is located just west of, uh, just east of North Whisman Road in the East Whisman area.

[03:37:30] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The project was approved back in May. It includes 463 units. It also includes a requirement that they provide $2.5 million in community benefits. The developer also voluntarily offered an additional $1.5 million, uh, that, uh, would be, that they offered would be shared between the city and the school district. And that the, uh, the city deferred that money to the school districts.

[03:37:59] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Uh, they also offered if they could resell their transfers of development rights to, um, to provide any proceeds from those transfers of development rights back to the school districts. Mountain View Whisman and Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. They estimated at the time that the value would be between $400,000 and $700,000.

[03:38:22] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And again, as a reminder, in June 20, June 23rd, the City Council met and discussed, uh, along with the citywide school strategy, a projected need and funding gap analysis. For the purposes of this project, that would be approximately 2.56 to $3.84 million.

[03:38:42] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And again, there was discussion of ongoing city support at the time. Uh, in general, that ongoing city support, uh, would, would not be on a project by project basis, but, uh, this project was a special case because it was, uh, just recently approved.

[03:39:04] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: As a reminder, the East Whisman Precise Plan includes, uh, community benefit, a community benefit program, which is meant to help, uh, um, identify improvements to support the Precise Plan's vision. These community benefits are intended to be used for the, the items on the screen, such as transportation or additional affordable housing or other mutually agreed upon, uh, actions.

[03:39:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff conducted a back of the envelope, uh, analysis of the identified improvements in the area. And the city would need approximately all of the expected community benefits from projected development. Uh, but this number is dependent on many unknown factors, including the cost of development, uh, how high the nexus fee is that the city is working on right now, what it can cover, and how future councils and applicants decide to apply these community benefits.

[03:40:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: To support Council's discussion, uh, this evening, staff prepared two options for how to consider, uh, SummerHill's, or the, um, the, uh, the project's community benefit, uh, contribution to the schools. Uh, considering the, the, uh, SummerHill's previous contribution offers.

[03:40:24] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: The first option guarantees, uh, the minimum funding gap analysis, 2.56 million dollars. Uh, but so that any TDR resale value, which is currently uncertain, would be a bonus on top of that. Uh, it would result in a school allocation of 1.06 million, leaving 1.44 million, uh, for other local community benefits.

[03:40:48] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Option A-2 assumes the highest funding gap, 3.84 million, but also assumes the TDR would provide some additional funds. So that is subtracted out, this option. This would result in a school allocation of 1.94 million dollars and remainder of 560,000 in the community benefits.

[03:41:11] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff also identified potential terms for an agreement with the districts to allocate the funds. Staff recommends using state developer fee and process, process and procedures, uh, for tracking and reporting on the use of the funds, as this is an existing framework for similar funds.

[03:41:29] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff does not recommend the funds be used to administer developer fees, however, because these are not developer fees. So the, the, the funds can be used for costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities. Basically, new, uh, expansion of, of schools, uh, to serve East Whisman development.

[03:41:52] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: And the timing would need to be reported on the purpose and the relationship to the use every five years after receipt.

[03:42:03] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Staff is seeking Council input on one potential term for the agreement. Uh, there are two options. One that the improvements would directly serve East Whisman students. That is, should the improvements or funds be used to create, um, improvements or funds be used to create capacity in schools that East Whisman students would attend. Ideally, um, Vargas or similar school or, um, uh, Mountain View High or some other school nearby East Whisman.

[03:42:32] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Option two would be, uh, the potential to provide funds or improvements or capacity in other areas, but then ultimately change attendance boundaries that could create capacity in these nearby, uh, schools. Uh, this option would provide more flexibility for the school districts, and the school districts did advocate for it in their recent letter.

[03:43:00] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: We did receive report that SummerHill is unlikely to proceed with this project. However, the permits are, uh, in effect for another couple of years, and so a builder, another builder may acquire these permits and actually move them forward. There are other reasons why staff is bringing forward this question to Council now that are in the Council report.

[03:43:20] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: If the project proceeds, the funds would be provided prior to the building permit. And in all likelihood, they'd be provided just before the building permit is issued. The city will appropriate funds and develop agreements upon receipt of the funds.

[03:43:37] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: So here's a summary of the recommendations. I've highlighted the key, uh, questions, the, uh, with the options for Council. And of course, there are some alternatives. Allocate a different amount of community benefit funds, do not allocate community benefit funds and do not authorize an agreement, or modify or identify alternate terms for the agreement. This concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

8

[05:42:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: ... you know, we've zoned for 15,000, it looks like RHNA, there are requirements are going to maybe be lower than that. If we were to add this 12,000, does that get counted in this cycle or is there a way to get credit for it for the future? I guess I was hoping to get a better sense because I don't see really the upside right now of doing more than what ABAG, you know, RHNA requires us to do. I feel like the more we do, the more we get, our requirements increase. And so is there some better, is there a way to pace it or just, you know, be able to get credit for the fact that we are looking at upzoning so much more.

[05:43:35] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes. We can certainly craft our housing element and focus on the housing sites that the city wants to focus on regardless of the rezoning. We also have to work with HCD because sometimes they want cities to nominate sites that are greater than the number of units allocated by RHNA because not all sites will redeveloped if they for example have office uses on the sites. So I think one of the reasons we're moving forward faster with a housing element consultant is to be able to start doing that early so that, you know, we can decide as a city and the council can decide which sites they want to allocate in the housing element. So we don't have to allocate all of them because you do want the opportunity to reuse them for a future housing element.

9

[05:44:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Great. Thank you. Any other comments from council members? Staff, do you have what you need? All right. Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you to Mr. Pellegrini. Appreciate your presentation and we look forward to the next round and results from the community input. Oh and Mr. Bress, thank you so much for being here. I will close this item and we will move on to item 9, Council Staff Committee Reports. Do council members have any reports? Yes, Vice Mayor.

[05:46:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. So VTA on October 1st had a meeting concerning SR 85. It also happened to be my anniversary, so I got in big heap of trouble, so just let you know, Ellen, don't do things on your anniversary. It doesn't work out well. But this was very important because this was a final, though this was a recommendation from the Policy Advisory Board that had been meeting for five years to what to do with SR 85 to reduce congestion, improve quality of life, reduce greenhouse gases, reduce vehicle miles traveled, all the right things to do to make the environment better.

[05:47:27] Councilmember John McAlister: And it went through two committees. The Capital Project Committee voted to pass it. Went through the Congestion Management Policies and Procedures Committee, unanimously. And when it got to the VTA Board, it was on consent and we figured okay, we've done our work, we're going to move this along. And then Sam Liccardo decided that he wanted to pull it, he had some questions. So he started to ask, well maybe we should put land use into part of this discussion for the SR 85 corridor.

[05:48:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Just to give you a recap, you all heard that we've been working to put a dedicated transit lane in from SR 87 all the way to North Bayshore. He was saying, well let's look at some other scenarios and say well let's make one of the requirements that there's density to support the area. And that raised a big hornet's nest among a lot of people and it worked out... So he made a motion... So I made the motion to accept the PAB recommendation.

[05:48:34] Councilmember John McAlister: It got floored, it was seconded by two people, Glenn Hendricks right away and Rob Rennie. Got in there, recommended it. And then Sam asked the question. There was a subsequent... So Sam said well we should do this. Raul made a subsequent motion to do, let's look at this land base. What came out of it which was rather interesting that I was thinking we're just, was a sense among, and this is why it's important for us North County cities, and I'm going into more detail than I really wanted to but it was very important because the small cities felt that San Jose was wanting to take money out of the 350 million dollars that SR 85 had set aside and incorporated into some other functions.

[05:49:25] Councilmember John McAlister: And the smaller cities, some of those people said no way, we don't like where you're going. I had no idea that there was this type of a concern amongst some of the smaller cities. I was just thinking this was a good project. Well we had some discussions, the motion that Raul put up there failed, and so it was a 4-11 vote. 4-7 vote. 4-8 vote. Guess who the four people were that voted for it? All San Jose. And the rest voted against it.

[05:50:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So we clarified also to Sam that he wanted to do this stuff, I said, 'Sam, Mayor Liccardo, we still have a problem, we still have congestion on SR 85, we're trying to solve it now. So when you're talking about the density or something down the road, we still got an existing problem.' So the subsequent motion lost. My motion came up. Guess what? It passed unanimously. Which was rather interesting, one minute they're fighting for it and they go 'oh okay what the hell it's a good deal'.

[05:50:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So this is very important because there we're gonna be in the, Mayor and I are gonna be in a talk on Thursday about they're discussing the Measure B money and how it's gonna be funded. And there is some discussion about that well maybe we should up front the money for BART and all these other projects, grade crossings which are important in Mountain View, SR 85 which will reduce cut-through traffic through Mountain View into San Antonio, will be deferred down the road. And so this is a very important question that's gonna be coming up and it's gonna be discussed in the Policy Advisory Board that the Mayor's on, VTA board that I'm on, and it's... we have to be aware of what's, there's people with ulterior motives out there. So it's a very big discussion that's gonna be coming up.

[05:51:22] Councilmember John McAlister: I will give you an update after we hear some discussion on it. But be prepared for some feelings to get hurt along the line. So that's a longer update but it was important for you folks that are still on council to realize what's going on with some of that stuff.

[05:51:40] Councilmember John McAlister: And remember we got a mole in the group and his name is... I won't say his name but Ramirez. And we just gotta make sure we keep an eye on it. So that's the report. But we got good news, it's hopefully moving forward. Two point five million dollars to take it to the next level and study it. It's going to take two to three years. Hopefully one of you or your new compatriots will be the champion of this. Because I will definitely be in your ear to champion this thing forward when I am not here any longer. So that's a long report and that's it.

N/A

[01:15:00] Consuelo Hernandez: program with Mountain View is that we um presumably will include some type of match expectations so that we can figure out how much of Measure A funding can we dedicate and then what is the remaining gap if we include the Measure A funds, your local funds, and tax credits, what is the remaining gap and how do we reach out to the philanthropy community um and other state programs. So um I'm I'm curious to see this list and the ask um so that I can work with you all to figure out what that looks like.

[01:15:38] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sure Wayne, Mr. Chen can provide it. Uh we just got an update as at the council level of all the projects that are in our pipeline. So yeah I looked at, there's four for sure, at least we know of, plus our own at the VTA site down the road. So we're looking at almost 500, at least 500 more units. Um and so that was my I guess my question is, is there going to be, are we going to potentially not be able to get all the funding for all of these projects? And those asks seem to be much much bigger than this one. So um yeah, I think maybe a comprehensive look and that'll be probably part of my comments, but um thank you for the answer to that. Let's uh go to Councilmember Ramirez and then hopefully we can get into deliberation.

[01:16:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor, I I don't have any questions. I was uh just ready to

[01:16:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Alright. Yes. Please start us off then.

[01:16:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um first thank you to staff and uh the applicant and Consuelo for for answering that a lot of really important and and helpful questions. I think sort of the items that we're we're talking about today are probably the the most challenging decisions that we'll have to make related to the project. Um so just going in order, I uh I support the staff recommendation for off-site replacement of the public parking.

[01:16:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And um the primary reason is because we we know that as staff had mentioned the the cost of above grade parking is is cheaper. And so it would represent a savings to the applicant which could be very very much a savings for us, you know. It's it's it's not like if the parking is replaced on site that that's a cost that would be absorbed by Alta and related. Right. Someone's going to be paying for it and if we can't make a lot of these external funding sources materialize, that's going to be a subsidy that we're going to have to bear.

[01:17:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um so the the I'm still not totally comfortable with the uh lease payment that they're proposing to help pay for the off-site parking. Um I you know I I'd shared with staff and the applicant that I feel like that's that's converting affordable housing funding since that's how they're going to pay for it. They're going to take these external sources of funding um and turn that into the payment to the city that we would then use to pay for the parking, the replacement uh public parking.

[01:18:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But um I recognize that the the parking is is important for uh the vitality of downtown and has been a goal for the council, something in the RFP. Um the fact that we can deliver the units more quickly if we have an off-site solution um and that it could help uh produce uh more spaces total if it allows a third parking structure to materialize, you know based on the partnership with Marwood, I think is is sort of the best outcome where we can all achieve our respective goals. We get the parking replaced, we get, you know, net new parking in addition to the 160 replaced.

[01:18:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um and I think, you know, we'll save some time and money in the context of the development of lot 12. Um so I'm very comfortable with that. For for question two, this is this is probably the the element of the project that's actually the most important to me. I I've been very interested in a Measure A project in Mountain View um primarily because I think addressing homelessness is is uh, you know, not only a a challenge that we have to address locally but it's it's a regional problem and and Measure A represents the best opportunity for us to make some meaningful headway.

[01:19:22] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um and it's it solves a lot of problems for us. I I believe very strongly in leveraging um our local funding. I think Measure A helps us do that uh very effectively. You know, I I appreciate a lot of the concerns about not being able to have a local preference, but in my mind, the way I think about this is if we effectively leverage our local funds, the amount of units that we can cons-

[00:35:50] Consuelo Hernandez: people that have had to face COVID, tested positive, were sick. We don't know what their long-term health implications are.

[00:36:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Did that answer your question, Councilmember Hicks?

[00:36:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I know more than I did before. It sounds like it has to be a permanently disabling situation as opposed to something that's put you out for a number of months is what I seem to be getting from this. So correct me if I'm wrong, but thank you.

[00:36:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Let's go to Councilmember Matichak.

[00:36:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I sent in the question about the waiting list in the council questions and answers and the answer that came back, um, I was surprised saying that a new waiting list is created. And so I'd like to understand a little bit more about, um, how that is created, like what kind of marketing is done and, um, has it been done in the past, a special wait list for a given project and how has that worked?

[00:36:58] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Sure, and I'll also tap into Consuelo's thoughts as well, but the city did partner with the county, for example, on the Eagle Park apartments to do targeted marketing. And I believe in the main meeting, Consuelo mentioned something like 80 or 90% of the units were able to be occupied with Mountain View residents with that partnership.

[00:37:26] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so, yes, I believe in the response, the community queue that the county pulls from is more precisely a combination of various factors, but one of the key factors as Consuelo was mentioning is the acuity and level of need and the circumstances of the households.

[00:37:49] Housing Director Wayne Chen: And so that list, so to speak, is a dynamic list, and so there is a possibility then to essentially through targeted marketing to get folks in Mountain View who have those acuity needs and to become priority folks for those units.

[00:38:07] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Consuelo, I don't know if you're able to comment a bit on the efforts specifically, for example, with Eagle Park as an example of that process and provide any additional color?

[00:38:24] Consuelo Hernandez: Hi, can you hear me now?

[00:38:27] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes.

[00:38:28] Consuelo Hernandez: Apologies, I don't typically have these massive issues with technology. Um, thank you for the question, Councilmember Matichak. If I'm understanding correctly, the question is, is a new list created for any given project? Is that correct?

[00:38:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, have you done that before? Because um I was under the impression that there was just one list.

[00:38:53] Consuelo Hernandez: That's correct. So there is, and this is only for the supportive housing element. So for the balance of the project, so for the units that are not supportive, the developer does manage a project-based wait list.

[00:39:11] Consuelo Hernandez: For the supportive housing units, we use the countywide coordinated entry and assessment system. We refer to that list as the community queue. And the community queue is a live list.

[00:39:29] Consuelo Hernandez: So if we go out and do targeted outreach, for instance, to your um folks living in RVs, they automatically enter our community queue.

[00:39:44] Consuelo Hernandez: And their acuity, you know, depending on their acuity, that may bring them to the top of the list depending on their needs and depending on the program. So if we're referring to rapid rehousing for Lot 12, for instance...

268:20

[04:28:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilmember Clark.

[04:28:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just wanted to, before we vote, I just wanted to ask staff if if what I said made sense, because my first question earlier didn't make a lot of sense apparently. So I just want to make sure that that I'm, when I'm looking at number one on the recommendation slide, that splitting that difference would mean a one and a half million dollar contribution to the school district. Um and and that's clear to you and and as straightforward as I think it is.

[04:29:15] Planning Manager Eric Anderson: Yeah, you're you're absolutely right coincidentally.

[04:29:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, um I'm just uh just my comments. Um I appreciate the the Councilmember Clark, your uh um attempt for a compromise. Um I feel very strongly about this so I'm gonna stick to um my position and and um support, I would support A2. Um I think Councilmember Ramirez reminded me about how this came about and I I feel that, you know, we bent over backwards for Los Altos School District to help them build a school and and you know and and there is the, if you want to call it a burden, has landed on this part of town and the school, our Mountain View Whisman School District now has to carry the load. And so in light of that I feel very strongly that we um we we support them and provide the most funding we can for them. So um I will not be able to support this motion even though I do support B2 and support giving the school districts um funding. So, any other comments? If not we'll take a roll call vote please.

[04:30:25] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark.

[04:30:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes.

[04:30:29] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[04:30:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:30:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak.

[04:30:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:30:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister.

[04:30:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[04:30:37] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez.

[04:30:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[04:30:40] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Kamei.

[04:30:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[04:30:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Abe-Koga.

[04:30:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No.

[04:30:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So motion carries uh six, one with no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you staff. We'll move on. Uh let's see, it's 9:25. Uh how about a short five minute bio break and then we'll be back at nine... my eyesight is going. Um let's say let's go 9:30.

R3 Zoning District Update

[05:17:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: make fine-grained decisions or it's informed by existing conditions that we can preserve some of those places because for many people the reason they moved here is they feel like they're living in a house in the woods and I would hate that that completely goes. So thank you.

[05:17:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilmember McAlister?

[05:17:51] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd like to thank Councilmember Hicks for yielding her time to me. So I will use it. Hey Martin, could you go to your R3 zoning map, please?

[05:18:05] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Let's see. Can you see that?

[05:18:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so my question is, well you could also leave the narrative on the left side too, so that's a question I had. So when you say a subarea, looking at this map, help me understand what a subarea is in context to this map.

[05:18:37] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: So we would be looking at those smaller areas within the R3 zone that might have similar characteristics, say perhaps closer to transit, maybe those areas that are along corridors, areas that can be, basically looking at the R3 zone and breaking it up into different standards that can be applied to those different contexts. So again, we aren't quite there yet. We still have to do some work and we're going to go out to the community and that's a key question we're going to ask them, but basically trying to reorganize the R3 zone so it is less broad and more focused to respond to those kind of subarea conditions.

[05:19:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So transportation is a major component of your R3 redefining? Access to public transit?

[05:19:34] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Um, that could very well be and probably is a very important one. That and access to services. Again, there's co-benefits there of incentivizing new development close to those areas, sustainability goals and outcomes and things like that. So that could very well be a subarea.

[05:19:54] Councilmember John McAlister: So if we look at your map and one of my, I had questions about the 1,700, whatever, parcels. And that's everything in the colored is the 1,700 parcels?

[05:20:08] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, correct.

[05:20:10] Councilmember John McAlister: So not all, you're saying they're all potentially could be developed, but if you take subareas, would you then have subarea and then a normal area? So would you incorporate all 1,700 parcels or would you just leave some of those parcels alone because you're focusing on the subareas?

[05:20:30] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, well, yes, some of the areas may not have completely new standards. They may use some of the existing standards if those are areas say that we want to preserve. And if it makes sense from the community standpoint. So it's going to depend on how we break those up and how they're organized into smaller increments.

[05:21:00] Councilmember John McAlister: So are you gonna look to, you're gonna make a recommendation then Council's going to look at this map and say this area, this area will be zoned and this area, this area will be left alone?

[05:21:12] Planning Manager Martin Alkire: Uh, yeah, we're gonna present options to Council. Again, that will try to, for lack of a better word, reorganize the broad R3 zone into smaller subareas as we've been mentioning. And again, those, some of those areas may have greater change, greater densities. Others may have less. It's gonna depend a lot on some of those characteristics like the lot sizes, how if they're close to a single...

• ← Previous
• Next →