March 9, 2021 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:13] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: And we're starting promptly at 430 today. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order n dash 29 dash 20, dated March 17, 2020. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location. Members of the public, wishing to observe the meeting live, may do so at mountain view.legistar.com. On YouTube, at mountain view.gov, backslash 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 backslash cc underscore speakers. Or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering a webinar ID 923-7723-4938. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were forwarded to the city council. Emails received after 430 p.m. 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. Tonight, Spanish interpretation will be provided for agenda item 3.one. Google Middlefield Park Master Plan. For this study session, Spanish interpretation services will be available. Please follow the prompts on your Zoom screen for interpretation and select the Spanish language. I will now ask Miss Garcia to address the public and provide instructions.

[00:02:01] Ms. Garcia: Buenas noches a todos, le, ba, le, que va interpretación en Español, en el articulo tres punto uno esta noche, que inesiendo, el plan maestro de Google middle field. Por favor siganas, uh, instructiones en pantaya, si esque occupan interpretación en español.

[00:02:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. So now we'll move on to item two, which is roll call.

[00:02:31] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also, member, Abbe Koga,

[00:02:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: here.

[00:02:34] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks.

[00:02:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here,

[00:02:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: council member Liever,

[00:02:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: here,

[00:02:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: council member Mattachek,

[00:02:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here,

[00:02:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: council member, show Walter,

[00:02:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: here.

[00:02:45] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: By Speyer Ramirez.

[00:02:47] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:02:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[00:02:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, here.

[00:02:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[00:02:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We'll move on to item three, which is our study sessions. Uh, do any council members wish to make any disclosures such as contacts with the applicant or site visits? Vice mayor Ramirez.

[00:03:08] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. I will dispose that I spoke with the applicant.

[00:03:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, counselor.

[00:03:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I met with the applicant virtually, and I've also been by the area on my own. Thank you.

[00:03:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[00:03:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. I had an opportunity to meet with the applicant twice. Um, once with community members present. Uh, former council member Lenny Siegel, uh, as well as neighborhood resident Rebecca Cohn. And the 2nd time was without community present. Thank you.

[00:03:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member show Walter?

[00:03:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I had an opportunity to meet with the, um, develop with Googled as well, and I also heard quite a few presentations at, um, some communities, uh, Community organizations that I'm part of.

[00:04:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Abi Koga?

[00:04:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I met with the applicant as well.

[00:04:15] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:04:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, and I met with the applicant and visited the site on my own as well.

[00:04:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um So thanks, thank you all, and I'll also disclose that I met with the applicant a few times as well as community members and visited the site this morning on my run. So, um, just wanted to frame the context of this discussion a little bit. Study sessions are public meetings, which the council meets from time to time for a detailed review of important matters. No formal action is taken by the council during study sessions. However, council members may express opinions on the agenda item under discussion and provide direction to staff for further investigation for development of the item. So we'll begin with a staff presentation from our deputy zoning administrator, Lindsay Hagan, our planning manager, zoning administrator, Stephanie Williams, our assistant community development director, and commute slash community development assistant, city manager, Artis Shravastava. Great. And I see them all here. I'll let Miss Hagan take it away.

[00:05:26] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Yes, good evening, mayor committee council members. Let me just quickly. Bring up my presentation here. So good evening, Mayor Command council members. I'm Lindsay Hagan, the deputy zoning administrator in the community development department, and I'm here tonight with Stephanie Williams and RT Shravostva. Tonight's presentation is to get early input from the council on major components of the proposed Middlefield Park master plan. So in this presentation, staff will be focusing on the questions raised for council input and include feedback heard from EPC at the February 3rd study session. Google LLC submitted the Middlefield Park Master Plan, which is located on the eastern edge of the city adjacent to the city of Sunnyvale. The 40 acre master plan is currently comprised of 14 existing office and light industrial properties and is immediately adjacent to the Middlefield Park, sorry, Middlefield VTA Light rail station. Um, the master plan is located in the East Western precise plan area, and is generally consistent with the precise plan, uh, standards and requirements, as well as the existing general plan land use designations. The proposed master plan includes a range of high density residential units from 1675 to 1900 units across 6 residential locations labeled R one through R 6 on your screen. Uh, where Google's proposing to accommodate 20% of those as affordable units. 50,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, comprised of a mix of retail, restaurants, service, and community spaces. And these are all located in the ground floor of the residential locations are one through R5. Approximately 10.5 acres of public parks and open spaces are proposed, as well as a range of office development, of one to one. 12 to 1300000 square feet. Um, shown as 01 through 05 on your screen, where approximately 50% of that square footage is net new. There are 2 parking structures, P1 and P2 proposed to serve as district parking for all office users in the master plan, as well as parking structures are proposed to be located in all of the residential locations to serve residential and commercial users. There are also new private service streets, and new on and off street pedestrian and bike improvements proposed, as well as a private district utility system to serve utility services for all the buildings within the master plan area. So diving directly into the discussion topics starting with housing, Google's proposing to comply with the job housing linkage program that's outlined in the precise plan. Additionally, the master plan is subject to the cities below market rate program. And Google's proposing to meet the city's affordable housing requirements with 2 components. One is providing a housing impact fee for all of the net new office development in the master plan area, which equates to roughly 16 to $18000000 And then in lieu of providing on-site affordable units for the residential portion of the master plan. Google's proposing a BMR alternative mitigation plan to dedicate 2 parcels of up to 2.4 acres of land to the city, shown here as locations R for A and R 6 on the screen, to allow the city to partner with affordable housing developers to construct affordable housing. City staff finds this alternative mitigation is worth considering based on the greater opportunities for funding and city ownership in the long term. When presented to EPC, commissioners noted their preference for inclusionary units, but supported considering the BMR alternative mitigation plan if it results in more affordable units delivered with market rate units. To help counsel consider the benefits and limitations, um, staff included a table as attachment 5 to the staff report. Um, so really the 1st question tonight is does counsel support the BMR alternative mitigation plan for land dedication, uh, as part of the master plans, affordable housing obligation. Looking at another major component of the master plan is the open space network, Google has 6 distinct open space locations within the plan area, 5 of which are proposed to be dedicated to the city as parkland shown in dark green. Um, Ellis Park is a proposed privately owned publicly accessible open space, also referred to as a POPA open space for short, uh, which is shown here in light green. Uh, This is a new Parkland credit under consideration by the city council um, later tonight on the agenda. Overall, city staff is supportive of the Open Space Network. and has identified sort of 3 main areas for further consideration. One is to continue working with Google on the design and layout of Ellis Park and the Hedge Hetchy linear park. Uh, recommend the P2 pathway to be a public access easement and not dedicated land. And that there are various infrastructure needs to balance with this master plan and the each wisdom precise plan, including future recycled water storage needs and private utility lines for the central utility district proposed by Google. The EPC supported staff's considerations and the overall open space network. They also provided some additional feedback that was summarized in the staff report. So really the 2nd question tonight is, does council support staffs and EPC's considerations on the proposed master plan open space network, or have any additional feedback? As a requirement of the precise plan, any bonus FAR for residential and commercial development requires community benefits. Google has proposed a package of benefits that combines providing built community spaces at subsidized rents. which they value at 8500000 dollars. Uh, programmatic support for small businesses, uh, which they value at $1000000 and a monetary contribution of half a $1000000 to the city for COVID-19 relief. So a total package of $19 million. Um, this exceeds the required community benefit value of approximately 15.5 to $17.5 million based on the range of bonus FAR proposed. On this package. Uh, focuses on supporting small businesses, uh, and small business development, which is the desired community benefit identified in the East wisdom precise plan. EPC supported Google's focus on small businesses, but requested some more clarification around the program components, timing, delivery assumptions and implementation. So the 3rd question is does council support the proposed community benefits or have any additional input? Since the master plan is a higher level plan for development, if adopted, there will be subsequent site specific development permits submitted for planning review prior to submission of building permits. Based on the scale of development anticipated in the master plan, the standard review process shown on the left-hand side of the screen would require each development permit to be reviewed by the development review committee or DRC, uh, would go to an administrative zoning or ZA public hearing, and conclude at a city council public hearing. As the precise plan identifies, the city council can consider a streamlining option for future development permits when reviewing a master plan, the precise plan streamlining option outlines future development permits, would be reviewed by the DRC, and then conclude at a ZA public hearing. Google is proposing a variation to the streamlining option to allow future development permits consistent with a master plan to be approved administratively by the ZA without a public hearing. A public hearing would only be required if the development permit requested some kind of deviation from the master plan. This approach would require a precise plan amendment to grant the ZA authority to approve the development permit administratively. Staff and the EPC support the precise plan streamlining option to allow for faster implementation of development while also providing public input process with DRC and ZA public meetings. So the 4th question tonight is does council support the streamlined review process in the precise plan or Google's alternative review process? And last discussion topic is the development agreement. Google's requesting a 20 year DA to accommodate the buildout of their master plan and their commitment of funding fees and improvements. To enter into a DA agreement, the city requires the applicant to provide public benefits beyond any requirements of the development project, including community benefits. Um, so with the DA, the city would be locking in about a 3rd of the office square footage, uh, that's been allocated in the east wasn't precise plan, in exchange, Google's proposing public benefits, including public art in the proposed Popa open space at Ellis Park, valued at 1500000 and provide a $9.50000 in monetary contribution towards the Parkland improvements in Mod Park. Um, so the total being $11000000 The public benefits identified by Google are consistent with those types of improvements desired as community benefits in the East Wisman precise plan. Staff feels consideration of a 15 year DA term is appropriate to allow for a timelier buildout of master plan. Of course, any feedback we hear tonight from council, staff will work with Google in drafting a DA. Um, EPC also supported a shorter timeline of 15 years. So the last question is, does counsel agree that a 15 year DA term would be considered, should be considered, or have feedback on the proposed public benefits? So to conclude with all of the input received to date, Google and City staff will continue to further refine the master plan. Some key next steps include going to DRC for review tentatively scheduled for next month. Uh, begin the environmental review process per sequel and continue with community outreach. And just a quick plug for anyone interested in getting more information on the project or would like to receive email notifications of upcoming meetings, please visit our city's project webpage listed on the screen. That concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions. Google does have a presentation to share with city council and Michael Time Off is the presenter. Thank you.

[00:15:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, Miss Hagen. Um, maybe we'll stop our screen share and we can turn it over to Mr. Time Off to see if he has a presentation to share. And then I'd ask Mr. Time off if you have other members of your, um, team court here, if you could also um, introduce them, um, as well for the public. Thank you.

[00:15:52] Michael Tymoff: Great, good evening. Mayor, vice mayor, council members. My name is Michael Timeoff, I'm Google's District Development Director for Mountain View, and I am joined tonight by a number of members from our development team, both with Google and with Len Lease, from Google. We have, um, Nikki Loey, uh, Jeff Hosea, Gerald Poski, uh, from Lenley's. We got Andrew Chappel. I'm sorry, I'm going to go back to Google. Javier Gonzalez as well is with us. Um, And then from Lindley's, Andrew Chappel, Trevin Robinson. Um, Got Brooke Ray with us. I'm just going to open up my list here and I apologize. There we go. I'm gonna read this complete list so that we are inclusive and exhaustive. All right, back to Google. Yeah, Drew Wenzel, Emily Murray with Alan Matkins, Legal Counsel to Google. Uh, Brian Griggs, development consultant to Google. As I mentioned, Javier Gonzalez, Jeff Ozea, Gerald Posky, Josh Mello, Michelle McDermott, inside legal counsel to Google, Mickey Loey. And then from Lenley's, Trevin Robinson. Martin Wiggins, Faith Group, Patrick, Brooke Ray Smith, Andrew Chappell, Ariana O'Connell, Francisco Martin, Audio B. Alright. So we're all here and happy to answer questions as we go through the evening. But 1st just wanted to thank Lindsay. She did a great job of providing an overview of our Middlefield Mark Middlefield Park master plan, and wanted to thank council, the environmental planning commission and staff for all of the partnership and input that you provided into the future of East Swissman over the past several years. And really wanted to spend the balance of our time tonight focusing in on the 5 questions that are before you. And so with that, if I can share my screen. I'll just jump right into it. You all see my screen?

[00:18:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No, not yet.

[00:18:24] Michael Tymoff: Something on my end.

[00:18:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. We see it now.

[00:18:41] Michael Tymoff: Apologies for the technical difficulties. Okay. Um, the city's precise plan uh, recognizes a unique opportunity that redeveloping East Westman represents, and Google and Len Lace want to help the city achieve its vision of creating a new neighborhood with high quality open spaces, vibrant local serving businesses, and housing for all incomes in stages of life. We're confident that the plan we put before you, our housing forward master plan for Middlefield Park incorporates all of these goals. And tonight's study session is the 1st step in the approvals process towards this transformation. We will start by making significant upfront investments to redevelop the 40 acres of land that we own here, investments that will support the entire precise plan area and surrounding neighborhoods. This is a large undertaking. It will require 100s of 1000000s of dollars to prepare the land for development. And this is not raw land. This is land that Google owns and where office buildings sit today. These buildings need to be torn down to make way from new housing. These investments will help establish a thriving new community with its own neighborhood identity and create equitable outcomes, jobs, and housing for those most in need. Turning to the questions before you tonight. I will start with our affordable housing strategy, then focus on parks and open space, our community benefit package, and conclude with how we can implement this vision together. Our affordable housing proposal offers the city the opportunity to maximize the amount of affordable housing, to make it deeply affordable, while increasing the certainty that it gets built, and maintaining overall project feasibility. Our proposal will allow 380 affordable homes, 20% of the total 1900 homes planned. This exceeds the city's 15% inclusionary requirement by 95 homes. Land dedication also allows the city to control these units in perpetuity and to decide on the unit mix while targeting deeper levels of affordability. These homes can be delivered even sooner as they aren't tied to the economic cycles that can slow market rate housing during economic downturns. Our proposal allows us to make the significant investments that master plans require. It also allows us to integrate these parcels within the overall development. The slide shows a few affordable housing projects that have been recently delivered in Mountain View, allowing again the city to target, um, the income levels. It also shows a number of the supportive services that are available through standalone affordable housing projects that otherwise would not be available through inclusionary housing. Creating new parks to serve the East Westman neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood today of East Westman is served by just over or just under 16 acres of parks. We will be adding 12 acres of parks as part of our proposal. nearly doubling what is there today. Over the past several months, we've listened in community meetings, and we've heard a lot of great ideas for what these parks can provide. Seen here in LS Plaza. The 3 acre publicly accessible, privately owned, open space that Lindsay referenced. We're layering many of those ideas together. to provide a rich combination of active recreation and passive recreation. We will build LS Plaza as part of the 1st phase of the project at no cost to the city. And at Mud Park, we will be dedicating 6 acres of land. to allow the city to build more mog park. as well as a $9.50000000 cash contribution, as part of our community benefit package, for the city to a fund above and beyond park amenities, such as nature, play, and aquatic center, or sports complex. How do we support a new neighborhood? How do we help grow small businesses and reinvest in the local economy so that Middlefield Park evolves over time? We start by offering a community benefit package that exceeds the minimum requirements of the precise plan. Small businesses and community space are at the heart of the neighborhood, living near work and being able to walk to the shops means less time in the car, and more time in the park with family and friends. These investments will help provide stability and resilience for the local economy now into the future. Our plan provides space and funding for retail and neighborhood uses, such as a grocery market, coffee shops, maker space, locally owned small businesses, community organizations, and nonprofits. These needs are essential, and we look forward to collaborating with the city to decide how to anchor these spaces. So where do we begin? And how do we ensure that these initial investments create sustainable value? It is through a development agreement that we can both secure our early investments, invest our development rights, while assuring the city and the community that we will fulfill our obligations. We're requesting an initial term of 15 years to the development agreement, plus an additional 5 years that will provide the certainty we need to build this project. This diagram shows the expected market cycles that a project of this scale may experience, and a heavy lift required early on. that is only recovered in later phases. We hope to build out the project sooner than on the timeline set forth on the prior slide, and the city can help by expediting design review and permanating along the way. It will take time to deliver the 1900 residential units, and these time savings will result in more homes being delivered faster. We could do all of this while still encouraging participation in the design review process through proactive public engagement. In closing. We have proposed a project that not only complies with the precise plan requirements, but one that goes above and beyond to exceed those requirements. And importantly is a project that can be delivered. We are proposing to deliver 40% of the 5000 homes and vision for East Whisman, 380 of those homes would be affordable, helping the city to achieve its goal of 20% affordable housing. We comply with the job's housing linkage program and do so entirely within our master plan area without the need to partner with other landowners. We're setting aside 12 acres of Google owned land for parks and open space, nearly 9 of these acres will be dedicated to the city for public parks, and we will build the other 3 acres at no cost to the city in the 1st phase of the project. And finally, our $30000000 community benefit package exceeds the precise plan requirements by $11 million. We look forward to continuing to build on the momentum we've already created towards building much needed housing for Mountain View. As I mentioned earlier, I'm joined by several members of our development team who are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[00:26:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Mr. Time Off. So, um, we'll just bring it back to counsel for any questions, um, that they may have, and then we'll go to public comment. Then we'll bring it back to answer the 5 questions that staff provided for us for input. And I'll also, um, at that time, I'll be asking council members to provide their feedback on all 5 of the questions at once. And then if there's any, uh, other ideas that you have, I'll be sure to take note of those, um, as well, and then we can we can discuss if a council majority is interested in those. So, um, First, we'll start with questions. So council member show Walter. I see your hand.

[00:27:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, thank you. Um, there's been a lot of talk of the phases of this project, and I know in some of the organizational presentations, I've I've seen that described, but we didn't hear it today. Could, could either um, the city staff or Google go over quickly what those phases are. I think, I think that's really important in understanding the request for the 15 year, um, development agreement.

[00:27:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure, so city stuff, um,

[00:27:40] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: So I have a slide I can show if that helps since there's a graphic associated with it. Um, So let me,

[00:27:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I see heads nodding, so please feel free, Ms. Higgins, to pull up the slide.

[00:27:52] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: All right. Um. Alrighty. So, um, essentially, uh, there are 4 phases that Google has initially laid out to build out their, um, master plan. Um, so they're color coded here. Essentially, there's phase one, which starts with residential construction, R one and R2. As part of this phasing, uh, these would be our proposed to be market rate units. And so Google's proposing to provide the land for our 6 as part of the affordable housing obligation. Moving on to phase two, ultimately, this phase is concentrated on 2 office buildings located 01 and 02. And then phase 3 is the remainder of the residential development, R 3 through R 5. And in this case, our 4 portion of our 4 would be provided as land to the city, um, in compliance with the BMR. And then the last phase is proposed to be the remainder of office and parking structures that are proposed as part of the master plan. So a couple other things to highlight about this phasing is that by leading with residential construction first, it allows the master plan to remain in compliance with the job housing balance. And linkage, um, and in terms of the parkland obligations, uh, essentially, Google would be proposing uh, to build out the public open spaces that are or parklands, provide the parklands that are part of each phase of the development. Essentially, it breaks out to where phase one would have about 25% of the overall open space would be provided, and then by the time phase 3 happens, with the remainder of residential is when the remainder of the open space would be provided. So that's a brief summary.

[00:29:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you.

[00:29:58] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: You're welcome.

[00:30:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Did you have other questions, council member, show Walter?

[00:30:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, that's it.

[00:30:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, council member Abbe Koga?

[00:30:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I asked these questions uh, for in writing. Um, but was hoping to get a little bit more detail. Um, on some of the questions I asked. The 1st one being the, uh, affordable housing, uh, piece and the, um, alternate mitrigation with the land dedication. Um, I think the, I think I did my math calculation, pretty. Well, um, and with the 2.4 acres, um, in the number of units to get to the 20%, it was something like a hunt close to 148 units an acre, um, which seems high, and I had asked if we had done anything that dense and we have not. I think the closest was 110, but, um, I was wondering, um, yes, in terms of like parameters, I, and maybe this is what staff will need to do the deeper dive in, but, um, are we also looking at equitable, um, proportionate, um, unit sizes or, or the number, you know, the number of bedrooms studio versus one versus 2 um, with the market rate. development unit count. That makes sense?

[00:31:29] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Council member. I'll try to respond to that question. You're right. We haven't done the deeper dive that we need to do. Um, and we'll probably work with Google to sort of model. Um, you know, um, units on the sites to get a better idea of how they will lay out and the densities you mentioned and what kind of unit types would be allowed. So yes, that detail will be coming later.

[00:31:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I guess, um, I guess I'm trying to sort of project, you know, um, project out and uh, I know unit count is important, but, um, of course, design and heights and whatnot are important too. And I don't want to just assume we're going to go allow the highest, you know, buildings for these, um, unit of portable units just to get as many units as we can. So, um, like, will you be taking into account those other factors, um, which may, you know, may, may not lower the, or change the unit count as, as, as from the assumption today? Um, and then I guess the question would be, you know, how would that be uh, mitigated? Would it be the an impact fee or would we be able to require, um, inclusionary units in the market rate development?

[00:32:49] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, so go ahead, Lindsay.

[00:32:52] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: So, um, there's like, I think a couple parts uh, to your question. So 1st off, the BMR alternative mitigation plan is, is just as the title suggests, it's an alternative that an applicant can propose, from our standard process. So should the applicant not be able to prove that they're providing sort of greater affordable opportunities with this offsite land dedication, then the default would be the standard cities, you know, inclusionary BMR requirements. Um, which is a 15% inclusionary. Right. And and the other piece I think of what you're mentioning is sort of as part of the overall analysis that staff will do in vetting, the alternate mitigation plan, we are looking at, uh, you know, different ways that that could be valued, whether it's more affordable units, uh, whether it's deeper affordability, which often needs fewer units, or, um, Or higher. look at larger units, uh, where again, you get fewer units oftentimes. Right. So yeah, that's part of what can be evaluated.

[00:33:59] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So that's not just about necessarily gonna be about the number of units that you can fit in in the light on the land.

[00:34:08] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Correct, I think we'll start with that and then figure out the different configurations, right? Which is what did the, what did the standards allow? And then ultimately, I think as these projects come forward, um, The council will get a chance to shape them in terms of affordability, in terms of how many bedrooms we need. But we'll try to model this so that you have some sense of what can be done as part of this master plan.

[00:34:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. The other question was regarding the development agreement, the DA. Um, I asked for clarification as the applicant had mentioned 15 years plus a 5 year extension and staff report says 20. I know the total comes up to 20. Um, but I guess I have a recollection of doing a DA. I think it was probably one of our 1st ones where we didn't like extensions after so many years. So I was hoping you could, um, maybe elaborate more on the difference and like what could happen, like, could we do a 15 year plus extension? And what would that mean at the 15 year mark, like, well, to get that 5 year extension?

[00:35:18] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think that a lot of that depends on the comments we hear from the council, and we can structure a DA that actually has some performance requirements, right, in order to be able to get that fiber extension. So, for example, you might want to see phase one completed, and a certain certain movement on phase 2 or an open space before that 5 year extension can be granted. So, really, we're hoping to hear comments from the council. Um, to be able to go back and get sort of negotiate the terms um, with the developer. Um, you know, we we call that clifffesting. We don't have all the details right now, but there are many DAs that are long term that require performance in order to keep it, keep it going.

[00:36:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. And then the final question about parking. I know they're asking for a lower parking ratio. Um, I know you still have to do the parking study. Um, it looks like there might be opportunities for shared parking on this, in this project. Will that be considered?

[00:36:27] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so Google is proposing shared parking, particularly with the ground floor commercial and residential, uh, developments. So they will have shared parking in those residential buildings, for both the commercial and residential users. Additionally, um, Staff is also looking at it. if there's any opportunities with with the, um, office parking for additional shared opportunities for parking.

[00:36:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. I'm sorry, I remembered one more question about parks. Um, this, it was uh, regarding the, um, the, uh, park fees, if we have enough, or we expect, anticipate enough park in the fees to be able to build, um, is it Mod Park, I believe, and, um, it sounds like it's questionable. Um, so, and this will be, I mean, it actually may want need to ask the applicant this question, but, um, in the package, there's a, um, offering of, I think is it, 9000000 or so dollars for park. uh, I don't, you might call it, maybe they call it improvements, but should we need that funding to actually build out mod park? Um, is that, um, flexible. Can we do that?

[00:37:50] Lindsay Hagan: So in terms of, uh, just sort of city requirements, Google's proposal for for their open space network, uh, their objective is really to meet the obligation of the parkland, uh, requirements through land dedication. So, In this case, Mod Park is part of that land dedication proposal. So any money that they would provide would be sort of above and beyond our parkland requirements, so it could go towards the buildout of parkland. And it wouldn't count, um, towards their parkland obligations. So it's an above and beyond sort of, uh, $9.50000 that they're proposing for, uh, the buildout of of, of Mod Park as they outlined in their presentation.

[00:38:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, maybe I could ask the, um, Mr. Timehoff, because when we discussed this, um, I think it was described to me as the city would build the park out and then the 9.500000 would be to, you know, make the park extra special at additional amenities. So, but in light of my, the response I received about Park and Luffy's and whether we would have enough to actually build mod park out in the 1st place, could we use the funds? Um, you know, should we, this package move forward, to actually build mod park out is the question.

[00:39:13] Michael Tymoff: And I think... Go ahead, Lindsay.

[00:39:16] Lindsay Hagan: No, sorry, I didn't feel free to go.

[00:39:20] Michael Tymoff: Sure. So this is this is an important topic for us and and for the city to talk through. Um, if you look to the balance of the projects that will be brought before you for approvals, including some of the projects that have already been approved in East Westman. Um, there's around $50000000 in park fees that the city will collect, um, that could be put towards, um, the baseline park improvements in Mod Park, um, the $50000000 in our community benefit package is meant to augment that baseline park programming budget. Uh, we put forward a series of terms for consideration to staff. Um, that we will want some assurances that the city is able to fund. Um, the baseline park improvements and for purposes of discussion, we've assumed 4000000 an acre. that would be available. Um, and then on top of that, the 9500000 would be for additional park amenities. So short answer is that money is not meant to fund baseline park improvements.

[00:40:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yes. That's what I thought, um, with, or that's how I think I, I thought, that's what I was thinking. You had explained it that in that way. Mr. Time Hoff and, um, I guess, yeah, my question, had to do with just the availability of these, um, park and the fees, um, because, we, you know, the other developments, we're not sure when they're going to be developed and, and if there's a delay and we, Do not have sufficient funds to build out Mod Park. Could we augment actually building the build out without a park? We can't do anything extra, right? So can we actually build the park? With the fee, the funds that you're offering with Mike. And maybe that just needs to be worked out further, but it sounds like, yeah, there's some question about whether there'll be sufficient funds. Park in the fee funds. I just leave it there. I don't need an answer now. It might be something we just need to work out a little further. Thanks.

[00:41:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Council member Abbe Koga, Council mayor Matachek.

[00:41:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. A few questions. I'd like to follow up on the topic, um, council member of the COVID just raised. And How how do you differentiate between baseline park? Build out versus something above and beyond that.

[00:41:54] Michael Tymoff: So the concept that we, um, Again, Michael, time off, um, here. The concept that we put forward to staff is that we would agree upon a baseline, parks, improvement, budget, um, looking at a survey of benchmarked projects that have been recently delivered by the city. So public projects looking at their budgets to establish a baseline. From there, um, the 9.500000 would sit on top of that. So I think through the city's design process. Um, the design would need to be tailored, um, in such a way that it fit within that cost envelope. Ultimately, the city's discretion, if 4000000 is the right number. Um, that's based on our review of recent projects, um, but the city could determine that that's not the right number. It wants to spend more slightly less. Um, but it would be important to us to know going in. what the city's intended budget is and what the scope of those improvements are.

[00:42:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And I think, you know, back to the the, the question was just asked by, um, Council member Abe Koga, um, If that 9, if those funds are not available. Um, this $9.50000000, I think, would need to just. sit and wait for those, those funds to be made available. Um,

[00:43:18] Michael Tymoff: obviously, it's, I think, in everybody's best interest, the project in the city, for Mod Park to be built in line with the residential. There is time, right? We do have time on our side. Odd Park is intended in the residential around it, intended to come online in phase three. So there's some time before those improvements need to be made.

[00:43:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. The office buildings that are part of phase one, uh, they don't have underground parking, right? Or surface parking lots.

[00:43:52] Michael Tymoff: There is a podium, um, podium proposed under 01. All of the other ones are proposed to be parked in the district parking.

[00:44:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and pathway P2. What, what's the difference between that pathway and say a sidewalk and landscape in front of that building?

[00:44:20] Lindsay Hagan: So in terms of dimensions, it would be sort of similar to, um, other pathways we see in the city in terms of 20 foot width, um, to have some landscaping trees and a pathway. Um, one clarification I do want to make about P2 because I think there may have been some confusion, um, at least that I saw in public comments. So the P2 pathway is an additional pathway connection that Google's proposing, it's not a pathway identified in the precise plan. The one that's identified in the precise plan is up further north, uh, above the P1 garage, in line with the linear park. So I do want to just make that quick distinction as well.

[00:45:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, so um, what would be the use for this one? Besides accessing the building.

[00:45:10] Lindsay Hagan: Um, Google's proposed it as part of, uh, providing additional access sort of into Sunnyvale and having that connectivity, uh, as well as a method to allow for, um, sort of expansion of landscaped area connecting kind of the golf course open space, uh, for wildlife to kind of connect through into Mod Park, um, as part of just sort of a, uh, I guess I'll call it an urbanized wildlife corridor.

[00:45:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, Is there a path through the golf course? Or isn't there a fence there? Yeah, so is that fence being removed and you can walk through the golf course?

[00:45:55] Lindsay Hagan: So ultimately for that connection to happen to go into the golf course, the city of Sunnyvale would have to, uh, approve that connection to happen. Um, and so city staff has, you know, shared the proposal with the city of Sunnyvale, uh, and we plan to have further conversations with it. But as of right now, there is not currently a path, um, that connects that, uh, location with the Sunnyvale golf course.

[00:46:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks. That's it.

[00:46:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member Lieber.

[00:46:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, several, several qual, um, confirmations that I'd like to make, um, so that the community has an understanding of, of things. Um, for staff, how much money would we need to put into, into Mod Park to unlock the, the funds that Google is proposing to put into it? They said that they want, if my understanding is correct. Their contribution should go to making it above and beyond and over the top and bombastic. But how much do we have to put in to um, get that type of a community benefit. Uh, to be released.

[00:47:15] Lindsay Hagan: So, uh, as I think Michael Timeoff previously stated, their initial request is is essentially assuming a $4000000 per acre, uh, in terms of the cost for for building out that park. However, I will say, you know, at this point in time, we don't know the details of the park, so it's really hard for staff to give a concrete number. We're just sort of, uh, 4000000 is is approximately, uh, what what it kind of averages out when we look at past park development.

[00:47:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, okay. And are there other parks elsewhere in the city that have that kind of embellishment?

[00:47:57] Lindsay Hagan: When you say embellishment, you mean above, above and beyond. You know, I'm not sure that that's a question I can really answer. Uh, I'm not sure if, Um, Maybe Don Cameron can be promoted from public works department. As a panelist to be able to respond.

[00:48:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure. Why don't you hold on one moment, Ms. Hagan and Council member Lieber. Dawn is on her way over right now.

[00:48:33] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Good evening, council members. This is Don Cameron, Public Works director. You know, um, Michael Timeoff mentioned of an average of $4000000 per acre is true based upon our past park development. But we have to recognize that when we design parks, we are fully designing them. We're working very closely with the community. With you with Parks of Rec commission. And we're putting in all the amenities that we think are desired. So, I think the question of a baseline design. Is something actually a little less than maybe what we traditionally provide for our full designed parks. So I think we have to be careful assuming for a 1000000 an acre. Is just a baseline park.

[00:49:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Mm-hmm. Okay, great. And then, um, Mr. Time Off showed, um, I believe R 6 being in the, the 1st wave of development. And that's just the presentation of our 6 as a site to the city. Um, so that's, that would be a scraped lot. At at that point. So, right?

[00:49:48] Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so as part of the requirement of land dedication, um, they would have to prepare the site for new construction, which would mean turning it over, uh, completely ready for new development. So they would have to demolish the site and do any prep work necessary for that.

[00:50:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. I just didn't want the community to have the, the understanding that that was going to be something that was going to be ready at that, that stage and things. And, um, then another confirmation that I want to make is that, um, we would have coming back to council all of the details of the small business and business diversification. And, um, all those kinds of, um, Community benefit factors, uh, for us to look at, and and make sure that the, what the community, um, considers a community benefit would be delivered by that. Is that the correct assumption?

[00:50:54] Aarti Shrivastava: Council member, if I may, just respond. Um, yeah, we will be listening very hard to what the council says um, tonight. And we'll be working with the applicant to sort of sharpen our pencil on community benefits and the DA terms. Ultimately, the DA will be in agreement. So there will be some movement, hopefully, um, uh, to get us closer to what the council wants.

[00:51:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[00:51:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member Hicks.

[00:51:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So my 1st question is about, um, something that we've been hearing a lot about lately is about security and fences, and I just wanted to make sure, I just wanted to check in on this and make sure, um, we've, we've found recently that some of our, our parks, um, a Google related park and also our school related parks, um, that have been open and accessible to the public have later on run into security problems and been fenced off. And I just want to make sure that those security situations have been thought out ahead of time and that we won't lose, um, space in the future. And I guess my, the, the, the 2nd part of my question is, or um, sort of a caveat along with it, I'm, I'm a big supporter of Popas as a way, publicly, privately owned publicly accessible parks as a way of adding variety to the, our park offerings in Mountain View. Um, but when I read about them around the country, the, one of the caveats people say is that they do sometimes at, over time, become um, less accessible to the public, become fenced off, and become more just amenities for people working in the nearby offices. So, I'd like to just hear a little bit of, um, you know, kind of how you've pre-planned for that to make sure that that is not something that happens in our future.

[00:53:01] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, council member, I could just say that, um, we have been very thoughtful about the elements of what a poopa requires, um, uh, along with the community um, services department, uh, because we were concerned about those very items. Um, And, um, you know, any any projects that require security fencing afterwards will have to come back. For a modification at which time the council can deny that or require other alternatives. So, um, I believe that the location of the current POPA. And again, maybe the Google can respond to this. Uh, has been thought out uh, in order to make sure that it can be publicly accessible in the long term. The the kinds we want to discourage are the ones that are in inner courtyards, um, especially residential developments because they invariably get fenced off. Um, so we are requiring more publicly available. Um, you know, out available near the streets, um, so that they are obvious to people, um, and accessible to them.

[00:54:12] Michael Tymoff: And again, Michael time off, I'll take the opportunity to add some additional detail there, as RT mentioned. Um, The Popas, specifically at Ellis Plaza, um, is really meant to be a public thoroughfare. And if you look at the orientation relative to BTA, um, and the placement of the highest density there. This is, this Popa is really about activating, um, and getting as many people to use transit, uh, as possible. And so we really see this as a public amenity. Um, and I think that, you know, the security concerns that have been discussed lately. Uh, we are aware of them. We have the benefit of being able to design them into the project from very early on. And so any of those security considerations would be brought back to you all for review as part of the final review of the master plan and then in subsequent design approvals for future phases. Those would also be opportunities for you all to weigh in on the proposed security, um, enhancements that are necessary, whether it's around residential or the office projects.

[00:55:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I have to say, these are not, do not, don't look like the previous ones that we can stand just a, um, you know, a week or 2 ago, um, but I, I'm just hesitant. I wanted, I wanted to double check because I just want to make sure that we don't have some emergency situation and then find that our public parks are fenced, what we've considered public parks are fenced off. So I'm, you know, asking for double assurance that that kind of planning has been done ahead of time. Um, So if there're no additional comments on that question, I'll go to my 2nd one, which is another concern that I've had, um, as we, uh, build taller buildings in the city is that, um, is that we sometimes, I think, don't allow large enough setbacks for wide enough sidewalks for the extra volume of people that come in and out of those buildings. And also for some of the things that, um, you know, that, that, people want to do these days on, on, uh, sidewalks or corridors, uh, you know, running, walking dogs, et cetera, urban hiking, et cetera. So I'm just, it doesn't look like that's the case here, but I'm wondering, um, if you can give me some, uh, samples of the, what the sidewalk widths are, and, um, set. I know some of them are very wide, but the sidewalk wits and setbacks, if you can give me a couple of samples so that I can get a feel for that.

[00:57:06] Lindsay Hagan: Sure. So, um, So a couple different things. East Wisman, uh, is an act- is an area of the city where actually this, the staff and city council has been really good about implementing wire sidewalks as development has occurred. you know, since the 90s. So there's a very good starting and quite a bit of the East Western area. But in terms of the precise plane itself. Um, So there are requirements for sidewalk widths. There's also requirements for various greenways that are kind of off-road connections. And those are really roughly 20 feet wide, um, allowing for, you know, uh, bicyclists as well as as pedestrians to move through the area. Um, in terms of actual sidewalks along street frontages. Um, You know, many of those sidewalks sort of, um, And I'd have to pull up the precise plan itself, but I believe they sort of center around anywhere from 7 to 15 feet, depending on where it is and what it's fronting. Um, in terms of some of the interior sidewalks that are required as part of, say, the service streets, um, you're looking at a little bit more traditional sidewalks of sort of 5 foot widths, but those are really, um, you know, more like secondary, uh, pathways, so they're not as prominent, um, in those cases.

[00:58:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Yeah, 5 feet sounds fine for a service street. Thank you.

[00:58:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. Anyone else have any other remaining questions? All right. Well, then, I'll ask mine, um, that are still left. Thank you to my colleagues for asking such great questions. So, um, I had asked this of staff and just wanted to to bring this up. So, um, you know, how much BMR funds are currently available to fund, um, affordable housing projects if we were to go with the alternate, um, mitigation.

[00:59:08] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, council member, um, uh, mayor, um, I, uh, checked with housing staff this afternoon, our 2021 funds show approximately 60 million. However, we do have a bunch of requests out from 2 or 3 affordable housing developers, and if that were to be funded, we would have a balance of 11 million, um, in our housing fund.

[00:59:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. And obviously, kind of the funding fluctuates as money comes in and out, but thank you for that. And then, um, one of the other questions that I had was about, um, if we went with the alternate mitigation, and I know staff's going to be doing the evaluation. You know, if we went through an RFP or an RFQ process, can you just kind of share, um, you know, what, what the most expedited timeline might be? Because I think that's one of the things we're talking about is, you know, the how, um, how quickly we would be able to bring these units online. If you could maybe share a little bit with us, that'd be very helpful.

[01:00:13] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, yes, uh, typically, um, we, if we do uh, an RFP, which is going straight out to solicit proposals, um, based on a certain, uh, project, uh, framework. It takes us about 4 months to put it out and get to council for review. But before that, we'd have to have some idea of what the council wants, right? Um, also, uh, occasionally the council might be interested in doing in RFQ, which is a request for qualifications prior to the RFP, uh, to qualify certain developers to apply for the RFP. Um, and that would take an additional 4 months. So depending on the process, it could take as long as 8 months. Um, and this would be the minimum time frame. Um, and then after that, it would take about 6 months to get what we call a DDA or disposition and development agreement approved and executed with all the details to be brought back to the council. So, it does take um, quite um, quite a bit of time, approximately 14 months minimum, uh, to get all these in place.

[01:01:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And then I guess just like to tag onto that. And Counselor Sheralter, I'll get to your hand in just a 2nd. Um, you know, is, is this process, uh, I would faster, slower than if it was, um, you know, included in, is there a comparison there?

[01:01:44] Aarti Shrivastava: Well, I think it all depends. Um, uh, obviously, um, it would not take as long for someone, um, for, uh, the city process, sort of precedes the entitlement phase, right? Whereas a developer would um, go through the entitlement phase and build inclusionary. Um, however, you know, if it's possible for the city to be able to move forward and not depend on the developer's time frame. So the city has, um, some control over city owned land that they wouldn't have over developers, um, uh, you know, inclusionary project. So this pros and cons to both.

[01:02:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. Counselor Marshall Walter.

[01:02:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Now, my question is kind of a follow-on to yours on there. What if the Google identified an affordable housing partner to start with? Um, even if the affordable housing partner was going to do a project on city dedicated land. Um, how would that work and what kind of time, um, would that save?

[01:02:57] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I think that might need a little more discussion, council member, Walter, because the city has a typical process they use. Um, and if it's city owned land, the council would have to Approve of the developer. Google is free to propose developers, but ultimately the council will have to make the decision on the process they want to use.

[01:03:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But I know, for instance, in the Soprato process. The, the, the, which I don't think is on. Not sure whether that's on city dedicated land or not. I don't remember, but, but in that case, Sobrado, um, came forward with the, the affordable housing, um, organization, um,

[01:03:43] Aarti Shrivastava: if you're speaking of the pair avenue project, um, in North Bay Shore, um, at this point, Sobrado is only proposing to dedicate an acre of land, and the city will run their own process. So, again, um, Google can come forward with a partner and and a project that the council can consider, but the, it would still be the council's decision.

[01:04:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Oh, it would still be our decision. That's that's fine. I just wondered about the time potential time saving. It would clearly be our decision.

[01:04:16] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, I think we're going to have to get back to the to you on that because I don't believe you've done a process like this where we've single sourced a developer. We've typically run a process allowing people to apply and then select it. So we might have to do some homework on that. How that would work.

[01:04:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you.

[01:04:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other council members have any follow-up questions? All right, seeing no hands? I will move to public comment. So would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in zoo or press star 9 on your phone. Our interim city clerk, Miss Wonderlanden, will display the timer on the screen. So right now I'm seeing, oh, Councilman Michelle Walter, your hands is back up.

[01:05:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay.

[01:05:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: You're good. All right. So right now I see 4 hands. So if we could just set the timer for 3 minutes.

[01:05:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Okay.

[01:05:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Right. Is the timer ready, Ms. Wonderlinden? Great. All right. David Meyer.

[01:05:34] David Meyer: All right. Thank you very much, Mayor Commade. Um... Well, I don't see the timer.

[01:05:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, coming.

[01:05:43] David Meyer: Oh, there we go. Oh, thanks very much. David Meyer, Silicon Valley at home. Fortville has advocacy organization works across Santa Clara County. Uh, here tonight to just express general support for Google's Vision for Millfield Park, which I think is really a direct reflection. And the city's great work on the Eastwestern precise plan. Um, because I think this proposal really is transforming sprawl centric office park into an excuse neighborhood with homes, parks, retail, all that can do to transit. And I think really importantly, it demonstrates that the city's jobs housing linkage strategy works, which we're trying to help other cities look at as well. Um, Coolest propuzzle is creating up to mention renewed homes, which is putting the city much closer to me. It's 5000 home target, and it's proposing that 20% of those homes are deed restricted affordable, which is also, again, helping to see me that affordability target. Um, that has to be a homework, strong supporter of using land dedication as alternative mitigation for affordable housing. since it can allow for creation of more affordable homes at deeper levels of affordability. But at the same time, we think there is an opportunity here for the city and Google to work together, to create more detailed joint plan for implementing the affordable housing component. And also thinking about envisioning potentially some creative options for meeting the overall affordability goal. Um, for example, I think it would be really interesting to see whether or not there is a potential option where even a small percentage, such as 5% of the affordable housing could be done as inclusionary, and, you know, while we do support land dedication for affordable housing, we know that it comes with trade-offs, related to timelines and financing options, which staff have provided. So that's why we really think it's critical for the city and Google to work together. And identify if there are different options available. If there are things like fee prepayments, direction of fees of specific projects, earlier land dedication, certain fee forgiveness, that could, you know, do some, you know, have some other creative options on the table. Um, overall, we're most concerned with seeing the housing and affordable housing actually get built. And at the same time, we don't want to see this project get delayed. It's critical. These discussions don't create any financial infeasibility or delays that would undermine the house of production goals because we really do want this proposal to catalyze development in the rest of the area. So, in summary, very supportive of continuing these presses forward. Let's see what we can do, to think creatively about meeting the affordable housing goals and getting it built. Thank you.

[01:08:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Cliff Chambers?

[01:08:31] Cliff Chambers: Hi, thank you very much. Uh, Cliff Chambers, uh, resident of Mountain View, and I'm representing the Mountain View coalition for sustainable uh, planning this afternoon. Uh, We did have Google make a presentation at one of our regular monthly meetings and really apply them for the discussion that we had and also the follow-through and other outreach that they participated in that was itemized in the staff report. We did do a detailed letter both to the EPC and to the council, and I'm just going to cover our kind of high level comments. Uh, MVCSP really strongly supports the overall mixed use development framework provided in the middle, uh, Middlefield Park master plan. The potential for 1900 housing units with potential of 20% or 380 units being affordable units is highly attractive, and it's really the 1st step in implementing the innovative jobs housing. liquid strategy of the precise plan. Um, like the EPC, we would prefer inclusionary BM, our units, but we feel that Google's proposed alternative mitigation compliance plan, with dedicated land and 20% affordable units, is worth of serious consideration, and it could result in more affordable units. So we look forward to the deep dive that an analysis that was described earlier. We do really support the proposed open space network and are particularly excited about the prospects for Mod Park. Uh, I appreciate council member Hicks concerns about the uh, fencing, and I assume that the planning is going to go into, that when it brings back, we're going to actually have full disclosure on what that would be, but we really do like that concept. We have the concerns about the P2 path that was discussed earlier, and I hope there's a focus on the long-term connectivity to Sunnyvale. We do really applaud the community benefits on the diversified small business development. Um, And then we finally, we really like the construction phasing plan that starts with housing adjacent to the middle field station. It's really exemplary and we support it. And before just jumping to 15 years, I'd like to hear a little bit more discussion and what the trade-offs involved or 15 versus 20 years. Um, we want to, we want an overall project that is doable, a master plan that is doable and will be built. So I think that's one of the, like, the key criterion that has to be evaluated, and hopefully that could be done before this is finally decided. Thank you very much.

[01:11:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Albert Jeans? Please unmute.

[01:11:31] Albert Jeans: Hi, Albert Jeans, uh, 38 year resident of Mountain View. I know this has been said before, but I really wish there was some concrete plans to put in ownership housing here. Um, I've been mounted for 5 years in an apartment and as soon as I could, you know, I bought a house. I knew that was the best way to build wealth, you know, hold on to it, survive inflation, you know, do all the good things and become really established. As long as you have apartments, you know. Yeah, they may be around for 30 years, but at some point the owner can just decide. I'm going to tear this down, do something else, and all those people are out. They don't have a home. They have nothing. So I really wish for the long term health of Mountain View. that Google would really put, you know, some thought into establishing, you know, concrete plans to put in some ownership housing. So these are some anchor in that neighborhood that will keep it there, you know, in perpetuity. Thank you very much.

[01:12:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alexander Brown. Please unmute.

[01:12:34] Alexander Brown: Okay. Hey, hey, friends. All right, first, I want to start with housing. We need it, especially affordable housing, no question there. And I appreciate Albert talking about the harms and allowing existing owners who just arbitrarily evict residents to redeveloped properties. That is that is really unfortunate, and I think it's something that we should stop. And just not just work around, but prevent. I also love the green space, focusing on land use that supports the people and not just on every square inch, providing financial returns to the landowners. But more than that, I want more complete neighborhoods. Uh, I'd love it if I were able to just, uh, walk down the street to pick up some groceries from a small local grocer instead of having to take Stevens Creek all the way down to Castro to shop at Ava's. Or more likely to just get in a car and drive somewhere. Boo, yuck, cars, am I right? Yeah. Uh, the fact that this isn't just another office park or residential only suburb is awesome. Michael, I saw the swinger seesawk quote up there and I feel the love. Yes, please. Bombastic it up. Hell yeah, let's do it to the rest of the parks. Is it awesome? Let's have fun with this. Um, oh, yeah. I support this project and all that jazz. Thanks.

[01:13:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Cat Orthum?

[01:13:51] Kat Ruthm: Great, can you hear me?

[01:13:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[01:13:55] Kat Ruthm: All right, thanks so much. Uh, good evening, Mayor. Mayor. Mayor. Mayor is honorable council members. My name is Kat Ruthm, and I'm the director of Housing and Health at the Silkman Leadership Group. I'm here tonight to also express support for the proposed plans. A leisure group is excited to see nearly 2000 homes, proposed right near light rail in a mixed use development. As a proposed plan also brings a number of proposed community benefits and public benefit, including perks, open space, bike lanes, and more. Well, we would really love to see on-site affordable housing. We are pleased to see the the, excuse me, the land dedication strategy being implemented. The leadership group is really excited any opportunity to bring as much affordable housing to the area as possible. So as we understand, inclusionary is not feasible at this time, with that goal in mind, we feel confident that the land dedication strategy would create the most affordable homes overall, and in a shorter time frame. Um, We'd much rather see the city work with an affordable having developer to build these much needed homes sooner than at the land owner. The landowner holds on to the land to build homes when the inclusionary would be financially feasible, when and even if that happens. And we are especially excited to see some unique parking strategies being talked about and potentially implemented in the planning area, as we would really love to see this area built for people, not cars. Loved Alex's quote about booyuck cars. totally agree with that. With that, I just want to close and think city staff once again for putting today's meeting together and cancel for the consideration of the comments. Thanks.

[01:15:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Doug Cheshire? Please unmute.

[01:15:42] Doug Cheshire: Hello?

[01:15:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hello.

[01:15:45] Doug Cheshire: Sorry, just bear with me. Oh, good evening, mayor, commanding and fellow city council members. My name is Doug Cheshire. I'm a field representative with Carpenter's Local 405 here in Santa Clara and on behalf of roughly 7700 members here. Um, I'm asking that you uh, support Google's middle field project. Uh, through a collaborative process, Google and Landley says, uh, proposed a project that has reimagined the East Wisman neighborhood and that the city has laid the groundwork for in the precise plan. From affordable and workforce housing, with ample open space, walkable retail, and easy access to transit. Google has made a commitment to this community. And that is not the only commitment. By partnering with a responsible union contractor. Google and land lease is making investment in this community. One will that will create 1000s of good paying union jobs with healthcare and retirement construction industry. One that will provide an opportunity for local apprentices, including women and minorities, to begin a career in the construction industry that will also help build tomorrow's skilled labor workforce. Um, so again, I ask that the council go ahead and support the project. Google's proposed a development that is outlined, fits all of the goals of the East Wisman precise plan. And in conjunction with the community and local labor, we'll bring forward a project that Mountain View will be proud of for years to come. Thank you.

[01:17:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Right. We can turn it back to council. I don't see any other hands raised. I do see council members' hands raised, though. So, um, there are 5 questions being asked of counsel for this agenda item. So I'm just going to look at my council colleagues really quickly. Are these questions or are you already to, um, answer the 5 questions?

[01:17:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I didn't answer the 5 questions.

[01:17:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. All right. So, um, perhaps, Miss Haken, if you want to bring forward the 5 questions onto the screen so that everyone can can see what those are. All right. And I'm just gonna go 1st on whose hand I see, um, raised, which is a council member show alter.

[01:18:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Yeah, um, I I really, I'm really excited about this project. Like, some of the people who commented said, this is an opportunity to, um, to really bring a vibrant whole neighborhood to this region, to this area. I am, I'm really excited that the, uh, precise plan is being um, used so quickly. When we 1st started working on it, there were a lot of doubts about how long this would take. So this is really good news, that that a developer is coming forward with such a, um, you know, a well thought out plan, uh, so fast. Um, So the 1st question is, um, so generally, I'm very supportive of the project, but of course we, you know, there's always questions. The 1st question, um, do I support the BMR alternative mitigation plan? Yes, I do. I think that, um, uh, the thing that is the the least, the most troublesome about it is how quickly we could get that affordable housing. So working together to reduce the time, to get, um, a affordable housing developer on board and get them moving. That's something I'd really like to see happen as quickly as possible. And if we, if it's possible for Google to choose the, um, uh, the, um, Affordable housing partner earlier and just come with that as part of the, the agreement, that, I think that has some merit, but, uh, already said, you know, that would have to be looked into. So that's something I'd really like us to look into. What can we do? to um, to shorten that process. But basically, I think that, um, one thing that's really good, you know, we we normally want inclusionary zoning. But, um, Having a standalone project does allow us to serve a lower, um, uh, people with lower incomes, and that's valuable, there's a tremendous amount of need for that. And it does allow us to provide supportive services. And that's also very important. And because this, um, this land is right adjacent to the existing housing. It is part of the community. So, I think that's reasonable. Um, The EPC's consideration and the proposed park open space network. Yeah, I, I, uh, I like the, the, I think the, the idea of the, um, the parks are great. Um, I'm really excited about the, uh, uh, the, that footnote that there was in the staff report about putting in a, uh, a recycled water reservoir under the Popa. Because recycle water is going to be coming to this um, section of town fairly quickly. So I'm, I'm supportive of that. Uh, the community benefits sound quite, quite generous to me, and, um, I know staff will be talking to, uh, Google about the particulars. Um, the steam streamlined review process. I, um, I like the idea of using the precise plans streamlined review where there's a ZA hearing. Um, and I think that we can, we want staff to develop a mutually beneficial development agreement. I understand from a response in the council questions that part of the development agreement includes an annual report. So that provides an opportunity for, um, the city and and Google to talk every year about what's going well and what isn't going well and work through it. Um, so I think that that we need to have a performance based development, um, agreement and I'll be interested to, uh, you know, to to see that in the future after staff and Google have had time to, um, really work out the nuts and bolts of it. But basically, I think this is a great program. I'm so excited to see the East Whisman plant precise plan moving forward on this, um, you know, on this, uh, time frame. And, um, I, I, uh, I look forward to hearing what my other, other colleagues have to say. Thank you.

[01:22:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:22:30] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I'll just go through the questions for the 1st question. Um, I, I feel like it will be very important to see what the consultant says after conducting the review to determine whether Google is in, uh, I guess technical compliance with our, um, with the BMR administrative guidelines. Um, I also have a preference for, uh, at least a portion of the affordable housing obligation to be, uh, satisfied through inclusionary, um, housing. Um, I'm not opposed to the alternative mitigation. But the one thing that bothers me is, uh, I ask the question, uh, in advance of the meeting about, how we define value, uh, in reference to the requirement that the alternative mitigation have a value, uh, or the dedicated parcel have value that exceeds the value of having the housing units on site. I was a little dissatisfied with the response. I think we need to have an objective standard for that because I don't want to have this debate over and over again about whether the value of the dedicated parcel is greater than the value of the inclusionary units. I think it's really important to have a standard definition that we can apply universally. And in my mind, one of the things, 22 of the things that we do have to keep in, in mind, or take into consideration that, that several members of the council have referenced 1st is the ability to deliver the units quickly. And I am not confident that we can deliver affordable housing with dedicated land more quickly than the ability to deliver inclusionary units as a, you know, as part of the development of the market rate housing. Um, and then I'm also concerned, uh, I appreciate merits may bringing this up about, uh, the limited resources we have to deliver all of the affordable housing that's in the pipeline. Um, and I'm, I, I'm concerned that we're going to fairly quickly exhaust, uh, what we have, uh, staff that, I think mentioned a few of the projects in the pipeline, but we also know about, you know, the 2 parcels on Terabella and, and, and probably, you know, others that will, that will become available with time. Um, so, it's a long winded answer. I feel like I, I can support the alternative mitigation as long as the consultants report demonstrates compliance with, uh, with our objectives, with the administrative guidelines. I do have a strong reference, you know, as part of a, you know, different work plan item to, Have a concrete definition for value and some kind of objective standard, uh, for for future evaluation. But, um, I am interested in, in some kind of hybrid inclusionary and dedicated affordable housing strategy, and I'm comfortable with making some, um, some concessions to, to, to make that happen. Um, so I hope that was an answer that, uh, translates to, to some clear direction at some and, and let me know if it doesn't, uh, for, for 2 question 2, um, I support the staff and EPC considerations, or, The open space network, um, there was uh, some discussion about, uh, a, a modified process for, designing and constructing the open space. I think the only feedback I provide is I'm comfortable with the regular city process for the design and construction of open space. Um, and if we want to change that, I think that's something, again, that we need to look at in the context of, um, the other, the broader work we're doing on Parkline dedication and that kind of thing. Otherwise support the proposal. Um, uh, question 3 do I support the proposed community benefits? But the 2 things I look at are the value and the methodology for for determining the value. And I asked the question, uh, about, how we've valued development agreements elsewhere, uh, and I, I, you know, but the answer, I think, kind of speaks for itself. Um, the value is very strong. It compares very favorably to other DAs. Um, and so I'm, I'm comfortable uh, with the, with the proposal. But again, it's hard to provide, I think, uh, solve his feedback without the consultant's study, that's that's being done. And I look forward to seeing as again, the proposal complies with the precise plans, um, uh, regulations. Um, if it does, I support the, the package has proposed. Uh, question 4 So, I also asked the question about, uh, the, uh, ability to make modifications or deny, uh, a project that is consistent with the precise plan and an approved master plan. And because as, um, I think the staff had mentioned, there's almost no discretion in our ability to make modifications, I'm comfortable with Google's proposed expedited approval, uh, uh, for, for the components of the projects following the approval of the master plan. And the reason is, um, over the past several years, we've had many different, uh, many difficult, uh, development proposals come before the council. Um, that, uh, were, had political elements that were very challenging. And what made it challenging was the limited discretion that the council had to make modifications to address the concerns from the public. And I don't like setting ourselves up for failure. I don't see a lot of value in having a public hearing where we can take public comment, but not be able to do anything with it because state law has eroded our ability to make modifications to code compliant projects. Uh, so, uh, I mean, I might lose that boat, but that's okay. I just, I don't see, I don't see the value in having the public hearing, so I'm, I'm fine with Google's alternative process. Question 5 uh for the 15 year DA. I, I'm, so again, I'm, I'm pretty comfortable with the 15 +5 year extension proposed by Google, um, and, uh, you know, I, I don't have a good sense of whether 15 years without the 5 year extension. Um, if that has a significant impact and the ability to deliver the proposal, uh, if it does, I'm not sure I can support it. If it doesn't have, uh, a major impact, then, you know, 15 years is fine too. It feels like a long time, but just in response to question five. I'm I'm comfortable with a 15 +5 proposal. Um, uh, that Google is, is requesting. Uh, that's all. Thank you.

[01:29:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, council member Hicks.

[01:29:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So 1st I want to say that I, uh, like so many people have spoken strongly support this, um, this plan, um, uh, you know, who couldn't support changing uh, kind of suburban offices to uh, mixed use housing offices in parkland. Um, so, uh, down to the details and the questions 1st uh, regarding the, uh, below market rate alternative mitigation. Um, I, uh, I, I do support it. I, um, I know that, uh, generally I and and I think the rest of council, uh, and the EPC, uh, support inclusionary housing, I'm hoping so that I'm, um, I'm hoping that possibly when we're not doing inclusionary housing, when we're doing standalone housing, we explore community land trust housing, which goes along with what several members of the public, uh, Mr. Jeans and I believe Mr. Brown raised, which is ownership housing. I worked for a community land trust, a nonprofit developer in Alameda County, and I'm comfortable with that. It's a way of allowing, um, of making permanently affordable ownership housing by keeping the, by the city continuing to own the land. So I'm hoping situations like this, we can explore arrangements like that. Um, other than that, I just assume that the economic study and the staff report is meant to verify whether the BMR alternative um, meets the precise plan. And I also agree with council members who said it's important to make sure that the, um, Building the affordable housing does not drag on and on that it's done fairly quickly. Um, as for question number 2 on the open space network, I, um, I generally uh, support the open space network as it's, um, as as it was presented. Um, I think it was the EPC that suggested we consider Google and the city designing the public parks together. Um, for, and I agree with that for consistency and uh, kind of some of the innovation that Google uh, provides. So if that's possible, I would support that. I also noticed that Gateway Park is right along 237. And I'm hoping and some other, you know, very um, auto-oriented uses, which generally does not make for Great Parkland. Um, so I'm hoping that we can use, uh, at an adequate number of tall trees to buffer or something else to really strongly buffer that park and the housing there too. Um, from the from 237 and the big auto uses there. Um, I, You know, there, there's been some talk about whether the paths and corridors are, um, are really parks or not. And, and I have to say, I'm, I'm kind of on the fence about this. I fully support people who were saying that, you know, we can't just designate sidewalks as parks. On the other hand, I think if we're designing parks for what people today sometimes talk about as parks that serve all ages and abilities or people from 8 to 80. One of the big things when you survey people that they want to do in parks is run, do urban parking, do urban hiking. Um, inline skating, those kinds of things, biking. And you really do need connected corridors for those. So, again, I don't, I don't just want sidewalks to be considered parks, but if they're really, um, corridors that are lavish and extra with maybe a double row of trees, um, they can act as wildlife corridors with uh, natural planting, if I would like to develop some standards where those are, um, where those are considered, those do count at least. to some degree, some percentage as parks. And, um, I won't go at length, but I could quote studies that show that people have different genders, ages, and ethnicities really want wildlife corridors, and, um, you know, some of the parks we're designing don't address the needs of, of, uh, sort of the variety of people in our population. Um, Let's see. The other thing I'd like to explore is whether, uh, the, I like the idea that we'll have some shared parking. I would, would also like to see if some of the office parking can be shared as well. I've, you know, in the downtown, I've noticed that when I go into, uh, some of our, our, um, both underground, aboveground parking, uh, with the offices, it's, it's not used a lot of the time. And I would hate to put the expense into constructing these spaces and then not, um, you know, have it unparked much of the time because there's a huge carbon footprint to doing underground parking and above ground parking. And I would like those spaces to be used. It also means that those small businesses will be more viable. Um, And let's see, question 3 community benefits. I support the ones that are listed. I particularly find the small business diversification and reopening. To be really important. I have to say, um, because of, of, um, the pandemic and the shutdowns, and then the just general increase over time in online shopping, I've, a lot of residents have approached me saying that they're really concerned about our small businesses. Um, you know, all over town. What's designated in our general plan as village centers, also our downtown, and I think any other sort of mixed use center will run, this is something that people are going over in their minds. How can we make this viable because, um, This is, we use our public spaces when one of the uses is when there are small businesses along them that we want to patronize. So I strongly support Google doing some of the innovative things they're suggesting here. And I'd also like to encourage novel, small business types like micro retail, you know, small footprint, retail and restaurants, live work, whatever Google can do to promote innovation in this area, um, and maybe a model that we can use in other spots in the city. And questions 4 and five. I basically, for these, um, support the, um, the staff suggestions for 4 and five. So thank you.

[01:37:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, council member Mattachek.

[01:37:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks. Uh, question one. This has been said by others while I prefer inclusionary units. I am open to the alternative mitigation that's proposed, because it could result in more units, and we could also provide services. Question two. I uh, do agree with the open space network. Uh, the additional feedback I have on that one is though, and we'll talk about this uh, later tonight. Um, I am not, uh, supportive of providing 100% credit for Popa. Popa is different than dedicated land, and I think we need to recognize that. And I don't want to set a precedence here. that then would apply for all of POPA throughout the city. Um, I'd like to find some other way to addressing the issue of cost here, um, rather than reduce the, or, I'm sorry, increase the credit. Uh, question three. I appreciate the community benefits that are proposed. I particularly like the support of small businesses, um, especially along uh, an area that we want active. I do have concerns about the uh, support of space for community use or nonprofits. I don't really know what that looks like. And if it's support, if it's a meeting space that people can rent. I'm concerned that it won't be rented all that much. And then we will have dead space. Uh, along an area that we want active. And I don't know if nonprofit means they would actually use that space ongoing, like they would move their nonprofit there. If so, then that would be more active. Um, I was the one who sent in the question about, you know, how much of this community space do we have throughout the city, and is there really demand for it? So, you know, part of me feels like I'm very concerned about dead space there. And so I would prefer that some of the community benefits, instead of providing space for people to meet, um, would go toward, um, physical improvements in the East Wisman area. Uh, for, um, I have a strong uh, viewpoint on this one. And, um, I believe that even with a master plan, the individual proposals need to come to council. And the reason I'm saying that is, um, I feel like not doing that cuts off public input. More so than it needs to be. In the past, there have been some projects that were fully compliant that were approved by the zoning administrator. And I certainly have heard from residents about those projects. Um, because residents are not really watching the ZA's agendas. And um, The Microsoft campus in North Bay Shore was approved by the ZA. The office complex, uh, 1001 shoreline was approved by the ZA. And The ZA meets at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. That's not a convenient time for many people. And just the fact that, You know, something so big is being approved by a body other than the council, I just don't feel like that's the right direction to go. So I do feel like uh, these projects should come to council. I don't think in the whole scheme of things, a little bit of extra time for them to come to council to have that last look, and approval, um, is really going to hurt anything. Um, You know, there are a lot of things that we would not change because they are spelled out in the precise plan. But there still is some discretion. And, um, You know, sometimes we have different perspectives since dad has to be very candid. And so I think we ought to be the ones to approve these projects. It does sort of beg the question for me. Um, There's a master plan that's approved and it doesn't come to council. Does that mean the affordable housing projects don't come to council? Because they're part of the master plan that's been approved. It's kind of food for thought. Um, in terms of the development agreement. You know, 15, 20 years, they're both a long time and, um, You know, if it was um, sort of performance based, I think that would be good. Um, my biggest concern about this is, I don't think the, uh, contribution in exchange for the DA should be conditioned on anything. So, um, that needs to be decoupled from what happens in the park in my opinion. And, um, it is a contribution for the length of time that, um, we are allowing this development to be built. Thanks.

[01:43:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Abbe Koga?

[01:43:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you and thank you to staff and the applicant for all of your work and bringing this forward to us. Overall, I'm very excited to see this, um, proposal. Uh, uh, long time ago, we, well, we've talked about jobs housing for a long time, but, um, when we were looking at the general plan update in areas where we thought jobs and housing made sense to be next to each other. Um, I was one who, with some of my former colleagues who got, um, this East Wisman areas, really the, um, the, the, the appropriate place to do so, given that there were existing neighborhoods that could be enhanced and, um, businesses as well. So it's great to see uh, the precise plan being utilized uh, with this project. So overall, I'm very excited to see this moving forward. Um, in regards to the questions. Um, number one about the BMR, uh, alternative mitigation plans. So, um, in general, I like the idea of um, land dedication. Uh, there's a value to the city in owning land. We've seen that and especially during these economic times, that's actually helped us keep our city afloat. So I think it's always, and it was something that a former city manager, uh, Kevin Duggan, I guess, instilled in my head that it's, it's good for the city to have land, hold on to land. So in that sense, I like the idea of the land dedication. Um, I think it's a value to the applicant because, um, you know, as it's been said, it sounds like the 15% inclusionary is maybe uh, questionable in terms of feasibility. So there's definitely a value there. Um, my, you know, my question is, you've heard my question is, whether we can achieve the 20% um, on the 2 and 2.4 acres without it being an extreme stretch. Like, I don't want this to be, um, you know, any, like way more extreme in terms of density than what we've done elsewhere in this city. Um, so, I think we have to really do that deep dive and look at what is really possible on things, this acreage. Um, I agree. Personally, I think a combination of some inclusionary and dedication would be ideal. Um, but, um, again, knowing the value of land, um, I could go with this. I just want to, you know, make sure we, we get the, the percentage that we're, we're shooting for with this alternate, alternate option. Um, in terms of uh, open space. So, in general, I think it looks fine. I'll just say, I think the 2 main questions here was a P 2 path. Um, I would not include that as part of um, open space. I think it's a pathway. We have, we need pathways in all of our development, so that's what I would call it, and not included as a part of our open space package. Um, in part, in terms of the POPA, which I know we'll talk more about later, uh, with this proposal. Um, and actually in general, I, I agree with council member Metachek, um, we're about to set a policy later on this evening. Um, we've talked about it extensively. Um, and I believe it was at least a majority, if not, uh, you know, unanimous, if I remember correctly, that we want, we uh, agreed to the 75% credit. Um, at this point in time to change that to me doesn't make sense. Um, and whatever we do with, you know, this one off, it's not going to be a one off, as we've known. We've come to realize with other things, it becomes a precedence and I don't want to set that precedence at this point in time. I also would mention that I learned that there's benefit for um, to the developer with the Popas, because they can, you know, put utilities and whatnot under. So there's a value to them. So I think that needs to be considered or included in the calculation of the value. And so therefore, I don't support 100% credit. Um, again, it is different. If it were pure, you know, land, parkland dedication, the city gets that land and so we have, the city gets the value of that land. We would not be getting that in this situation. So I'm sticking with the 75%. Um, And then, um, other questions I have here. Um, No, I think that, that's, that's, that's, that, yeah, those were my, sorry, those were my 2 points with the open space. So we'll go to community benefits. Um, I appreciate the package, uh, as others have mentioned, definitely the interest in helping our small businesses. Um, I would be very, uh, um, interested, of course, as EPCs mentioned, in the details of what that package really means, um, how will these businesses be assisted? Is it a subsidy in rents? Is it an investment? Um, so I will look forward to seeing those details in the next iteration. Um, And community spaces. Yes, I guess I was thinking, um, For my, uh, in terms of how this space would be used. Um, I guess I, I hear the need from nonprofits, um, just needing more space to do to conduct their services. Um, so, I would be open to seeing that if, um, this is, you know, non, like a nonprofits, uh, facilities. Um, if there's a, um, some interest in that way of using the space, um, which, I think, yes, it's questionable. I don't know how many theaters and how many, you know, open rooms we we need in the city. Um, but I do hear that nonprofits want you, that the need is greater. They need more space to conduct their services. So perhaps there are some nonprofits who could um utilize the space at a discounted rate. Um, and then, you know, in the, for, um, future. I had been thinking, This neighborhood is definitely, I think, in native more amenities. Um, so I know there was mention of like a satellite library and whether that's really necessary or not, but as we look to growth, um, we may want to look at what other city services um, are needed in this neighborhood, and perhaps we could, the city could utilize the space to provide those services. Um. Let's see, going to, uh, the streamline process. So, um, this is something where I think I, it's evolved over time because this has, this whole process has evolved over time and, you know, we've seen, um, we've seen the, the development of the precise plans and whatnot, and I remember when we were 1st doing the general plan update and started talking about this. Um, I, and I was one of the council members who felt very strongly that everything should come to council. Um, and I was, I think, because it was all new and we really didn't know what was going to have come about. Um, but I guess, you know, now almost 10 years later, um, I guess I'm feeling a little more, um, you know, a little more willing to let go. So, um, I, I, I can support a streamline process. I thought the one, the what we have in, the precise plan is that it would go to the DA with a here public hearing, um, I'm open to that. I might even support, um, you know, elements not having to go to public hearing and just straight to the ZA for approval. Um, I think the difference from like the Microsoft project or 1001 Shoreline was that I don't think those were parts of a precise, a master plan. Um, so we just didn't, we didn't see it. It just happened. Whereas this one, if we do see the master plan and the elements and we approve them. Then as long as, um, you know, the elements are adhered to, then I, I would, you know, I, I think it, I could give it a little, um, less. I can let go and let the CA make those approvals. So I could support a streamlined process in that regard. Um, and then finally, the 15 year DA. So yes, so I guess I was looking at this as, um, doing the 5 year extension, making it performance based, perhaps in that, in a, if we craft it in a certain way, we could get what we're looking for to happen more in a more timely fashion. Um, you know, I would tie the development, of course, of um, how uh, affordable housing. If we can. I think that one might not be as predictable because we'd be looking for outside funding. But I think my, my interest is to make sure that we don't have at the end just the affordable housing projects without parks where the, you know, the small businesses, the, I think it's Ellis Plaza. We don't want an incomplete neighborhood. Um, and so I, and, and then I know that the name, the communities, interests are in the benefits pieces. So I would like to see if we could structure the DA in a way where we can try to have those assurances as strongly as possible to have a complete neighborhood. Um, and that the community amenities happen as quickly as possible. So with that, um, I know we didn't talk much about circulation, but that is a concern of mine. It is a lot going on here. Um, so I look forward to the next iteration on that. As well as, um, the parking and I was thinking shared parking, not just with the retail and housing, but including the office, um, spaces too. I think that's it. Thank you.

[01:53:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, council member Lieber.

[01:53:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, in terms of the, uh, the 1st point, um, I would really rather see, um, some of the, uh, housing, um, be included, um, as BMR housing and be built, um, in, in the 1st phase of things. I hear the other council members who have talked about having a flexibility to do, um, deeper affordability or supportive housing. And, um, yeah, when I look at this side of town and the relatively fewer services, um, that are available, um, there on the fact that El Camino is really our, our transit spine. In our primary employment spine. Um, uh, I think for some of those housing types, it makes more sense, um, closer to the transit. And, um, then in terms of, um, I'm also looking at the commitments that we already have and in the reality of the the time frames that funding would be available, um, for affordable housing and concerns about that. Um, then, uh, the open space network, I, I think the folks have talked about the, uh, the walkway, even though it's a 20 foot wide walkway, um, next to P2, you know, not rationally counting as, as part of the, uh, the open space and, I'm not sure that wildlife uses a concrete. Walkway, um, as much as just, you know, open space in whatever form, um, And uh, on the community benefits. I, uh, I really have a strong concern about seeing all of the details, and how realistic the affordability would be for, uh, diversified businesses to be able to have a shot at things. Um, uh, does occur to me that a lot of our, um, community institutions, such as the library, et cetera, are, are major healthcare, um, is, is all on, closer to El Camino side of town. And, um, uh, one of the things that I would like to have the developers consider is maybe a partnership with Camino Health, and having some kind of availability of, of a facility that's near, um, this development, um, in particular, if there are families, um, living there, et cetera. Um, it's just something that is, is not available to that degree um, close by. Um, also I, I, I really like council member Hicks, um, discussion of the community land trust. Um, I think that that's something that we should definitely um, be looking at very seriously. And, uh, micro businesses. And I know that this is something that's being used in downtown San Jose, where I think it's a former parking structure that is being used for very small businesses that can open up on the outside of the building. And it's sort of a flexible area for, um, individuals who would not have a shot at a full retail space. Um, I do feel like the, um, the lack of nonprofit meeting space, it is very hard in Mountain View to find almost anything, uh, for less than a few $100 to have a basic meeting of of 2 hours. And so having something like that, um, uh, available, I think is is really critical. And then, um, In terms of the streamline, um, review process, I'm comfortable with, uh, going with, with what's in the precise plan. Um, and uh, I'm, I'm open on the, uh, the, the term of the development agreement. Um, But I just want to make sure that we are able to, uh, get the community benefits back to us and really have the certainty of making sure that those are absolutely positively understood, um, by us and and that the details are provided, um, to the community so that we don't end up with something that is, is really, Um, different than what we were anticipating. Uh, so those are my comments. Thank you.

[01:59:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Okay, so, I think that's everyone, and I've been doing my best to take notes of everyone's answers for the 5 questions. Um, so I, I'll take a stab. Um, so for the 1st question, um, So, I feel like many colleagues have kind of touched upon how I feel about this, which is, you know, I am open to the uh, alternate uh, mitigation plan. I would like to see a possibility or an openness to discuss a small percentage of inclusionary units. Um, I also, you know, had a quick comment about where the, um, the dedicated land is currently going to be located. It feels a little bit removed from the rest of the project and and understand that it might be because it, you know, an aggregate can create the most amount of land dedication to the city. Um, but I really want the, if, if we end up going with the whole alternate, uh, mitigation plan, you know, really want the, uh, BMR units to feel like the rest of the, the property. Um, and for people not to feel like they are not, um, part of part of the fabric of what will be um, middle field park. So, um, you know, hoping that there could be some discussion about some, and that's why I feel a leaning towards trying to do some included units and the other residential parcels, um, because of where the land dedication is. Uh, for question 2 Um, yes, I support staff and UPCs, uh, consideration, uh, rations on the open space network. I think my colleagues have, uh, quite a few have nailed how I feel, which is, um, you know, wanting to really think about expanding the, the walkability, the networks, um, and, uh, really thinking about it as as green open spaces. I think a lot of the feedback we've received since we've been in the pandemic was, how do we actually make people feel a greater sense of nature? And so, um, I'm not sure that just what's a P2 path to perhaps maybe a connection. Um, in another city doesn't feel like something I, I feel comfortable at this time, um, as credit. I know that we're also going to be speaking about the, um, the Parkland dedication later, but agree that when we've been looking at other things and saying they are exceptions, they end up being the precedent. And so I don't feel comfortable at this time with 100% credit for Popas. Um, and appreciate the comments from my colleagues about how there is some intrinsic value to the developer on that. When it comes to the community benefits. Um, you know, I really appreciate um, the applicant going, going above and beyond. And I think what's most important to me is having flexibility in the, in how the, the city and the community can use those contributions and again, kind of reflecting on the, on the pandemic, you know, I think how some of the funding may be, um, kind of envisioned, may change. And, um, as we're talking about our small businesses, think council member, we brought up something that I'm concerned about, which is, I'm not sure which small businesses we're discussing in the city. And so, you know, wanting a little bit more, um, understanding about who, who these, this program would serve and how we set them up to be successful, um, is important to me. And I just, um, I think council will need the flexibility, you know, especially if we go with the alternate mitigation plan on how we spend the community benefit dollars. And so I don't want to overly prescribe how we use our community benefits. Um, I do support the ideas of the nonprofit space and the community serving space. That to me is actually the most exciting part as we're looking. When we've been looking at the precise plan revisions in the past, we've been talking about how we can actually create kind of mini nodes in the city so that people don't feel like they just need to come to city hall for city services. And so, you know, the auxiliary library or some sort of other services, food pantry, um, other items, I think would be a value for talking about, you know, nearly 2000 um, new housing units. Um, and then for item for question four, um, I'm comfortable, um, with the streamlined process. I did ask the applicant if perhaps, you know, one of the things that Counselor Medachek brought up was how some of these things can fly under the radar. So if there could be outreach to those 22 community groups that they had been in touch with already, um, if there could be kind of uh, expanding the public noticing, um, to the community when those, those mailers go out and make sure that those are also the multiple languages, I think, would make me feel more comfortable, um, but I understand the need for the streamlined process. And then, um, for, for question five, um, And other council members have talked about, um, you know, doing some something performance based and having a check-in. So what, whether it's 15 or 20, I think having those touchpoints where the city and the developer can, you know, talk would be, um, most important. And I think kind of just overall, um, we're talking about Middlefield Park, you know, some of the design layouts, um, it was shared with me, um, by the applicant that, you know, these are suggestions for what would make the most successful community. And I think that, um, you know, I really feel like the city and and the residents need to be the drivers. Um, and I just want to make sure that that, um, is included in this, in this process. So. Um, those are the answers to my 5 questions. I see 2 hands. Counselor Nevada check and then counsel never Abi Koga.

[02:05:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Just real quickly on number 2, I said I, you know, support the plan. I should have said, I support staff's and EPC's perspective on the plan. I want to clarify that. Thanks.

[02:05:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. customer rabbi Koda.

[02:05:56] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, and regarding the DA, I, I, I heard some one, I talk about decoupling it from the benefits, and, um, you know, I, I, I kind of, I spent a lot of time about the park, um, contribution, and I would be interested in decoupling that. I'm just not sure if we're gonna have the in blue fees to build the park. And I wouldn't want this money to just be sitting in an account until we accumulate the funds to build the park. And so, like, my interest is to build the park as quickly as possible. So um, I would look for some flexibility there in how to use those funds. And if, you know, means we replenish that later to do the super boosting, that's fine, but, um, I just don't want to, you know, have a delay and have this fun sit in a bank when we could be using that fund, those funds to build the park. Thanks.

[02:06:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So maybe, Miss Hagan, do you mind stop if you stop sharing your screen? So I can see the rest of my colleagues. As I try to go through what I, what I think I heard from, from everyone. So, um, And perhaps staff has clarity, um, on on what you heard. I don't, I don't know if everyone would like me to kind of try to do a synopsis or if you feel like we were clear enough. City manager McCarthy.

[02:07:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, Mayor. If you are fine with it, I can quickly summarize just so that everyone's on the same page and also so that the public know. So, um, what I've heard, I'll just go through each of the 5 questions and um, articulate the consensus that I heard from counsel. So to question one, um, supporting the alternative mitigation plan, BMR, yes, uh, with a strong uh, preference to perhaps look into occlusionary units, which which um, staff can explore. But that was a yes, um, for all, um, the 2nd question, supporting staff and EPCs, considerations on the open space network. Yes. Um, the 3rd question, community benefits. Uh, so in general, yes, and then we heard a lot of different feedback on the various items, including um, economic development, small businesses being very important, um, looking at potential nonprofit space or community serving space, community land trust. Um, so those those things, um, staff, I think, can uh, talk further about with Google. So then the 4th question, um, the streamline review process, uh, was uh, what got the most consensus. And to the last question, the 15 year DA. Um, so we heard, yes, exploring the 15 year DA with the possible +5, um, but really building in that that flexibility, making sure that we can get uh, community benefits back to us and also that we have certainty to council and to the community. So um, staff will work through those items. Um, so I don't think I missed anything, but certainly open to, um, any feedback if there's anything that, um, I didn't say.

[02:09:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, city manager McCarthy. I was looking through my notes. It seems to be what I was typing out as well. unless my colleagues have any points of clarification at this point. All right. So I am not seeing any, I think that staff and, and the applicant has the feedback. Um, Anything else? Yes, I see heads nodding. All right. So I just want to thank Mr. Time Offer for, um, you know, coming forward and presenting this. Um, and I would like to close the study session, and I'd like to actually give counsel a break since we started at 430. So if you don't mind, we can come back at 650. People can take a 10 minute break before we get started again. All right. Thank you.

[02:10:51] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Conference, with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live, may do so at mountain view.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountain view.gov backslash 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 mountain view.gov backslash CC underscore speakers or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 923-4938. Any emails received by 430 p.m. today were forwarded to the city council. Emails received after 430 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. And if you don't mind, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Our interim city clerk, Bonder Linen will show a picture of the flag. 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, Ms. Wonderlanden. And now we'll move on. Oh, and before I move on, I just want to announce that the city is accepting applications for the downtown property, and or representative of a business, performing arts committee, and our senior advisory committee, and you are welcome to apply at our city website at mountain view.gov. So hope you apply. And then we'll move on to item 2, which is our roll call. So I'll turn it over to our interim city clerk, uh, Vanderlinden to do the roll call.

[02:23:35] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also member, a big Koga.

[02:23:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[02:23:37] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I also member Hicks,

[02:23:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: here.

[02:23:40] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber.

[02:23:41] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[02:23:42] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Medachek,

[02:23:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here.

[02:23:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, show Walter.

[02:23:47] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here,

[02:23:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:23:50] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[02:23:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kameh.

[02:23:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[02:23:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[02:23:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we'll move on to item 3, which are our presentations, and we'll start with item 3.one, which is our COVID-19 Memorial Day proclamation. It feels so odd to say that we are celebrating one year of being in this COVID-19 pandemic. I can't believe it. And, um, you know, one of the things that, um, we wanted to do was kind of commemorate the occasion and and thank everyone for all the sacrifices that they've been making and, um, and during this time. So I'll just read um, the proclamation, um, for all of us. Whereas COVID-19 is an illness caused by a virus that can transmit from person to person and has spread across the world, creating a global pandemic that has been having catastrophic effects on human life, our community, and our economy. And whereas on January 31st, 2020, the United States Department of Public Health and Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar declared a public emergency for the Novella Coronavirus, COVID-19, beginning on January 27, 2020. And whereas on March 4th, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in the state of California due to the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the state. And whereas on March 5th, 2020, the county of Santa Clara declared an emergency due to the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the county. And whereas on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic due to the COVID-19 virus. And whereas on March 12, 2020, the city of Mountain View declared a local state of emergency, finding that the health, safety, and welfare of Mountain View residence, businesses, visitors, and staff, was of the utmost importance to the city. And additional measures, resources, and assistance would be required to protect the public health and safety of persons and property within the community. And whereas on March 17th, 2020, Santa Clara County issued a public health order to shelter in place for all individuals living in the county, to ensure that the maximum number of people self isolated in their places of residence, to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus to protect the most vulnerable of our residents, and prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. And whereas for the past year, state and local public health orders to shelter in place and socially distanced have created challenges for residents, businesses, workers, and school districts who have worked diligently to comply with health or public health orders, and some with limited resources, impacting the mental welfare and economic well-being of our community. And whereas the city of Mountain View City Council, the city's residents, businesses, nonprofit partners, regional government agencies and employees have taken bold action to protect residents, support local businesses, and find innovative ways to provide services and relief programs. And whereas in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19 at stay in home orders, essential workers have stepped up to provide critical services to help protect our community and save lives, sacrificing their own health and safety. And whereas COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on low-income communities and communities of color, exacerbating inequities already prevalent in our systems that we must address as a nation. And whereas the symptoms and severity of COVID-19 can vary dramatically by individual, and the long-term health implications for survivors is largely unknown. As many survivors suffer from lingering side effects of the disease, long after they no longer have test positive. And whereas more than 2500000 people worldwide, and 41400000 in the United States have lost their lives due to COVID-19. And in the county of Santa Clara alone, more than 1765 lives have been lost to this deadly virus. And whereas each life lost to COVID-19 mattered, and leaves a hole in the hearts of loved ones, family members, and our surrounding community. And whereas public health guidance and policies targeted at prevention, such as social distancing, wearing masks in public, and staying at home to help mitigate the spread of the COVID-19. Prevent illness and lessen the burden on individuals and society. Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Mountain View City Council recognizes March 12th, 2021 as a one year anniversary of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic state of emergency in the city of Mountain View. And honors those who have lost their lives and continue to suffer from the impact of the virus. Just want to, um, bring it back to to council. And I thought what might kind of be appropriate is if we might just take a few moments of silence to, um, just reflect on what this year has meant to all of us. I know we all have, um, personal stories and situations of how the pandemic has affected us. Um, as well as the deep appreciation we feel for all our, our, uh, central workers and, and those in our community who are keeping us, um, safe. So I'll just, um, give a few moments of silence if you don't mind as we reflect. Great. Thank you all very much. And we'll move on to. I think appropriately, item 3.2, which is our national employee recognition day proclamation. Um, since 1995, the 1st Friday in March has been recognized nationally as employee appreciation day. The city typically has multiple events throughout the year that allow us to celebrate and recognize employees for their service, including award ceremonies and appreciation lunches. Since the onset of the pandemic 12 months ago. It has been necessary to cancel, postpone, or hold such gatherings virtually. We look forward to when we can all be together again for these special events. The city council's very proud of the city employees and all they do for our community on a regular races, and especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. And so I'm pleased at this time to recognize them and to read the proclamation in honor of all of our employees. Whereas the city of Mountain View is served by hardworking and dedicated employees who demonstrate a strong work ethic. Act with integrity, respectfully engage with others, and provide top notch customer service to make a difference in the lives of residents and businesses in our community. And whereas city of Mountain View employees quickly shifted focus and responded to community needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Wildfires and other critical emergencies. providing services such as rent relief, an eviction moratorium, safe parking program, and essential services for vulnerable populations, small business assistance, testing and vaccination centers, castro streets, and library grab and go services. And whereas during COVID-19, shelter in place restrictions, city employees kept city operations running, quickly adapting to new technology and developing approaches, such as online council meetings and virtual recreation events and classes, and continued to provide a wide range of essential services both on site and remotely. While trying to balance new challenges on the home front and supporting each other. Whereas city employees maintain the city streets, parks, and other infrastructure, service the city's fleet and facilities, provided police and fire emergency response, process plans and permits, and sustained critical information technology, financial, human resources, and other essential administrative support. Whereas city employees instituted and followed health protocols to keep city staff and the public safe amidst continually evolving information and circumstances. And where city employees launch important initiatives, including a race, equity, and inclusion action plan, and a citywide strategic planning process. And one as a city of Mountain View is extremely proud and grateful for our employees, and we celebrate March 5th, 2021 as national employee recognition day. Now, therefore, I only can be mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, to hereby express our deep appreciation for our city of Mountain View employees. And so I think we can just take a moment and give them a bit of applause. original applause if we can. Uh, to all our city employees. We are also grateful for everything you do. Uh, this is public service that it's most essential and we are extremely grateful for what you do for our city. And I think perhaps our city manager, um, Ms. McCarthy might have some awards on this topic too.

[02:33:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Great, thank you, mayor, council members. Um, so I was thinking about what to say, um, as I knew that this proclamation was coming after the, the, the COVID acknowledgement, and I think it's really sobering and humbling to know that these are on the same night, that, that it, it has been a year since, um, we've all dealt with COVID in the community in various ways, and also that it is a celebration of, um, employee recognition month across the country. So, um, I just want to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to all of our employees for the ways that they have stepped up over this last year and answered the call to service to help our community. So, as was mentioned, it's not just COVID, but we've also had wildfires over the year, an economic downturn, um, social unrest, um, and just various things that we have all, um, dealt with and encountered, and I'm, I'm really proud of, um, the ability of our employees to pivot and to really serve our community at the highest level. Mayor, you mentioned that we all get into this to serve others, and I think that, um, that is just, uh, couldn't be more true for for our employees and that we get into this line of work to help others. It's what we love to do. So, um, thank you all of our employees for everything you've done and thank you, counsel, for recognizing the great work that they've done on this. Um, really important milestone.

[02:35:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And I don't think where you can let you sneak by without also celebrating you, Ms. McCarthy. This is our one year anniversary of you leading us as our city manager. And, um, we as a council. I think I can speak for my colleagues are just, um, so deeply appreciative of your leadership, your quick action, your forward thinking, your compassion. Um, with our leading our organization um, shepherding all of us. Um, as we've been, I think, hopefully seeing a light, a flickering light at the end of this pandemic tunnel. And I know that there's going to be quite a few other things that we're going to be facing, but, um, you know, we couldn't have done it too without your leadership this last year. So I think we just need to do one more round of applause for employee appreciation. Thank you. Thank you all. And we can turn it over to you. 3.3, which is our COVID-19 update by our city manager, Kimber McCarthy, so I'll let you take it away.

[02:36:23] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Great. Thank you, mayor. Council members. I going to share my screen now. Um, to go to my usual update here. Okay, so. I start as I usually do with a recap of where we're at right now with the numbers throughout the county and in Mountain View. So, um, right now, the county, um, has experienced a little bit over 112,000 cases. Um, and like you've heard me say over the last council, couple council meetings. The good news is that the numbers are trending downward in the sense that they're not increasing so fast. So you'll see in Mountain View that our positive case count is a little over 2800, so 2840. This is an increase of about 77 positive cases over 2 weeks. And if you recall just a couple months ago, we were seeing that number on somewhat of a daily basis. So the fact that we're now at that number on a 2 week swing is a positive indication that things are turning a corner. Um, most of you all know that we did enter the red tier last Wednesday, uh, which is good news in terms of uh, being able to open up uh, different business sectors than were closed over these last several months. The biggest change now is that indoor dining is allowed up to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever is less. Retail has increased capacity up to 50%. Gyms and fitness centers can now open as can movie theaters with uh, different lower capacity levels. Um, there also is a big change to the mandatory travel directive. So that is no longer in effect now, um, under the red tier. So if you recall before, um, the directive, excuse me, was, um, 100 and uh, 20 miles and it changed to 150 miles. Um, so that travel directive is no longer in effect. And for certain activities, uh, we are using the state guidelines now. So quite a few changes. And I think the top line message now is that as we continue to see these positive numbers go down and the positivity rate go down. That means that we inch one step closer to moving into that next tier out of the red tier. So one of the other big changes is that now new youth sports, um, are allowed, and this was, um, new guidance that the state, uh, put out, and right now, outdoor moderate contact sports, um, have returned, so that includes baseball, softball, and soccer, and previously competitive play was only allowed under the purple tier for certain sports like cross country, um, tennis and golf. Um, so those new sectors have opened up and we have also opened our city basketball courts. So I would just note for everyone that it does not change the requirements to still wear masks and social distancing, uh, making sure that your social distancing from others if you are attending events. Um, so even though they are open, um, of course, still please be safe and and follow those directives that we've all been following this past year. Um, also want to remind everyone that the um, county website to make an appointment to get a vaccine is SCC, freevax.org, and right now, the current eligibility is anyone who's over age 65. Anyone in phase one A, which included healthcare workers, long-term care facilities, and certain sectors in phase one B. So as of the end of February, this means that teachers and childcare workers, agriculture and food supply workers and other emergency service workers can now also be vaccinated. So you can go to that website, as I mentioned, or you can call uh, 408-970-2000 to make an appointment. In terms of our vaccination site at our community center. As I mentioned last time, we are still in the no wrong door policy countywide. So essentially what that means is that wherever you may have insurance or if you don't have insurance, that you can go to any mass vaccination site in the county, there is no wrong door. Uh, regardless of where you get your health care. However, you do have to make appointments at that SEC freebacks.org site. There are no walk-ups available. Um, and I am pleased to say that in Mountain View, we have administered almost 20,000 vaccines since we 1st opened in mid-January. Just last week alone. We hit almost 5000 so we're almost at that 1000 a day goal. Um, that the county said at the end of January. This is just a dashboard that shows where we're at now, countywide with the percent of people that have been vaccinated. So the blue lines indicate people who have received the 1st dose. The green color indicates residents who have received that 2nd dose. So right now, for people over the age of 16, just in general, 10% of the population is now vaccinated. The last time I showed this slide, it was around 6%. So, um, it has gone up, and I will note that we are still uh, experiencing delays in supply right now. Um, so we're hopeful that as the supply increases to the county, that the percentage of folks that are vaccinated will also increase. There is some new guidance that the CDC um, put out just this week regarding um, who is fully vaccinated and and what you can do if you're fully vaccinated. We've seen we've received some questions about this. So the 1st thing is that, um, once people have received their 2nd shot and it's been 2 weeks after their 2nd shot, that is when someone is fully inoculated, uh, when they're fully vaccinated. So, what's changed for the CDC guidance is just some of the, um, restrictions for folks have been somewhat lifted for people who are vaccinated. So for example, for folks who are fully vaccinated, they can be indoors with other vaccinated people without masks. And again, that's indoors. not outdoors. So outdoors. People are all still encouraged to wear masks, whether you have or have not been vaccinated. Um, you can also skip quarantine and testing. If you're exposed to someone with COVID, unless you develop symptoms yourself, or if you live in a group home or other some sort of detention facility or congregate setting. So even though, um, it has been relaxed a little bit, um, you are still in public, um, making, please make sure that you continue to wear masks, that you stay 6 feet apart, socially distanced. All of the health protocols that we've been following. In terms of our testing. So not only are we doing the vaccines, but we're still providing our testing at our city facilities, so we've tested about have about 15,000 tests since the summer and just this year alone, almost 3000 tests. We do have ongoing testing opportunities coming up on March 11th. So this Thursday. And then next Tuesday on March 16th. These are at our Mountain View Center for the performing arts, and you can make appointments for those at SCCFreeTest.org. Then pivoting to um, an update on our rent relief program, um, drawing your attention to the middle uh, middle row in in the yellow. So we have released through our community services agency, almost 1900 checks to 1900 households. And we've expended almost $4100000 of that. Um, right now, there is about $540000 in program funds. So I note this because um, council will know that you all have allocated around $4000000 to the program. So the fund right now, um, has $5.3 million. So, um, CSA has received other private donations and and does have other uh, rent relief and other funds that they provide um, households. So there is still remaining funding available at this time. The average assistance check now is around $1,200. Um, I also want to note that we have concluded our strategic uh, plan, community workshops, the various workshops that were held. Uh, we had uh, 2 uh, workshops that were open to the community. We also had a small business workshop, workshop in Mandarin, and also workshop in Spanish, uh, we've had over 90 participants in those workshops, and I would like to remind everyone that there's still time to complete the online feedback card. If you weren't able to come to the community workshop, and you can go to our website at mountain view.gov slash strategic roadmap to complete that. And then as I always do, I want to recognize and thank staff who have been working on some of our programs. So right now, what you see on the screen is our team who worked on our small business grant program. So, At the top left is Harsha Ramshandani, then we have Sabina Mora on the right and on the bottom is Tiffany Chu. And, um, as you all know, we did a, um, we opened up a, our small business grant program and had around 133 businesses apply, uh, around 70 some qualified, and we just did our blind lottery last week, um, to select those businesses that won. Um, and there was 50 businesses um, that are awarded $5000 grants. So, we were very happy to be able to provide that. That was around $250,000 in funding that council approved. So I want to thank the team for all of their work on these efforts and they were supported by staff in our IT and finance and human resource department as well. Then lastly, I want to note that, um, you all, uh, probably or hopefully know that we send out a weekly briefing, electronic briefing, um, and we are going to have our very last briefing this Friday, but that is because we're pivoting it into an online expanded, um, document called um, City Hall Connection. So it's going to include information that you would have received in the briefing, but also even more information about the city's programs and events. So you can still text MV COVID to 228 and you will be signed up to automatically start receiving the city hall connection via email next week. So with that, Mayor, I conclude my presentation, I just want to remind everyone to continue to wear their masks and practice all of the, um, safety and health protocols, and I am open for any questions now.

[02:48:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Do council members have any questions? Or city manager? All right. Seeing seeing none. I I realized that I didn't take it, uh, public comment for presentations uh, 3.one and 3.2. So I'm going to turn to the public to see if they have any comment, public comment on 3.one. Which is our COVID-19 memorial day proclamation, item 3.2, our national employee recognition day proclamation, or item 3.3, which is our COVID-19 update by our city manager, and if you'd like to, um, give public comment. Um, please use the raise hand button in Zoom, or press Star 9 on your phone, and we will uh, display the 3 minute timer on the screen. Uh, right. I am not seeing any hands. So is that all right, um, Mr. Chopra? And then we can bring it back.

[02:49:03] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, that's fine.

[02:49:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. All right. So I think that concludes all of our items. Um, under presentations so we can move to item four, which is our consent calendar. The 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 and ordinances will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on an item on the consent calendar? Mm. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:49:51] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I was ready to move the consent calendar. See, no public comment if that's okay.

[02:49:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, I was just about to read through, but I see that we don't have any hands raised. So um, please feel free.

[02:50:04] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you, mayor. So I'll go ahead and move the consent calendar, including item 4.2. Adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View to repeal in its entirety, division 11 of article 4 of chapter 36 of the Mountain View city code and add division 8 to article 16 of chapter 36 of the Mountain View city code related to density bonus to be read entitled only further reading waived. Uh, and I think that's the only thing that has to be read. Is that right? City attorney?

[02:50:36] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: That's correct.

[02:50:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member show, Walter, I saw your your hand, was that?

[02:50:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I'd like to 2nd and I'd also like to make a comment. Um, 4.3 the annual water service line replacement. You know, I just want to make a comment about how important it is for Mountain View to keep up with this kind of maintenance. We, you know, it sort of goes on behind the scene, but it's very, very important. And particularly when we remember the news from Texas. Oh, with the, with the Arctic, um, uh, once. We wanna make sure that our infrastructure is safe. So I just want to thank the city for taking care of that. And, um, 2nd, 2nd, uh, commission, vice mayor Ramirez's motion.

[02:51:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, uh, we have uh, motion by Vice Mayor Ramirez and a 2nd by council member show Walter. So I'll turn it over to our interim city clerk to do a roll call vote.

[02:51:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Also, member Abikoga.

[02:51:38] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[02:51:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Kelso member Hicks.

[02:51:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes,

[02:51:41] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: council member Lieber.

[02:51:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I,

[02:51:43] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Metachek.

[02:51:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:51:46] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Councilman Michelle Walter.

[02:51:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:51:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:51:51] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:51:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kameh.

[02:51:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:51:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[02:51:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So, uh, I'll move to item 5, which is uh, 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 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the city council from acting on nonagenda items. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or star 9 on your phone. And the interim city clerk will display the 3 minute timer on the screen. And I see a hand raised by Alexander Brown. So I'll wait till the timer is up before I unmeet. Great.

[02:52:45] Alexander Brown: Uh, Honorable Council. keep it quick since you hear enough from me as it is. Also, most of you have already been gracious enough to meet with the mobile home alliance, and the rest are still welcome to join if you want to come to our one of our meetings. I am once again asking for your support in finally protecting mobile home residents in Mountain View. Next Tuesday is the strategy discussion and reconsideration of council goals and projects. Two years ago, the former council approved a project to examine and potentially develop an ordinance that controls mobile home park space rents and addresses other issues. Please, our communities have waited long enough. Follow through on this project and help me and my neighbors stay in our homes. Thank you.

[02:53:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you Right. I don't see any other hands raised. And I don't believe anyone else is on the line. So I'll bring it back to, um, I'll bring it back to council, and I will close item 5 oral communications. Item 6, a public hearing. We dont have any tonight, so we'll move on to item 7, which is new business. Uh, item 7.1. One is to appoint a city clerk, an authorization to execute an employment agreement with Heather Glazier. So I think we have a staff report from our human services director, Sue Rush. And in accordance with Brown Act requirements that the city council orally report a summary of any council actions on salaries, salary schedules, or fringe benefits for the city council appointees. The specific recommendation. Today. Okay. I thought, okay. Um, the specific, uh, recommendations to be approved by the city council regarding the appointment of the city clerk are as follows. Salary of 175 annually. The 1000 annually. Participation in the calipers retirement system, with the same employee cost share and employer contribution as provided to department heads, participation in health, retirees, health, life, and disability insurance plans with the same employer contribution as provided to department heads. Holidays, sick leave, and management leave as provided to department heads. Vacation leave in the amount of 22 days per year, increasing to 23 days after 4 years of service. Initial bank, a vacation, and sick leave of 40 hours each, cell phone allowance of $50 per month, eligible to request relocation reimbursement, and a home loan through city council policy D dash 13. Mountain View, employee homebuyer and relocation assistance program, subject to city council approval and availability of funds at the time of the request. In the event of termination of the employment agreement, 6 months of severance as provided is provided to council appointees. Adopter revised salary plan to reflect the compensation change to the city clerk classification as attached to the council report. And after all that, I will turn it over to Miss Rush.

[02:55:48] Sue Rush: Thank you, good evening, mayor and council. The city Mountain View conducted an extensive recruitment and selection process for the city clerk position. Following Lisa Nutritious's resignation in November of 2020. And after finishing the recruitment process, counsel has selected Heather Glaser to serve a city clerk. Heather rose to the top of the applicant pool and has 15 years of municipal experience, including 4 years as the city clerk for the city of Malibu, following 4 years as deputy city clerk. And the purpose of the item tonight is for city council to approve the selection of heather, for the city clerk position, and authorized the mayor to execute an employment agreement with the term stated, in the city council report, of which the mayor just summarized in compliance with the Brown Act. And Heather is joining us tonight versus via Zoom in the audience, and I'm available to counsel for any questions.

[02:56:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Miss Rush. Do, uh, does anyone have any questions for Miss Rush? All right, seeing none. Um, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or star 9 on your phone. And we will have our interim city clerk put up a 3 minute timer. And I know as Miss Rush mentioned, um, Miss Laser is in the virtual Zoom audience tonight. So if you would like to say anything, please feel free to raise your hand and we will acknowledge you. Great. All right. I see Alexander Brown. So if we could just pull up the 3 minute timer.

[02:57:42] Alexander Brown: I know a parody of myself. Uh, yeah, I'm still gonna miss Lisa a lot. She was great, but I can't wait to get started working with you, Heather. I feel like the city clerk's office is fantastic and does a lot to help people engage in the community and with the city. So I'm looking forward to it.

[02:58:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right. That's all the public, I see. Oh, hi, Heather. I see you now. Great to see you joining our box. Would you like to say a few words?

[02:58:17] Heather Glazier: Good evening, mayor, and city council members. I know you have another item of business to take up after this so I don't want to take a lot of time, but I did just want to say that it's such an honor to join me this evening. I'm really looking forward to working with such a dedicated staff and group of elected officials that are so committed to the Mountain View community. And I'm truly grateful for this opportunity to work hard at work worth doing is Mountain View's next city clerk and connecting the community with its local government. So if anyone has any questions, I'm here, but I look forward to seeing you guys in a couple weeks.

[02:58:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much, Heather. It's so nice to see you Virtually, Council member had a check. Are you ready for emotion?

[02:59:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, yes. Oh, sorry. I thought we were, we were going to have... Um, well, I just, uh,

[02:59:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: feel free. Go ahead.

[02:59:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm going to read it because it's important. So I move that we appoint Heather Glaser to serve as city clerk for the city Mountain View and authorize the mayor to execute an employment agreement with Miss Glaser. And to adopt a revised summary plan to reflect this compensation change to the city clerk classification, which is attachment one to the council report.

[02:59:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Council member Matachek, Council member Abe Koka.

[02:59:44] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I just want to 2nd the motion and welcome, Ms. Glaser. aboard

[02:59:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[02:59:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, I know that we'll be doing more of this later, but uh, a definite welcome to Heather and for coming on board, and really huge thanks to Sylvia Vonderland and for filling in, and for putting up with us and and stepping in really midstream, and doing so very well with so many different complications, you have really stood out as a true public servant, and I want to thank you so much. for for your work here with Mountain View.

[03:00:27] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: My honor. Thank you, my honor.

[03:00:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, counselor reliever. Yes. Don't worry, Ms. Vanderlinden. We have our chance to say our appreciation to you too, but thank you also to Ms. Rush for leading us through this process. Thank you, sir. Inner city clerk, Miss Wonderlanden, who is just fantastic and has such a can do positive attitude. She always has a smile on screen and I know a smile behind her face mask when I have to go into the office. And Ms. Glaser, we're so excited to see you in a few weeks. So I think we just need to take a roll call vote.

[03:01:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, a big Koga.

[03:01:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Bye.

[03:01:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks.

[03:01:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: An enthusiastic, yes.

[03:01:07] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber.

[03:01:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi,

[03:01:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: council member Medachek.

[03:01:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, welcome Heather.

[03:01:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter.

[03:01:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Looking forward to welcome you in person. Yes.

[03:01:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice V Ramirez.

[03:01:21] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:01:22] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[03:01:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, welcome, Heather. Great. All right, well, um, I think then I can close item um, 7.one. And I, um, I am pleased to announce that we will have, um, Miss Glacier join us, um, in April. So she'll just be here next month. So we'll move on to item 7.2, which is our parkland dedication or fees in lieu. Thereof ordinance amendments. I'll invite our senior management analyst, Blady Brady Rubush. Hopefully I didn't butcher that too much, Brady. Um, to the, to give a staff presentation, and I know he's joined by other members of city staff, which is Miss Lindsay Hagan and Mr. John Marshawn. And I believe, um, Miss Archie Shavastovo will also be joining. And, oh yes, so we have Miss Angelo Lamonica. Gang's all here. I'll let you take it away.

[03:02:27] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: Thank you, mayor and council members. I'm glad I got my camera working. I was orange for the entire PRC meeting last time, so I'll get this shared and get us rolling here. Okay. So I also want to thank all of the staff that have joined us tonight and really gotten us those points tonight. As you can see, it was quite the team. Um, back at our 1st study session in October 2019, staff received direction to update the ordinance in 2 phases. Phase one is being addressed tonight, and phase 2 is expected to be conducted after the 2020 census is complete, and we finish a parks and recreation strategic plan so that we have the data points to update these other parts of the ordinance. So, for calculation certainty as part of phase one, at the study session in October 2020, council supported an update that includes getting an annual appraisal study that we anticipate to be adopted by resolution with the master fee schedule and take effect July 1st of every year. In coordination with that adoption of the master fee schedule this year, all of the ordinance updates that are being brought forth tonight are also being proposed to take effect on July one. So we want to be clear that uh, tonight's uh, amendments are proposed to take effect July one. Um, and then lastly, on the right side of the presentation, we are making small modifications to staff processes to further document project specific parkland requirements throughout the review process. Um, the 2nd significant update is part of phase one modifies the credit section to go from having 2 open space credits to having one open space credit for privately owned publicly accessible POPA open space. It will be 75% the value of the land with a minimum size of 0.4 acres, and it will be applicable city wide. We've also proposed some additional design and operational requirements to establish clear expectations while providing some room for creativity and flexibility. Under the proposal, Popa Open Spaces will need to be 100% comprised of the elements listed in this table and meet each element's minimum size or service level requirement. The maintain natural habitat space had its canopy coverage requirement lowered based on direction receipt from council and community input. The ultimate alternate element was addressed as a separate section at the last study session, for the purposes of discussion, but has been included as an element in the table for the update. The purpose and requirements remain the same for the alternate element, though. The alternate proposal, um, for a Popo open space, it can fall under an alternate proposal, application, if it is greater than one acre in size, um, and falling under the alternate proposal provides additional flexibility and design and elements due to the size of the space. So, uh, alternate proposal could utilize 2 alternate elements or something to that effect. There are 3 important pieces to determine maintenance for Popa Open space. First, the property owner would own, design, construct, and maintain the Popa Open Space. Second, an easement would be recorded on the property for public accessibility and be tied to the land. Third, an agreement between the property owner and the city will be established for each Popa open space. And this will clarify the maintenance requirements and all rules for future modifications. Um, updates to the application process for affordable housing and historic resource credits are just adding some clarifying language. For the Popa Open Space application process. The update includes 21 mile radius analyses. One of these is for demographics, and one is for Park and Popa open space elements to help the developer, help staff, and help the city council ensure the design and elements meet the needs of the community. We have also included some additional smaller amendments in the update, uh, really just to update some language, clean up some code references, and then make sure we comply with recent uh, state legislation. Um, accessory dwelling units were updated in the zoning ordinance in October, and so this is just the 2nd phase to bring the entire code, uh, or this entire chapter of the code into compliance. In addition to the council report, staff provided an overview of the process and timeline for design and construction of city public parks due to questions raised while reviewing the timelines and benefits of Popa Open Space. This section was strictly informational and does not impact the ordinance update. Lastly, we have the recommendation from the report, which I can bring back up later, if counsel would find it helpful, but that concludes staff's presentation.

[03:07:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. So, we'll turn it back to, um, counsel to see if there are any questions. Does anyone have any questions related to this item? Council mayor Matachek.

[03:07:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I do have a couple of questions. Um, in the ordinance, it says that it can be up to a 75% credit. And so I was wondering, um, Like, how will we decide if it's something less than 75%? Is there a criteria for that? Or why is it up to 75%?

[03:08:02] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: There is not specific criteria in the ordinance for why it would be lower. I think it's really just to provide council discretion when these spaces come forward. And if council felt that an open space wasn't quite worth the 75%, but something about it, we really like the design. It added to something else in the community, then maybe a smaller credit could be given. But there is not clear guidelines for what dictates lower than 75% is just for discretionary purposes for counsel when they're reviewing these different open spaces.

[03:08:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. Thanks. Actually, you answered my other question in your presentation. So that's, I'm good. Thanks.

[03:08:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilman or Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:08:45] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. I appreciate Council member Mattischek's question. Um, because I, I had an interest in how the Popa concept works or doesn't work with, uh, some of the streamlining, uh, review, uh, enabled by in state law and perhaps city procedures. So that's that's interesting if there's a discretionary component to allow up to a 75% credit. So if a project or uh, to proceed under a streamlined process like SV 35, Uh, would they be entitled to the 75% in credit, if they were proposing a POPA, or does staff intend to generate some administrative guidelines that would help, you know, create some criteria, I think, like council member, Metachek was talking about, uh, for when it would be appropriate to go up to 75% or less.

[03:09:44] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so as part of the streamlining laws, uh, ultimately, if a, for example, if an SP 35 project was submitted to the city and they wanted to include a Popa, um, open space, if they can demonstrate compliance with all the application requirements and all of the criteria and objective standards that are outlined in that, in the ordinance, um, then, you know, ultimately city staff, uh, would have to consider the 75% credit. There wouldn't be a discretionary component because the streamlining law doesn't allow discretion. Um, So at this point in time, city staff, you know, doesn't have, hasn't been provided direction to consider criteria for credit, but that could be feedback that council could provide.

[03:10:35] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's fair. So then the discretionary element only exists. Uh, when there's council review and that discretionary element exists because it's an alternative mitigation. Is that right?

[03:10:50] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Uh, correct. There, there, The credit is essentially an alternative way to meet the city's requirements.

[03:10:58] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, a couple of, I don't know if, if you've had a chance to review uh, some of the letters we've got, there were a number of letters submitted quite late. Um, but I, I wanted to ask about 2 in particular. Um, one was the, the letter from the BIA, which included, uh, very detailed administrative guidelines, uh, and, you know, cursory, cursory reading, suggests that those appeared fairly reasonable. Uh, will staff be developing uh, administrative guidelines like those or something different?

[03:11:43] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: Is this in reference to the, um, what they were proposing, I believe, uh, that one was for the um, appraisal study and the review of it.

[03:11:52] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:11:54] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: Then, uh, see if Angela Lamonica can take that one, a real property program administrator.

[03:12:02] Real Property Program Administrator Angela LaMonica: Good evening, vice mayor. I'm Angela La Monica, the real property program administrator. We've had the opportunity to look at those recommendations from BIA. And we will incorporate some of them, and we're just going to have to review it a bit further. So an appraisal study will be ordered on an annual basis. And in that appraisal study, it will give us a range of values based on the density.

[03:12:32] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. That sounds good. And then the final question. There was another letter. I can't remember from whom, uh, that suggested incorporating a discretionary fee deferral for, you know, I guess, extenuating circumstances, and I guess allowing if memory serves payment of the inloof fees, at the time of, uh, uh, the receipt of certificate of occupancy. Uh, is that something that staff has looked at and do you have a recommendation why that would be reasonable or or unreasonable?

[03:13:12] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: So, um, So yeah, I think the letter kind of outlined, as you said, deferring payment to essentially prior to occupancy. So there's a couple things at play with that, um, I guess proposal. One is, uh, currently our, our ordinance doesn't actually allow us to sort of collect fees at that point in time, so that would uh, potentially be something we'd have to address, uh, as a text amendment. Additionally, and I think this is much more of a policy kind of conversation, but uh, in deferring the parkland feeds to prior to occupancy. Um, There's sort of 2 things at play. One is really deferring it to that late in the process is heavily reliant on staff, collecting that money at that time and not forgetting about it in any fashion. Um, and so that's a lot of the reason why our current process. We try to collect fees prior to building permit issuance when there are so many eyes on it, uh, from city staff's perspective. Um, so just procedurally, you know, that's something to think about. I think the larger question, though, really is collecting fees later on in the construction of the project only defers further out the city's ability to plan for and to start design of the parkland spaces. So, um, it just sort of has a ricocheting effect, I would say, in the timeline of of, of us being able to repair those open spaces.

[03:14:39] Community Services Director John Marchant: And if I may step in, it's not only a matter of the design and construction of that specific development, but it's also an opportunity to take some of those fees and put toward other projects that are in that. in that area, so in that planning area. There could be a delay of other projects as well.

[03:14:58] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: It's very helpful. Thank you.

[03:15:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Hicks?

[03:15:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, thank you. I have a question about dimensions. There's, uh, in the proposal. There's a, correct me if I remember it wrong. I can only put one screen up at a time here, but there's, uh, I think a 100 foot dimension on each side proposed, uh, and, and, um, I'm, I'm wondering the middlefield park, Parks that we just perk system that we just reviewed, It looks to me like some of them would not fit that. And so I'm wondering if that's, um, maybe less flexible than I would like, but I'd like you to, because I'm, um, I'm, uh, questioning my own analysis of this. So, um, I'm wondering if you, like, I'm seeing, uh, so, for example, the Ellis Park, the plaza portion is 120 feet by 200 feet, so those are both a 100. The linear portion is 90 feet by 800 feet. So it seems like although that's a large perk, it wouldn't be able to be counted. And I'm just, um, also, the Hetchy linear park is 50 feet wide. So I'm wondering if I'm, if I'm getting that right, that some of those would not fit the definition in the ordinance.

[03:16:36] Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so if I could jump in, uh, specifically about the Google Middlefield Park. So I think a couple things to keep in mind is that project's still under review. Part of, uh, you know, the interests of city staff is to work with Google and making sure that those faces comply with what we've identified. Um, so ultimately, if council adopts, you know, the ordinance with a 100 foot dimension, then we would go back and work with Google on trying to get that space. Um, and Google's aware of that uh, in terms of the Ellis uh, park. Um, in terms of the hedge hedgee. So that is identified as an actual city, uh, owned park, public park. So it doesn't necessarily need to meet the dimensions identified in as a Popa, um, So that space at 50 feet wide is what we identified in the precise plan.

[03:17:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. I just I can bring up more when we have our discussion, but I just wanted to clarify that.

[03:17:32] Brady Rubush: Thank you. And if I could just add to that, the, correct me if I'm wrong, Lindsay, but the linear park also, we put that in there because of its location with the headgechi and kind of future city plans, or potential city plans. And so that kind of has a greater service than, uh, you would say, maybe a Popa would or a greater long-term plan for it. And I also just wanted to highlight that a 100 foot by 100 foot square is .22 acres. So if we're looking at .4 acres of space. We'd be looking at larger dimensions, and so this would just be one side on that larger space.

[03:18:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Any other questions? Council member show, Walter?

[03:18:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I want to follow up with um, with that 100 feet by 100 foot minimum. I'm a little confused by it. Uh, clearly, you're stating that there needs to be, um, uh, a section of the park that's 100 by 100, which is about half of the .4. But, um, it seems to me there could be offshoots, to, I mean, things come in very odd shape sometimes. Seems to me there could be offshoots that actually that were connected to the 100 foot by 100 foot or greater area that actually were valid open spaces. I can imagine, um, a taught lot, for instance, could be on a much smaller space than that, or a picnic area, or, you know, I, I just, so I'm, I'm wondering at the, as, as, uh, as commissioner, I mean, as a council member, Hicks said, about the, the, the need to be so restrictive. Um, are there really? Does that really do a better job for the design of parks?

[03:19:28] Brady Rubush: So, thank you, council member, show Walter, when staff began this process, we were trying to provide clear guidelines through this process for developers so that they could meet POPA requirements. Um, and through that discussion, we were trying to identify what could be a minimum size. We were concerned about a very linear park being proposed that didn't provide enough, um, public access, uh, and elements to make it seem like a public park. So this was staff's recommendation, we saw this, we, we actually created this recommendation prior to, um, seeing any of the proposed Popas through developers. So if there is a desire on the on the part of council to, um, make a change to that requirement, we are willing to, uh, to take that into consideration as well.

[03:20:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. And then I have one more question. Um, And that is, uh, uh, what happens if, uh, um, I think I think I know what happens. If, if, uh, the project is approved, and they pay all the fees, and then something happens. There could be, the economy could fall out or something, and the project doesn't go forward. I'm presuming that all those fees get returned to the developer. Or they go through a process. How does that work?

[03:20:53] Brady Rubush: Um, since we collect the fees, that building permit issuance. If a building permit's issued, the project is considered sort of valid. Um, now, a couple things could happen in that scenario. I think our past experience, oftentimes a developer will sell the rights to another developer to pursue the projects so they could proceed. Um, but once a building permit is issued, if the project does, unfortunately, fall apart entirely, and no one moves forward with it. Um, as long as the fund money was collected, you know, in good faith, which it would have been. Um, then the city has the right to utilize it, you know, per the requirements that we have for parkland fees.

[03:21:31] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[03:21:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Any other questions? All right, I'd like to turn it over to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this item? If so, please raise your hand. Um, using the button in Zoom or press a star 9 on your phone. And we'll have our interim city clerk, Vaunder Linden, put up a 3 minute timer. All right. John Hickey?

[03:22:06] John Hickey: Good evening, can you hear me?

[03:22:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[03:22:10] John Hickey: Uh, mayor and council members. nice to see you. My name's John Hickey. I'm a director of development for Summer Hill homes. I want to start by thanking staff for the the time and the effort that they put into preparing these proposed amendments. In particular, I want to thank them for reaching out to the homebuilding community. to understand ways to improve the current ordinance. Uh, as you know, park dedication fees are typically the single largest impact fee that the city imposes on residential projects. Park fees can be a major factor in whether new projects get built, and that's particularly true for projects on sites that are being converted from commercial to industrial use. In other words, sites that don't involve displacement. We support most of staff proposed changes to the POPA credits. Uh, the proposed changes, I think, properly recognize that smaller public open spaces with focused amenities can serve an important community need, although I would uh, echo the, the, um, questions that were being asked by council members a moment ago regarding uh, whether there's a better metric for uh, ensuring that parks are adequately sized rather than simply uh, a 100 foot minimum dimension. We also strongly support staff proposal to use an appraiser to establish uniform land values and to publish those values in the city's fee schedule and honor the fee calculations for 2 years following tentative map approval. We've advocated for these changes for years because they provide the type of clarity and uniformity and predictability that the development community really relies on. There is one additional change, however, that we strongly urge the council to make regarding the appraisals. As we explained in our letter to the council in October of 2019, and again, in our discussions with staff, the appraisal categories should be based on location, not on density. As currently drafted, the proposed amendments would establish appraisal categories based on the density of land use. So, you know, different for higher density versus lower density. But this really just ends up discouraging the type of residential density that the city needs in places like El Camino and in the East Wisman area, to address the job's housing balance and meet the cities arena numbers. We propose instead that the city should establish a single uniform value for each of the 10 planning areas that are identified in the city's parks and open space plan. That would allow the city to take into account the cost of land needed to provide a park near the project, but without discouraging residential density. Again, we want to thank staff for their work on this issue, and we respectfully request that the council approve the proposed amendments with the revisions that we recommend. Thank you.

[03:24:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Anyone else liking to give public comment? All right, I don't see any other hands. So I will bring it back to council for deliberation and action. Council member Abi Koga.

[03:25:14] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, oh, I do see, oh, counselor, I was gonna make a motion. Um, I don't know if Council member Hicks had any comments, but I guess I'll go ahead and make the motion and then, um, we can take comments after that. Um, I, I, uh, I don't think I should, do I need? Well, I'll go ahead and read it, and my motion is to introduce an ordinance to the city of Mountain View. I'm in chapter 41. Um, Parkland dedication or fees in lieu, there of ordinance of the Mountain View city code relating to Parkland dedication to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for April 13, 2021. Um, and I just would add that, um, I want to thank staff for the work. I was reading a staff report. I guess we've had 4 study sessions on this, um, and then some with PRC and whatnot. So this has been deliberated extensively, I would say. I appreciate the comments that we've received, but in light of the fact that we have discussed it quite extensively. I think staff's recommendation is solid. And, um, you know, everything. This is new. Again, we do a lot of new things in our city, which is great. Um, you know, we'll see how it goes. We can always tweak it down the road. But, um, as I mentioned earlier in our study session too, I think that in light of the fact that we've discussed this quite a bit, um, I'd like to move forward with this, uh, these changes to the policy and, um, see how it works out. So with that, I will make the motion. Thank you.

[03:26:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Hicks. I saw your hand next.

[03:26:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So yes, I would, um, I would 2nd that motion if I could make a couple of friendly amendments. Um, one is that the dimensions be modified a little so that, um, is something more like 70 or 80 feet. Um, I think would uh, lead to, um, rectangles or other shapes that might, might, I mean, I think we just saw in the previous item that I thought those were were great parks. And I think that to, um, fit around the different kinds of land situations that we're going to find I would like a little more flexibility than, um, than what we're seeing in this, uh, that was my main objection to the whole, everything else I pretty much like, um, and I did do a cursory review of Popa's kind of in other cities, and most of them are much smaller. So even with, say, a 70 foot dimension. I think we're doing much more than most cities are doing. So that was one thing. The only other thing was, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that one of the elements was picnic tables with barbecues. And I think just think that in a more, as men, am I getting that wrong? And, um, with kind of more urban environments, I don't think all of them require barbecues. So, and and the, and most of them that I've looked at in a number of cities, um, you know, they don't, they often are more like cafe tables or in the woods, smaller tables. So a little more flexibility around the, the, uh, picnic element was the other one, um, was the other change that I had wanted to make. And beyond that, yeah, I agree. We've talked about this a bunch. I think it's, um, I think it's, uh, great, uh, improvement. And to what we've offered and that, um, also, I just think it's really important. There was an article, a CNN article just today that, uh, saying that, uh, more Americans are dying in the prime of their life, and one of the main reasons they attributed, one of the main things they attributed that to was inadequate parks in, um, cities as they grow out. So I really hope that I really see this as a very important measure to address that. And those are the 2 tweaks that I would recommend.

[03:29:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, customer Robbie Koga?

[03:29:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I actually would like to stay with my original motion. I appreciate Counselor Hicks' comments, but, um, you know, I would note that this is to get the 75% up to 75% credit. Um, I, you know, if there's, I, I guess I looked at it as to get that amount, but could, I mean, then maybe I should have staff to clarify. Could they get some credit, not 75%, but perhaps lower if they don't need the 100 by 100 foot dimensions. Awesome. Sorry, Brady, did you want to

[03:29:57] Brady Rubush: Go ahead, Lindsay.

[03:29:59] Lindsay Hagan: So I think the way we set it up in the ordinance. Uh, these are all sort of minimum requirements. So they would have to meet the dimensional requirement. And just, I guess, uh, one follow-up comment just sort of, uh, in response to council member Hicks comments about wanting kind of alternate elements. That's why we have that category as well. Um, if somebody wanted to propose cafe tables and other things, they could pursue that alternate element option.

[03:30:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess my question is, could you get, let's say, 60% or 65% credit if you're not at 100 by 100.

[03:30:39] Lindsay Hagan: Not the way it's currently written, the way it's currently written, it's a minimum requirement to even qualify for any percentage, and then the percentage would be discretionary based on what council would decide for the for the credit.

[03:30:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then the 100 by 100 is when you mentioned about half of the .4. So you could attach another piece that would be, could be 50 by 50 or, or something less or, or, some odd 75 I know, some other, not a 100 by 100 and attach that to this, the main 100 by 100 parcel to get the 2.4 Is that right?

[03:31:19] Lindsay Hagan: Well, I think the way that the ordinance is currently good written. It's a minimum on all sides, 100 foot dimension. So if council really wanted some additional flexibility, um, we could, you know, maybe add that, uh, language in there, but as it's written right now, it is, it's a pretty firm on all sides requirement.

[03:31:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then if you to get to him from .22 to .4. If you had, let's say, a rectangle and then you add another rectangle of different dimensions, you still have, could you count that as the sides, but with the attachment to it?

[03:32:02] Lindsay Hagan: Honestly, I think the intent is to look at the overall dimension. So if it were sort of this, Um, I guess as you're saying, a square next to a rectangle. We were looking at the fact that, you know, east-west, that's at least a minimum 100 foot and then north-south, that's a minimum 100 foot. Uh, I think, um, You know, I don't know if that addresses your kind of questionnaires.

[03:32:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yeah, I guess I'm thinking, I mean, as long as it's a 100 by 100, Um, Well, I guess it could be 100 by 200 or whatnot, but could you potentially have 100 by 100 piece and then another piece that's like 50 by 150 feet or whatever the dimensions are, but to attach to that? Main square is the question. Or are we just really looking at squares and rectangles?

[03:33:01] Lindsay Hagan: So, council member, just to confirm, any dimension that's less than 100 can't be included. So if the dimension's 50, the part that goes all the way up to, you know, that that's 50 can't be included. So, whichever way you measure it. The width, the length, it has to be at least a 100. Um, so if you had a 100 and by a 100 and then you tried to attach a 100 by 50. The part that measures up to 50, that rectangle will not be included as written.

[03:33:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, thank you. Um, yeah, it's, at this point, I, again, I, I'm gonna stick with the original motion, if it fails, that's, um, you know, that's fine, but, um, I, I think that there's a reason for having the larger spaces, provides more options on how to use it. Um, again, this is credit. We didn't have this credit we were giving before. Um, so it really has to be substantial, I would say. Um, and so, um, in light of that, I will be staying with the original motion, and if um, council member Hicks, you're not able to 2nd that, perhaps someone else would be willing to. Or not. Thanks.

[03:34:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Right, I'll hold off for now.

[03:34:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Well, I see Council Mayor Mattachek's hand, so we'll see if we get some information.

[03:34:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I absolutely will 2nd that motion. Um, and you could have a triangle. Like, we do have 2 parks that I can think of that are triangles, and um, that would be another shape it could be. Thanks. Oh, actually I had comments too, come to think of it. Um, I, I do want to, um, add that, uh, I felt like I had a really good discussion with staff about, um, concerns I had about, um, this whole program, um, and would, would be doing everything we could to prevent, um, an issue down the road in terms of, um, the property owner wanting to change something about it, you know, given all the conversations we're having right now about, Um, land that's, uh, via the joint use agreement. And, um, I felt very comfortable with staff's response and, um, I mean, I paraphrase it here, so, but feel free to add more if you want to. Um, the fact that there would be, um, an easement that is recorded, and so, um, that makes it, you know, pretty permanent. And and also, we have a, we would have a standard agreement. Um, that could be tweaked for individual um, circumstances, but in general, in that standard agreement that we would start with. It would cover things like, you know, if you want to make any of these changes, such as access, change to the elements, um, Any, anything that would like circulation, things that would change the ability for the public to use the open space. It would have to be approved by the city. Um, I don't know if you have anything else you want to add to that, but because of that conversation, I feel more comfortable um, with this change to our ordinance. Um, Did you have anything you want to add?

[03:36:33] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: I think just I'm looking at. Yeah, the only other thing I would, I would clarify is, uh, or I guess tack on to what you're saying is because these Popa open spaces, um, you know, they would be going through the same public hearing process and public meeting and design process as the project itself. Um, so there's definitely opportunities for public input. Um, additionally, because it would be approved formally by council, um, as, uh, council member Matachek's highlighting any kind of major changes to any of that site design or elements that really would be a modification to the previous approval and so would have to go through a permitting process or kind of, um, public hearing process to be re kind of reconsidered by council. Um, so, yes.

[03:37:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I just, sorry, I see that um, our community development director has joined us. They just want to turn to miss Shavastovesh in case she would like to say something as well.

[03:37:31] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Um, Council member, um, Mattachek. I just wanted to sort of, um, uh, make a small correction about the triangle shape. I think we're going to have to measure any part that's, who's width is not 100 feet. So the points of the triangle, some of them may not meet the 100 foot. Um, width. And so, I think it's a lesson in geometry. There might be portions of it that may not be included. So um, just wanted to make that slight correction. Um, ultimately, it'll all depend on the way the park is designed. Rectangles are easier to measure. But sometimes there are points that might measure, might have less than a 100 feet in width, um, that may not be included. Um, uh, in a park design. So.

[03:38:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But if it does go to a and there's 3 sides. Like, I was thinking of, um, isn't that? If the geography,

[03:38:32] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: um, yeah, um, And we can, we can look at it that way, a little more flexibly. Yeah. Um, we were looking at any one dimension being at least 100 feet. So if the points meet, then, and the 3 sides are 100, There's a way to include that. Maybe we can put that in our interpretations, as opposed to requiring a certain width along the entire way.

[03:38:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yeah. Thanks.

[03:39:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I had a motion and I believe a 2nd and then a council member show Walter.

[03:39:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I have a friendly amendment and that's, um, that's related to recycled water. I'd like to make sure that all of our future parks are plumbed for the use of recycled water. We don't have recycled water coming to, um, all parts of the city yet, but someday hopefully we will. So I'd like them to be plumbed that way so that, you know, when the recycled water gets there. It's just the changing of one valve. Is that acceptable?

[03:39:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I'd like to ask staff, I love feasibility of doing that at this point in time.

[03:39:45] Senior Management Analyst Brady Ruebusch: Yeah, so we, um, when that question was raised, uh, city stock consulted with our, you know, public works department. Currently, our city code, um, limits the ability for the city to ask for recycled water to the North Bay Shore area where recycled water exists. Um, so for us to expand that, uh, would really require much more of an undertaking to amend sort of the utility code section of our city code to allow that. Which is really outside the boundaries of this parkland ordinance amendment and chapter. So, I think from staff's perspective, this would not be an appropriate place for that kind of request, but it could be considered, you know, if council wants to bring that up as part of a work plan moving forward for staff, then that's something we could consider.

[03:40:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So, um, yes, I'll just keep the original motion as is. Thank you.

[03:40:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So we have a emotion and a 2nd. Um, some other thoughts have been put out there, but I haven't heard a majority on those. Um, so, does anyone else have any comments or shall we try to vote on the motion on the table? Customer Michelle Walter?

[03:41:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I, um, I, I really think that there, there, to me, there's 2 reasons that we've, we've done this organ, um, ordinance, and, and of course, I haven't been part of all the conversation, so maybe there's lots more about, but basically, it's, it's too, um, To remove barriers that they've been for for housing because the park fees are so high. And I think this this, um, ordinance does a great job of that. I'm really pleased to see the appraisal and, um, and the, uh, you know, and the, uh, the appraisal process. And it being set so that they can, they can make that, that is set much earlier in the process than it used to be. That, that just gives the developers so much more certainty and that should remove that barrier. But the other thing I think it's supposed to do is function as an incentive. Um, if there's anything we've learned in the last couple of years after, listening to the fiasco at Cooper Park and and all the, um, the, uh, the stuff about Mona Loma. Everybody loves parks and they don't really care who, you know, who owns the park. So I think that we want to provide incentives to, um, you know, to get these Popas. And I also think that they really do have a big advantage, um, to the city and to the developers because they allow for underground utilities. And, um, what the one on Ellis Park is hopefully going to have a reservoir for recycled water. And that, that will be, you know, a, a real amenity for everybody. So, so I feel like, um, it would be, the, the incentive is, we're just not being flexible enough with the shape. I think we should require that there's an 100 by 100 shape, uh, 100 by 100 uh, section, but that other parts of it wouldn't necessarily have to, each, each section wouldn't have to be 100 feet. Um, as, you know, as council member Hicks was discussing. And then the other thing is that, um, I would really like to see an option where for large, um, Popas, like over a, over an acre or over an acre and a half , we could consider um, credit. So, for those 2 reasons, I'm going to be, I'm going to, I'm going to be voting no on this specific rendition of it. And I hope maybe we'll go through a couple rounds.

[03:43:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Anyone else have any um, comments? All right. So why don't we just see how we do with the motion that's been presented and if we need to, we can come back. So I'll turn it over to, um, oh, counselor reliever.

[03:43:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to clarify with staff. Uh, staff is going to come back and the issue of the shapes or are not under the current motion.

[03:44:13] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: I think counsel's understanding of the current motion is that it would be what is drafted. in the ordinance presented in the staff report.

[03:44:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Mm-hmm. Okay, I wonder if there's some way, you know, those of us who would like to support the issue in general, um, but do feel like there could be some additional flexibility in in terms of what, um, council member Sher Walter and council member Hicks have have mentioned. Um, if we could somehow, uh, possibly divide the question or, or take a vote on that question first. Um, Because I, I, I think if we just have, you know, some of us voting no because, uh, we'd like additional flexibility, then, um, could be sort of a waste of time.

[03:45:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, so Vice Mayor Ramirez, I do see your hand. I think something that. I think some of us may have received a staff briefing on this topic and one of the things, um, and I'll just, I guess, inter interject a little bit, um, that, that, I guess, made me feel comfortable with the stack recommendation is that there have been our 4 study sessions on this topic and that there is room annually, I think, to reevaluate, um, or, or staff had mentioned that there was going to be other opportunities for us to kind of, um, Kind of implement and see if we should make any additional amendments. And I think that that staff has shown us that in the kind of cleanup amendments that they're also adding to the ordinance as they've been looking at it. So, um, I guess that's where I have a little bit of comfort in that. Um, I feel like this can continue to be refined. Um, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and then Council member, I Coga, and then back to Council member, Believer.

[03:46:16] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Um, so I, I'm, I'm confused by, uh, where staff is landing on this because I, I, earlier, um, RT, I think you had mentioned, um, uh, being able to flexibly interpret the language to allow for some, you know, irregular shapes or dimensions less than 100 feet, and then Lindsay, you said, that we would maintain the language. as drafted, which wouldn't allow for that. So I'm, I'm curious, how, how do you intend to operate, operationalize, this flexibility, that it sounds like, um, you would, you would be comfortable, including dimensions. Um,

[03:47:05] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: I just wanted to clarify um, you know, in the example of the triangle. Um, if each of the dimensions of the triangle or at least 100 feet. Right? Um, they would be included in the, in the calculation. Of course, we'd need more area in order to make up the point 4 acres, but um, we, we, that's essentially how, That was the flexibility and not just looking at sort of the, the, the minimum width running along that, you know, um, I wish I could draw and show it to you. And the way we look at setbacks and things, but that's where the flexibility is, the number is still a 100. But, but triangles could be included as long as, um, the side of a triangle is 100 minimum. Um, that's essentially what I was clarifying. Uh, but we were not um, as written, it wouldn't let us look at lower dimensions.

[03:48:08] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. that's that's helpful. Um, I, uh, you know, I fundamentally, this is a good ordinance. I think the amendments are solid and I appreciate the work that staff has done on this. Um, uh, I don't really have a good sense of, to what extent, reducing the, the dimensions will have, you know, a, a significant impact on the purpose that are created. I'm open to that. Um, I don't like arbitrary numbers though, as I think everybody knows at this point. Um, if there's an altern- uh, you know, uh, motion to amend to pick a number. You know, I'm open to those ideas. But if there isn't a motion to amend, I'm going to support the motion as, as proposed, because I think it's a good start. Thank you.

[03:49:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member, Abbe Kose.

[03:49:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I, I think someone tried to amend the motion, and I, I declined the, um, amendment, and I, I go back to one that we have discussed this extensively to this is staff's recommendation, and I will defer to them. It's also, I believe, gone through PRC. So, um, if this is what um, is being recommended. Again, I agree with you, vice mayor. I don't want to pick an arbitrary number at this point in time, and that's really why I prefer to stick to staff recommendation. And in terms of incentivizing more development and, you know, making it easier. By, I, I think we're doing quite a bit already from going from requiring, you know, inloof fees or part land dedication to giving credit for Popas. And that's a huge, to me, that's a huge concession. And, um, you know, 75%. I think is really big. And so I don't think this is gonna, you know, it may, you know, it may deter folks, but I think we're going from where we are to quite a bit in terms of concessions. And so at this point in time, I'm not really inclined to do much more. Let's see how I place out for, you know, a year. I don't know what our check-in is, but um, let's see how it plays out. Um, I just look at this as a one, the other piece is the annual valuation, that also too, in my mind, is going to lessen the, our, the cities, intake, uh, in terms of park and movies, and, and even land dedication. So I think we're making a huge concession here as it is, and that's why I'm inclined to stay with staff recommendations.

[03:50:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member labor and then council member hicks.

[03:50:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I also really appreciate staff's work on this. I got a pretty exhaustive briefing from them, which I really appreciated. And it really settled certain issues for me in the sense of, I had an overall concern about Popa's relative to the experience of some other cities and, and how they age over time and, and I, I, I want to respect their work and the work of uh, the PRC as well. But I think it might be possible to have kind of an informal agreement to, uh, keep looking at the issues raised by council member show alter and council member hicks, and, and I think, you know, sometimes just in the spirit, spirit of collegiality and comedy, it's good to, um, you know, keep looking at those things, and, uh, maybe move on with the, the motion as it is, and I, I appreciate, um, council member, Abbe Koga's, uh, explication of that.. Um, but to sort of continue to look at those issues as a commitment, I don't think would take anything away from, uh, any of us. So I'd like to urge that.

[03:52:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Hicks. Oh, you're you're muted. You're muted.

[03:52:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, I'll be brief because we have gone over this quite a bit, but, um, I, you know, one of the things I really appreciated in my briefing was the, um, idea that staff product that we could continually tweak this. Um, on the other hand, we just went over the uh, the Google Middlefield Park plan, and that had some specific applications that don't fit what we're doing right now. And I thought those were great parks. And kind of very big. So in the, In the, um, spirit of not wanting to continually go back and redo things, I mean, I think that that whole master pen will have to be reviewed and maybe changed in a way that's not as good as it is now. And so to me, the idea of tweaking it in a year, and then having to go back and review the plan, we just did the study session on. Um, I would prefer to learn from what we just did the study session on and go down to like an, an, 80 foot rather than 100 foot dimension. But I may be the only person who wants to do that. that's the way I see this. I think that it would, um, save council time and staff time. Thank you.

[03:53:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I'm going to go to council member Abbe Kuget. And then we have a motion in a 2nd and I think it's worth seeing if we can, um, try to see if there's a roll call vote for that if possible. So council member, I'll be okay.

[03:53:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I just wanted to try to incorporate council of relievers comments about some kind of continuing to discuss this. And so I wanted to ask staff is, is there a timeline that we, you could suggest to bring this back to council to review how it's working and um, see if there's any revisions that need to be made?

[03:54:17] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: So at this point, it's my understanding, um, that, um, there's, there's twofold to get to our next phase 2, uh, that Brady had brought up earlier in the presentation, and it really, it was staff's inclination to, when we come back with phase 2, maybe there is an opportunity for counsel to review the steps we've taken to date with phase one if necessary. Um, but really that's the timeline we were looking for. And at this point, Um, it may be um, fiscal year 2223 that we would be coming back with that phase two.

[03:54:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Um, then if I need to add that to the, um, to the motion to that we bring it back at the time phase 2 is, um, brought to council. Um, Hopefully that will satisfy some of the uh, concerns that were raised. I will add that to the motion. And then in response to council member Hicks. I appreciate that, um, that, you know, all of these development plans. They know the, they know the policies, they know the guidelines that we set forth. Um, so it's up to them to, um, either follow them or not, especially if you're starting out fresh with 40 acres, you can move things to fit the, our guidelines. So I'm not inclined to change our policies for a project. I would expect the project to follow our guidelines and art requirements. And so, um, I will add that if the 2nd or would be willing to, um, support the the addition of the check-in.

[03:55:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I do support the addition, thanks.

[03:55:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so the motion's been amended to include the check-in when the phase 2 comes before the council. Council member show Walter.

[03:56:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I do think that's a big improvement, but, um, another thing I'm concerned about is, um, uh, is the Google development, but, uh, I think that's a big improvement, and that would be approximately a year and a half from now, is that what I understood correctly?

[03:56:28] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Uh, sometime between in fiscal year 22, 23, we would be bringing this back is our estimated timeline.

[03:56:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So that's like 18 months to 24 months kind of thing?

[03:56:40] Deputy Zoning Administrator Lindsay Hagan: Could be, yes.

[03:56:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you.

[03:56:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, I'm going to see if we can do a roll call vote. So I'll ask our interim city clerk Wonderlanden to do a roll call vote on the motion of the stack recommendation by Councilman Robert Kogo, 2nded by Councilman Romata check, with the amendment that we include looking at recycled water and what were your amendments, Council member Hicks?

[03:57:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Looking at the looking at the items that the council.

[03:57:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'm trying to incorporate, sorry.

[03:57:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I think it was just, if I could energize. I think it was just a check in.

[03:57:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, just to check in. Okay. That's what I heard. Okay, so with the amendment of a check-in during phase 2 to discuss. To discuss. All right. And I'm sacred, bonder linen.

[03:57:36] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I also remember a big cogo. Council member Hicks.

[03:57:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, I'm so on the fence. Okay. Um I'll go with now.

[03:57:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Calcium and reliever.

[03:57:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I.

[03:57:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Manachek.

[03:57:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:57:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter.

[03:57:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No?

[03:57:58] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:58:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:58:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kameh.

[03:58:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:58:05] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: All right. Motion carries.

[03:58:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, so I think the motion carried 52 is that correct? All right, great. Great. Great. Thank you very much. All right, so I think this concludes item 7.2, so we can move on to item 8, which is council staff and committee reports. Do any council members have anything to report here? Council member Hicks.

[03:58:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I don't have, um, something to support, but I did want to bring up the, um, issue of mobile home rent control. I'm thinking that, um, now that the Bull House case is resolved and we're about to appoint a new group of RHC members, that it would be a good time to move forward on this issue. Um, The, you know, the, the rental housing committee on CFR staff have worked through a lot of the implementation details. So I, I'm hoping that council can pass an ordinance that staff in the RHC can administer, and I would like to, um, council to consider agendizing that as soon as possible. And I'm wondering whether, um, I'm wondering whether other council people, uh, have any opinion on Latin would like to see an agenda as soon as well.

[03:59:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, counselor member Hicks. I'll turn it over to City Attorney Chirpra. Um, and city manager McCarthy for a response.

[03:59:48] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I think 1st, um, this, this item 8 is an opportunity for council members to, a majority of council members to decide or not decide whether to, uh, agendize the topic, so it would be most appropriate for the balance of council to discuss this item further, and then I can weigh in on the implications of that and the details and and soak in the city manager.

[04:00:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I see other hands raised. So, um, I'm going to ask if your hand is raised about the topic council member Hicks just brought up. So, um, council member Lieber.

[04:00:31] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I like Council member Hicks. Uh, I think that we've, um, gone through uh, all of the the necessary background work and and all of the machinations and. Um, I'm very mindful that this is a topic that has come up for a very long time on council. Um, for more than 20 years, and I think it is time to get the show on the road. And to move it to a council vote and to move it towards implementation. And this is something, um, in particular, uh, at the current time, really impacts our our residents and community members, um, here in Mountain View. So I, I, I very strongly support uh, agendizing, uh, this item and and moving ahead with it. It's the expectation that the community has.

[04:01:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you, council member Michelle Walter.

[04:01:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I think it's a good idea to move forward with this. Um, uh, the, uh, the city council could adopt the ordinance and then the RHC and the supporting staff could administer it. I think the time has come to move forward on this.

[04:02:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmatachek.

[04:02:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I guess I have a question for the city manager. Um, this is on our work plan. isn't it? So I guess I, do we have to agendaize something that's on our work plan?

[04:02:17] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, thank you, council member, Mattachek. So yes, this is on council's current work plan. So what, um, council will be asked to do in your next meeting next Tuesday is to consider the items that are still um, unfinished on that work plan, which this is one of them. Uh, which would ostensibly roll over to the next work plan. So, um, You could decide tonight whether you want to prioritize this project, um, as part of all of the other work plan items, but it has been on the work plan in terms of, um, I believe this also came to council, um, at the beginning of 2020. So, um, the agendizing it, um, is more of a formality and I would ask the city attorney, um, since it is on the work plan and if council prioritizes this. I think it's a matter of staff, um, basically coming back in April, which is the intent, um, to tell council kind of what all of your projects are going to entail, the timing of all the projects, the implications. Um, so that's how I envision this, um, being worked out and and this item could certainly be part of that. Um, and I would just ask the city attorney if he agrees. I know it's, um, a lot of the work from his staff.

[04:03:41] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, and that's that's correct. I meant to point that out earlier. This is an item that's that has remained on counsel's work plan. Uh, it certainly could be, uh, you know, if consul's desire is to prioritize it, That's something our office could do our best to uh, work to, to make it, get done expediently. Uh, But the, uh, there's also implications from the community development department staff. I dont know if RT is still on the line. Our office is one attorney down with uh, uh, staff member on extended leave currently, but we're, we're certainly flexible and can do our best to accommodate council's desire to, to prioritize this, this item I couldn't say for certain what, what a date would be to bring the initial study session or the initial discussion, but certainly we want to be flexible and and work to accomplish counsel's goals if that's if that's counsel's desire.

[04:04:46] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I would just 2nd what both the city manager and city attorney have said, um, uh, we're certainly willing to prioritize it. Um, uh, and, and I think we're going to, I can't give you a date right now, we might have to confer and figure out the best time to be able to bring something to the council in a study session for review.

[04:05:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor, if I may, um, and council member Mattachek, just clarify the process of what's going to happen for the work plan, and you all will receive the staff report on Thursday, um, for next Tuesday's meeting. So what's essentially going to happen is on Tuesday the 16th, um, you all will be presented with all of the projects that are on the current work plan that are rolling over or that have been deferred. You'll also be presented with items that, um, staff has heard council raise over these last few months. And what the intent is, is to essentially ask counsel if there's anything you want to take off of that. And then between March and April, staff is going to basically analyze those projects on the work plan, what all the implications are, the amount of collaboration, the amount of work that needs to happen between several departments, and then come back to you all in April with all of those recommendations for the work plan. Um, so what I'm outlining tonight will be in the staff report when it's published on Thursday. So it'll be clear to council and the public what that process is going to be. So I think we are going to have to examine this project, along with all of the other items that CDD and city attorney staff are working on. I would note that, um, We are also filling some really critical vacant positions right now on CDD, the housing manager being one of them, um, who would be leading this project. So there are a lot of other, um, really critical projects underway right now that will just have to assess what the trade-offs would be. Um, so that's what we would intend to bring back to council in April just so that you're aware of the realistic, um, workload trade-offs.

[04:07:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Hicks and then council member Michelle Walter.

[04:07:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so part of what I saw this discussion that we're having tonight, I saw it as a way of, certainly I don't want to go faster than staff could go or put staff in a position that's, you know, uncomfortable or untenable, but just to, I think it would do 2 things. Um, 1st it, it would uh, clearly prioritize it, uh, and then set, among all the other competing things that you might be doing. And then 2nd it would kind of, um, you know, we are not in our, the latest council meeting. we've ever had. It would kind of pull it out of the discussion from, um, next week so that we can just get this decided and prioritize now and hopefully have a simpler discussion next week if this is something that, you know, all of most of us agree that we're going to, that we want to deal with in an expedited way anyway because as council member, labor has said, this has been dragging on for 20 years. So, um, And uh, the 2nd thing is we might be able to get a few things done, uh, upfront, like ask the RHC if they're willing to take on it and administer this. I think maybe there are some things we can get out of the way. So this is, um, This is to prioritize not faster than staff can do, but as expedited as much as possible. Thank you.

[04:08:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Customer show, Walter.

[04:08:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Just on top of what, in addition to what council member Hicks said, I think another thing is that we want to, I would like to signal that the attention of the city council is to make an ordinance, there's been so much talk in the community about, will the RHC make the ordinance or will we make the ordinance or how will it be done? And, um, I, I, I, I think we, I would like to signal at this point that the city council intends to, um, to, uh, adopt an ordinance and uh, that the RHC would administer. So, so I think that's the real message from tonight, not necessarily the timeline.

[04:09:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Leaper.

[04:09:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you. Um, I really agree with uh, council member show Walter, and I think it's just a reality that, um, staff will need time to, um, develop implementation steps, but I, I don't think that something that is this long-standing should need to compete against new projects that have maybe been raised one time in a council meeting. Um, you know, the expectation in the community is that we're, we're going to, uh, cut to the chase at some point, bring it to a council meeting and and deal with it. And, um, I think that, uh, we should keep faith with that expectation coming from the community. Um, and and just really move to a decision point, I know that this is uh, an uncomfortable issue for for many folks, and I think it's just something that that has to be grappled with. Um, Sooner or later, and it's, it's been chewed on a lot over, um, these past years, and, and, you know, I can't say that it improves with each discussion. Um, because it's just basically the facts are the facts. And, um, So I, I'd like to, uh, suggest that we, we move it forward tonight and, um, we, you know, signal our intention to bring it to a council meeting. Um, it may not be a date certain that we know necessarily uh, tonight, or it may need to be a series of meetings, but, uh, I think that we really just have to be able to clear this item. And, uh, there's been a lot of steps towards this, uh, I've told innumerable, uh, community members that it's coming, it's coming. We're waiting for this, we're waiting for that. We're waiting for the other thing. And, um, it's just time when, you know, it's, uh, it's come to fruition, um, it's better that we, we grapple with it and clear it and, um, move on with the, the many other things that we have to do.

[04:11:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Mattachek.

[04:11:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, I appreciate the um, explanation of the process and the timing of the next steps. And to me, that's very helpful. I guess, um, You know, I, I feel like I, I do like a sort of a complete picture of everything that, uh, is on the work plan that we said we would like staff to work on and understand the trade-offs and implications of things. So I guess a question I have is if we prioritize this tonight. Um, is that, This is the number one priority and other things that might be on, um, given departments who would be involved in this plates gets pushed out. Or is it, you know, we're gonna fit this in as soon as we can without pushing out some like projects that are already in process. I guess I'd like to have a better understanding of that. I feel like we have signaled to the community that, um, this is something we are going to work on because it's on the work plan.

[04:13:11] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So thank you, Councilman Romatachek. I think it's more the latter, um, that, um, yes, there are some items underway and we do have items ready to bring to council. But, um, I believe that the city attorney and uh, the community development director and I and staff uh, will actually be meeting about this tomorrow. So, uh, we'll be able to outline um, what those steps might be. So if you prioritize it, then yes, it is essentially telling staff that this is something that you would want to come back sooner rather than later, and then we're just going to need to analyze how that might work. Um, just with the other things, um, that the same staff that would be working on this project are working on now. That, that's really the, the analysis and kind of the trade-offs to see what is realistic for staff to be able to, to do.

[04:14:10] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But, but not, um, can, or, or would that include also like projects that are in the works could be put on hold. Um, if this was prioritized.

[04:14:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: We would have to look at that. We would have to assess that. As I mentioned, there's, there's only a certain staff that would be working on this and they're working on other things. So without knowing the full picture yet this evening, I think we would have to assess what might have to be paused what could still be continued versus if this has to be the one thing that everyone work on, um, in addition to regular daily work.

[04:14:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I feel like we have signaled that this is something we want to address, and I have an ordinance, and we have asked for, um, you know, an evaluation of some of the options that we previously discussed as a council. And I do want to understand the implications for work that is in flight, so to speak, as well as new projects that are on, uh, in the queue. Um, and so while I could say tonight, yes, this is a priority. Um, I would feel uncomfortable saying, yes, this is a priority over absolutely everything else that we're working on. And so I would want staff to come back and say, and here's the implications of that. And then we make the final decision.

[04:15:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I see. I see council member picks his hand up again. So I think if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question before we kind of go into 3rd and 4th rounds on this topic. So, um, I guess for clarity, I mean, I, Council is set to discuss our, um, to have this discussion next Tuesday, where we'll be able to talk about the work plan. So I, I, And it sounds like staff will be meeting tomorrow about this topic. So, I think the soonest that this item could come back would be next Tuesday anyways. So, yeah, next Tuesday. Um, so, you know, I think, and if council member Hicks, uh, show Walter and Liber are comfortable, you know, I'm comfortable discussing the prioritization, I think that if we're going to talk about it next Tuesday when staff can maybe give a little bit more feedback to us on like the timeline, then, and that's the soonest it could come back to us anyways, even if we do agendize it as item eight. You know, that would be amenable to me so we could talk about, you know, timeline and perhaps, um, staff can have a week to look into our question on how we can get this done, um, more expedited. you know, I don't know. City management cars keep you any feedback on that, but that's kind of the question I have because I feel supportive in the direction that my colleagues are trying to go in. I'm just, you know, if the soonest meeting is next Tuesday and it's on next Tuesday's agenda, then I feel like that's 2 birds with Woodstone, right? We can talk about it then and.

[04:17:23] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So I would say what, what's, so this item by itself, there's not enough time to agendize for next Tuesday by itself. However, the work plan is already going to be agendized on Thursday. Um, and yes, this item is on the work plan. Um, for council to, you know, approve moving that work plan forward into your next cycle, your next 2 year cycle. So, it really is, you know, just, just dependent on the, the direction that you all want to give tonight. Um, so, um, You know, it's, it's, it's up to you all if you want to prioritize it this evening, but it is going to be on the work plan next Tuesday. Yes. So, you could discuss it at that time.

[04:18:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We could discuss the prioritization next Tuesday. Okay, so even if it couldn't make it on the agenda, because there isn't enough time, because we're talking about our goals and our strategic plan, we can discuss the timeline. On this topic.

[04:18:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes.

[04:18:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. So I see council member Hicks, council member Abbe Koga, then council member Shelter.

[04:18:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have never meant to make this the top priority over all other items. I had just thought that we could, um, uh, take it out of the discussion from next week and make it a priority within, you know, and I didn't mean to displace the tentative agenda list items, um, and rearrange everything. I just thought we could take it out of that discussion, all agree that this is going to be on our work plan and that it will be done as soon as possible. Um, as soon as possible given staff limits. Um, and so we don't have to rediscuss this. Um, So we don't have to rediscuss this next week. And I, um, I could make a motion to that, uh, you know, in that, so I would make a motion that we do that, that we make it, that we remove it from the discussion next week. We decide that it's on the work plan and that it's a relative priority, not a priority over everything else on our work plan. Or on the agenda.

[04:19:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So I hear your motion. I guess I feel a little bit confused about removing if it's already on the work plan to remove it, to say it's on the work plan. I feel a little confused on what, why we would do that.

[04:20:00] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Maybe if I could offer some, hopefully helpful comments. I think the, the topic of mobile home rent stabilization is, as the city manager, clarified, is still on the work plan and will be discussed, and it is agendaized to be discussed as part of a broader discussion of projects in the next work cycle. Uh, you could signal as a council with a straw poll tonight, whether you want to, uh, prioritize, uh, this item and expedite it. But really there's an opportunity to do that same thing next week. So, you could signal it tonight, but also, it, it, it, it's not really, I don't see it as a matter of getting the discussion done. Tonight, it still will be discussed on next Tuesday's council meeting, in conjunction with other, other items, whether that's an abbreviated discussion because of what comes out of tonight, if there's a prioritization, uh, then it could maybe go quicker, but it, this will be discussed necessarily, as well. But, um, I don't know if that's helpful at all. You could signal a a general prioritization desire tonight with a straw poll. majority, or you could wait until next Tuesday and have the same discussion essentially on Tuesday.

[04:21:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilman Robbie Koga.

[04:21:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I'm inclined to just wait till next week. It's next week, not nothing's gonna happen in a week. Um, and I actually don't really understand, even if we prioritize it, it sounds like, um, we still have to see what the workload is, stuff availability is. So, you know, I'm not comfortable tonight saying it's the top priority because I'd like to see what else is, um, on our list. I mean, I know there are other items and, you know, I, I, I guess I would question the 20 year, um, timeline on about this topic because it hasn't been on the city council's work plan for quite some time, uh, some, some time. Um, there are other items that have been on for many years that have just been getting rolled over. And so, um, you know, wage theft is one that I can think of that I've been trying to push for 6 years maybe. So um, I really would like to see the whole picture before I make any determinations as to what the number one priority would be. So I just don't think that, um, and especially under item 8 this evening, I have enough information to decide if it should be the top priority. So I'm going to wait till next week. Thanks.

[04:22:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Also, member Lieber?

[04:22:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I believe council member show Walter was next.

[04:23:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, okay. Sorry, sorry about that, Counselor Michelle Walter.

[04:23:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's okay. I just felt like the, the purpose for tonight's item was to, to basically, um, uh, say our interest in, in the, in the council being the one to, um, to adopt the ordinance for mobile home rent control. Um, and that's what I thought we were clarifying tonight. I thought that on the work plan, what we had was dealing with the general topic of it. And the general topic could be the, you know, as we know from discussions, It could be the council, uh, adopts it or the rental housing committee adopts it. So I think that's really the point of tonight's discussion is to signal that, yes, as a council, we're interested in going forward that way. Um, I don't think, uh, figuring out the priority is appropriate tonight and or the specifics of the timeline, just that the thing that's on our work plan is going to be, um, an ordinance that the council will adopt. That's what I think we're talking about.

[04:24:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Also, remember Lieber.

[04:24:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, I really agree with Count Smarlborough, show Walter, and um, I think it's, uh, you know, as I've had conversations. Um, with folks about this, uh, on staff, and, um, talked about, will this have to compete with, um, new projects, and, um, I think the message that I've gotten is, no, this is, um, something that has already been discussed by counsel, and, and I know that for a while we were waiting for the resolution of the court case, and, and that's now happened. So it does seem like it's timely to bring it back to council for for discussion. I'm not sure that it has to undergo prioritization. But just signaling to the community that it, it will be coming to council. Um, to make a, a decision, um, on this and, uh, I think that there really is a frustration and a perception of kind of kicking the can down the road and, I, I know that a lot of times that is part and parcel of, um, you know, the, the governmental process and we've taken on a lot of, uh, functions this year that we didn't envision, um, needing to deal with. But, uh, this is an issue that has been worked through and and I think, um, can just simply uh, be brought back to council and we could very easily signal that tonight.

[04:25:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: City Attorney Chopra. I see your hand up.

[04:25:55] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Oh, I think it was still, still, um, raised. But I'll just take the opportunity to, to, to respond to, some comments, council member show Walter made. It wouldn't be appropriate tonight to get into the merits of, you know, the structure of how rent control would be adopted for mobile homes, whether it's the council ordinance or uh, uh, with the RHC lending support and administering it. We're not at that stage yet. I think it's because the, again, the item is still on the work plan, and that was a council consideration of mobile home rent stabilization options. I think most appropriate would be, if you wanted to signal your interest in the council as, uh, taking this topic up again and agendizing it in the future, uh, subject to further discussions, uh, at the, uh, goal setting and prioritization meeting next week, that would be fine, but tonight wouldn't be the time to get into the structure of, of how the, ordinance or even really who would adopt the ordinance, but it's it's on the work plan as a council ordinance already. So I just want to get away from talking about the merits of the regulation and focus on, uh, keeping it on the council's uh, work plan, if that's the desire and potentially prioritization, but also, um, having a discussion in the, in next week's meeting. And I think that could all accomplish the signaling to the public that some council members are interested in.

[04:27:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, city attorney chopper, vice mayor Ramirez.

[04:27:43] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I don't want to belabor the point. So just all we can do right now is a vote to agendize a discussion in the future. We can't really do much more than that. But, um, I think getting at what I'm, but I think, um, many members of the council would like to achieve. You know, do we have, uh, within the, the context of the work plan discussion next week, do we have the latitude to talk about things like expressing a preference for, um, you know, who should adopt regulations if we pursue mobile home. Rent control, you know, whether the RHC, would administer council approved ordinance, that kind of thing. Do we have enough latitude within what's agendaise next week already? to at least provide some preliminary directions on those parameters?

[04:28:46] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I think the, the, uh, the report is still not finalized, but that amount of, uh, detail could be included in next week's discussion, uh, to, to give some, some guardrails and some structure to, what, what type of, what type of bring back uh, would be appropriate, whether that's a council ordinance and a request to the RHC to administer it. Yeah, that level of basic detail could be included in next week's discussion.

[04:29:23] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so that, that sounds pretty good to me. I'll defer to other members of the council on whether there's more that, you know, that we might need to discuss and, you know, that might require a motion to formally agendaize, but if, with what's already agenda is next Tuesday, we have the ability to provide some, you know, high level direction on those parameters. And we can also express, again, preliminarily, uh, a sense of where this falls in the list of priorities. It sounds like we're already, you know, teed up to have this conversation on Tuesday, and there's really not a lot of value in making any, any other motions. If there is a motion to make, it would be helpful. I think to hear what it is, but I feel pretty satisfied with what we already have teed up in the work plan discussion.

[04:30:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you guys, Mary Ramirez. So, um, I think we've had a kind of robust discussion, so I am not sure if there is emotion council member Hicks, or this kind of satisfies the discussion and you're o. I'm not sure. I'm happy to do a straw motion. Um, if you would like, but, um, If you could please clarify, that would be great.

[04:30:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, the sense I'm getting is that the majority of council would like to talk about it next week. Um, so there was a motion, but I don't think it got a 2nd. And I think that I'm hoping that at least this discussion puts it in the forefront of everybody's mind that there's, it looks like there's a good amount of interest, uh, on council for, uh, making making mobile home rent control, uh, a priority and we'll have a more full discussion next week is my sense of this, and you can all correct me if I'm wrong.

[04:31:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I think you're getting some thumbs up, visually from your colleagues. Yes, council member. So I think that's that's where we've landed, which is, um, you know, having this discussion kind of already, um, highlights, uh, how this is top of mind for council, and we'll be able to kind of get into more next Tuesday. Um, which would be the soonest that we could talk about this item anyways. And so, hopefully, um, those in the community who have felt the, perhaps bureaucracy, the government can bring, um, feel, feel like they're, they're heard and that we'll be able to discuss it more um, next week. So um, okay. All right. Are there any other, um, things that uh, colleagues would like to report for item eight? I saw Council member Rabayakoga, Council member, Shel, Walter.

[04:32:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I wanted to just mention that, um, I was invited to join the Santa Clara County's newly formed hate crimes task force as an advisory member and wanted to use this as a segue into, um, just a comment, uh, is, I think folks have read and seen, um, there's been a rise in anti-Asian incidents and crimes. Um, I appreciate our police department, um, going, um, the extra mile to, um, recently arrest someone who had, uh, um, had, uh, caused, um, some of these activities. And, um, you know, wanted to remind that the community that, as, uh, counsel, we did uh, pass a resolution last year, denouncing anti-Asian sentiment and xenophobia, phobia, and, um, you know, any kind uh, racially motivated or, um, any, you know, any kind of, um, crime or incident, um, based on discrimination, frankly, if, you know, any, any, um, gender, um, uh, race, um, religious affiliation, any kind of, um, discrimination is um, just unacceptable. And, um, I also want to encourage, um, folks, if they have, um, experience these types of incidents to please raise your voices, um, report them. Um, there's a reporting, um, uh, mechanism for anti-Asian hate, um, that, uh, a group from, uh, um, affiliated with San Francisco State is conducting, um, it was interesting. At the, we had our 1st task force meeting last Friday, and we had a, um, a kind of an overview report on hate crimes, and, and, um, it was a bit of surprising because it was, um, the presenters just said that, um, of the 15 cities in the county, um, only 4 have actually reported hate crimes in the last few years. And um, Mountain View was not one of them. And yet, I know that these incidents happen. frankly, they've happened to me. Um, they may not rise to the level of crimes, but there are incidents. And so I think it's important for folks to speak up and speak out against these types of activities and actions. And so I just wanted to highlight that this evening, um, and ask for the community to double down in standing up, um, for, oh, all of our residents, um, in our city and, um, and to denounce any kind of, um, discrimination. you.

[04:35:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Counselor Matachek.

[04:35:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just 2 quick ones, um, and that is, um, I participated in the Santa Clara County Airport Land use commission meeting a couple weeks ago and nothing to report coming out of that. Um, and then also I have been attending the National League of Cities virtual conference that is took place over the past couple days. And fortunately, all of those are available on demand as well. for people who registered. Um, the ones I've seen were really great and I look forward to watching more. Thanks.

[04:35:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I wanted to report that we had our check monthly uh, board meeting on the 24th, um, and we are preparing a check for mental health awareness month in May, and each week in the month of May. There will be a check activity. Um, so more information on that is coming. Um, and then I attended my group to BTA meeting, um, on the 25th. It was the 1st time that all the cities, um, met whole holy and completely, um, um, yeah. And so that's it, and council member show Walter, I'm so sorry. I thought your visual hand and then,

[04:36:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: yeah, like, um, like, uh, council member, uh, map check, I'm attending the NLC conference virtually, and it really is inspiring. One of the things that, that's just hitting me is, is how, um, how the, the whole tenor of what we can do as a nation for climate change resilience has just changed with, you know, with the new Biden administration. It's really inspiring to hear the new appointees talk about what they're going to do. And, um, I mean, for instance, Pete Buttigieg, uh, who's now the secretary of transportation, was talking about how one of the things that would be included, um, might be included in improvement in roads was road diets for bikes. You know, I mean, I don't think we would have ever heard that from a Secretary of Transportation before. So that was that was pretty delightful. And then today, we also heard from Nina McCarthy. And, um, you know, she's the new uh, climate advisor at the White House level. So, um, you know, I know Mountain View has been taking a very strong lead role in, um, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we should all be very proud about what we're doing locally, but it was, it's just been really nice to hear, um, that we're kind of jumping back on the bandwagon on a federal way. So, um, I'm gonna report that. Thank you.

[04:38:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. Sounds really exciting. Anyone else have anything to report here? All right. I will turn it over to item 9, close session report. State Attorney Topa. Do we have a close session report?

[04:38:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No close session report tonight.

[04:38:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. All right. Well, thank you so much, everyone. So as you may now know, our next city council meeting will be next Tuesday, March 16th. Uh, we will be starting at 430 again next Tuesday. So, uh, please uh, remember about the earlier start time. Until then, stay healthy, stay safe. Um, mask up and our meeting is adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Thank you. Everyone have a good night.

• ← Previous
• Next →