August 24, 2021 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:12] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Welcome back from our council recess. Thank you for joining our closed session. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order, n dash 29 dash 20, dated March 17, 2020. And state of California, executive order, N dash 08 dash 21 dated June 11, 2021. 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 slash 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. By visiting mountain view.GOV slash CC underscore speakers, to enter the Zoom meeting, or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 979 559-74672. Any emails received by 5 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. City Attorney Chopra will make remarks, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the item listed for closed session. City Attorney Chipra.

[00:01:43] (archive recording) City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, mayor. The city council will meet on one item in closed session, item 2.one public employee performance evaluation, California government code, section 54957B1, title, council appointee, city clerk, and conference with labor negotiators, California government code, section 54957.6A, Agency designated representative Vice Mayor Ramirez, unrepresented employee, city clerk. That concludes the closed session announcement.

[00:02:21] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session item listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in zoo or press star 9 on your phone, and we'll display a 3 minute timer. All right, I am not seeing any hands for public comment on this item. So you click glazer, do you see anything?

[00:02:50] (archive recording) Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I'm not.

[00:02:51] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. All right. So I'm gonna close public comment. And the council will now recess to close session and will return to this meeting at 6.30 for the regular session. Thanks everyone. See you in close session.

[00:04:58] (archive recording) Mayor Ellen Kamei: Good evening, everyone, welcome back from council recess. Um, we are going to have our city council regular meeting for August 24, 2021. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order N dash 29 dash 20, dated March 17, 2020, and the state of California executive order N dash 08 dash 21, dated June 11, 2021. 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 made you so at mountain view.legistar.com. On YouTube at mountain view.gov slash YouTube. And on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov slash cc underscore speakers to enter the zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 979-5597-4672. Any emails received by 5 p.m. today were received directly by the city council. All right. And then just for everyone's knowledge, about 2 weeks ago, the city announced that we would continue to hold our council meetings virtually through the end of September. We're taking this approach due to the increasing public health concerns over the rise of the highly contagious COVID-19 Delta variant in our region. And also because we are making technology upgrades in our council chambers to enable hybrid meetings. Our focus is putting the health and safety of our community first. And the hybrid format would allow the public to attend meetings in person at council chambers or virtually via Zoom. The city will continue to priorities equity and inclusion efforts by providing translation services in real time at the council meetings for items of interest. Unless we have further notice from the state or the county, we are anticipating returning to in-person council meetings in October. And I did also want to state that we have translation services available tonight in Spanish. All right, so we'll move on to item two, which is our pledge of allegiance. So please join me in our pledge of allegiance. 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. So we'll move on to item 3 roll call. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:27:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koka. Council member Hicks.

[01:27:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:27:17] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Labor.

[01:27:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[01:27:20] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek,

[01:27:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: here.

[01:27:22] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, Shelter.

[01:27:24] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:27:25] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:27:27] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:27:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: May I connect?

[01:27:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here.

[01:27:30] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Thank you.

[01:27:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So we'll move on 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. A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the resolutions attached to items 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9, and 4.11. And as a reminder, the purpose of the consent calendar is for the council to efficiently and quickly consider a high volume of routine or administrative business items with one motion. Although council members may remove items, it is generally not intended for the council to have a lengthy, substantive discussion on consent calendar items. So if someone would like to have a discussion, just feel free to pull the item. And I myself will be recusing myself from item 4.7. Recommendation one, South Wisdom and Park Pyramid Park Construction, Project 21 dash 45 because my real property interest is located in close proximity to the project site. All right, would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council member Hicks.

[01:28:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I don't believe I'm pulling an item, but our city attorney can clarify if that's what I should be doing. I just want to make a comment on 4.11. Um, and I also want, um, 4.4, the notice of intention to vacate, uh, public street amusements at Gamma Way, um, a number of members of the public, and I myself wanted a further hearing. We will be having one, but, uh, is that more of an item eight? I'm asking the city attorney or not the public hearing that we're gonna have, but this discussion of whether to have a study session. Is that more of an item 8 or a pulling the, um, 4.4.

[01:29:45] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: To answer your first question, you can make comments on the consent calendar, and depending on what it is you're interested in bringing to your fellow council members for a future discussion, if it is substantive in nature, such as holding a study session on a particular topic. That would be appropriate for an item 8 discussion.

[01:30:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so I will not pull or comment on 4.4. I'll leave that to item 8. And then, uh, and then, Mayor, would you like me to just make my comment on 4.11 right now?

[01:30:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[01:30:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I just wanted to call attention, because I think many members of the public may be interested in the council's potential, if we end up voting for it here, support for seamless transit principles. I think members of the public who are interested in improving public transit may want to take a 2nd look at that particular item. But it's intended to make our fractured Bay Area public transit system work better together. And I think it's an important thing that we're doing, and that the public may want to take note of that. Thank you.

[01:31:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Council member... Council member Lieber.

[01:31:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, thank you, Mayor. I definitely want to align myself with the previous council members, uh, comments on, uh, the seamless transit item and I'd like to indicate that I'll be abstaining on the minutes from, uh, 2020 that are listed on our agenda.

[01:31:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilman Robbie Koga?

[01:31:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I just wanted to, um, comment and somewhat in response to council member Hicks, uh, comments about 4 item 4.11. Um, The MTC has actually been engaged in a blue ribbon task force and are discussing a lot of these principles. They recently came out with a set of recommendations, and they'll be continuing the work and implementation. And so a lot of these principles have been included in the task force recommendation. So, I would just, um, encourage, uh, anyone interested to look at the MTC site and, um, the blue ribbon task force's work. Thank you.

[01:32:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other comments from council members? Okay, seeing none would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press Star 9 on your phone, and we will display a 2 minute timer on the screen, please.

[01:32:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Sonia. Menzies. Hey Sonia, are you there? There we go.

[01:33:07] Sonia Menzies: Hello, dear. Are you able to hear me now?

[01:33:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I can hear you.

[01:33:13] Sonia Menzies: Okay, I'm requesting the removal from consent of item 4.5. Which I understand was on the agenda for tonight, which is the notification of upcoming work, Colony Street connection to Permanente Creek Project 18 dash 48.

[01:33:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Did you have comments that you wanted to include as well as asking us to pull the item?

[01:33:38] Sonia Menzies: Yes, I have sent multiple messages and emails regarding this, including the fact that our notification of this meeting was sent to us and arrived in our mailboxes on the 18th with messaging, requiring us to, to, uh, uh, participate potentially on the 19th and tonight. We have not had a chance to really pull together, um, the major concerns we have. This targets our 2 older homes at the end of the street and a quiet cul-de-sac, with an absolutely unnecessary entry point onto the Permanente Creek, that completely interferes with the well-being of the 2 homes that we have here, including my elderly parent and various others in our 2 homes. There is no benefit to this entry point at all, apart from the fact that it targets our households, as opposed to more affluent households, a couple of blocks over, who will actually be the users of that entry point.

[01:34:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, Bruce England.

[01:34:50] Bruce England: Thank you. Uh, got to jump back to my notes here. You have a lot on your consent calendar tonight. So, um, I'm a member of Moundview Coalition for Sustainable Planning and Green Spaces MV, but I'm going to speak for myself because it's just, uh, 4 items I want to talk about here. But this will reflect some of our positions on things. So on 43, the designated voting delegate, for the League of California City's annual conference, I brought this up before, during the budget discussion, but having hybrid meetings or the ability for participants to not have to travel somewhere is really important to address climate change, and I hope the city manager will be in touch with the organizer saying that that's what some people will want, and hopefully people in Mountain View as well, including the council members. Um, on the Gammel Way, uh, 44. Yes, I agree that having a study session to give public time to comment on it before the public hearing later on. Uh, on the colony uh, connection to the Permanente Creek Trail. absolutely favor that. That's an important connection point. The city's moving to active transportation, and this is part of that picture. However, being sensitive to the people who live on that street and designing it such that it doesn't unnecessarily interfere with them would be important. And then, lastly, support for 411. Thank you.

[01:36:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Edie Keating?

[01:36:25] Edie Keating: Hello? I am confident that the city council supports having a well informed public. And right now, I and many others feel in the dark about the affordable housing aspect of Gammel Way. I am hardened by council member Hicks comments. I looking for a study session that will benefit the community, and I'd like to point out that if, for any reason, the city can't fit in a study session before September 28, and I hope, well before September 28, then I would look to at your next meeting, um, and that you would consider amending the resolution you're gonna be passing tonight around the timing of the sale of the property. to extend that, because it's too important an issue to not have a well informed public in advance of taking action. Thank you.

[01:37:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jesse M.

[01:37:33] Jesse M.: Hi there, thank you.

[01:37:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Go ahead. Hi Jesse, sorry about that. I don't know what happened there.

[01:37:44] Jesse M.: Oh. Can you hear me?

[01:37:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, I hear you now. There you are.

[01:37:50] Jesse M.: I'm here today because I strongly oppose Project 4.5 Colony Street Connection to Permanente Creek Trail. My property lies parallel with the creek, and I have firsthand experience with some of the negative impacts the existing trail has had on our privacy. Before I get into that, though I'd like to express my frustration with the city. In the manner of project information has been shared with us. You know, this is less than a week's notice for a project that has not going for over a year now, and it's completely unacceptable. Like the letter was received in our mailbox Friday for a meeting that's been held today. Moving on to my concerns There have already been 2 instances of a homeless person camping under the existing pedestrian overpass for weeks at a time. And during the summer, as we all know, everybody that lives here, Shoreline, you know, hosts a number of concerts. A lot of this foot traffic that comes back late at night, has no consideration for homeowners that live here. A lot of times they leave their trash, toss the trash over the overpass, which flows into the crate, which flows into the bay, right? The week leading up to 4th of July, we had a group of people tossing firecrackers into the creek. So, I think adding a trail that's only closer to bed of the creek will only continue to encourage this type of behavior. So my question is, like, where is the consideration for homeowners here? You know, for we haven't been asked any of these questions since the project has started, all we've heard is this is what's planning to be built. There is already a dedicated pedestrian entrance to the same trail, only one block away from where the proposed entry point is going to be built, right? I don't see a real purpose to another entry point here that is going to remove street parking. It's gonna block us from using our existing driveway. My parents are both seniors. I don't feel comfortable. This is totally an inconvenience to be not able to use our driveways during the duration of this project. Um, it really, it really seems like a waste, um, to be honest. Thank you.

[01:40:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Seamless Bay Area?

[01:40:07] Adina Levin: Good evening, council members. This is Aden 11, um, speaking for Seamless Bay Area, uh, wanting, uh, to thank you for joining, uh, about, uh, 15 other cities and public agencies, including the Santa Clara County, uh, association of cities and uh, total of uh, 50 other organizations around the Bay Area, supporting a seamlessly integrated, convenient, affordable, high ridership, public transportation system. Um, one of and uh, uh, supporting these principles, including putting writers 1st, having fairs that are, uh, simple and affordable uh, planning the system as, uh, as a network. This does not commit the city council to taking any follow-up actions. Um, but it does, um, uh, provide tension and highlighting on upcoming actions that are, uh, flowing through that as follow on to the MTC transit recovery task force that council member Abi Koga highlighted, um, that the city, uh, may be interested in weighing in on, um, one item that is going to be coming forward in the next couple of months, is the outcome and recommendations of a regional fair study. Um, the detailed recommendations are gonna be out on that. in September, and they include, potentially include, go anywhere, transit passes. One example of an issue that affected mountain view is with housing developments looking to provide transit passes to residents in order to support less driving, less traffic, more sustainable mobility, and having to decide, do we want to give the residents of this new housing development, uh, BTA passes or Caltrain passes? And, um, there may be the opportunity coming forward to give residents transit passes, which is more convenient, provides more, uh, uh, and, um, more mobility to people. So thank you very much for supporting the general direction.

[01:42:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Jeanette? Or Janet? Sorry.

[01:42:35] Yolanda Quintana: Muy, buena, service, uh. Primero, quiero, dicerra, la, la señor al Caldesa, y a la jolta directiva, de la cida de mountain view. Por per mi quilme espresablas in que to de la comonidad, at traber mi persona. So y'all ne quintana, evo un monotepio.

[01:42:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Can I interrupt?

[01:42:58] Yolanda Quintana: Sure.

[01:43:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Janet, this is, uh, Janet, Estes, paral consent, calendar, no, es para...

[01:43:12] Janet Quintana: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, my apologize, please.

[01:43:15] Yolanda Quintana: No, totally.

[01:43:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: She went into something that is, is not on the agenda. Okay, so, um, item five.

[01:43:25] Yolanda Quintana: Yes.

[01:43:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. It's la proxima. Okay.

[01:43:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks.

[01:43:33] Yolanda Quintana: Gracias Then, uh, all right, um, Kevin, Kevin Ma.

[01:43:42] Kevin Ma: Evening counsel, my name is Kevin Ma, the San Antonio neighborhood. I, with, like all the speakers, are concerned about the gamble way developments. There's both an edit, it has built an article on The Voice, and the merck about the proposal to raise rent control departments, and I believe that if anything, the city needs to maintain leverage in order to make sure that we follow suit on an enter displacement policy. Understand that state law does not necessarily apply to this due to, uh, timing issue, but that doesn't mean that we, as a city, cannot, cannot do anything to actually ensure that the most, um, underserved members of our community are better propped by the rest of us. And I do wish to, I do wish to see, perhaps, a study session to ensure that whatever does come out is well understood by all sides, and a study session is used for that. Other than that, I'm in support of 411. I believe that transit in the area does need to be integrated, so that once people get back to work, they're not going to be congested on the 101 or 280, and that will require integration, and that might require a bunch of stepping on toes, but that is necessary. Thank you.

[01:44:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, I'm not seeing any other hand. Oh. Okay, I'm seeing some last minute hands. All right. Um, chamber of commerce. So these are items that are on consent. I chaper of commerce. Can you hear me?

[01:45:15] Peter Katz: Yes. Great. Thank you very much, Mayor. This is Peter Cat, CEO of the Mountain New Chamber of Commerce. regarding item 4.11. Um, on behalf of our members, we join in the support of an integrated transportation system. The chambers consistently supported improving mass transit, and as our workforce becomes more disparate, while traffic and parking remain consistent challenges to the region's economic health and social health. The proposal put forth is an intelligent and needed path. Thank you.

[01:45:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Alex Brown.

[01:45:51] Alex Brown: Hey, might as well take a 2nd to say, uh, I support the other speakers who want more information and more open discussion about Gamma Way, and also better seamless transit throughout the community. Thanks.

[01:46:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right. So I think now that concludes public comment. Okay. I'll bring it back to council. Um, would, um, any council member like to make emotion or pull an item? I think we got a couple comments. Council member Abi Koga?

[01:46:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, I was gonna go ahead and make a motion, if that's ready, if we're ready to. Um, so I will make a motion to approve the consent calendar. Including 4.2, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, modifying city council policy, D10, city manager approval of over higher positions. And item 4.4, adopt a resolution of intention of the city council, the city of Mountain View, to vacate public street, and easements at Gamma Way. 4.6 adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, fixing the employer contribution, and an equal amount for employees and annuance, under the public employees, medical and hospital care act, with respect to a recognized employee organization, group 001 safety fire, and adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View fixing the employer contribution at an equal amount for employees and annuance, under the public employees, medical and hospital care act, with respect to a recognized employee organization, group 002 safety police. 4.9 is adopt resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View approving adoption of plan documents for the city of Mountain View's deferred compensation plans under IRS code sections 457 H and 4. I'm sorry, is that? 457 B, sorry, N 401, A, and Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and the retirement health savings account plan, and authorizing the city manager does need to execute all agreements and other documents necessary to implement each plan and amendments to implement council approved changes to employee compensation and benefits, and to approve future revisions to the plan documents, to comply with IRS regulations, and other applicable law. And 4.11 adopt a resolution of the city council and city of Mountain View, in support of seamless transit principles. Thank you.

[01:48:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we have a motion from council member Abby Koga, council member Hicks.

[01:48:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I would 2nd that, and then I just wanted to clarify the procedure because I haven't done this a lot. So we're considering, because 4.5 has been pulled, we consider that separately. Is that true?

[01:48:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No, a member of the council would need, or go ahead, city attorney Chopra.

[01:48:47] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, you, you, uh, you answered it correctly that no member of the council has pulled item 4.5.

[01:48:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I see. So I would ask questions given that, but maybe it's too late for that. I don't know. Has the time passed?

[01:49:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So there's, there's a, there's been a motion, but if you would like to pull an item, you can still, I believe, do so, correct city attorney Chopra?

[01:49:12] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, that's correct. So, you would just need to, if you would like to,

[01:49:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I didn't hear it mentioned in the list, but maybe it didn't have to be. Um, yeah, I would just like to ask a couple questions about it, so I would second it with that. If that's okay with, uh, council member Abbe Koch..

[01:49:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I, I believe I have to amend my motion to remove 4.5 from the consent calendar. Is that right?

[01:49:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[01:49:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, okay. I will do that.

[01:49:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So when I do believe too, so we have emotion by council member Abbe Coca, which has been amended and 2nded by council member Hicks to remove 4.5. Then we also have Council member Lever, recusing from item 4.one, and then we also have myself removing, um, recusing, sorry. recusing myself from item 4.7. Okay. Is that clear? All right. Castle member Liebert, do you have?

[01:50:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, yes, I had a question for the city manager in terms of the public comments on item 4.4. Um, Is there, I understand why we need to go through the formal step today of noticing the intention. And, um, in the attached resolution, it references the council meeting where that will actually be taken up on, um, September 28th. But, um, Is it possible to have a study session prior to that on September 14th, um, to introduce the topic more in terms of uh, the public interest in it.

[01:51:15] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So, I'm going to ask our public works director, Don Cameron, and our community development director, Artisha Vasteva, um, to fill in any gaps that I may have. I think it would be very difficult to have a study session on this. because we are bringing this back on the 28th. This is more of an administrative item and this has been discussed previously, but certainly if council has direction. Uh, we could explore that, but I would ask that our public works director or community development director explain further what has led us up to this point. Um, I will, um,

[01:52:00] Aarti Shrivastava: Good evening, our teacher, Vastava, Assistant City manager, community development director. Um, um, I'll let Dolly explain um, the vacation part, but I did want to say, um, we do like to notice the public when we have study session items, uh, especially those that are of interest, and the September 14th deadline will likely not give us enough time to to send a notice. Um, so, um, I have to, I'm gonna have to check and see which meeting deadline we can meet in order to have a study session if the council is so interested.

[01:52:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And we could discuss as an item 8, I would imagine. And the resolution does say, uh, September 28th, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. Um, so I will, uh, defer to bringing that up under item 8 then.

[01:53:04] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Um, good evening, the Don Cameron Public Works director. The resolution is following the streets and highways code that requires that you adopt the notice of intent and I realize you just to hold a public meeting. And I believe you must specify the date of the public meeting. And as I recall, you can choose a set of different date for the public hearing, but that date must be at least 15 days beyond today or the point at which you said it. So if you approve the action right now, you are setting the public hearing date for September 28, then we would advertise it as such. And I guess we, after item 8 is discussed, and this is where I could use some assistance here from city attorney's office, we could come back on September 14th for you to, um, cancel that public hearing date of September 28th and reset it. Again, this is just strictly related to street vacation.

[01:54:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And maybe this is for the city attorney, then, since clause 2 of the resolution says, um, September 28th at the hour of 6.30 p.m. or as soon thereafter, uh, as the matter can be heard, it seems like you could, um, meet the, at least 15 days requirement by, for example, setting it for October 12th and having the study session on September 28th.

[01:54:42] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Council member Lieber, you know, in reviewing this carefully. That language or as soon thereafter, as the matter can be heard. I believe that's customarily referring to the hour of consideration. For example, if the item doesn't open until 645 or 7 o'clock, I believe that's what the, uh, or assume thereafter phrase is referring to, not a, uh, not a, um, allowance for a future, hard date, if you will. So I think, um, That would be difficult to rely on this clause 2 as to allow a future date. So, uh, I believe we'd have to get clarity on the the date, uh, and the noticing, uh, in order to, uh, change it from the 28th. So.

[01:55:39] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may go ahead and make a suggestion, and I'm hearing from staff as well. If you approve the data September 8th, you can do that, and we won't be advertising starting tomorrow. And based upon your next steps and discussions on the study session, we can come back and reestablish that date. at your next council meeting as a consent items once we have, you know, once you have a clearer path forward at what you would like to do. But if you don't set September 28 tonight, then we know it's not happening September 28th.

[01:56:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Okay. So we have a motion from Council member Abbe Coca, 2nded by council member Hicks, recusals from item 4.one from council member reliever recusal from 4.7 from myself. So shall we take a roll call vote? City Quick Laser?

[01:56:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member MA Koga?

[01:56:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi,

[01:56:51] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: count number Hicks?

[01:56:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:56:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Labor.

[01:56:55] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[01:56:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek?

[01:56:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[01:56:58] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter?

[01:57:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:57:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[01:57:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[01:57:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor May. Yes. Motion carries, yes? Great. Thank you. So we'll move back to items 4. point. We'll move back to item 4.5. Uh, which was the, um, pulled item. Related to Colony Street, council member Hicks.

[01:57:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I'm, I'm actually, uh, very supportive of, uh, a connection to the Permanente Creek, but I also want, um, um, I also want to make sure that the, uh, that the connection is respectful to homes in the area, and I, I, I had a little trouble when I was looking at the staff report, there were no plans attached to it, so I had to kind of research them at the last minute, and I ended with some questions. One thing is that the, it appears that the connection is made through, this is my rating of the plan, through a path that goes, there's a cul de sac, with homes on one side and industrial use on the other side. And it appears that at the end of the cul de sac, the, uh, there's a path that goes straight forward, and then a ramp that goes up, uh, parallel, probably fairly steep, parallel to, um, the Permanente Creek trail. Am I reading that plan correctly, or does the ramp start right off of the cul de sac?

[01:58:34] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Um, thank you, Council member, Hicks. You, um, generally, you are reading it correctly. But to put this in context, if you look at where we can get a connection to the creek and the trail, in the stretch between old middle field and the freeway, this is the only place we can get that connection. What I'd like to ask is we do have principal civil engineer in charge of capital projects, Robert Gonzalez here. And Robert, would you please screen share the plan view? So the council members can see a little bit better feel for what this looks like.

[01:59:16] Robert Gonzalez: Yes.

[01:59:16] Public Works Director Don Cameron: And as you bring that up, I just want to mention to counsel that, um, There really are not much in the way of design options. This is a very basic project of providing this connection from the end of the cul-de-sac without requiring any additional right away. Um, and even though on one of the properties, we will have to somewhat reconstruct their driveway. They will still have their full driveway, full access when we're done. Um, we are not impacting any of the other properties in terms of, um, you know, basically for building this project, although we are reconstructing quite a bit of sidewalk in the area. But as you see here, what would happen is we come up off the end of the cul-de-sac and immediately go into a bridge, over the creek to get to the other side of the creek. And then we will need to do a bit of a switch back, um, to head down towards middle field way and then come back, uh, to continue north. And if you could show the next slide. Um, And maybe that starts to give you a better feel for that and then maybe the next one. And you can see the close up of how, um, this has been set up and organized to provide this, um, neighborhood connection to the trail. So, I'm sorry, um, did you have additional questions, more of a can answer?

[02:00:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, just to address the neighbor's concerns, how long will this project take altogether? And then the 2nd question they had. Do you have a, you know, a practice of spraying it down afterwards when it's complete? I know when there's been construction in my area, that's been an ongoing concern, and I just wanted to make sure that the concerns about dust and debris and all those that they were, they were, um, aired, no, kind of intended. Thank you.

[02:01:29] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I'm gonna ask Principal Engineer Gonzalez to go ahead and talk to items such as construction duration, and, as you're saying, mitigating impacts.

[02:01:38] Robert Gonzalez: Yes, thank you. Um, I checked the draft construction contract, and the duration of this contract is, uh, is stipulated is 140 working days, which is about 7 months. So we expect all of the project governments to be done in that time. That includes the paving, the sidewalk work, installation of the bridge, and the work on the other side of the creek along the pathway. So that doesn't mean this area will be impacted for 7 months. That's the entire duration of the project. Um, and to answer your 2nd question, council member Hicks. Um, this is very much uh, along the template of a paving project in this area here. So that is a standard contract provision for us to wet down the area at the end of the day to manage dust. And it's also a standard provision to make sure that we have, uh, the contractors responsible for keeping access to driveways, um, open for residents, certainly after working hours, but even during working hours, they will move equipment and make sure, um, residents have access.

[02:02:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, and then my last question is, is there a reason it wasn't the, uh, path there was not, um, uh, placed a little more to what would be our left, uh, you know, a little more towards the industrial use and a way, were there obstacles there, a little further away from the houses and a little closer to the industrial uses?

[02:03:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Robert, do you know any more about these design details and placement?

[02:03:19] Robert: Um, I don't know anything about the design details. I would imagine that there is, um, uh, limitations on the right away alignments, that I would have to go back and look at those details. But as mentioned, there are many factors that are considered, including, uh, of, you know, staying in the ride away, where we provide the bridge crossing and how that works in there. Um, in general. Yeah, I mean, this was determined through the design process to be the best location for the connect.ction.

[02:04:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, well, those were those were all of my questions. I was particularly interested in the duration and making sure that there wouldn't be, you know, the debris and air would be handled. Uh properly. So I will move to, I will move to accept 4.5 the colony street connection to Permanente Creek Trail, and improve the plans and specs, and authorize the bidding.

[02:04:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. So we have a motion by council member hips, council member show alter.

[02:04:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[02:04:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, and we have a second. So, um, since we were taking this item separately, I'm going to see if there's any public comments on the item, so I'll move to, um, public comment. All right, I think Shanet wants to talk for 4 point or sorry for item five. Um, so let's see, Sonia. Menzies.

[02:05:10] Sonia Menzies: He sets great on talking to item 4.5. This is Sonia, sorry, so sorry.

[02:05:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Can we pull up the 2 minute time? There we go. There's the timer. Okay, go ahead.

[02:05:20] Sonia Menzies: Sure. I'm absolutely disgusted in the process that I'm listening to this evening. It answered none of the appropriate questions. It's absolutely unacceptable, and I might add that the property across the street from us, which is the industrial property, has recently been sold. We were just notified and there's absolutely excess, including the fact that in the properties across the way, there will actually be the ones who will be using that path instead of impacting our small and older houses that are clearly targeted as the non-affluent part of this little intersection. That area over there is absolutely got access points. In fact, a lower access point than it has at the end of our road. I'm absolutely appalled, and I would like to formally request all public record releases on all interactions since 2015 onward, around anything to do with Colony Street, with these connections, and I believe I've placed that on a formal email to you all. This is absolutely appalling. We have aging people in this, in our 2 little houses. Now you're willing to disrupt this small and quiet cul-de-sac in order not to put this in an appropriate zone that would actually be used by those who are going to be bicycling and walking, when there's perfectly good access for those who want the exercise, to do the 2 minutes extra of walking or riding their bicycles, to go in at old Middlefield Road. absolutely disgusting.

[02:06:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hey, thank you, Jesse M.

[02:06:58] Jesse M.: Yes, hi, I'd like to share the same. same frustration. Um, I was recently informed by the owner across the street, who, you know, I've known for 20 plus years since I lived here, that they recently sold the property. And I mean, to be honest, we all know why this is being built, it's for the redevelopment that's gonna go across the street. Um, Those are the real people who are gonna use this trail. Nothing against people using the trail. You know, in fact, I've used it myself to bike over the shoreline. My concern here is the placement of the entry point, without any consideration for the homeowners that are really gonna be taking a lot of the brunt of rowdy pedestrians to come here at my concerts. What's gonna happen to the street parking that's already limited because of all the housing that's already gone up on this block? You know, we're removing more street parking from from the street. Um, what is the expectation of vehicles coming and going as they approach this entry point? You know, none of this has been discussed to us, um, since the project has been going on. And I'm pretty sure that the housing development that's gonna go up across the street, now that that property has been sold. can intake this entry point in one of the driveways there. There's no need for it to be right outside of our homes. Um, So I'm very disappointed that this is being considered as the most appropriate place just because it's on Colony Street. And secondly, like, it's such a waste of, I think, of resources, because there already is, as we mentioned, a designated entry point, only one block away, not like a mile or 2 miles away. It's only one block away. Another block after that, there is another entry point office for the same trail off Rock Street. So this is, this is just something that's totally unnecessary, but I think the real, the bottom line is that it's just to attract the home buyers for the, for the redevelopment that's gonna happen across the street. Thank you.

[02:09:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Uh, Mary Lou, Cuesta Flores?

[02:09:20] Mary Lou Cuesta Flores: Thank you. I think so. I will like to speak number item number five. Thank you.

[02:09:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, okay, okay. All right, we have a 650 number, with the last 3 digits, 380. So we're still on the consent calendar. 650 There we go. Hello?

[02:09:49] Greg Eudanks: Hi.

[02:09:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hello?

[02:09:51] Greg Eudanks: Hello? Yeah, hi, this is Greg Eudanks. I just want to say a few words on why we're doing this project on Colony Street. Um, there's a growing housing community that's been developing over the last 10 years or so in this area and it's, uh, a number of good number of townhouses are are growing in this area. And this provides direct access to the trail, which provides direct access to North Bay Shore and Shoreline Park, um, as well as uh, to uh, Crittenden Middle School, to the south, uh, where kids uh, can ride their bikes and walk directly to that school without having to cross the street. So, um, it's an important connection in that sense, and then it gets people to either walk to walk to work up in North Bay Shore, walk or ride their bikes. And they have, uh, kids, uh, middle schoolers, uh, the walking bike, uh, back and forth to school. And that's why, why this is an important connection for getting, gaining access to Stevens, or excuse me, to Permanente Creek Trail. Uh, just wanted to say that, that, that, that, there is a reason for being there and there, and there is a reason for uh, building, building this connection. Thank you.

[02:11:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Greg. All right. So I think that concludes public comment on this item. Um, and the other hands raised are for item 5 and for those who raise their hand again, you can only comment once on an item. All right, so let's bring this back to council. We have a motion, um, by council member Hicks 2nded by council member Show Walter, so city city clerk blazer. Oh, Councilmer Sher Walter, is your hands up? No, okay. Um, city clerk. We can take a roll call. Council member Hicks?

[02:11:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:11:43] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Shelter?

[02:11:45] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes?

[02:11:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member, Abbe Coca?

[02:11:49] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I.

[02:11:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Captain member?

[02:11:52] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I.

[02:11:52] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Manachek?

[02:11:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:11:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Sais Mayor Ramirez.

[02:11:58] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:11:58] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor can May?

[02:12:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:12:00] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mission Carrie's unanimous?

[02:12:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So this concludes our consent calendar, so we'll move on to item 5, which are 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 council from acting on non-agenda items. 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 press star 9 on your phone, and we'll display a 3 minute timer. And these are for items not on the agenda. Mary Lou Cuesta Flores. Um,

[02:12:50] Mary Lou Cuesta Flores: we buenas tardes. Mi nombre es mari lupuesta, so decidente de montenbio, ye vibido, qui por más de ventaños. Para mi, esuma no representara community axiom team, cad. Cada miebro de cad essen sibla los problemas. Estanga travesando las familias, que viben en el besintario, de las calles, Layton, trendor, Ortega. Yes, podello, unido, se una sola boss, queremos espresarles los sigiente. Peciente mente an abido accidentes automobilisticos, que siam producido, debido excesso de belocita de los caros, y la presencia, de un punto siego, que se producia, mita de la cuadra, de la calle. Estimados mi embros del consilio. Los es sultamos, a que por favor, en mun tiempore a sonable, contempore la possibilitade co lo carcin alamientos, y topes, que adusta la belocita de los caros en esta calle later. Pinalmente, les quiero acer sabel, que dia de mañana, cerrocho venticinco ventión, cas, les plecenteralas, firmas, que ciandre caudado, comma pollo a esta petición. Appreciamo soliderasco para brintarles seguritad, y tranquilitada lo residentes de esta parte del vicintario de nuestra ciudad. Todos queremos un montebu mas seguro. Gracias. Gracias. So we'll have a translation.

[02:14:17] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Good evening. My name is Maria Lucuesta Flores, and I have lived in more Montemu for more than 20 years. It is a honor for me to represent community action team cat. Every member of cat is sensitive to the problems that the family is living in the Latham Street between Renstab and Ortega neighborhood are experiencing, and that is why, united in one voice, we want to express to you the following. Recently, there have been car accidents that have occurred due to speeding cards, and also to the presence of a blind spot, that is towards the mid block of Lehham. Dear council members. We urge you to please consider within a reasonable time the possibility of placing signs and speed bumps to reduce the speed of cars on Latham Street. Finally, I would like to let you know that tomorrow, August 25, 2021, cat would present to you the signatures that have been collected in support of this petition. We appreciate your leadership in bringing safety and peace of mind to the residents of this part of our city's neighborhood. We all want a safer mountain view. Thank you.

[02:15:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. Sonia Menzies.

[02:15:52] Sonia Menzies: I've already spoken on the issues that I'm concerned about, which is the destruction of our space at the end of Colony Street.

[02:15:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so we're taking public comments, so I'm going to lower your hand here. Thank you. Okay, so Silicon Valley, DSA?

[02:16:13] Tim McKenzie: Hi. Tim McKenzie, actually, I logged in on the wrong Zoom. Sorry. Great to see you. Thank you for helping with going through consent calendar with the procedural wrangling, kind of keeping track of where everything was. That was very helpful, appreciate council and staff. I appreciate counsel, some council members pointing out specific items on. You can send calendar to look through. Um, I just, um, I was really disappointed to see in the Mountain View voice yesterday that we're, uh, telling the city attorney to fight in court, to spend a million dollars, to put thousands of signs up on our city street, to kick out our neighbors instead of perhaps having our city attorney look into ways to extend the eviction moratorium. Because one year ago on, uh, August 15th, there were about 229 cases of COVID, 7 day rolling average, uh, on a downward trajectory. Now, there are 815 this year. There are 342 cases on an upward trajectory. It's great that we have such high vaccination in the area. Really appreciate the work that you've done to help along with that. But the public health crisis is still ongoing to say nothing about the long term economic crisis. I think we should be looking to find ways to help make sure all of our neighbors can remain housed rather than spending money, to try to put up thousands of signs, to kick out some of our neighbors who are in unstable housing. Thanks.

[02:18:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Stephen Goldstein. Steve. Sorry, Steven.

[02:18:13] Stephen Goldstein: Thank you for your time. I'm just talking at this point to put on the public record a serious situation that took place regarding a petition hearing with the RHC. The hearing officer, uh, was being given eyewitness testimony by a employee of the city by name of John Carr. John Carr went on the record to say that, at one point in time, I was doing some kind of interference with being landlord and, uh, or repair and maintenance of the building that I live in. And then upon cross examination, when I asked him exactly what events did I actually caused any problem, he turned around and said, Well, actually, I did not eyewitness anything. I only listened to the word from the landlord itself, and so that was hearsay testimony, uh, that was done in a legal proceeding, and not only that, but it was that hearsay basically led to a testimony that was actually, in effect, perjury in the legal proceeding. And finally, the hearing officer actually turned around and said that, in fact, that kind of discussion was actually defamatory to me. And so, at this point in time, I'm actually in the process of looking into getting an attorney to represent me regarding what had occurred there, because at this point in time, it just appeared that when I ever I asked any question, for example, of showing any proof of inspections and what methods were used, it turned out there were no methods used. I actually turned around and said, and the inspector said, Oh, I poked around with a screwdriver, and I'm, like, going, That's not a means of inspecting the structural integrity of a building. And, in fact, I demonstrated that there were many techniques that were available and are widely used, and they're not used in this city. And that makes me, of course, remember what happened with the balcony that collapsed in 2018. And now I'm also thinking about the consequences of this situation regarding, again, thinking about the recent situation with Florida. And so, I'm thinking, at this point in time, it really seems to be very important that someone gets to the bottom of this, because this is, city employee went on public record to make claims about me, and then, at the same time, just normal cross examination, and ended up having to turn around and say, No, I didn't eyewitness anything. I have no idea what was going on. And he was testifying as an eyewitness. So, in any case, I do, uh, expect that someone in the city council will start doing some kind of work on this situation.

[02:21:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you very much. You.

[02:21:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Christelle Elkins?

[02:21:17] Christelle Elkins: Oh, yeah, um, can you hear me?

[02:21:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Go ahead.

[02:21:21] Christelle Elkins: Um... Hi, my name's Crystal Elkins. I go by the pronouns, she slash her, and I'm a senior at St. Francis High School and I live in Mountain View. Today, I wanted to take some time to talk about the city of Mountain View's role and action against cat calling, which I already talked to some city council members with, but I also wanted to progress others here in the public. Over the past year, in my neighborhood, in downtown Not View, on the road, and at surrounding shopping centers in the area. I've been cat called by men. Um, at 1st it was confusing to me. Then I tried to convince myself to brush it off, but it happened so often that it really began to affect me. I feel uncomfortable just going outside my house. And walk into the car because one time, 2 men drove up to my corner and started shouting at me. There was no one else home, and I thought they were going to get out of the car and come towards me. I felt really alone and scared that I might get assaulted. Cat calling is a form of sexual harassment, and I know some corporations have specific company rules against it. Similarly, I would like to work with the city of Mountain View and local stores to find ways to prevent cat calling and have immediate consequences for doing so. Because of recent law changes in France, I've looked into options such as city ordinances. In France, there are instant repercussions for cat calling, which is known as street harassment. Such as fines, and these laws are making a big difference. Going through court systems without any action against the person who cat called is no longer an issue. And despite popular opinion, distinguishing cat calling from simply complimenting someone is clear and possible. One of the reasons it's so distinguishable is because of the effect on the victim. After it happened to me. I immediately felt objectified, which is a common word nowadays, because more people are speaking up about being objectified. Basically, it means that I felt like I belong to someone else, that they could say or do whatever they wanted to me, because being objectified takes your voice and your power away. I want the city to know that if the city ordinance is not possible, I will continue to take steps forward to pursue consequences for cat calling because I will not accept that this is part of what happens to girls and women as we grow up. I don't want anyone else going through it. And so that's why I decided to adjust it today and we'll keep addressing it in different ways moving forward. Thank you.

[02:23:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Crystal. Bruce England.

[02:23:50] Bruce England: Thank you, mayor. 3 items really quick. Um, one is uh, from Green Space's Mountain View. We're star- this is more of an informational thing than anything. We're starting on a project with a Presidio graduate school experiential learning program on lighting ordinances and practices and procedures and so on, looking at our own city here, Mountain View. But also neighboring cities that might or might not have embarked on this themselves, like Cupertino and San Jose. Um, we've already met with some staff in public works. Don knows about that. Um, but we'd also like to talk with people in parks and um, community development. So that is all forthcoming. I hope that everybody will understand that it will be valuable to have that input from the city. Um, Secondly, I'd like to request that city council consider expediting the Moffat Boulevard precise plan. You talked about this during your planning process earlier in the year. And because of all the work that's happening, south of there on Castro, the transit center and so on, it would really help to define what is going to happen along that entire stretch. And even if you expedite it, we recognize that it's going to take some time to get that really up and running. So if you could consider that, that would be great. And lastly, the item brought up by the community about traffic management and calming on Latham. Um, NBCSP would support that because we recognize that that stretch of Latham is an important east-west corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians. And because the city is moving forward on an active transportation plan. It would be very timely to look at Latham and see what can be done there. Thank you.

[02:25:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, anyone else wishing to give public comment at this time? All right, I'm not seeing it.

[02:25:43] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Yes, should I should we ask Janet?

[02:25:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, it looks like she would like to speak. Okay, can you, can you um, let her know to raise her hand for us, please? Janet.

[02:26:01] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: I'll try to see if I can. There we go.

[02:26:07] Janet: Yeah, puebla. Si, estabien. Si, yeah. [non-English speech not transcribed] con suiclas cap. Y residente del basendarios. Estamos muy precupados. For los accidentes, sancto mobilisticos, quien estado qui ultimamente. It's no solo ultimo. Estos el debion punto siego, que se produce, cuando la calle, se corba, mita de la guaca. Los residentes de... Esperanos, que estas in que tudes, i precupaciones sien escuchadas, y que estras tras quemos recollectado. Lo miembros de esta cayes. Así como Latin nestros vecinos, ajuden para resolveres de asunto, las cuales, en pierremos todas las firmas, a la señora al caldeza, y la junta directiva. Muchas gracias por escuchablos. Gracias.

[02:28:03] Unknown Speaker: Good evening. I'm sorry for the previous interruption. I would like to thank the mayor and the and the rest of the city council for allowing me to express the concerns of the community. As members of the community action team and residents on Rayham Street between Ortega and Register, we are very concerned about the car accidents that have been occurring here lately. There is a lot of traffic on this street and several accidents have occurred, not just one. The last one was during May. That was due to a blind spot that occurs when the street courts in the middle of the block. Residents on that street are very concerned and do not feel comfortable parking their cars or walking because passing cars can run them over. Do it to the car races and other events that have been causing a lot of fear and tension in our community. We are asking for help from the city council to get signs and speed bombs to reduce the speed of passing cars. We hope that our concerns and worries will be heard, and that our signatures as well as those of our neighbors will help to resolve this issue. We will be delivering the signatures to city concerts soon. Thank you.

[02:29:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So this concludes, um, oral communication. So we'll move on to, we'll close the item and move on to item six, which is our public hearing. Item 6.1. One is our application to state community development block grant home key program for the life moves Mountain View Project. Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen will present the staff report. Joanne Price, Vice President, Real Estate and Operations Life Moves, is also available for questions. Sublock and Libby Seipel, the city's legal and economic consultants, are also available for questions. So at this time, I'll turn it over to Mr. Chen.

[02:30:14] Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Great. Thank you very much, mayor and counsel, let me just take a moment to pull up my screen share. Um, and just to note that, um, Sue Blog and Libby Seipher will actually be joining us for the uh, Lap 12 item, uh, but Joanne Price will be here for this item. Thank you very much. Um, okay, so hopefully, um, you can also see the screen. Um, yes, this item is, um, uh, uh, in discussion about the application to the state, CDPG home key program, uh, for the life moves, Mountain View, uh, project. Um, this is a required public hearing as part of the application to this uh, funding source. Uh, just a brief background, um, in 2020 as, um, I believe you know, um, the state released project Homekeep funding, and awarded the joint application between the city and life moves to develop 100 units of uh, uh, interim housing at 2566 Leghorn using a modular design. Uh, staff and uh, uh, the life news team worked really hard on this and was able to get it completed in May. Um, around that time, um, uh, uh, uh, in April, uh, of this year's state released a separate, um, bucket of funds, um, through the CDBG home key, um, program, and this is available for projects that um, applied to the 2020 project home key funding. So only those projects that applied last year are able to apply for this CDPG HomeKit funding opportunity. A brief summary, um, this state program was established through the Federal Cares Act, um, in response to the coronavirus. Um, as I mentioned, uh, uh, the only applicants are ones that already apply to Project Home Key. There are 2 trunches for applicants who applied the project Homekeep but did not get awarded. Um, they have a higher um, allowable um, limit per unit. For award ease, though. It's a lower limit, but still a really great opportunity. $50,000 per unit in CDPG funding. Um, eligible uses um, can include um, on-site, and off-site improvements uh, to support the home key project. And unlike uh, Project Home key last year, uh, for us, it would just be a sole applicant um, situation where the city would apply um, by itself um, per the requirements. The public hearing, again, is required, and we will discuss that in just a moment in a little bit more detail. Um, the deadline is next week on August the 31st, and if awarded, the funds would need to be spent um, at the end of next year in 2022. So a little bit more time than the project home key program. Um, after the, uh, project at Leghorn was completed, um, connected with city staff to support that project. One is installing a solar power system on site at 2566 Leghorn. And um, another project uh, would be to acquire a site down the street. At 1950 Leghorn, to provide additional nearby parking to support the home key project. It is estimated that the 2 activities would have a total cost of $5000000 about $10000 for the solar power system, and about $4000000 for the site acquisition for the parking. Um, this lines up with a maximum allowable request for uh, home key, which is $50,000 a unit, times a 100 units, that's $5 million. So this is a great opportunity to apply for these funds and if not applied for, there would be a lost opportunity to access these funds. Uh, we have, uh, met internally with staff to, um, analyze the, uh, activities and initial, uh, analysis. So we have also met with the state who confirmed that these 2 proposed activities would meet the program eligibility requirements. So we think this is a good opportunity to try to access these funds. Just a note on the site acquisition for parking. Uh, the reason why 1950 Leghorn is being, um, considered by uh, life moves to support the Humpkey Project is that the actual project has a, a lower on-site parking than would have normally been required by the zoning code because of the, um, home key requirements to, um, uh, not have to meet the parking requirements. Um, but, uh, as a result, life moves did want to make sure that the, uh, the project is really well implemented, and they're good neighbors, and so they've implemented a parking plan for additional parking in lot B at Shoreline, which is one. 6 miles away. Um, to that end, life news, um, also has funded the purchase and operation for a shuttle. Uh, to bring folks to and from uh, Loppy. Uh, 1950 Leghorn is um, uh, a half mile away from the uh, main site. Uh, they will be implementing an operations plan to make sure that is uh, well run. And they're able to deploy the shuttle to actually bring folks to and from the 1950 site as well. Um, This will be a really great help to help reduce barriers to to access the housing units. Um, the next steps if counsel approves, uh, the resolution is to submit the application by August 31st. Uh, if awarded, then the city would be the actual recipients of the funds. We would work with life moves, to get the funds to them, who would undertake the 2 activities. They were to meet the state and CDPG program requirements. It would include submitting to the city, a development review permit, and a building permit application for the city approval. And, uh, again, they would need to complete the activities by the end of 2022. Uh, the city would also be responsible for monitoring the um, activities in life, uh, life moves to insure program and CPG compliance. Uh, so with that, I am going to the recommendations a slide. My computer is a little slow right now. Here we go. Uh, conduct a public hearing, uh, uh, which is what this item is. Uh, to allow uh, consideration for the $5000000 grant. For the 2 activities. Um, and as the 2nd slide is pulling up on the recommendation, it is to, uh, have, uh, council, uh, authorize and adopt a resolution to allow the submittal of the application. And then finally is to authorize the city manager, um, or designate, um, the, um, ability to execute the agreements with light moves, um, uh, um, if, if awarded. So I apologize, the computer's a little slow and it is not moving to the 2nd slide. There it is. Um, so with that, that concludes staff's presentation, and I would like to turn it over to Joanne Price.

[02:37:25] Joanne Price: Okay, thank you, Wayne. Uh, good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Jeff Price. Real Estate and Operations for Life moves. And firstly, I want to thank staff, but all their hard work and drive in assembling such a large volume of information, to bring this, to cancel this evening in time for the application. We were aware it was a really tight time crunch and appreciate the extra mile that staff went through, especially Wayne, who I know has stayed up on multiple occasions past midnight to make this possible. So a sincere, thank you. We really appreciate it. Secondly, want to thank the city council for considering this item and hopefully providing approval to apply for this potential grant funding up to 5000000 that will facilitate ongoing operations, even lower in annual operating costs. Right, we were along the way by council's courageous and bold leadership on Home key Mountain View and your continued support. And the project has really become a successful case study on rapidly deployed housing. And that we are now working on replicating in neighboring cities. And that's a testament to your visionary leadership for which we are sincerely grateful. So now we're close to fully occupied at 95% capacity, all of whom have affiliations to Mountain View, and at least 60 to 65% of persons coming out of living in their vehicles. And today, we've been pretty creative in how we've utilized the 19 on-site parking spaces and we share those between staff and clients and that has worked out well. And remember in the goal of the project was to house people and not park cars. Um, and under Home key one, as Wayne pointed out, we purchased a passenger van and we factored in the cost of running that shuttle with on-site staff into our annual operations cost. Now, the Shetle's primary service purpose was to ferry clients between the shoreline parking lot. But now if we're successfully by 1950 Leghorn for additional parking, we'd make stops at that location too. And when necessary. These shuttles are also used to ferry clients to like doctors and dental appointments as well as pick up large donations and food pickup. So having an alternate parking location, that's within walking distance of this site. It's less than half a mile, like a block and a half . It's 3 times closer than the shoreline parking lot. It's going to give our clients a lot more freedom to come and go with versus relying on the shuttle times. Now, the 2nd project, that's the solar installation. That's going to help us avoid relying so heavily on PG&E. And the grid. And that's where we realize some savings in our operation on this cost and I think we've not raised it, the PG&E rates are not coming down. So to, we're trying to future proof some of those ongoing operations cost. I'm going to close now with a little story about the home key mountain view site because last week I fielded a call from one of our HCD leads who we work closely with on our initial application. And she learned through her grandmother, who's all the way over on the east coast, that we had housed the child of a close friend, family friend who'd been experiencing homelessness on and off for the past 20 years. So talk about bringing a project full circle. We're really humbled and honored to bring peace to that family. And so with that, I'm going to stop and answer any of your questions.

[02:41:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Joe. Really appreciate it. So, does any member of the council have any questions? Council member Abi Koga.

[02:41:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you, Joe, for your presentation. Um, I'm really excited about, uh, about actually the solar piece to this. Um, and, um, I could probably talk with you offline about this, but wondering if you might be, um, open to exploring solar plus storage. It's something that we're doing with Silicon Valley clean energy. So, if, um, it's, if you would be interested, I would love to, um, connect you with folks to see if that's something you could add on to make it even more green.

[02:42:01] Joanne Price: Absolutely. Definitely. Let's talk offline. Thank you.

[02:42:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Show Walter.

[02:42:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi Joe, thanks for your presentation and all your great work. I was so glad to hear that you're up to 90% capacity. Is that what you said, and also, um, could you tell us a little bit more about, um, uh, where people are coming from? You said 60 to 65% of people are leaving out of vehicles? Does that mean, do you mean vehicles like, um, regular cars, or do you mean vehicles like RVs, or, or do you know how that breaks down?

[02:42:38] Joanne Price: I do actually have those numbers. So we went 95% capacity. Yeah, we just finished the work over at Shoreline. And in those numbers, we had 46 coming out of RVs, living out of RVs, 38 living in cars. And then the remainder 54 from the streets.

[02:43:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. And, and it seems like the other question I, I, um, Wondered about is, so the, the 1950 parking lot wouldn't be a replacement for lot B. It would be an addition. Is that what you're saying?

[02:43:18] Joanne Price: Correct for now? Yeah, we would, we would monitor it, and we're keeping mentally reports of how we're going to be using Shoreline, and then we'll do a report back to city staff, and see how that, like how the operations are panning out.

[02:43:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. What about the possibility of, uh, of parking cars on Leghorn? I noticed when I was visiting that there are signs up that say, um, no parking from 2 to 6 a.m. Uh, I was wondering, if, if that would also be in a, you know, a help. Um,

[02:44:03] Joanne Price: I'm not, I'm not sure I'm following, sorry.

[02:44:05] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, well, those those signs, you know, there are signs that so that means that people cannot park on the street there that can just park on the site or on an other lot, right?

[02:44:15] Joanne Price: Correct.

[02:44:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: All right. And would they come park over at Shoreline?

[02:44:19] Joanne Price: Now it's opened as well, then we will operate the shuttle.

[02:44:22] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Thank you. Well, anyway, we're really, really, um, proud of this, and, uh, and so happy to hear that it is, you know, that it is, um, it's really functioning, well. That's great. Thank you.

[02:44:36] Joanne Price: And I should add that the shoreline lot is good for parking, the RVs, because the site on Leghorn 1950 Leghorn would be appropriate for cars, small vehicles, but not RVs.

[02:44:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member Hicks.

[02:44:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, hi, thank you, Joe, Joe, for the update. Always good to hear the latest news. I'm basically asking the same question that council member show Walter just asked, but maybe in a slightly different way. Maybe staff can tell me, um, you know, with the, the parking update that I'm hearing about and how many, uh, vehicle residents in various vehicles, um, are, uh, moving into this, this project. I'm wondering whether staff or I guess, uh, Joe has already been asked, but whether staff has looked into, um, changing the parking situation on Leghorn, so that we're not always purchasing properties for parking, particularly cars. My understanding is that, and this was before my time, so you can tell me I'm totally wrong. But my understanding is that, that, uh, there's the parking limits on that street, um, that it was prior to the narrow streets ordinance, and it's a wider street, and I'm just wondering if anybody's looked into re examining that, and maybe that might be a better use of our resources. I mean, I hope we get this grant, but better use of our resources than, um, constantly purchasing places to park cars. They're not even living in.

[02:46:20] Wayne Chen: I could provide an initial, um, thought, and then perhaps the, um, Don Cameron Public Works director or RT Shrabasta, um, community development director, um, assistant city manager might have additional thoughts. Um, during the application process and then working um, at full speed um, last year to um, implement the project, we were really focused on, uh, um, moving the project through the building permit process and and getting all those pieces in place. Uh, Our work with um, Joe and the life news team was really focused on, um, acknowledging and understanding that there are parking restrictions that currently exist and then figuring out an operations plan to, um, address that, uh, given the on-site parking and and also being good neighbors. So that wasn't part of staff's evaluation at the time, um, in particular because, uh, there really wasn't time to evaluate that. Um, perhaps Don or our team may have some thoughts about the history of the parking restrictions on the site. Um, uh, I'll pause there.

[02:47:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Don Cameron, public works director.

[02:47:36] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I will say that, yes, it is on our work plan to take a look at those parking restrictions on Leghorn, as well as other similar parking restrictions in the city. Our 1st step will be to go back and research the history of those signs being put in and the reasons why. See if those needs still exist and reevaluate the need for the signs, as well as some outreach with the property owners along the street to let them know that we are studying, possibly removing the signs. So it is on our work plan. Uh, to come back to council, when we have a chance to do this analysis and and make a recommendation.

[02:48:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Thank you very much. That sounds like the right direction to me. Council member Lieber?

[02:48:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm had a similar question, and I think if there's any way to prioritize various streets, Um, from a user perspective, this one would be especially important to me because I, I think that it's wonderful to have the shuttle, but, you know, when you envision, um, coming back with purchases or, um, whatnot like that, having the ability to have a parking space, even if it's on the street that's close in. I think is, um, obviously a lot better. And then, um, I have, uh, question about the solar. And, um, I'm very much a solar supporter when I was in the state assembly, I had the opportunity to, um, do some legislation to really push that forward. And, um, so I saw in the staff report that this would be a $1000000 to do the solar. And, uh, do we have a rough idea of, like, uh, what the current spend is per month that this would defray? Sorry,

[02:49:45] Joanne Price: we don't have that information yet, and the PG&E bills that are coming through are just too small to realize, but we are working with a consultant, to design a program for maximum solar use. On the existing buildings. And so currently the bills are very small. Yeah, yeah, they're not coming through. We don't have all the information yet to make that detailed analysis, but we're working with PG&E to assemble all the information.

[02:50:20] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and, um, uh, again, I think it, it could be a great message and, um, it's, it's definitely, um, eye catching is, it has been the quick rollout. Um, of this program and quickly serving people that, um, are in need. Um, but I do think that our fiduciary duty extends, you know, definitely in terms of what we do as a city. But then also, um, what we request as a city as well. So, in a certain sense, I think that we can look at County, state, federal money, is is free money to us. Um, but, at a certain level, it does come out of other, worthy objectives, and, um, So, if the spend were, like, $10,000 a month, um, on electricity. Um, it would still take uh, quite a while for a $1000000 to, um, be recouped in terms of the cost avoidance. Um, so I, I just, um, think about our, our commitment to, um, serving the public, um, even when we, uh, appear to be able to access free money.

[02:52:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:52:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. A couple of questions. So 1st Joe, always good to see you. Uh, thank you, Wayne, and uh, I know you're one man show right now, but uh, hopefully you'll get staffed up and uh, we'll be able to to work on these kinds of innovative and uh, exciting projects. Uh, uh, with, with less stress and and fewer, uh, nights past midnight. Uh so thank you very much for your work on this. So 1st question. Um, I can't recall off hand. What is the long term and short term, uh, bike storage, uh, available at the home key site right now, and, uh, do you anticipate providing long and short term bike parking at the, the new site if it's acquired? It's nice to have a shuttle operate between the 2 Many people won't be able to ride bikes perhaps, but some can, and it might be, you know, more effective for some number of people to ride their bike to their parked car, if that's something that, uh, they will need to do. So, is are we looking at bike capacity as well?

[02:53:12] Joanne Price: When, do you want me to answer that? We have lots of bikes. We partnered with good karma bikes, and if you go on site, we have more bikes than we put in bike parking, and we're now looking at putting in additional bike storage for all these bikes. I would say we have at least 25, if not 30 bikes on site. There's a lot. And the clients are allowed to take their bikes with them when they exit the programs as well.

[02:53:43] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, I figure that intuitively. I guess what I'm asking is, we're looking at adding car parking spaces, and I understand why, but is this also an opportunity to expand long-term bike storage? Are you going to have, uh, a short term bike storage available for folks who are riding their bike from the home key site to fetch their car? Is that something that we're looking at as part of this project?

[02:54:12] Joanne Price: We, we definitely can do. Like, I know we have the bike storage on site now, and we'll look at putting it, if we are successful on the other sites, that we would put storage secure storage on site there, too.

[02:54:28] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Yeah. Fantastic.

[02:54:30] Joanne Price: Yeah, we're definitely looking it for you.

[02:54:32] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Wonderful. And then the 2nd question. Um, I'm very interested in better understanding the long term parking utilization generally, uh, and, you know, at some point we may not need as much parking, will we be able to use this site for other purposes? For instance, increasing the number of interim, you know, modular units that are available. Uh, something along those lines. Are we able to do that or are we locked into this particular use for a long period of time?

[02:55:08] Aarti Shrivastava: Wayne, I was going to defer that to you.

[02:55:11] Wayne Chen: Sure, advice me or if you could clarify, are you referring to the 2566 site or the 1950 Lakehorn site if it were acquired for parking?

[02:55:19] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm sorry, the 1950 site.

[02:55:23] Wayne Chen: Uh, thanks. Thanks for that clarification. Um, um, our our understanding is, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but the, uh, the support of, uh, 2566 with parking at 1950 would, uh, go in tandem to support the duration of the use of 2566 as interim housing. So, that has a requirement, uh, to operate for, uh, at least 10 years. And as we get closer to that date than, uh, uh, we would explore options about, uh, for example, whether it would remain as interim housing or, uh, for example, uh, if there's an interest, uh, on council to, uh, covering to permanent housing or, uh, some other option. Um, but the parking, um, anyway, would support the the use of the site as long as 2566 is for this particular use. Um, the intent is to work with life moves. Once life moves acquires a site, we would, we would, uh, work with the team to look at, um, having that, um, uh, a dedicated to the site or convey to the, uh, the city in terms of city ownership. Um, and then I think at that point, uh, we could potentially explore some options, um, after the requirement to serve 2566 is is is complete. Uh, Joe, I don't know if you have any other thoughts to add.

[02:56:44] Joanne Price: Oh, I think you answered it well.

[02:56:47] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you. So, we're using it to support the Project Home key site, which I completely understand and support. And 10 years down the road, will have an opportunity to evaluate a different use because we will be able to, at least in partnership with life moves, control that site and identify another use, depending on what the council at the time is interested in pursuing.

[02:57:12] Wayne Chen: Yes, and we would certainly just also want to make sure we're reviewing the CDPG HomeKit program requirements to, uh, make make sure those options are available, but, um, I think conceptually that is, um, our, our understanding of, of the possibilities for the 1950 site.

[02:57:29] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you so much.

[02:57:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I have one too. So I'll go to Council member Hicks and then I'll ask my question.

[02:57:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Counselor Hicks. This is just a short follow-up on the vice mayor's question. So, um, I'm hearing that, as for the, the Leghorn parking site, we could revisit its use in 10 years, I guess it wouldn't be we, it would be a different council. Um, but in 10 years, um, and I just wanted to, uh, I just wanted to make sure that if other parking arrangements were made, would there be any way to visit it before the 10 years, because it seems like it would be, you know, foolish to have to keep, uh, uh, parking lot if you'd found other ways to to park cars. So I just wanted to verify that.

[02:58:25] Wayne Chen: Thanks for their question. I think at a high level, the intent of the state CDBG Homekeep program is to help address the housing needs of the unsheltered, who are impacted by the pandemic. Um, as the project unfolds and it's implemented and there are evolving needs. What we would likely do is have a conversation with the state housing and community development department, to understand what the options are. So, for example, if in 5 years from now, we find that there's actual, um, shift in the needs and priorities, um, and we're able to to, um, uh, explore a different use for the site. That would be something we would explore with the state. But our understanding is they're really focus on making sure folks are sheltered. And so if there's a different opportunity to um, achieve that goal, um, uh, even more effectively. Um, I think, I think they would be open to the discussion, um, pending any kind of, um, hard requirements of the program to meet, but, um, I think that would be a conversation with each city and, and, um, they've been very good about working with, with, with the city and in life knows about exploring, exploring the options and trying to be, um, you know, open and creative to, to, to make the needs.

[02:59:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, good. That's more the answer I wanted to hear. I would hate to see that life moves in the future. is housing more people on the street without vehicles, and we have an unfilled parking lot that we have to keep for 10 years.

[02:59:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you.

[03:00:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Great, thank you. And then I just had a click, quick, clarifying question for staff. Um, so part of the parameters for the CDBG grant are that it's for infrastructure needs. And so that's why the 2 recommended items are coming forward with the parking lot and the solar, is that correct? Because it's partially were confined by what we can fund that falls under the infrastructure category.

[03:00:30] Joanne Price: Yes, I believe that's right. As I mentioned earlier in the presentation, there are sort of 2 buckets of eligible applicants for this. Um, the 1st bucket is, um, folks who applied to Home key and did not get awarded funds and they're going to have a different set of needs. And then the 2nd bucket are folks who did apply to Home key and did get awarded and not implementing the projects, and they have a different set of rules. So we're in that 2nd bucket and the needs of this particular, um, uh, uh, project for, for, for Mountain View and for life moves is, is particular to our, our situation. And then it happens to also connect with, um, an allowed use. And so it is very, it is, uh, narrow in the sense that it is, um, specific to, to this project and it is, um, allowed by HCD, um, because we're in that, we're in that 2nd bucket.

[03:01:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Great. Thank you for that clarification.

[03:01:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, so I don't see any other hands for questions. So, I'll move on to public comment. 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 press star 9 on your phone. And we'll display a 2 minute timer. So I see 2 hands. So we'll just wait for the timer to come forward. All right. Sush, sush.

[03:01:55] Public Speaker: Hi. So, um, my name is Sush. I am a resident of Mountain View and I had just 2 things I want to bring up. First, I would like to highlight that, um, Alternate parking options sounds like a great plan, especially since we've heard that 2 AM to 6 AM is the only time that you can't park on Leghorn, which seems like it's primarily to prevent overnight parking. Um, but I recognize the need for parking, I just think there can be better uses of that money along with the solar, because I was just doing calculations. It looks like you need a 1000 months of, you know, paying 10,000 in electricity rates to compensate for the solar. Um, Related to that, I was wondering if life moves would be able to provide any analysis that they've conducted on the various options that fall under the infrastructure bucket, like whether something like a community kitchen or a food bank or other things that are critical to supporting a currently unhoused population, as they move towards independence, would be like a better use of this overall budget of 5000000 that we have versus buying a parking lot. Thank you.

[03:03:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kitty, kitty. Oops, sorry about that. Anna Cole? Anna Cole? All right. Eddie Keating.

[03:03:32] Eddie Keating: Hello, thank you. Um, I appreciate many of the council questions on this item. Um, it's, I'm happy to hear that there is flexibility in, uh, the possible future uses of the lot that is uh, being considered for purchase. And, um, I do appreciate the, um, the question of, you know, are these, um, worthy uses? Is there enough benefit from these uses that will be funded by grant money. And one of the things that, uh, reassures me of going ahead to apply for this grant money is that, you know, if there are better uses, then the grant will not be received by Mountain View. Um, one of the, regarding the solar, uh, winter is coming, and I'm assuming there is electric heat used, uh, by the modular units, um, so I think the bill may jump up a bit, um, when winter arrives. And also, because we don't know, um, If this grant will be received or not, winter is coming is another thought. And if those signs were to come down, so that there could be parking very close on the street, Uh, I think that would be highly beneficial. And just normal. I think that should take place, that those signs should come down, that prohibit overnight parking. Those signs don't go up in residential areas. because there is a need in residential areas for street parking. Well, Leghorn has now become a residential area. Um, Thank you very much.

[03:05:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Bob Benson? Bob, are you there?

[03:05:36] Bob Benson: Yeah, can you hear me now?

[03:05:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, I hear you now.

[03:05:38] Bob Benson: Okay, so I'm a general contractor. We're located directly across from 1950 Leghorn. Um, we built our building here in 1980. Um, I was actually the architect and uh, and then the builder for that, for this building. We were regulated by the amount of parking ratio of what we were allowed to have for the size of our building, and the amount of spaces that we had. And I just wanted to ask how a place like down the street, um, is allowed to build something that they don't have enough parking for. Secondly, um, I'm a little concerned about the fact that the, um, the actual, um, uh, as far as, as far as what they're doing for, um, residential, um, we approached the city many years ago about building condos when the condos started getting built behind us. And we were instructed that the actual general plan says that Leghorn Street, at least on our end, is supposed to be used for industrial, and they're not gonna allow any residential in this area to be developed. So, now we have a proposal saying that we are gonna put residential parking across the street from an area that we're not supposed to have any residential development. So I'm just asking the attorney, are you gonna change the general plan that's been in effect for many years for this street? Um, I'm also concerned. Um, I'd like to address a couple things about the parking. The parking on the street. I don't know if there's signs down here, but there's, this street is impacted with parking up and down the street. They're there all the time. Over the night, I have boats parked out here. I have RB's parked out here. It's pretty interesting this last week. I just got somebody to post a sign that says no RV parking. I think it has to do with this relationship, or this application. Lastly, I'm a little concerned about Mountain View pushing out a small contractor. There's been 4 or 5 of them that rent over there, and now you're gonna put a parking lot in because you're gonna put a new, uh, a non building and a non function for the city. It kind of sets me. Thank you.

[03:08:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. So that, uh, concludes public comment. So, we'll bring this back for council deliberation action. And we note that we have a, we need a motion to approve the recommendation, which should include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:08:27] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. going to go ahead and move the staff recommendation. including adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, for exception to the 180 day wait period, government code sections, 7522.56 and 21224. And just by way of a few comments, um, some zoning code related things have come up, uh, from council questions, and from public comments, and I wanted to speak briefly to them. Uh, so, uh, the contention that this is a residential use is partially right. But in compliance with state law, uh, the city is required to identify one zoning district in which shelter uses are allowed by a right, and many years ago, uh, the council at the time decided that that zoning district would be the general industrial zoning district. So that's why the site exists where it does. Uh, I think, an interesting ques- question that we could talk about in the future, maybe, is that the right zoning district for interim housing for shelter uses. But right now, the zoning code says this is the zoning district where that use is allowed by right. Um, the parking issue, uh, project home key allows, uh, reductions or I guess, exemptions from the zoning code in order to make these kinds of developments possible, and that's why, uh, even though the zoning code requires roughly 50 parking spaces, only 19 are provided on site, that's because of, uh, allowances in state law. But, uh, light moves and the city, I think, want this development to work and we want to be good neighbors, uh, as has been said before, which is why we're trying to fully park it. It's not adjacent to, you know, immediately. It's not within the site itself because we wanted to use it primarily for interim housing, but we're trying to find ways of making this work both for the residents who live there and for the business community surrounding it. So we don't want to necessarily impact the area with with parking. Um, I think the, the, the other thing I wanted to highlight is, even though high level, it may seem unsatisfactory to spend so much money on parking. I'm not thinking about it that way. I'm thinking about this as an opportunity to use state funds to acquire land, that we could control down the road, you know, to expand interim housing or find some other use that, uh, addresses whatever community need. Uh, you know, we identify as a priority at that time. So, yes, you know, I don't ordinarily seek to expand parking. I would love to have a conversation down the road also about whether we're right and requiring this amount of parking per shelter. That's what the zoning code says right now. But right now, I think we're trying to do what we can to make the project work, both for the neighbors and for the residents who currently are at the 2566 Leghorn site. Uh, so very supportive of, uh, the proposal and thanks again to, uh, city staff, Wayne, at your team and, uh, and Joe and life new staff for delivering this project and for, uh, uh, preparing this application, um, in the time that you did. I know we're coming up coming up across the deadline and I'm hoping that we can succeed in winning the scram. Thank you.

[03:11:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And then vice mayor, I think you read 7.one. If you had, I think you meant to read 6.one, so I'm going to give you a 2nd show about that.

[03:12:10] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. All right, so I will move the staff recommendation, including adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View approving an application for funding and the execution of a grant agreement, and any amendments thereto, from the 2020 community development block grant program, coronavirus response, and or the 2020 to 21 funding year of the uh, yeah, funding year of the state community development block grant home key program. My apologies.

[03:12:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Your comments were the right ones, though. Okay. Council member Mattachek.

[03:12:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yes, I was gonna point that out. I was getting ready to 2nd and I thought, wait a minute, what did he just read? So I'll 2nd what you just read. Great.

[03:12:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you, Counselor Aboutachek. All right. So I don't see any other hands raised from colleagues, so I'll turn it over to City Clerk Blazer to do the roll call, though.

[03:13:03] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Bye Sarah Ramirez.

[03:13:06] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[03:13:07] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek?

[03:13:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:13:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koca? Council member Hicks?

[03:13:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:13:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber?

[03:13:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[03:13:16] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member show Walter?

[03:13:17] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:13:18] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: And Mayor May?

[03:13:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:13:20] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mission Carrie unanimously.

[03:13:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much to staff. Thank you, Joe for joining us.

[03:13:25] Joanne Price: Wonderful Thank you for your support. Have a good evening.

[03:13:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: You too. All right, now we'll move on to item 7. New business, item 7. Appointing an extra help retired. A new under government code section 7522. um dot 56 and 21-224. Senior Human Resources Analyst Lindsay Bishop will present the staff report. Human Resources Director Sue Rush is also available for questions. So we will move it over to Miss Bishop. Who I think is coming over. Is that right? Let's see. Oh, perfect. There's Miss Bishop and there's Miss Rush. All right, thank you.

[03:14:14] Senior Human Resources Analyst Lindsay Bishop: All right, good evening, Mayor Vice Mayor Council. This evening I bring you a resolution appointing an extra help retired new attempt. Government code requires a 180 day separation before a retired helper's new attent can be employed by per agencies. Government code also allows for Calpur's agencies to hire a retired annuant tent before the end of this 180 day period. If their expertise is needed to fill a critical role, and the governing body approves the exception at a public meeting, which is why I'm here before you tonight. I recommend such an exception to hire retired a new attempt, Douglas Kiner, as an extra help retired annuitant, performing the services of a senior system specialist in the police department. The senior system specialist performs a critical role in the maintenance, troubleshooting, and upgrade of public safety systems, including in progress implementation of systems for police records, and support for the emergency communications center. Mr. Kiner has the experience in specialized skills and his employment is critical to oversee the projects outlined in the staff report, which support the systems that safeguard the wellness of residents, employees, and visitors in Mountain View. This work is technical and time sensitive. The police department does not have sufficient staff resources with the technical knowledge and skills to ensure the continuity of services and systems until the new incumbent is on boarded. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this retired and new hire. This concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.

[03:15:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hey, thank you. All right. does any member of the council have any questions? All right, seeing none. 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 zoo or press star 9 on your phone. All right, and I'm also seeing no public comment. So I will now bring the item back for council deliberation action. And note that a motion to approve the recommendation should include the reading of the title of the resolution that's attached to the report. Council member Abikoga.

[03:16:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you if there are no other comments. I'd like to make a motion to adopt a resolution at the city council, the city of Mountain View, for exemption to the 180 day, wait period, government code sections, say, 7522.56 and 21224, which was previously read by the vice mayor. Thank you.

[03:16:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, counselor Michelle Walter.

[03:16:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Second.

[03:16:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion by Counselor Robert Koga, 2nd ded by Counselor Rasho Walter. So we'll turn it over to the city clerk for a roll call vote.

[03:17:00] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koca.

[03:17:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[03:17:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hanks.

[03:17:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:17:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member labor.

[03:17:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[03:17:09] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Counselor Matachek?

[03:17:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:17:12] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Shel Walter?

[03:17:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[03:17:14] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Oh, sorry. Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:17:17] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[03:17:18] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: May I, May I?

[03:17:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:17:19] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion care.

[03:17:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And thank you to staff. So we'll move on to item 7.2, which is our lot 12 development. Um, so we'll wait a staff makes their, um, way over via the Zoom. But at this time, do any council members have any disclosures that they would like to make? Please feel free to raise your hand if you do. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:17:45] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'll disclose that I've met with the applicant.

[03:17:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. So, assistant community, oh, council member, show alter.

[03:17:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, I also had a discussion with the applicant.

[03:18:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So assistant community development director, Wayne Chen, an associate planner, Krisha Penelar will present the staff report. In addition, Randy Suda, CE president and CEO all to housing from the developer team will present. We'll also have from the developer team and available for questions, are Anne Silverberg, CEO, Northern California, Affordable, Related California. Andrew Schnofhar, assistant vice president related California, and Alex Seidel, principal Seidel architects. All right, so I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chen first.

[03:18:41] Wayne Chen: Great. Thank you, Marin Council. It's good to see you. It's been some time. Um, let me, uh, again, take a moment to share my screen. I apologize in advance if it is a little bit slow and relax. Give me 12nd here. Um, and then I will also note again that, uh, uh, uh, Libby Seifel and Sioux Block are, um, consultants on this project are also, uh, available to help us, um, answer any questions. Um, uh, you may have. Um, so without further ado, this item is regarding the lot 12 um, development. Um, the purpose of this meeting, um, there are a couple of items. Uh, the developer doesn't tend to some more submit a formal application using um, the uh, SB 35 a process that has a more streamlined review and an approval process. It's a 90 day approval process. Um, this, uh, uh, this process has, um, some limits on the ability for the city to modify the project design after the application submittal, and, um, as we, um, learn more and have more SP 35 um, projects. We, we are, um, learning, you know, good ways to implement SP 35, But for lot 12, it is a status recommendation that any changes to the project design occurred before the application submittal. Because the city is the landowner of Lot 12. Um, uh, there's a requirement for the city to actually um, authorize the developer to be able to submit the application. And so the purpose of this meeting is for the council to discuss those key items that would be necessary to discuss prior to authorizing. Um, there's submittal, which is approving the key terms of this project and of this deal, to provide input on the project's design and then to authorize the applications submittal by the developer. Uh, brief background. Uh, the RFP process uh, began in 2019, it included in May of 2028, when council selected the joint development team of related and Ulta as the uh, preferred developer. Um, in October of 2020. There were some remaining items that the council wished to discuss. And, uh, in that study session, uh, council determined, um, uh, the following, uh, uh, that it wishes to see the 160 public parking spaces that currently exist on Lot 12 to be replaced off site, um, that there is support for, um, county measure 8 funding for rapid rehousing units as opposed to permit supportive housing. And the initial RPC middle had childcare as a proposed potential use. Council supported this as a potential use, but it wasn't a requirement of the project. Um, so since that time until now, we have been, um, having weekly meetings with the development team, to negotiate on the key deal terms, um, there has been a required tribal consultation process that is part of SP 35 that has been, uh, completed. Uh, we did bring an item to council back in April to approve $1300000 in pre-development loan, to allow the developer to undertake, um, various activities at the stage of the process. And there have been 2 rounds of informal project review, um, already. Um, in addition to ongoing discussions as necessary on various um, items. Uh, briefly, the project site, um, as you may know, uh, the site is across the street from the Civic Center, uh, from the library in the city hall. It's a one. 5 acre site, bounded by Mercy, brought it to California streets. It's in the downtown precise plan, uh, area, sub area C. Um, and it's a transition area, and it is uh, uh, within half a mile of the downtown drive the center as well as the um, outcoming of real, um, uh, uh, transit and uh, bus lines. So the proposed development is 120 units with one manager's unit, uh, with 8 units on the ground floor. Uh, 18 studios, uh, 421 bedrooms, and then, um, half of the project are larger units, uh, 2 and 3 bedrooms for, uh, meeting the, um, priority of, uh, more housing for, for example. In terms of the affordability levels for those 119 units, all of them are below 80% AMI and it's broken down as such. Uh, 40 of the units would be up to 30%, um, AMI known as extremely low income units. And of the 4020 would be for rapid rehousing. So those are our H units. Another 40 units would be up to 50% AMI level, very low communits, and then the remaining 39 units would be considered low income units, up to 80% AMI area of medium income. There is a desire, uh, and a priority for this to be a, um, excellent project that activates the street and creates an excellent pedestrian realm and creates a sense of place. And so in RFP, There was an inclusion of, uh, uh, a provision for the developer to have mixed use, uh, uh, mixed uses on the site. So, it has evolved. Currently, the developer has approximately 3000 square feet of non-residential space, 2200 for retail, and 800 square feet for a flex maker space that can also serve as a community meeting space and would serve as a community benefit. Uh, 92 residential parking spaces, um, 87 for tenants, 5 guest spaces and 5 for retail spaces. I do want to flag that in the staff report. Um, no, it's 95 residential spaces, but we did just receive updated information that it's 92 total spaces for the residential, and then replacing the units, uh, the parking spaces off site, um, and, uh, providing the city an upfront one time payment of 10.100000 uh, rather than uh, uh, replacing the spaces on site. Um, with this, I will turn it over to Krisha Penelar, the project planner, uh, for this project and uh, waiting for the slide to, uh, move forward.

[03:25:22] Krisha Penelar: Thank you, Wayne. uh Creature Pinolia, associate planner. Um, the applicant is requesting a 60% density bonus to allow 120 residential units in lieu of the 75 units permitted in the downtown precise plan. The Appkin is also requesting 2 waivers, to the following development standards, height, and 4 area ratio, also known as FAR. They're also requesting a concession on FAR. 92 parking spaces are proposed and permitted per state density bonus law. As the site is located within a half mile the transit stop. Next slide. Thank you. So this is a rendering of from the interception of California Street and Bryan Street. The proposed architecture is contemporary, but it does have a residential vernacular. Materials used on the building include horizontal composite siding, stained wood screens, board form concrete, cement plaster, cortem corrugated metal, and porcelain tile. Next slide. Next slide. Thank you. Um, this rendering shows the midblock courtyard that fronts Bryant Street. Staff continues to work with the developers on finalizing design items prior to the SB 35 application in the middle. These requested modifications are intended to improve the pedestrian environment and placemaking. For the details, um, to those items are noted in the staff report. Thank you.

[03:27:04] Wayne Chen: Great. Thank you, Krisha. Uh, transitioning to the the key, uh, deal terms. Uh, just wanted to preface that, um, there has been a significant, uh, funding challenge for affordable projects, not only in the region, but, uh, statewide. Um, there have been significant increases in development costs. Um, uh, the economy has been impacted. And um, external funding sources um, are fluctuating. And, uh, Since the time of the RFP submittal, uh, back in 2020 to now, there actually has been an increase, uh, in a funding gap of $16 million. And so, we've worked really hard with the developer and our external partners, um, including the county and housing authority, um, and other partners to find a way to close this gap, um, and make the, uh, project feasible, at least using, um, current, um, estimates, assumptions and costs.. And, um, we've all, uh, also had the opportunity to, um, uh, work with and through the leadership of state senator Josh Becker to, um, get $8000000 in state funding through Senate Bill 129, which is the state budget act. Um, and, um, it has been, um, uh, included in the bill for uh, affordable housing in Mountain View. So we thank the senator very much for this. effort. Uh, this chart provides a, um, a summary of the key funding sources that is currently helping the project, um, close the gap. And you see the various funding sources, and I won't go through all of them, but it gives you a picture of the amounts that are required to fund such a project, um, with the increased um, development costs, um, that are that are currently impacting uh, projects. So onto the key deal terms, these deal terms will go into, uh, what, in other projects, we, we turn the DDA because this particular project, uh, it's the L, DDLA, the least disposition, development, and loan agreement. Um, and we'll just start and focus on the the key items. The 1st one is the city subsidy. Um, uh, it is recommended uh, that the city uh, provide a loan for 12 and a quarter $1000000 um, for this project, composed of the following, uh, 260000000 for the affordable um, housing side of the project using housing funds. 1000000 for the non-residential commercial portion of the project using general fund. And then, um, once the city receives the $8000000 through the state disbursement process, that would be part of the state loan. The city loan to the developer. The loan term would be for 55 years and uh, we've typically used a 3% uh, uh, simple interest. Uh, we, we do include in the key deal terms, the ability to lower, if it's needed, the interest rate to one. 5% if the developer can demonstrate, it is needed to maintain project feasibility. Um, so we do have that in there. The other piece, as mentioned before, is the upfront payment to the city, um, the 10.100000 rather than paying for, uh, the cost of development in, including the 160 spaces on site. Um, the ground lease duration. Uh, we envision a 65 year term with the ability to extend that term 2 times, uh, by the developer for 34 years of extension, up to potential, uh, 99 years. And in such a case, with the, uh, lease term being extended, the affordability restrictions would also be extended. So if it goes out to 99 years, the affordability on the site would also go out to 99. Uh, some technical stuff, but we did want to highlight the, uh, the ability to work with the developer team to, um, have the city, uh, not subordinate its, uh, uh, right to have affordability restrictions on the site in case there is a, uh, a default by the developer on the site. We mentioned this because in the past, it has, um, not been as common for cities to subordinate, um, its regulatory agreement, which meant that the city could lose its ability to, um, uh, have these restrictions on, on a development. So not subordinating is really important. And also, um, being able to maintain the ownership of the, the, the property in case there's a default or foreclosure, that's obviously very important as well. Um, the float up provision is connected to the subordination piece. Um, as we're moving forward with projects that we are able to, uh, not subordinate the city's rights. Um, we're working with developers and the developer requirements to, uh, increase the extremely low income units, um, up to a higher, um, rent limit, if it is needed, and only to extent that is needed to make sure that the project is financially feasible, if something were to occur, and it impacts the feasibility of the project. Um, and so these 2 items are connected. are related. And then finally, for the performance milestones, um, big, big picture, we are trying to work with a developer to target a construction, um, start in the fall of 2023. This means sort of items that would precede it, but, um, uh, you see that there are key items regarding submitting the SP 35 application, having the project approved through that process. Uh, next year, the developer, um, starting to, um, seek and apply for external funding sources, especially state funding and to submit the building permit, um, application and getting that, um, approval process completed. Um, you know, over the next, you know, year, year and a half . Um, and then really trying to target a construction completion date in a summer fall of 2025. All of this is really dependent on the ability for the developer to be able to, um, apply for, be ready for and, um, uh, attain the external funding sources to get through the building permit, um, application process, um, in a relatively timely manner to after discounts meeting, be able to respond to any remaining items to submit the SB 35 applications. So there is a provision in the deal terms that, um, on the outside year, to have construction, um, uh, started, uh, no more than, uh, 4 years from when the, uh, LDDLA is executed. So, um, that's 2025. I state that just to note that we are really working hard with the developer to make sure this project, um, stays on track and moves forward, um, but it is subject to, um, you know, various items related to development costs, the timing of the state funding that's available, et cetera. Apologies for the leg. Uh, in terms of next steps, the, um, the staff's recommendation is that prior to, uh, the developer submitting the actual application, if the council does approve staff's recommendation here tonight, is, um, there are a few things. The developer would work with staff to address any program design elements per council's input. Then staff would make a written determination that the project design elements have been addressed. The city would, um, execute the LDDLA with the developer team. And once those pieces have been completed, then the developer would be able to submit its um, SP 35 application. So with that we have um, 5 recommendations for uh, council. Um, I believe the, uh, presentation slip, uh, skipped a slide, but there is also a piece uh, regarding the, um, surplus lands and there is state requirements for, um, local agencies for cities to go through a process to declare, um, um, lands that it owns to be, um, exempt surplus lands. And so as part of that requirement, there is a resolution here for the city council to, to, um, determine a lot 12 as exempt surplus lands per state requirements. Um, uh, number 2 is to uh, approve the key business terms as to summarize and staff report and as, um, discussed here in the presentation. To execute the LDDLA, um, after the meeting, provide direction on project design and architecture, and then authorizing the development team to submit the SP 35 application. So that concludes staffs, um, presentation. Uh, thanks very much, and I believe the development team will, um, uh, make being a short presentation right now.

[03:36:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks, Mr. Chen. Mr. Suda, are you the one who's doing the presentation or is someone else from your team gonna be doing it?

[03:36:37] Randy Suda: Good evening, Madam Mayor. I will be doing a very brief presentation and then turning it over to Alex to talk about the design in more detail. Um, I believe Andrew is gonna share. his screen with the actual presentation, Andrew.

[03:36:54] Andrew Scorfar: Yes.

[03:37:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. We see it.

[03:37:07] Randy Suda: Perfect. Okay. Well, good evening, mayor and members of the council. Thanks to Wayne and Cretia, 1st of all, for the very detailed presentation on the staff report. Um, I'm Randy Suda, the CEO of all the housing, and joining me tonight, um, Andrew, if you could go to the next slide, or Anne Silverberg, and Andrew Scorfar from Related, and then Alex Seidle, who is our project architect. Uh, on behalf of Alton related, we just wanted to express our thanks to the city staff for diligently working with us through this process, and we are so excited to be here, trying to counsel tonight, and what we hope and anticipate will be a significant step towards building 120 units of affordable housing at Lot 12. We certainly support the staff's recommendations and those detailed items, um, that they've identified in the staff reports, and we're confident that we can address all the staff comments and recommendations. In fact, uh, just to give you a sense of timing, our intent is to submit some updated drawings and and design schemes, um, to staff by Friday. So that just gives you a sense of the urgency in which we are working on addressing all of those comments. Because from our standpoint, it's just critical that we keep advancing the project and we really hope to secure entitlements, as indicated in the staff report, by the end of this year. And that allows us to hit that critical deadline of early next year for the, uh, applications for the various state affordable housing funding sources. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Alex at this and Alex will give you a quick update on the, um, on the revisions to the design of the project.

[03:39:01] Alex Seidle: Thanks, Randy. Um, Good evening, council members and mayor. I'm very pleased to be here this evening and to present a brief update at the Lot 12 Affordable Housing Design. As Randy Mashing collaboration between our development team and city departments and agencies, has been ongoing over a number of months, and we're all very excited about the design evolution of the project. This image, I think, gives you an idea of how the project will fit into the neighborhood, as Wayne mentioned earlier. It's very much a transitional site, and we all understand that, and we've worked to try to make an appropriate series of appropriate scale changes between the larger commercial structures, the front Castro Street, in the foreground, to sort of a medium, effect, the street defining effect along Bryant Street with the new building, and the gable forms, and then terracing down into the existing residential neighborhood..

[03:40:16] Alex Seidle: Next slide, Andrew. Next. Andrew, are you there? I...

[03:40:31] Andrew Scorfar: Yes. Do you guys see that?

[03:40:34] Alex Seidle: I think he froze for a sec. There we go. There we go. Um, thank you. Um, this is the ground floor, the project. We have, um, community serving retail in the, the, um, warm, pink color on the right, define the corner of California, and Bryant. Also, the community room, or maker space, is its alternatively called, um, toward the south, end of Bryant Street. We have a combination of building entry for the residents, as well as a whole series of residential units, um, that have street entries on Bryant and Mercy. And as the design evolved, we also added three street level units on the California street side, and I'll show you how that looks in a moment. The parking, of course, is completely encased and not visible from any of the public right of ways. Next line, thank you. The Bryant Street elevation on top. You can see the community serving retail along the street on the right, the north side of the project. We call the center of the project, the mid block courtyard that's, we see the opening between the buildings, that's gonna have be landscaped and a usable area with tables and benches, and also features the primary residential entrance into the building. through a logia. Again, the residential units are showing on the south side or the left side with individual stoop entries into the units at the street level. And then the two lower elevations really depict what you would see at the corners of Mercy in California, and you can begin to see how the building terraces down toward the lower scale residential neighborhood, the fronts Franklin Street. The materials, as Christian mentioned, are composite wood, plaster, steel, concrete, and various kinds of painted wood. So we're working with staff on that next, Andrew. Here you can see the kind of distinctive gable forms that we've been working on with the staff. I think it's been a major step forward in the design, and it is really gonna establish the contemporary residential character that we want to have for the project. This is the California and Bryant intersection, so this would be the retail plaza with transparency into the retail space on the interior, and, of course, exterior seating, tables, chairs, umbrellas, and landscaping. Next. This is the mid block courtyard that I mentioned. Again, this is the primary residential entry, so that residential entry would be a dead loggia at the left, but there's also an exterior stair that connects this street level courtyard up to the resident courtyard at the podium level. So we're trying to get a high degree of interaction between the public space and the resident private space. And finally, a rendering of the corner of Mercy Street and Bryant. Um, we've established a little Wi-Fi cafe slash bike entry at the corner to give some presents to this intersection. There's really kind of a mini plaza here with some benches, which you can see in the foreground. So inviting the public to partake in this little space at the intersection. And then, um, as you move down Mercy Street to the left or the west, you have individual front doors and to the ground level units, and the massing of the building, the gable forms stepping down to two stories, um, adjacent to the smaller scale residential to the west. So that is really a brief tour. We appreciate the opportunity to share this with you, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[03:45:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I'll bring it back to council. Does any member of the council have any questions?

[03:45:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Council member here. So, I just have a question possibly for the architects on the, the, um, path between the resident, the existing, mostly single family homes, some apartments, uh, small apartments, adjacent, you know, running through the, um, gosh, what would be the west? Maybe side of the lot? I know there was, um, at one point there was, uh, like a garden designer who you talked about, and I guess that has maybe evolved a little, and I don't know if you have any pictures or sketches of that, or whether you can describe how that, that pathway. Is it still going? Do you still envision it as open to the public for walking through there? And is the designer the same and any other details you can tell us on how it's evolved? Thank you.

[03:46:23] Alex Seidle: Thank you, Andrew. Um, I think we meant to have this slide in the in the deck, and somehow it didn't get in, but here it is. So we have maintained that concept. We think it's a really important concept. So this is the sort of a bird's eye view of the landscape plan. And as you may recall, the small, thin bar building at the back is a series of townhouses that overlook this garden space, and there will be a gate that will be open at either end during, basically, business hours that invites the public, basically, to use this as a mid block crossing. And, um, I'm happy to report that our landscape designer, April Phillips, is still on board, and working diligently on finalizing this space, and it will continue to have, um, you know, fruits and vegetables planted in it. We think that can be an engaging activity for the residents of the project. We have several facilities tucked in under the townhouse, along there, where there's a workroom, and also an outdoor porch that spills into the terrace that you can kind of see in gray on the upper right. So, um, I, um, I'm sorry we don't have actually more. We probably should have a rendering of this, and we can do that. But we think it's gonna be a really engaging and beautiful space. Um, and it's an ongoing effort.

[03:48:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And do you have any renderings of the townhomes or any, um, I unfortunately got the plans at the last minute, so I wasn't able to look at them. Andrew may be able to bring up an elevation, though. Uh...

[03:48:22] Andrew Scorfar: Yes, might take me a minute.

[03:48:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I mean, we can move on to other people's questions, maybe, because that was my last question.

[03:48:37] Alex Seidle: The character of the townhomes, as we discussed it with, um, planning, is almost an agrarian feel, so it's got vertical wood on it, sloped grooves, and little corrugated awnings. So we're trying to have the architecture reflect the same concept of this agrarian passage in the middle of the block.

[03:49:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I looked at your website a long time ago, and saw that you'd done some other affordable housing that was kind of, um, you know, smaller homes or cottages, and they were actually quite nice. So if you just replicate those, I'll be very happy.

[03:49:23] Alex Seidle: Yeah, it has some resemblance. The very first project our office ever did was called the farm down here.

[03:49:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That was it. Socal,

[03:49:31] Alex Seidle: yeah.

[03:49:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, make it just like that.

[03:49:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Great. Thank you, Council member Hicks, Council member Abi Koga.

[03:49:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. A couple of questions that might be more towards staff. Um, First question, um, Regarding SB 35, um, and frankly, um, uh, it has to do with the design, um, is, is Counselor Hicks mentioned, we received plans late in the staff report, um, It says, you know, staff recommends that design refinements happen before they submit SB 35 or the application. So, and I don't necessarily want to slow things down. But I guess I am concerned that feels a bit like it's being rushed. And, um, I think you, in the presentation you mentioned because it's, um, city land, we have to, the city has to approve, um, the submittal of SB 35 application. Um, is, can we, like, condition it on the design refinements being, um, approved by at least our staff, um, before, uh, yeah, since, you know, we have to approve the submittal, I just feel like, I would feel more comfortable, frankly, if, um, at least our staff looked at everything and made sure everything was, you know, ready for prime time before it gets submitted. And since we have that approval authority, can we condition it on that?

[03:51:08] Wayne Chen: Um, thanks for the question. And I think the staff recommendation might align with what you're suggesting, um, council member, um, which is that, um, after the council meeting, staff would continue to work with the developer to, um, make those revisions. And um, until those revisions are made, um, the SP 35 application would, would wait. Um, at the staff level, a determination will be made and a written confirmation will be will be done to document the, um, successful response to any of the items here tonight. And then there would be the actual execution of the, um, agreement, the LDDLA. Um, and then the application would be um, submitted. So we were trying to strike a balance of moving the item forward while still having some checks in place so that we can make sure that the input was responded to.

[03:52:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you for that clarification. Um, my other questions have to do with the financing piece. Um, I did ask uh, a written question. Um, and I think uh, I wasn't clear in my question because the answer wasn't quite what I was uh, looking for. Um, but, before that, I should go to, um, the non-commercial space, uh, and ask is the one. 65 million. Um, I, sorry, my dog's here. I guess I'm looking for a way to, um, you know, budget creep is kind of, is a, of concern to me, frankly. Um, wouldn't make, uh, any difference if, um, we were to convert that to more retail space, so the 3, you know, instead of 2200, make it a full 3000 square feet of retail. Um, and I asked that because as when I taught to, um, potential, you know, businesses, like, for instance, coffee shops, um, in the past, the certain coffee shops that have wanted to come into downtown Mountain View. They've said to me, they usually look for 1500 square feet of space. So with 3000 you could get potentially 2 businesses is what I was thinking and would that also help with our costs and having some cost savings there.

[03:53:36] Wayne Chen: Yeah, thanks for that question. I think, um, In part, it depends what would actually occupy that 800 square, um, feet of, you know, flex and maker space. Um, and to the extent that it is used more as a community benefit and for meeting space. So, to the extent that there is more utilization of the 800 square feet for the meeting space, or if there are other, public benefit uses, such as educational classes, or training space, or, you know, tech, um, uh, maker space in that way, um, there is a provision there where, you know, those leases. Or the cost of using that space would need to be below market, uh, uh, rates because it is for uh, a community benefit. Uh, if, if it were to shift for uh, more retail use, then perhaps there would be more opportunities to have a, uh, a use there that could, that could generate more business and, um, provide more, more revenue into the project. Um, I'll pause there and I'll see if maybe the developer team has any, um, input and insights on, on, on the market and the conditions for, um, you know, modifying the use and the implications of, of, of the finances. Andrew, do you have any thoughts on the, uh, on the financing of the project, if we went with more retail versus the community room space?

[03:55:21] Andrew Scorfar: Uh, yeah, I mean, right now, as Wayne articulated, we, you know, we've assumed that space to be below market, you know, commercial space, uh, that would be occupied by, um, uh, a nonprofit or multiple nonprofits. Uh, we do have the additional community room space, probably about 800 square feet. Um, you know, the expansion of the, um, of the commercial space, uh, does, um, you know, obviously, uh, uh, increase the commercial costs associated with the project, um, and, uh, the, the cost of the commercial space is currently being supported by that non-residential, uh, um, contribution by the city. Ultimately, if we do increase that space, we're unable to leverage, you know, affordable housing sources like low-income housing tax credits to finance that space, so we would be looking for non-affordable housing sources, um, like those city dollars to be able to contribute towards the cost of of additional commercial space. Um, It's just a picture into the current financing of of the commercial space.

[03:56:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So you're saying that it doesn't really matter whether it's more retail or, like, makers, whatever, community space, cut space, it would still be dependent on the city subsidy. Is that, is that? That's correct. Yes. Okay, great. Um, And then my last question, um, so this was a clarification of my written question. So, um, going to the city's loan amount, um, I had asked, um, if the repayment of the city loan, um, would be deposited into, um, our general fund as a, or could be, uh, deposited into our general fund as opposed to our affordable housing fund. Um, and I was not looking at the state, the SB 129 um, money, but the 4.250000 of the city fence, so that one, one. 165 of the non-commercial and the 2.6 of affordable housing funds. Um, and I'm just looking for flexibility, that's my my goal here, but I, if I recall, and I think I recall correctly, with other affordable housing projects, when the city has provided a loan to the affordable housing developer, and that loan is being repaid, we would deposit at that into our general fund. Um, not into a full housing fund. And again, what I'm looking for here is some flexibility. Um, so could we, I get clarification on the 4.250000 piece of the city loan.

[03:58:18] Wayne Chen: Thanks for clarifying that. I believe the 1650000000 portion for the commercial, uh, non-residential fees could be, um, uh, would be able to be deposited or redeposited back into the general fund, but the 2600000 portion for the affordable.

[03:58:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, so that's where I, and, you know, I, we can take this offline or you can respond later, but my recollection is that even the 2.6, if it, even if it comes out of our affordable housing funds, when it gets repaid, it could go to our general fund, but from other projects we've done, I, that was my recollection. So, um, but yeah, we can go further into that offline.

[03:59:01] Wayne Chen: Um, uh, we can certainly check and and follow up, and then we also have, um, our, our consultants on this, uh, uh, project, and I don't know if, uh, whether Sue, uh, Block or, or, or Libby Seifel might be able to provide input, but, um, I, I believe we typically want to try to have the funds be repaid back into the originating source, um, and if Sue or Libby, um, you may not have the input. We will follow up, um, um, after this meeting. So I see, um, Sue's hand ups. So I'm gonna go to her to answer the question.

[03:59:43] Sue Block: Can you hear me?

[03:59:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:59:45] Sue Block: Okay, hi. Um, so the money that's derived from this.

[03:59:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'm sorry, do you mind just introducing yourself from members of the public who might not be familiar with?

[03:59:53] Sue Block: I'm I'm sue Block. Um, I'm uh, with the law firm Burke Williams and Sorenson, and we've been providing outside council services to the city on, um, this project and a number of other affordable housing projects over the years. Um, so to answer the question, the money that is derived from the successor agency, low and moderate income housing asset fund, they think that's, uh, I can't remember the dollar amount, but those funds, um, would repayment of the loan provided by those funds would have to be deposited back into that same source. Um, the remainder of the money, it depends on what source the funds come from. So, if the source was originally, um, BMR impact fees, for example, um, potentially they would have to be, loan proceeds would have to be redeposited back into that fund. We have to take a closer look at that.

[04:00:58] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[04:00:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, council member show Walter.

[04:01:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Yeah, I have basically 2 questions. One is um, about the timing. I'm really, uh, this project has been in the works really for a long time, and I'm so glad to see that we're at this point, but because the funding is cyclic, if we get past that, um, that critical time when we can apply for the tax credits, if we miss that date, then we have to wait a whole nother year to do that. And that's serious. So, I, I have talked to the applicant, and I have talked to the city, city staff a little bit about, um, you know, about their, uh, confidence that we can meet the, the, they can meet the time criteria to make the changes that, that are in the staff recommendation. So that's good. At this point, you know, the developer and the staff thinks they can do it. But I'm concerned about what happens if there's a problem, and it isn't working. Um, and, uh, Will, is there a way, uh, for us to have a report back to the, um, city council, say, in late November or early December about what the status of this, and, you know, is it, have these things been resolved, so that we'll know? And could take some action if we need to?

[04:02:31] Wayne Chen: Yes, we would be happy to provide an update in a couple of months to let the council know where the project is at.

[04:02:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah. That would be great, Wayne. I'd really like to hear that it's, you know, that they've submitted their SV 35 grand. That would be wonderful. Okay, and then the other thing is on this project and all around town. Seems like every time we talk about development, a thing that comes up is trees. And, of course, there are some trees that are being taken out for this project, and there are many trees that are being put in. And, um, I was wondering if it might be possible for, um, some trees, uh, if there is any, if there's mitigation association associated with the removal of trees. For some of those trees to be put in, as early as possible. Perhaps on another all to project site, um, there are 2 on El Camino or, um, on a nearby city site. So, um, to help with the replacement of our canopy.

[04:03:43] Wayne Chen: I'm going to see it, perhaps, um, uh, project planner, Krisha, I might have any, um, comments on that or whether it may have come up in discussions with a developer regarding, regarding trees.

[04:03:56] Krisha Penelar: Thank you. Yeah, so they are proposing on, um, putting in 37 trees on site. They are removing 37 of those 37 fiber heritage. We're currently working on preserving 2 of those heritage trees on site. Um, again, we're still trying to see if there's ways to keep those trees. They're the evergreen ash that's on the west side of the property. Um, and we can look into Seeing if we can relocate the tree. I know one of the trees, a coast live oak off of California Street. Um, is difficult to relocate just because of its size and species, so it would not survive relocation. Um, however, we are working with the applicant team to incorporate additional trees as there's room to um, fit them on the perimeter of the site. Um, council member, show Walter, just in response to your question about, um, putting trees on other altar sites. Uh, we could follow up, but it might be difficult since these are already designed. With their own tree removals and replacements. Um, but I did want to note that, um, the applicant is meeting the mitigation of the 10 replacement trees, um, on the site itself.

[04:05:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, well, I just wanted to plant that seed of getting these trees in as soon as possible because, you know, they do take a while to grow. And, um, uh, we don't need just trees in this location. We need them all over town. So if some could be put in other places, uh, earlier, that would be fine with me. Thank you.

[04:05:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Council member, Matt, check.

[04:05:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, speaking of trees, um, I was wondering, am I reading the plans correctly, that there are no trees proposed right at the corner of, um, California and Bryant in Mercy, Bryant? Where the smaller courtyard and the larger courtyards are.

[04:06:02] Krisha Penelar: Yeah, so that's one of the design items that we're working with the applicant team on is the incorporating additional canopy trees on those corners.

[04:06:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yeah. Then, um, in the plans, uh, that we were sent, um, page A 2.2.2. Is that the view that the existing homes to the west of this development would have?

[04:06:41] Krisha Penelar: And are you saying she 82.2 and

[04:06:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: on the bottom, it says Mercy Street elevation.

[04:06:47] Krisha Penelar: Oh, and then the midlock garden elevation.

[04:06:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so that's the view from the public plaza.

[04:06:51] Krisha Penelar: For the midwalk garden. So the mid block on the west property line.

[04:06:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, on the west property line. So that's what the existing homes would see.

[04:07:03] Krisha Penelar: Yes, that's correct.

[04:07:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and then uh, uh, process question for tonight here, you know, if we, when we get to the comments portion, I just want to understand how we're going to do this. If we all have comments about design. Are we gonna see what the majority of the council member supports versus we all say something different. And the applicant doesn't know which ones to act on.

[04:07:30] Wayne Chen: Council member, we are looking for council direction on design so that we can move very quickly into the application phase.

[04:07:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Right, so we're gonna um, consolidate ours and it would be the majority view. So if one person says something and the others don't agree. It's not the majority view.

[04:07:49] Wayne Chen: Okay, from out of check, yes, that's correct. Staff will be looking for council majority direction on the design.

[04:07:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. That's all the questions I have.

[04:08:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:08:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I only have one question. So the, um, the float up provision concerns me because we could potentially lose what I think maybe the most important, at least to me, aspect of the project, and that's the ELI units. We have very few ELI affordable units throughout the city. Um, and I want to get a better sense of, uh, what is the likelihood that that provision will actually be triggered? And then if it does get triggered? Um, it sounds like we may not actually be able to implement it, depending on what the measure A programmatic restrictions are, since measure A has an ELI requirement. So I wanted to get a better, better sense of what that process would look like.

[04:08:55] Wayne Chen: Um, thanks, thanks for the question, and by way of getting a response to that, I, I did want to incorporate, um, one related piece, um, which is the, um, cities, uh, interest rate on, on the, on the loan. So, uh, we did note that the city's interest rate on the loan is 3%, but, um, if it is needed. Um, for project feasibility, uh, the city would consider uh, lowering the rate, uh, uh, down to one. 5%. I mentioned this because this is one of those pieces that could help keep the project feasible if, if an issue does come up, um, which, um, could alleviate the need to go into the float up provision. Now, one, um, aspect to that is, you know, certainly if the interest rate were allowed to go lower, that can also help relieve any potential pressure for a float up provision. Um, so then to to transition to the Florida provision piece, specifically, um, you know, I think, I think this is relatively new for the city, I think, uh, perhaps Sublock, um, may be able to provide some additional input, but is relatively new. We're able to get something for that, which is not having to subordinate various city rights on the affordability piece. Um, and then we would want to work with our external funding partners, whether it's the county or whoever it might be to, uh, figure out a way to maintain the affordability, uh, because we understand the county wants the same thing to preserve the affordability of projects. And it does appear that Measure any funded projects that does have some language in its guidelines. Um, so, while this is not a kind of a guaranteed response, it does provide an avenue, uh, with which we can, um, potentially work with the county, um, uh, to, uh, lower interest rates on, on a measure A funds to maintain the affordability uh, levels there. So, um, I'm going to pause there. I will ask to see if Sue blocked me have any additional insights to add. Hey Sue, you there?

[04:11:22] Sue Block: Yes, I'm here. Um, so there are 2 circumstances that we were trying to address with the potential flow that. One of them has to do with the possibility that in the future, something could happen, um, that would cause a financial, um, feasibility problem with project. So for example, if the project is awarded section 8 project-based vouchers, the term for those vouchers is 20 years, that's renewable, but there's no guarantee. So it depends on funding from the federal government and the housing authority. So what has become fairly commonplace is to include a provision that says, in the event that a source of rent subsidy is lost, and there is no replacement after the developer tries diligently to find other sources. Then the city would permit the, permit rents to increase to a limited degree only to the extent and for the time necessary to ensure that the project is remains feasible. You know, the risk is if there's insufficient cash flow, both permanent lender could foreclose, and then, you know, we're really everybody's in big, you know, a bad situation. So the rent float up in that circumstance is kind of a safety valve. Um, allowing of, in the event, in the future, there's some problem that arises that would allow for that to occur. The other aspect of this, though, has to do with an analysis that gets done before the project is built. And that, in the staff report, it's described as the true debt task. What that involves is an analysis, that the investors are going to very closely monitor to assure themselves that, based on the projections of the cash flow of the project, and the anticipated debt, that the loans secured by the project can be repaid at maturity. Meaning 55 years from now. Um, If they can't assure themselves that the loans that the cash flow from the project is going to be adequate to enable them to either repay the debt or um, refinance, then a failure, then that's a failure of the true debt test and under the internal revenue code, those loans, which can't really be reasonably repaid, are treated as grants. And that causes, um, the investors to have a lot of heartburn, because their, the whole way that the tax credit program works. It's, um, predicated on the existence of debt rather than grants, grants are taxable, income debt creates tax benefits. So because this is a leased property. There's a finite term when the lease ends. Um, the true debt test becomes very important because If the project were owned outright by the developer, they could have an unlimited time period within which they could continue to refinance the debt. But since the lease ends on the date certain, they don't have that ability. So one of the things that the developer team has asked us to consider, is that if the analysis shows that there's a problem meeting the true debt test, that we would build in this ability to increase some of the rents to the extent necessary, and, you know, only if there are no other, you know, after reasonable efforts, there are no other alternatives. Um, that we would allow the rents to, that we would say in the documents, that the rents could increase. It's not an absolute commitment that the rents would increase, and it would be subject to whatever regulations are in place that are imposed by the county or the state or any other agency that has an interest in the project. Um, The developer may have more comments to make on this. My understanding is that this, um, solution for the true debt test would mean that the rents might increase in year 65 when the 1st initial term of lease expires. I don't think that the Trudette test would require a reduction in rents before that time. But I would defer to the developer team and their financial analysts to further explain that.

[04:16:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Sue. Did the related team have anything more to add for the vice mayor or is this vice mayor as your, are you happy with the, is this answer sufficient or do you need more?

[04:16:35] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I think the financing of this project is complex and bewildering, but I'm comfortable. Thank you.

[04:16:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. Do any other colleagues have some questions about the project?

[04:16:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a couple. Okay, so, um, I think this might be directed towards staff and apologies. I did have an opportunity to meet with the, with the applicants. So, um, So my 1st question is, so, it sounds like we have the 2200 square feet, uh, plus the 800 square feet of community serving space. So my question is about the flexibility. I know that, um, one of the things council had been interested was, you know, perhaps the nonprofit space, perhaps the childcare, it doesn't sound like the childcare is moving forward at this time. However, as this product, you were saying with this project, things are constantly changing. Especially amidst the pandemic. So, um, you know, as this moves forward, particularly through the SB 35 process, Do we still sense that there could be some flexibility on how we use the community serving space? Is it perhaps we could resuscitate the childcare option or just trying to understand the path forward on the community serving spaces?

[04:17:56] Aarti Shrivastava: I can, um, provide some initial remarks and then ask the developer team uh, to chime in, um, with any additional uh, thoughts, uh, When the developer team submitted the RFP, um, submittal, there, there was uh, incorporated into that original design, some space for, um, for childcare. Um, and then that was developed before, uh, shelter in place took place. And then, um, based on the input from the October 2020 study session that council supported um, childcare, but it wasn't an absolute requirement. The, developer team did some more analysis, uh, I believe, uh, continued to look at funding sources, um, talked with the county, uh, and trying to get a handle on how the pandemic would, um, also impact the operations of childcare facilities. And based on that, uh, analysis, it was determined to shift, um, actually reduce the non-residential commercial square footage and then, uh, move to this current design. Um, if, if council were interested in a, uh, reviving childcare, I think the developer team would then need to go back and revisit the financing piece and also the design piece, which could have a fairly significant impact on the ground for design and there for the overall project, um, and that could impact the, um, ability to, uh, submit an SP 35 application, uh, uh, in a more timely manner. I'll pause there and see if the developer team has any additional thoughts or other thoughts to provide.

[04:19:42] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just to, um, clarify one, a couple things. Uh, one actually our our proposal didn't include childcare. We were asked to take a look at that by council, which we did in conjunction with staff in the county, um, and what it would have required was, uh, with childcare comes a state required outdoor space, um, mandates. And that would have significantly altered the, the site plan and the layout of the site. Um, make it a very different project than the one that was uh, selected by council. Um, and there was also a lot of challenges regarding funding sources or lack thereof for childcare. So, based on that analysis, uh, the development team and staff, we concluded that, uh, we would focus on the community serving retail spaces and community flex space, um, rather than childcare. So that that is how that evolved. But the incorporation of childcare at this point would require substantial changes to the site plan.

[04:20:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thanks. Um, so my next question has to do. So my next question, thank you. Has to do with the state density bonus. So I saw in the staff report on page 8 that staff was requesting additional information from the developer and I saw that there was also a council question on this. I still feel like it's a little bit unclear on when staff will have all the information necessary for this. So, particularly if counsel will not see this again. I was a little bit heartened to hear council member show Walters question and that, um, you know, council would get an update. Is that what staff is envisioning, you know, you could update us on the state density bonus then or? They still feel like it felt a little bit nebulous.

[04:21:49] Aarti Shrivastava: We would be happy to include that as part of, um, the update specifically, um, about state density bonus. Um, we've just received an updated um, letter from the developer, um, documenting the request, and, uh, I believe we're, we're, uh, still reviewing that letter because we just received information and we would still need time to, um, uh, uh, connect and discuss it with, with the, the developer. Um, I, I, I'll have Christian also provide any thoughts she may have, but it, you know, to our, um, initial evaluation on the project and the request. Um, it seems like, um, this shouldn't cause, um, um, an issue with the size of the units or with a number of units. Um, but I will pause here and see if Cretia has anything to add.

[04:22:45] Unknown Speaker: The, yeah, you covered it. We're still reviewing the density bonus letter that the applicant submitted. Um, if they also request a concession. Then it looks like they'll be able to, um, that their proposal is compliant with the state density bonus and there's not going to be a reduction in units.

[04:23:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. All right, um, am I kind of last question here is, so one of the kind of fantastic things that's developed over the summer is that Lot 12 has been used for a Thursday night farmer's market, which I think is just wonderful for our community. So the way that the new, or the, the augmentations to the site design, would that be something where it could have some sort of place making on the corners or perhaps on the kind of like back walk, walkway, perhaps, um, stalls could be included. Is there any way or any, so been any conversation about doing this beyond just this summer for the farmer's market, which I think is a great community benefit.

[04:23:54] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, maybe I'll see if Kreesha or the developer team have talked specifically about the farmer's market, but in terms of the design elements that have driven, um, the place making conversation, uh, maybe we can get some input from the developer in terms of the, the corners. So California and Bryant and Mercy and Bryant, because there was definitely an emphasis, um, discussing with staff about how to, um, activate those corners and invite a place for folks to be able to hang out and linger. And of course, there's the mid-block plaza, and maybe, um, the creature of the developer team can talk about the dimensions there to see whether there's an opportunity to provide, uh, for events such as the farmer's market and in part or in and whole.

[04:24:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that's not, um, something that we initially discussed, so I would need to double check to see, um, what the requirements will be for the precise plan to, um, facilitate a farmer's market.

[04:25:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Do we know anything about the, um, in terms of the dimensions on the corners or the mid block that could, at least from a physical perspective, um, accommodate, um, some type of farmer's market use.

[04:25:25] Unknown Speaker: Um, let me pull it up. Unless the architect has that handy. Um, yeah, Christian, um, if you have it, maybe you could pull it up. Um,

[04:25:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And perhaps this is something that can also be looked into and come back to council when we get the update on the density bonus and then kind of the status of the SP 35 application. Um, like I said, I didn't have an opportunity to discuss anything with the developer. Um, or staff proper to this meeting, but I know that it's something that I've been hearing a lot of positive feedback about and just thinking about. how we're talking about the design changes in the elements and placemaking. I think that's one of the great things that Lot 12 has been able to provide us, particularly this summer. So.

[04:26:19] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think we can, um, this is the 1st we've, um, kind of, been given the idea, but I think it's an interesting try in if we can make it work. Um, it could influence the landscape plan. I think, um, we need a little time to think about how we might, um, respond to that though.

[04:26:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. App appreciate it. Thank you.

[04:26:45] Aarti Shrivastava: Mayor, I just wanted to confirm that we will follow up in our update to the council. So this will be a nice to have it. The spaces may not be big enough for an actual farmer's market, but we'll do our best to see how we can activate it.

[04:27:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Wonderful. Thank you. I'm just trying to think of other uses and activations. Counselor reliever.

[04:27:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, on the theme of of activations, It, it seems like, um, This development has a lot of, um, sight lines into the interior. Um, a lot of inviting in of the public, um, which can be a very great thing and it can also be challenging. Um, and I'm thinking of other projects, but the same architect, like, um, the, the development where the rose market is. And there's definitely a public space, but then the residential is very private, you can't really, um, see into it in a meaningful way. And so I'm wondering about, um, You know, I haven't been entirely comfortable with, for example, the maker space. Um, Because I think there's a lot of ways in which, um, you know, families could be living here. And, um, uh, You know, extraneous men that aren't a part of the complex. Could be, like, very close to those families, and, um, And, and I do, um, I do very much like the look of the, the lounging space outside. Um, but I think that, that could be, um, that could be a challenge as well. And and so I wonder if that was part of the philosophy that, um, it's affordable housing, so we'll defray some of the mystery of what might be going on there by by having the whole thing just be very loose and open. Um, but it doesn't seem to have the same kind of expectation of privacy. Um, that, that other developments have. And, and so I just wanted to get reaction to that.

[04:29:27] Unknown Speaker: Council member, I can speak to this a little bit. I think the fact that this is a public housing project gave us some opportunities that we don't always have. Um, we do try to build in, especially the ground floor spaces, um, to be more publicly, um, you know, sort of interacting at a public level. And what you're seeing here is hopefully, sort of, an aspirational, uh, piece where we're trying to engage the public while giving enough privacy, um, to the um, to the residents of the project itself. But if you do have any specific concerns, we're happy to answer or address it.

[04:30:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, I guess just from the perspective of it, it does feel like a fish bowl, um, to be living there, but, but have, you know, have folks coming into the maker space and you're not quite sure who those adults are. Um, and your kids would be, um, interacting and asking to go to the store and, um, it feels like a lot, but, um, you know, as you said, it's aspirational, um, as well, because maybe we could all live that way, um, where everybody can see us. But, uh, um, I think that that's a difference that I'm noticing.

[04:30:53] Unknown Speaker: Um, I, I think we, we kind of see the maker space as having, um, a clientele that would include, you know, kids and and other people who want to be part of this. So we saw this more as a community space. Um, and it wouldn't be a whole lot different than retail where, you know, you might have strangers, for example, walk into these spaces. So, we didn't see these as being any different or being any more restrictive or any less restrictive, um, than our, than our other developments.

[04:31:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Madam Mayor, if I might, just add a comment.

[04:31:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah, it.

[04:31:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, the, what we've tried to do here is strike a balance between uh, permeability, which was a very, I think, a big objective of the city when uh, it issued its RFP for lot 12. But also balanced that with the need for uh, elements of privacy and space that is reserved uh, for our residence. And I think we've done a really good job of accomplishing both. We've provided spaces that are shared and or permeable between our residents and members of the public, and those are things like the, uh, community, nonprofit space, and this community room. We have also provided areas that are that are programmed and reserved for our residents only. And those are up actually on the podium. So those are have controlled access, you need to be a resident to to access those spaces. Um, and those are things like we have a, a resident community room up there on the 2nd floor. We have teen rooms, um, and resident services, offices, support services up on that level. And those are the spaces that are, are private. And and are designed to be used exclusively for our residents. So I think one of the things we've really tried to do is incorporate both. We have the public, private plazas, we have the midlock crossing that's open to the public. We have the corner Plaza. Um, as well as our our resident spaces up on the podium.

[04:33:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. See, no other questions. 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 press star 9 on your phone. It will display a 2 minute timer.

[04:33:38] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: James Kuzumal.

[04:33:43] James Kuszmaul: Good evening. Um, my name is James Gushmite from Mountain View, and I'm speaking both from uh, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and from Matthew Yembe. Um, and sort of say it's, we're all looking very forward to this project. We'd love to see 160 car storage spots being replaced with 120 homes. And the only hope would be that future projects could be an even more extreme version of this with even more homes and even less rebuilt parking, so that we can help to address our affordable housing crisis. And we look forward to this project moving forwards as quickly as feasible so that we can get people housed as soon as possible. Thank you.

[04:34:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So it says Silicon Valley DSA, but I think that's you, Tim, so I'll add. I think that's you.

[04:34:35] Tim: That is me. Thank you. Again, logged in on the wrong Zoom, speaking just for myself tonight. But I love the project. It's great. I love the extremely low income. I like the questions from council about trying to avoid the float. just everything looks great. I've, and um, with regards to the farmer's market, I mean, Calav in Palo Alto, uh, blocks off the street for that, that's maybe something that we could do to preserve it. Um, but great project. Thanks a lot.

[04:35:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Corey Wobbach?

[04:35:20] Corey Wolbach: Hi there, can you hear me?

[04:35:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Hi, Corey.

[04:35:23] Corey Wolbach: Hi. Hi, this is Corey Wolbock from Silicon Valley at home. I just wanted to, um, follow up on our letter and say that we really think this project ought to move ahead. We think it's a great project. It checks all the boxes that we look for in affordable housing. It's not overparked, and, uh, we think that, uh, it provides um, a really important opportunity for extremely low income, uh, neighbors to have a place to live. Thank you very much. I'll let you have your time back.

[04:35:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So this doesn't have a name. It just says staff. Hi, apologies.

[04:36:03] Kelsey Beans: I too. I'm in the wrong Zoom. My name is Kelsey Beans. I am the regional director of Yambi Action. We are a pro housing group that, um, organizes for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. I am also a licensed clinical psychologist and I spent several years serving homeless veterans in Santa Clara County. Um, so I am well aware of, um, our need, um, in this, in this region, particularly in northern Santa Clara County, for, um, housing that serves extremely low income people, um, and people who have experienced homelessness. Um, and I think this is an excellent proposal that would replace, uh, surface parking with homes in, um, on the peninsula, I think we have prioritized, um, having public spaces to store cars, uh, for, for too long, and this is reversing the, the trends to really prioritize our public land, um, for housing, um, and there would still be the replacement parking. But really making the housing for the people who need it most, the priority is wonderful. And, um, I just think you all for your leadership in making this happen, um, and look forward to more projects like this, um, in more cities, uh, throughout the region. Thank you.

[04:37:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Kevin Ma.

[04:37:35] Kevin Ma: Evening, counsel. Kevin M again. I am in support of this project. As you have probably all reviewed the community plan and homelessness. Currently we have a situation for work, for what, one person entering the system for, on homelessness, 3 people join homelesses themselves. So we need to be doing the most to make sure that we have the housing available for those in need. I, too, agree that the float up should be used as a last option. So, the public solution should be used for E.L.I. at the highest priority, and the rest of it can be done later, especially given that how rare it is to find, there's no micro solutions for that, it's basic and all stuff at this point. And for to talk about speeding up, it takes five years until anyone can enter this building. And given the rate of homelessness in the area, we do need to address that earlier and earlier. So I hope this project goes well. Thank you.

[04:38:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So that concludes our public comment. So, I'll bring the item back for council deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve the recommendation should include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Council member show Walter. Oh, dude. There you go, there you go.

[04:39:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, all right. Um, Looking for the.

[04:39:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: You're unmuted.

[04:39:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, I'm muted. Okay. Yes, I, I, this is time to make this, this, this, um, resolution. I would like to um, I'm sorry, I need to find the other thing. I got the wrong. Looking at the wrong piece of paper here. Um, But I'm very supportive of this. This project was brought up, the, um, The 1st meeting, the 1st goal setting session, when I came on council in 2015. And so I'm really delighted to see that we're here. So I'd like to move that the council adopt a resolution of the city council at City of Mountain View, determining and declaring the state owned site located at 907, 929, and 941 California Street, and 424, 428, 444, 454, 460, and 468, Bryan Street, referred to collectively as Lot 12, to be exempt surplus land pursuant to government code section. 54221, F1A, to be read entitle only, further waiting waived. Attachment one to the council report. Approve the key negotiating business terms by and between the city and the developer. All to housing and related management company, for the funding, development, and long term lease of the TOT Lot 12 site. Authorized the city manager or designate to execute, a lease, disposition, development, and loan agreement without the housing and related management company, consistent with the described key deal terms. If the city manager or designee determines the project is exempt from review under the California Quality Act, pursuant to Senate Bill, 35 or other applicable exemptions. For, provide direction on the project design and architecture, and five, authorize alta housing and related management to submit the formal planning application after making the design revisions identified in this report, and as directed by counsel, as confirmed by staff, and after full execution of the lease disposition, development, and loan agreement. City Attorney Chopra, I saw your hand.

[04:41:35] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I didn't want to interrupt council member show Walter. I do recognize that there still needs to be direction on the project design and architecture and majority support for that as Council member Mattachek raised earlier. So I wanted to point that out, um, if there's going to be a discussion on the, on the, um, direction on project design and architecture.

[04:42:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. I didn't, I didn't want to interrupt either. So council membership, Walter. There was a couple of questions that staff had and, um, I think were being asked for our comments as well. So, um, recognizing that you made the motion, did you also have any, any comments on the, on the outstanding questions um, from staff?

[04:42:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Now, basically, I'm, um, I'm supportive of the suggestions, particularly the one of, uh, increasing the, um, the uh, the landscaping on the corners.

[04:42:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. All right, Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:42:50] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, I'll 2nd the motion, but just to clarify, the direction in the motion right now for, Item 4 is just staff recommendation. Is that, is that correct? Okay, yeah, I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation. I appreciate, um, the comments shared earlier during the council questions. Um, I feel optimistic that, um, the applicant is, um, responding to the concerns that staff has identified, and I, I feel like there's, um, a good possibility that we'll be able to implement those changes expeditiously and not jeopardize the ability of the project to attract whatever state funding is necessary to what the, the, um, the tax credit cycle. So, Comfortable with the staff recommendations. I'll have any other, uh, changes, um, that I would recommend. Thank you.

[04:43:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Mr. Chen, do you mind kind of reviewing some of the things you're asked for staff feedback? So I think some of the questions or council input on the design, um, landscaping as well as public art. Can you just maybe highlight those?

[04:44:12] Wayne Chen: Yes. So, um, let me just pull up the staff report because, um, it did include some bolded sections where staff is making specific recommendations on the areas of, um, additional work. And if the council, the council has that document. Um They could, um, provide comment on those staff recommendations, and if counsel has other areas that are not bolded, those, those can be, um, certainly, you know, brought up by counsel and discussed, um, for for majority uh, direction. But, um, just looking at the staff report here, there, um, is discussion that begins on page nine, um, going through, but there is, um, um, recommendation on additional, um, pedestrian environment and placemaking components. Um, uh, treatment of the ground floor commercial area, as well as the residential, um, regarding materials, et cetera, regarding the windows. Um, there is a, um, section in there about public art and seeking, if council has any direction on public art, um, in terms of the location and the trees, as council membership Walter mentioned. And, um, uh, recommending further modifications to uh, break up some of the 2 story massing, um, uh, that's that's part of the design. So, Those are some, um, of the items that staff had surfaced specifically, and if, um, council doesn't have any additional input, then we would work with the developer on these specific items, and if council has other majority input on other items, we would, um, work with the developer as well.

[04:46:01] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, mayor, if I may just add, I think, um, there's only one area where we're specifically requesting council direction and that's on whether public art should be included. Or if the distinctive tree planting will work. Um, everything else is a staff recommendation, and if the council agrees, we can we can move forward.

[04:46:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, thank you. Thank you. So for, um, I'm just gonna take a pause here. So for council member, Show Walter and Vice Mayor Ramirez, it sounds like you're comfortable with the staff recommendations on the items that Mr. Chen outlined. And then I think we're just seeking clarification on your position about public art or the tree, uh, as place making. Is that correct, Mr. Vastava?

[04:46:52] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, um, that's the one area where we're asking for direction. The others are all recommendations that, yeah, that we are recommending.

[04:47:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Great. So I'll circle back to council member Showalter and the vice mayor after, um, everyone else's raise hands. Council member Hicks.

[04:47:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I will be supporting the motion. Um, but I wanted to give my comments on uh, the things we were requested to comment on. I also support the funding and the deal terms. Um, I'm highly supportive of the design direction. I think it's kind of a, uh, tricky spot between the, you know, modern high rise office building and then the, the, um, low rise, uh, residential. And I, I think that this bridge is that kind of, um, divide looking both modern and residential at the same time, and I, I particularly like that it's not, um, some kind of fake historic with modern materials. So I'm very supportive of that. I think that the asymmetric gabled roofs and the warm materials kind of fit in that arena, being both somewhat modern and residential and warm at the same time. Um, I, I, I think we asked for this from the beginning, but I very much like the permeability of the ground floor. Um, I, I actually wish that, uh, that in more places, we had mixed use, um, i... For instance, the Prometheus building right across from the train tracks. I wish we had more that has open windows on the ground floor, but the public can't go in it. So I'm glad that this has more public interface, and that's something that I'd like to make sure we do more in the future. I think that's what downtowns are all about, not excluding the public. Um, so I, I like that. I like the idea of the maker space. I know there's a maker nexus. I don't know if you've talked to them, but a Mountain View resident helps run the Maker Nexus, which is now located in Sunnyvale, but I know that she's also interested in maker spaces that would interface well with the library, in terms of, you know, offering children's activities. And I also know, I'm actually really excited about maker spaces, and I know that, you know, with sort of hoping for a more green and sustainable future. They also, you know, pair well with that, with allowing people to fix things and make things instead of always buy things and throw things away. So, um, in terms, I am particularly... Oh, the other thing I liked was the staff comments on making sure that it's not glazed glass on the ground floor. I don't remember the particular term, but having the tiles and making sure that it's sort of consistent with the rest of downtown, and not just the, yeah, floor to ceiling, glazed glass on the front, on the ground floor, which I think is not as warm and not as consistent with the downtown. I really like the comments on more window depth too, because I know that's something that, um, you know, not making the windows so flat. So, um, let's see, and in terms of public art, you know, I, I really, my first priority actually would be to have more landscaping and more trees, uh, in the, on the ground, in the public spaces. Um, but if I would go along with whatever else the rest of council says about public art, if that fits in, but like I said, my priority is the is the trees on the ground floor. And then, I guess, my last comment is that, um, the staff report says Lot 12 is currently a city owned parking lot with 160 spaces, and council supported the replacement of those spaces off site. Um, I want to say that I think the first step in replacing those spaces is to pay to get access to the parking spots we already have downtown. So those, so those are my comments and I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

[04:51:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member Matachek.

[04:51:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, I do support this project and agree with the staff recommendations. on changes to the design, um, but I want to, um, add a few more suggestions. Um, I agree that on the corners there needs to be more planting. I'm very interested in seeing large trees, like oak trees, if possible. I think sometimes we often look at new development, say there needs to be a statement corner of a building, but I'm more interested in a statement corner with landscape and trees than I am a building. Um, so I think both corners are great locations for very large trees, preferably oaks. Um, I also would like to see, um, as we've set on other projects, um, at least 75% of the landscaping, be native landscaping. And, um, I also, um, you know, I specifically ask about the page A 2.2, and if that was the view, the existing homes to the West would see, and I feel like it could be more interesting. And the roof looks like it's one big roof that's just one straight line, and I think it could be broken up a little bit, and be more articulated or have more interest. It's kind of stark. Um, and the neighbors will be looking at that. So I'd like to see that broken up. Um, I also am concerned about, um, on the Bryant's side when you walk, um, into the mid block area. The sides of the buildings there seem, again, pretty stark, and I think they could have more interest as well. They don't want to repeat what we've done in the development that we often talk about. I think it's called Wild Orchid. We haven't talked about it in a while. where the sides of the buildings are really stark and uninteresting. I feel like this, if you can't alter the building, I feel like this is also a place where you could have art built into the sides of those buildings. Um, with some sort of design. Um, I'm interested in public art in terms of either, you know, it being built into the building or, as we've also said in the past, functional art. So I think the seating areas, can have interesting benches, artsy benches. And the one that's there. Um, it's more interesting. At the back of the plan than it is, what's shown in the actual plan. It's got more color to it and some other interesting things. But actually, I think you can do better than that and have an even more interesting bench or seating area. All of them could be artsy, as well as the um, racks for bicycles. Those can also be artsy. Um, and let's see here. Um. I think that's it. So I guess I'd like to see if other council members um have the same perspectives on those um potential changes. Thanks.

[04:55:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, council member Abbe Koga.

[04:55:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor, and I'm so glad that Counselor. I'd check it before me because, um, I agree with all of her suggestions in regards to design, um, the trees that was, uh, I usually let others speak about trees, but, um, I was concerned because I think we normally asked for like a 3 to one, one to 3, 3 to one replacement, and, um, this was less than that. So whatever we can do to add more trees and larger trees would be great. Um, so, I, and I, I, I was kind of, Tetering back and forth about the public art piece that, um, what council member, I met a check, mentions about functional art or art in the building. Um, I think it's actually the other Alta project on El Camino that has some, some of that, the colorful design and so forth. So, um, I think that would really contribute, um, to also just the starkness or diminishing the starkness of the project. So that's what I would ask the designers to work on. But other than that, I do plan to support this project. Um, I'm excited about it. I am concerned, the finances seem to me a little bit precarious. Um, so, but hopefully um, things will work out. Thanks.

[04:56:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[04:56:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I don't know if I'm necessarily qualified to comment on some of the aesthetic choices. Um, uh, but in terms of the, the public art, since for me, um, the public and private sides of this are kind of, um, you know, a struggle in my mind, um, I'd like to see something that doesn't scream public art, this is possibly a shopping center, or, um, something like that. So I I do like the the functional art idea. Um, and then I think that's something that would make it a landmark for children that live there. Um, because this is probably not their, their 1st stop and maybe not their, their, the stop for most of their childhood, but, um, something that they could relate to that would be very durable. And I think so many kids love the, um, the animal at the library in the tree trunk. I don't know if it's a rabbit or a mouse or what it is exactly. Um, but they all seem to know about it. And, um, so something like that that just stays the same, I think, would be really charming to have.

[04:58:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so, did, uh, oh, great. Vice mayor.

[04:58:29] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I just wanted to check with the applicant. I think we heard a number of, uh, good suggestions about landscaping and and, uh, incorporation of public art, um, from the applicant's perspective, are those relatively easily incorporated into the project. Is there anything that we need to be sensitive to? So I think...

[04:58:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sorry, Grace, Mary. So just to clarify, and I can, I'll clarify through staff, I think this is when we're providing the direction and the recommendations to the applicant, um, on what we'd like to see. Um, You know, I think perhaps staff will follow up with the applicant afterwards and we'll get that report back on what the feasibility for for the items will be afterwards, but I think I was hoping just for your input on the treason, the public art piece that you didn't comment on prior.

[04:59:29] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. Um, I, um, I don't have a strong preference, you know, one way or the other. I do, I think if I, if I, if I'm forced one way, I like the additional landscaping, I think that's something we need to be thoughtful of, particularly given environmental sustainability goals and tree canopy goals. So I I probably am a little bit more comfortable with that. But I'm, I wouldn't be heartbroken if we ended up with public art.

[04:59:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And Counselor Rachel Walter, did you have any comments on that last outstanding item for us?

[05:00:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I looked in the staff report, and there's a statement that says the LDD, um, LA includes a requirement that the developer make a good faith effort to incorporate public art into the project with a priority on local artists reflecting, um, positive local, historical, cultural, and community values and assets. So I think that it sounds like they've already discussed this, and that's in line with the functional art idea. So yes, I think the functional art is an excellent idea. And I also like, um, kind of, uh, Sally's, uh, council member leave or suggestion of something that is attractive to children and maybe has some whimsy, like the, uh, the great art at the, at the library.

[05:00:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, um, I believe that we've, I'll just kind of summarized before I make my comments. So it sounds like, um, regarding the increased, like, tree landscaping versus public art. It sounds like council would like to do both. Um, and um, for the public art component, a lot of creativity in terms of how that's um, implemented in the project. There's been the term functional art used, um, as well as something that can be like, uh, naturally incorporated into the project. Um, So I think that those are sufficient comments. Mr. Chen, Mr. Avastoa, do you need more information on that?

[05:01:38] Unknown Speaker: That sounded unanimous and I support that as well. Um, we'll, we'll again, work um, to the best of our ability and feasibility to try to make all these happen and send a report. Um, I did want to note that the, the large trees of the corners, um, are something we will try to fit in, but typically, um, there are a couple of things that do get in the way, one is the corner visibility triangles, um, for safety and the other one is uplifting of sidewalk and having enough area for the tree roots to grow. So, well, again, we'll try our best to see what we can do. And then report back to council. As far as the 75% native landscaping, I don't believe that's going to be a problem.

[05:02:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. And it sounds like, Council was in unanimous support of the, of that landscaping item as well. Great. All right. Um, and and I'm supportive of the staff direction. Really appreciate all the hard work, our staff, and the applicant is doing to bring this project into fruition. I know it's been a long journey and so, you know, a bunch of different puzzle pieces. Really grateful to Senator Josh Becker for the additional $8000000 that's bringing this project into fruition. I mean, I think that's really incredible. for a senator and his 1st year to be able to contribute to that. So, um, just wanted to to make sure that we we thanked him and and we have, we sent him a letter as well. Um, and liked the comments in terms of the design aesthetics that will mix into the downtown. I think what's really exciting is, for me, I'm just trying to think about, yes, providing affordable housing is a community benefit, but as much as possible, increasing that in terms of making it a walkable bikable place, having the different community serving spaces and having the flexibility and have those move forward. You know that it's not going to be childcare anymore, but I think that whether it's a maker space or something else, it sounds like we'll be able to make sure that it fully benefits the public. Um, which is really exciting. All right, so we had a motion early on from council members, Showalter, and from 2nded by the vice mayor. So, um, I will, um, ask our city clerk to call the roll.

[05:04:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member shall alter.

[05:04:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes,

[05:04:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: by C.I. Ramirez.

[05:04:07] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[05:04:08] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abbe Koga? Council member Hicks?

[05:04:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:04:13] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Labor?

[05:04:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:04:15] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Mattachek?

[05:04:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:04:18] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: America Mice?

[05:04:20] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:04:21] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carry unanimously.

[05:04:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. And I think before we move on to item 7.3. I think we need a motion to continue past 10 o'clock. Would anyone like to make that motion? Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[05:04:35] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So moved.

[05:04:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member, Michelle Walter.

[05:04:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Second.

[05:04:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion by the vice mayor, 2nded by Councillor Shalter, City Quick Glazer. Can we do we need to call the role on this?

[05:04:48] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Nice name Ramirez?

[05:04:50] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[05:04:50] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Counselor Rochel Walter?

[05:04:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes,

[05:04:53] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Abby Koko?

[05:04:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[05:04:55] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Hicks?

[05:04:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:04:57] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Lieber?

[05:04:58] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:04:59] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member Matachek?

[05:05:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[05:05:02] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Mayor Kamei.

[05:05:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:05:04] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Ocean Carey?

[05:05:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. She always needs somebody to say no, right? Okay. So we'll move on to item 7.3, which is our downtown parking garage framework. Council members Abbe Koga and Council member Hicks. Do you have an announcement to make? Councilman Rabe Koga.

[05:05:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: It's thinking, Mayor, um, I will be recusing myself from this item because my real property interest is located in close proximity to the project site. Thank you.

[05:05:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[05:05:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, and I'll also be recusing myself from this item because my real property interest is located close to the project site.

[05:05:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Well, thank you, council member Abby Kuga and council member Hicks. You'll now need to exit the Zoom. Um, and uh, rejoin the meeting after the conclusion of the item.

[05:05:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. All right. Well, they did that quickly.

[05:06:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Principal planner, Eric Anderson, will present the staff report, assistant city manager and community development director, director, Archie Shravesteva, and public works director, Don Cameron, are available for questions. And is Mr. Anderson going to be doing the report?

[05:06:22] Unknown Speaker: Great. That's right, Mirror.

[05:06:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Right. Let's see. Is he coming over? Oh, perfect.

[05:06:36] Eric Anderson: Good evening. Are you ready for my presentation?

[05:06:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We are ready.

[05:06:40] Eric Anderson: Awesome. Uh, well, let me get my uh, Slides up. And is it visible?

[05:06:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you very much.

[05:06:56] Eric Anderson: Well, thank you very much, America May. Thank you, city council. This is the downtown parking garage framework. I am Eric Anderson principal planner. Uh, tonight, staff is seeking confirmation uh, to start studying a new garage at parking lot 5 as well as confirmation of a funding strategy for that garage. Last year, the city started working on a downtown parking strategy. It's expected to be done later this year. The goal, it's intended to comprehensively study all the issues associated with downtown parking. Uh, and it has the goals uh, identified on the screen that came from council. Back in May, there was a study session. And at that study session, a shortfall, a projected shortfall, as well as an existing shortfall of parking district, parking spaces in the parking district, were identified. And council indicated a willingness to add to the supply of downtown parking. If counsel wishes to expand supply by building a new garage, The 1st step is to begin design. Staff looked at 3 surface lots on the east side of Castro Street to determine which lot should be the focus of that design. Lot 5 came out as the clear winner. That's the lot shown on the upper left. It's located between Dana and Villa. on the east side of Castro Street, on the west side of Hope. Lot 5 came out as the clear winner. It is the closest to the source of parking demand. It has the fewest trees. It is also a regular and rectangular and efficient shape for a parking garage. Staff is also recommending that the parking garage be studied with 5 levels, approximately 400 stalls, and it should not include underground parking or ground floor commercial. This configuration is the most achievable with the framework for partnerships and funding sources available. Alternatively, council could not study a new garage and focus more effort on other solutions, study a new garage in a different location, or with different characteristics. We estimate the garage will cost approximately $24 million. This slide shows the potential funding sources to cover that cost. These amounts are estimates. Staff will study additional sources during the design phase of the project. The potential sources include developer partnerships. The council has already, um, taken a look at and responded, made kind of initial responses to, including an office building on Evelyn, uh, developed by Marwood, the Lot 12 project, which you just looked at. Uh, and then there are several projects that are anticipated to pay uh, in Loop fees in the near future. And finally, there is a downtown benefit assessment district, which has some money as well as an operational, um, uh, surplus, uh, which could support some, uh, uh, could support the the design phase at the beginning of the process. Staff estimates the garage will have approximately 400 stalls in those 5 levels. Again, this assumes no retail and no underground. The garage is partly intended to address downtown shortfall, but also intended to replace the spaces at Lot 12. In addition, it needs to provide for demand from pipeline projects. This accounting results in approximately 25 spaces to address the existing shortfall. In addition, staff could issue a call for interest from other partnerships, but staff does not recommend this. There's no need for the funding at this time, as you saw in the previous slide. There is additional need for net new, as if evidenced by the existing shortfall. And it's not entirely sure right now before we get into the design, whether this 25 spaces will be the total number of net capacity. Uh, lastly, it would add additional capacity to, or additional complexity to the process of creating this garage. So staff's recommendation is to utilize these partnerships with Marwood and the Lot 12 developer, as well as these other sources. Um, and then also study the use of future inloof fees or long-term debt paid from parking district revenues. Alternatively, council could choose not to work with Marwood or Lot 12 to fund the garage or direct staff, like I said, to issue this call for interest. Here's a timeline for how this garage could be built. This is the soonest that it could be built. Um, in 2022. We would expect staff to identify or we would expect staff to work on this garage to be identified as well as creating a CIP. Around the same time. We are expecting Marwood to come forward with their decision for their office building. Lot 12, as you saw, is expected to start construction in 2023, and lots 4 and 8 are expected to finish construction in 2024. Staff doesn't recommend that the new garage start until after lots 4 and 8 finish construction. It would cause too much disruption to the downtown parking supply. If it started before, but this actually works out well because we are expecting roughly 2 years of design. Uh, and, um, 2 years of construction for this garage. So it would be done 2026 at the earliest. So here again, our staff's recommendations. And this concludes the presentation, and we look forward to any questions you might have.

[05:13:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Does any member of the council have any questions? Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[05:13:33] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just one question. Um, can parking in lieu, fees or, uh, the district funds generally be used to create public parking outside of the parking district boundary?

[05:13:56] Eric Anderson: Um, I do not, I do not. I'm not certain about this, but my I believe that it cannot.

[05:14:05] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Vice mayor, we may have to follow up, but it's our understanding that you have to use it within the district, that it generates the fees.

[05:14:15] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's what I thought. I got the question. I wasn't sure. I figured I'd ask. you.

[05:14:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Council member Manachek.

[05:14:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Just one question. Um, and that is, I'm still trying to figure out if this is really uh, an increase in parking. Because that's kind of the purpose of doing this. And in the staff report it says, um, net new capacity is likely to be only 140 spaces. But the slide tonight said 25. Um, and my calculations come up with even fewer. So, Is it really going to be an increase in parking? And how did you go from 140 to 25?

[05:15:07] Eric Anderson: Sure. Well, thanks for the question. Um, let me get my uh, slide up. Hopefully this can help illustrate. So on the slide, I think you counted all 80 from Marwood. But wasn't Marwood, some portion of that was actually, um, additional parking and not parking that that project needed. So, the, um, the Marwood project, when it was approved a couple of years ago, had, uh, approximately 55 stalls as their required onsite parking to serve their project, and an additional 25 stalls, uh, that they were going to, uh, provide as met new public parking, 100% 24 hour public parking. Um, so that came out to 80. Uh, that is also the number of their required stalls under um, the calculation, the parking standard in the downtown precise plan. So, either way, you calculated it's 80. Um, and so this number, and again, these are approximate, I believe they may have had 81 in their proposed project before, but again, these are very rough numbers. Um, this uh, project. Um, so this number takes both of those into account, right? Either this is their parking requirement or it's comparing their new proposal to their old proposal. Um, and then the 140 is the, um, the number that you get after you take out the stalls removed. So, the 400 minus the 100 existing is 300 net new on the site, and then taking out the 116 from, um, Lot 12. So we're also losing about 70 spaces along Evelyn. Um, yes, the Um, There are a range of other kind of, um, improvements that are happening around downtown. The intent of this garage was to address new supply, new demand as well as the relocation. of lot 12. Um, we are, you know, getting about 75 net new spaces at, um, the lots 4 and 8. Um, and then long term, there do need to be additional, there may need to be additional, um, actions by the city in order to address, um, current and future shortfalls.

[05:18:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so if I um, assume want 4 and 8 replace the spaces lost on Evelyn. Um, that's kind of a wash. But then, um, it's really only about 25 more spaces when we say we have a current short fall of about 100. Is that right?

[05:18:36] Eric Anderson: That's right. I would add that, um, these spaces are, uh, you know, the lot 12 is not as heavily used as we would expect this garage to be based on its location and access to demand. Uh, so there could be some additional efficiency there. Not to mention that there may be, um, you know, additional work on TDM, for example, in these projects that may reduce their actual parking demand. These, again, these are all very rough numbers. Um, and we can do additional analysis as the projects come through and as the garage is designed.

[05:19:21] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Okay. Sorry, Matt, check, if I may add, um, I think we've been trying to focus on making the parking public and in a location where it's gonna be used better than it, maybe the current, current locations. Um, and so there is some value to converting the 55 spaces of Marwood that would have been private into a public situation because they become more fungible and usable. So we're trying to move more away from that private parking system into more of a public parking system. So, we believe that, um, taking this approach in the downtown where we do provide additional parking, and then focusing on TDM, will help us manage the parking demand over the long term. Um, it's not perfect. We're not there yet, but this is just one step in the right direction.

[05:20:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks.

[05:20:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Council member Lieber.

[05:20:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm wondering what opportunities there are for uh, integration of of bicycle parking. Um, I know that there's uh, a lot of demand in the downtown. And, um, I'm seeing in the staff report that staff is really making a full court press on maximizing the amount of of car parking on the site. Um, but I'm wondering what uh, opportunities there might be for bicycle parking. Sure, and certainly, um, we can study additional bicycle parking as we get into the design. One of the advantages of bicycle parking is that it is a lot smaller than vehicle parking. And so there may be opportunities within, um, uh, within the garage to make the space more efficient by using some of, you know, some of these spaces that might not fit a car, uh, to be bicycle parking. And then, of course, in the final design of the garage, the council will have an opportunity to trade off between bicycle parking, larger groups of bicycle parking and vehicle parking. Okay. And when we get back the information about the use of funds from within the district, if they can be used outside of the district. I'd be very interested in the question of, um, if there's a public agency that's immediately adjacent to the district. Um, Could the funds be used, um, on on that public property? Um, And would that would that require legislation to, um, to be able to do that? Um, And also, I'm wondering if at some point, if we could have, um, a study session, about the overall parking, Situation for the downtown. Um, because, uh, I think we're seeing more, more development that's, uh, very close, but just outside of the boundaries of the district. And so if we kind of keep it siloed to what's in the district and then don't look at what's just immediately outside of it, um, I, I think that we're, um, we're missing out on a necessary, um, There. Um, because I think functionally people don't say I'm going to look for a space within the parking district that is, you know, has this weird shape with a couple, you know, flag pullouts and things like that. Um, but they're just looking for parking. Um, and then, At some point, I'd like to get some information back about, um, How, um, How the Changes to Caltrain will figure into our overall parking, uh, situation in the downtown. I think most people are expecting Caltrain ridership to go up. If the positive train control and et cetera. Um, come through. And, um, Then I'd like to know. Also, um, are there any models out there of cities that are successfully tapping into some unused, um, private parking. You know, that we have the best handle on things like that when we're doing a project like this. Um, is, um, the, uh, well, I'm not sure who, who actually said it, if it was, which staff member said it, but, um, when we have a new development before us, and we have the opportunity to make that, that, uh, parking public and not just strictly private. Um, so those are my initial questions about it. Um,

[05:25:21] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Castle member Lieber, if I may just address some of the questions you brought up, um, We're fairly sure that the funds have to be used within the district, and we can certainly, when we come back with the downtown parking garage, um, you know, just reconfirm that. Um, in terms of looking at an overall parking strategy, that's a really good and we're aggressing it with the with the downtown parking strategy, which you will be seeing in in November. Um, and what you're seeing today is um, one of the implementation items to help address parking demand. So we are looking at a variety of the items you brought up, which is let's look outside the district for options. Um, you know, let's look at trying to get people into downtown with other modes. How do we incentivize that? How do we sort of change the mode of travel? And that includes getting to Caltrain. Um, and also looking at new development and how we can partner with them on their private parking. So, We will be following up. We'll be learning from other cities that, um, um, are are doing that and then, uh, our framework will include some implementation actions, um, that can help us sort of springboard into actual, um, ordinances, codes, and requirements.

[05:26:47] Councilmember Sally Lieber: That sounds great, and and I'm especially interested on the question of where the funds can be used. Um, If we learn, for example, the under state law, the, the funds you have to be used inside the district. Um, well, maybe we could change that state law. Um, and um, Then also, I'm very interested in how it's working right now with um, the ride sharing locations. Because I know that some of the rideshare locations were very close to the downtown street closures. And, um, I think that, um, as we cope with the new normal, I think that the demand for ride sharing will be increasing again. And so I'm very interested in what's the flow of traffic for the future like? And we had some pretty truncated spaces. Um, for people to get in and out of ride shares, um, already in the downtown. Um, And so is that something that should be relooked at? Um, because I, I'm fine with this item to, to study things, but I think that we have to, um, pursue every other, um, avenue that we possibly can because parking structures are forever. And they're just always a concrete hulk that gets grimier and grimier over time. Um, and, um, so I want to make sure that we've, we've, uh, turned over every rock and looked at every possibility that's out there so that we can say to ourselves, um, well, we, we earned this crime honestly, and we looked at every single thing that we possibly could. as a place to stash cars and bicycles and move people in and out in those things.

[05:29:08] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Yes, I think the downtown framework will parking strategy will certainly look at that.

[05:29:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Would any member of the public on the line? Like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. And we'll display a 2 minute timer if that's okay. James Kuzumal.

[05:29:41] James Kusmel: Yeah, uh, James Kusmel, speaking for the Mountain View Coalition versus Stainboat Planning and Mountain View EMB, and I just want to express a concern that we aren't adequately considering the full alternatives for how we can use these funds to improve transportation downtown. Um, a parking garage is a massive investment, and it is something that, as, uh, comes from a believer, set, will be with us forever, and goes anything that has potential to increase or you can maintain VMT, really flies in the face of the city's own vision zero goals, our greenhouse gas emission targets, as well as potential pollution and other forms of emissions. Um, on top of that, it seems like it's a poor use of funding for purely for getting people to downtown to spend tens of 1000000s of dollars on parking. The point of things like mass transit, buses, shuttles, couch training, um, or even active transportation modes, like, um, biking, walking, is to move people more efficiently. And so, if we invest money in those modes, then we will presumably be able to get more people downtown for less cost while meeting the cities' own stated safety and sustainability goals. And so, I really hope that instead of just going down path of building up this parking garage, it'll cost $24 million, take up almost a full acre of city owned land, whose cost isn't accounted for yet, on top of nearly $1 million in annual operating costs. Instead of that, we actually explore, um, TDM things, whether that's active transportation, um, infrastructure downtown, or, um, a new shuttle, or something like that, so that we're actually properly investing in mountain view speech, rather than just forging blindly ahead with more and more parking. Thank you.

[05:31:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Lund Smith?

[05:31:47] Lund Smith: Good evening, Mayor, May, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and Council members. My name is Lun Smith from Smith Development. We currently have an application in to develop a 3 story building with 2 levels of underground parking at the corner of Hope and Dana, about one block from the subject parking garage. I just wanted to make you aware of an email we sent around yesterday regarding our current application, then alternative proposal. We are willing to proceed with if it's in the council's interest to do so. Specifically, we are willing to contribute $350000 to the city's new parking garage and allow public access to the 1st floor of our underground garage on nights and weekends in exchange for adding one level to our development, bringing it to a 4 story building. Um, just to note this this 4 story building would still be within the heights and density allowed for this area in the downtown. In this alternative 4 story scheme. Our $350000000 contribution to the parking garage would equate to an in-loo fee of more than $83,000 per stall, which is well above the current in lieu fee. So if interested, we'd be happy to talk with you or the staff more to answer any questions and discuss details. Thanks for your time.

[05:33:06] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Robert Cox.

[05:33:11] Robert Cox: Can hear me?

[05:33:12] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[05:33:13] Robert Cox: Oh, okay. Hi there, Honorable Mayor May, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and Council members. My name is Robert Cox. I'm speaking on behalf of the old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, parking subcommittee. We would like to support the staff recommendation to explore building a parking garage on Lot 5. As a staff report notes, there is an immediate shortage of one to 200 parking spaces in our downtown today, which will grow to 400 to 700 over the decade if no action is taken. We would, however, encourage the staff to evaluate whether a 5 story garage immediately behind the historic 200 block of Castro Street would overshadow the largely 2 story block. And consider whether putting one floor or parking underground would improve that situation. In addition to our subcommittee's recommendations, I would like to add a few personal observations. I would like to thank the council for all that it has done to help preserve our downtown businesses through the COVID pandemic. I also believe the council did the right thing by agreeing to replace the 160 parking spaces that will be lost on Lot 12 when the new affordable housing project is built there. While I encourage people to visit our downtown using alternate transit modes, I do not want to send a message that people who wish to visit our downtown by car are not welcome here. I would be surprised if any of our downtown businesses would put up a sign in their front windows saying, don't come here if you arrived by car. But this is the message we as a city will send if we cut off our business' supply parking. This would be a sad last chapter in the history of our vibrant downtown, which our city government has worked so hard. Say, thank you for your consideration of our views.

[05:35:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Salim, Dahmer, Gucci.

[05:35:16] Salim: Hi. Yeah, I'm Salim. I work in Mountain View and I don't support the staff recommendation. Um, so, you know, one thing we heard recently, uh, previously was that there's a shortage in parking with uh, the new law 12 development, but I think that assumes the wrong baseline. So, you know, uh, the baseline for parking right now has been artificially high because the government has subsidized parking, uh, and submerged the cost of it. So that way people are more likely to use parking than they would have otherwise. Um, if people actually had to pay for parking at the point of service, the rates of parking would be a lot lower. So there is no shortage in parking, we just artificially induce more people to drive instead of walking to downtown or biking to downtown. Um, I also don't think that this project fits in with a neighborhood character. We have a beautiful downtown, uh, adding a big asphalt, uh, structure. I think would really be a blight. Um, and bringing more cars into the area just adds more noise, more pollution. Uh, I also have an issue with using money from an affordable housing provider to help fund this. This money should be going towards affordable housing. Thank you.

[05:36:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. At Dean 11?

[05:36:35] Dean 11: Good evening, mayor, and council members, uh, Dean 11 with Friends of Cal Train. like to support, um, some of the previous, uh, comments, focusing on the, uh, cities priorities for downtown access where, uh, a variety of different strategies are prioritized and a parking garage is the last in line and would urge the city council to consider, uh, enhancing, uh, all the other strategies before making a final decision to build a new uh parking garage. Um, the, uh, location in the downtown, um, uh, based on, uh, trends in the area, um, could, uh, be, uh, with with policies, could have a driving rate well under 50%. Redwood City is planning for, I believe, a 30% driving rate in the downtown, um, in terms of uh, Caltrains, uh, uh, goals went with electric service. They have plans for frequent service, including in the middle of the day and in the evening to support many different kinds of trips. And, you know, that strategy is becoming increasingly important for Caltrain as commute patterns are expected to permanently be somewhat a different after COVID. Um, in terms of, of in-law fees. I believe it is, uh, allowable in Mountain View to use in lieu fees for transportation demand management for transit passes shuttles and so on. And so prioritizing the use of those to reduce driving as much as possible. Before uh, creating uh, new parking, um, is something that is in line with the city's uh, policies for transportation as well as for environment. So the summary is to prioritize all of the strategies for supporting sustainable modes. I can use that. Thanks.

[05:38:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Tim Mackenzie.

[05:38:48] Tim Mackenzie: Thanks, Tim Mackenzie, he and Bronaan's Montaloma neighborhood. Um, I just like to echo the calls of finding ways to disincentivize car travel. Uh, we just saw last week. It felt like the beginning of fire season wasn't quite as bad as it was a year ago, but, you know, we might have more fires coming up. We're seeing the consequences of the warming climate that we've been warned of for decades. These are the costs of parking that have been submerged, not to put words into an earlier commenter's mouth, but that was really what resonated with me. These costs are coming out in a public way. I think that we should do our best to disincentivize, travel by car and incentivize and invest in public transit. So I hope that when staff is studying the parking garage at Lot 5, it includes theirs included the opportunity costs of not choosing to invest in other types of public transit, and the opportunity cost of bringing more cars and incentivizing car travel on our climate. Thanks a lot.

[05:40:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Kevin Ma?

[05:40:08] Kevin Ma: Evening again, city council, I, too, with other commanders, I think that there perhaps needs to be a focus on the city, on alternative mills of transit. Inherently, the city has subsidized cars over everything else, right? Like, I've bike ridden on bike lanes, where there's literally a sign in the bike lanes saying, share the road because of construction. And which indicates that basically every other form has been just defunded fundamentally. Like, we have many items on the bike plans that just don't get funded, maybe because there isn't the money, maybe because there's opposition that slows down and delays the project. And downtown is one of the most transit accessible places. Caltrain is now going to be speeding up the amount of trains that come through, increasing the amount that come through per hour. There's bus service, there's, you know, a walkable downtown now. And I feel like it's a disservice to the future where, you know, transportation is one of the largest source of emissions in the city. And there's not really any way to dress it. EV vehicles, given the amount of pickup so far, would take a long time to completely electrify the vehicle, single obviously, vehicle fleet, that we do need to start pushing people into using alternate means. Most trips by car are done in less than five miles, which is on a bike ride, you know, 20, 30 minutes, walking less than an hour, and we should be thinking about that as our skies remain, you know, smoky or hot, because, you know, people don't want to change their neighborhoods, like, we do need to make that kind of lead trip now. Thank you.

[05:41:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. There is a 415 number, last 3 digits, 669. If you could unmute. Again, it's a oh, go ahead.

[05:42:05] Tim McEnry: Good evening, Honorable Mayor Mayor Kamei, likes Mayor Ramirez and Council members. My name is Tim McEnry, I'm managing director at the Marwood Company. We are the project sponsors of 701-727 West Evelyn, which is located across from transit center in downtown Mountain View. We receive entitlement for Evelyn Development November 2019. And in the 1st quarter of 2020 began working with the city to amend our entitlements and repositioned our parking requirements for the building. Um, due to COVID, and for the last 18 months, our activities down on hold with the city, saying that, We are currently re-engaging city regarding our development, I received comments from staff. In addition, uh we anticipate starting the development agreement process shortly. Uh, as the city council and city staff continue to review and discuss the feasibility, of a new parking structure. We look forward to engaging discussions on how the roadmap and execution of the parking structure could be arrived at in a timely manner. We feel strongly that the structure would add to downtown parking capacity and be a valuable asset to the city and community of Mountain View in the years I had. We support the staff's recommendation to counsel, to study a new aboveground parking structure on our five. Thank you very much.

[05:43:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So this concludes public comment. I'll now bring it back to counsel for deliberation. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[05:43:33] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. Um, so I'll start by saying I don't come to the conclusion that we should study a new parking structure lightly. I think um, it may be helpful to think about the history of this. Um, the question that we discussed for lot 12 was not, whether we should replace the parking, the public parking or not. It was whether we should replace the parking on site or off site. And I supported what, what I thought was a reasonable compromise, to replace the barking offsite, because I felt it might help the financial feasibility of the lot 12 affordable housing project. Um, so, this is, I think, the next step in pursuing that political compromise. Um, I think the lot 12 project is very important, and that's why I'm comfortable with it, even though ordinarily, I'm not all that keen on increasing parking supply. But, um, I do also want to support, um, something that, uh, the community development director was saying earlier, and that's the value of public parking is far greater than the value of private parking, because we can use it evenings and weekends. You know, the public has access to it. Um, and, uh, personally, I feel that, we're not necessarily, that, again, the, the, the choice isn't necessarily pursue the structure or, you know, not have parking at all, if we don't do this, I think we will see the creation of more private parking, and so we're still going to have to address VMT impacts, and we'll, we're still going to have to contend with. Um, you know, community and business concerns about parking availability. So, I think using this, this opportunity, to convert private spaces into public spaces is also valuable. Um, and I think council member, manage, had also alluded to parking that will be lost elsewhere. So it's not really, I think, as clean cut. Um, as, as it may be presented. Um, so I'm, I'm comfortable with pursuing, um, or studying a structure at lot 5, Um, I think the only thing I would recommend is that we explore additional partnerships with other developers. Um, primarily because I want to limit the city's exposure to the cost of creating the structure to the greatest extent possible. I think the additional inlu fees or the partnership proposed by, um, uh, I think it was, uh, Smith, uh, Lund Smith, is worthy of exploration because, again, it's, it's not that we wouldn't create parking at all. It's, instead of using that money and that partnership to increase public parking, they would still have to privately park their development. Um, so it's, it's, it's, you know, I think we need to frame the choice appropriately. And in my mind, if the options are private parking versus public parking, then 10 times out of 10. I'm going to take the public parking choice. Now, if the council is interested in exploring other, you know, TDM strategies, parking management, that kind of thing, I'm absolutely supportive of that, that makes a lot of sense to me. Um, but I do think that, you know, to be consistent with the political compromise, I supported, we need to study this option, and I would also want to explore opportunities to convert more private parking into public parking. So that, I guess the, the, the other, the last thing I'll say is the, um, the, I, I disagree with the framing of the net new spaces. Because in my mind, a conversion of, a private parking space to a public space is, in fact, a net creation, that private space is, is, is not valuable to me. I want to emphasize that. Um, so if we're converting 55 private spaces into 55 public spaces. I think that's that's a significant value add to the community. And I would want to see that incorporated into, um, into our framing of, or, or as part of the study. I also like the idea of using this to expand bike parking, that's also desperately needed. I had asked a few questions about, um, stall width, you know, and if we can use that to, um, maybe, uh, get additional public spaces, I'd be comfortable with that too, tactical use of compact spaces. But, uh, aside from exploring additional partnerships beyond Marwood and Lot 12. I'm comfortable, uh, with a staff recommendation. Thank you.

[05:48:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Vice Mayor Ramirez, did I hear you make a motion? That's what I thought you did at the beginning, or did I miss that?

[05:48:43] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I did not.

[05:48:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, you did?

[05:48:45] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: For the sake of moving things along. I'm happy to move what I just said.

[05:48:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Sorry about that. The late hours getting to me. Okay. So we have a motion with comments from the vice mayor, Council mayor Mattachek.

[05:49:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Also, I was gonna make a motion, but, um, I, well, I agree with the staff recommendation. I'm not interested in, um, the part of the motion, I think I heard the vice mayor make, which was exploring additional partnerships. Um, if I heard correctly, um, the additional partnership that was proposed was, um, in exchange for a larger building, which means more demand for parking, they'll contribute to the parking lot. So I'm not interested in doing that. Um, So I just support the staff recommendation with a couple of um, options that I would like to see. And I feel like as long as we're looking at this. Let's not just pick one thing to look at. Let's pick a couple. So we have some options to consider because, um, it's going to be a while before this happens, I think we should think about long term. And so I'd like to see us explore, um, as was mentioned, um, not just bike parking, but secure bike parking, um, in the structure as well as, I'd say additional floors. So there might be additional spaces. Um, and whether that be above ground or underground, I feel like maybe we should look at different options there. Um, to understand what are the implications and what are the costs of that, rather than just pick one, um, one way of looking at this. Um, so I guess, you know, if you want to modify the motion, I'll 2nd it, but, um, I'm not sure we're on the same page in terms of what we're looking for here. Thanks.

[05:50:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Vice mayor, did you want to respond to?

[05:51:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so I, the one, so I, I guess I'm interested in hearing what other members of the council have to say about this. I'm, I am concerned about the, the financial liability uh, of, of the structure. So I, it's part of the value of exploring other partnerships in addition to the, converting private spaces in the public spaces is, it reduces whatever financial obligation the city would have, because it would be private money. Um, so, uh, that's something that's important to me, and if there are other solutions to that problem, then, I, I, I don't object to the staff's recommendation, but that's, that's the other consideration. So, unless there's, my motion dies and it dies, but I, I would rather explore, even if it doesn't pan out, right? We may not approve that development and so that becomes a moot point, but I do want to keep our options open.

[05:52:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So it sounds like the, your motion is staying, vice mayor. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Councilman Michelle Walter.

[05:52:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I have quite a few comments as well. Um, Kind of following both on both what council member, um, Now chick and, um, Vice Mayor Ramirez have said. Um, I don't usually go to, oh, let's build a parking structure. But we did make a, um, a deal to, um, to consider parking off site, to make a much better project on Lot 12. And I think that that was a wise decision. I think the, as I've sort of, we have to study parking a lot on city council. It might not be our favorite topic, but it comes up a lot. So over time, you think about it a lot. And I have come to the observation that, um, public parking is much more valuable than underground private parking. And, um, I was really delighted to hear that, um, uh, that we're going to have a, um, a downtown parking strategy come to us in November, and I hope that that is going to include kind of everything else besides, um, a parking structure, because, clearly, the management activities that we can take, uh, for one thing, they're faster, and for another thing, they're less expensive, and they can be very, very effective. For one thing is, I mean, one of my favorite ones is, is why, we should have a restriction on the time you can park in the public lots in Mount Downtown Mountain View, I think. I think I should just say, You can only park there for three hours. And that would mean that the people who are working all day in buildings that have private parking would be more inspired to park under their building than to park on their parking lot. So that'd be one thing. But going back to what we're doing tonight. Um, I, uh, I like the idea of, um, considering alternatives as well. I don't think it's ever good to just look at one alternative. There's too much work involved in evaluating, and I don't think maybe the staff really minted that way, but that is kind of how it came through. I'm interested in the possibility of perhaps doing a taller structure. And for me, one of the things I would like to consider on the top of this building is something that would be pretty. And that would be a rooftop garden. I think that that would be an amenity for the community. It would be some green space. We might be able to have some storm water collection features on it. And it would reduce the reflectivity of this building, which helps cool the downtown. I also would like us to consider the use of low carbon concrete. There are different, you know, there's a lot of work that's being done on concrete now. And the LinkedIn headquarters that has just been built has used low carbon concrete. And I'd really like us to look into that as a possibility. Um, and, um, Then I think that we should be opened to the idea of letting um, other um, groups or contribute to this parking, but I'm, I don't necessarily want to tie any particular project to it. I just think the idea of cutting it off completely is, um, maybe shortsighted. So I would prefer that we allowed other people to, you know, to contribute. Um, so those, those are my comments, and I would be glad to, uh, with the addition of, of some alternatives to 2nd the, um, the vice mayor's, um, motion.

[05:56:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. So, um, I'll just let me just make sure I get this right. So we have the vice mayor's motion. Um, and then council member Show Walter, you wanted to also include, um, look, additional floors, a rooftop garden, low carbon concrete. Would that be? Thank you. Would that be included in the motion? Okay. Yes. Great. Thank you. All right, council member Leaper.

[05:56:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, I'm, I'm gonna be siding with Council member Matachek's comments, and I, I think my concern about going out and chasing other partners is that we don't have anything to offer them unless we go up significantly in height. And I think that that would be a real problem. Um, in terms of the, the impact on the view shed of the, the downtown and, um, how much, how much shade it would cast. And, um, you know, the surrounding neighborhood and, and historic parts of, of Castro Street. And, um, So, I'm, I'm not really in favor of, uh, beating the bushes to see who's out there and who might offer us what, because I could envision us, um, doing that and then only working ourselves into a situation that we don't really want to be in. Um, so I'm, I'm not in favor of, of growing the concrete, um, any bigger than what's proposed here. Um, and, uh, I was actually waiting for council members, show Walter, to say solar, on the road. Um, and I think that, um, some version of that might be, uh, might be a good idea. Um, and I'm not sure how long this study is projected to take. Would it, this, this isn't something that would be over and done with before we, um, have a chance to, you know, take a whack at, uh, an overall strategy, right? We would still, there would be, there, uh, staff would bring back study sessions for council input on design details. But would we get the overall strategy in November before this would get so far down the road that?

[05:58:51] Unknown Speaker: Yes, yes. In fact, uh, we won't even be able to identify staff to start working on this for at least 6 months. So the, uh, the downtown parking strategy should be complete by the time we kick off this project.

[05:59:12] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, great. Well, um, I don't know if there'll be an alternative, uh, motion coming from Council, I'm Romantic, or if the vice mayor will be, um, amending his motion, but I, I just think that we have to, um, kind of, live within our, our means, and, um, not just keep, keep growing and growing the, uh, the parking situation.

[05:59:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I'll turn to the, I'll make sure I get my my round of comments in as well, but I want to turn it over to the vice mayor, um, 1st and customer shelter to see if there's any, uh, amendments or conversation. Vice mayor?

[05:59:58] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, there. Um, so, uh, I, if my motion fails, I'm happy to support the alternatives. I think, you know, we're all trying to achieve the same thing and, and the interest I'm, I'm trying to express is, uh, just minimizing any public investment, the greatest extent possible, but if there isn't support for exploring additional partnerships, I'm okay with that. Um, I don't mind pursuing the, the staff recommendation. I did want to ask the clarifying question of staff, though, and that's, uh, once we provide this direction and settle on lot five. Does that mean that, uh, council member Savekoga and Hicks would be permitted to participate in future discussions about design? City Attorney Chopra?

[06:00:50] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, um, vice mayor, I assume you're referring to the conflict recusals, and it would, it would require a new look at what exactly is, is, uh, part of the next item. So, it's likely if, uh, Lot 5 is still, you know, a live topic that the conflict could continue, but I couldn't say with certainty, uh, without knowing the exact parameters of what that next item is gonna look like.

[06:01:25] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I think that'll be important information moving forward. I think we'd all prefer to have all of our colleagues participated possible. Uh, so, so right now, I'm, I'm, I'm accepting the amendments that council member show Walter proposed. Um, I, I don't want to deny the opportunity to explore other partnerships, though. I don't want to tie ourselves or commit that we, you know, to supporting other projects to make this possible. I just wanted, sort of test the waters and, and, and see if they are feasible. But if this motion is voted down. I'm happy to support the staff recommendation.

[06:02:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Michelle Walter.

[06:02:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Now, I, I, I forgot to mention, um, I wanted to thank Eric for putting together that staff of the, that, um, slide of the timeline. I found that really, uh, I asked him to do that, and I found it really, uh, helpful. Um, and I'd like to call for the question.

[06:02:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, well, hands are still up, so I will, I will do that after hands are up and after I've made my comment. All right. Thanks. Counselor Madache.

[06:02:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So sorry, can you clarify? Because, um, I'm not sure I captured in my notes. I heard the staff recommendation, explore other funders, but we're not committed to it. Low carbon concrete, rooftop garden, and more levels. Is that what the motion is?

[06:03:00] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I believe so.

[06:03:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: How prepared does that sound correct to you? Is that your motion?

[06:03:05] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I think so. Those were the 3 editions that I thought I heard from council member show alter in terms of the preliminary direction for design. Um, the only substantial modification I was proposing was to explore additional partnerships with with other developers.

[06:03:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, Can we add, um, Look when you talk about more levels, um, what about secure bike storage? Can we add that as an option?

[06:03:38] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, absolutely.

[06:03:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks.

[06:03:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Okay. So, um, I'd like to to make my comments. Um, so, let's see how, well, I appreciate that this is one part, I think, of the piece, it sounds like to our downtown parking. Um, one is, we'll have an opportunity to talk about our downtown parking strategy, which I think will allow us to talk about a lot of things that we're provided in public comment as well as what we've received, um, probably from, you know, emails and other outreach to council. And I think those were all great suggestions, and I appreciate that council is has that opportunity to kind of have an overarching view of what our downtown parking strategy will be. I'll also say that when I'm thinking about this, this lot or exploring a new lot, I'm not just thinking about the implications of Lot 12. I'm also thinking about our Castro Street closure, which is until January. Um, and I know that that council may have the opportunity to talk about permanent street closure there. And so I'm also thinking about opportunities for that to be a possibility when I'm thinking about our downtown parking strategy and exploring a new lot. And one of the things that we've talked about when we've had to talk about parking is the opportunity for the design of the parking structure to be such that, you know, should we no longer need the parking, we could repurpose it into housing or office or something else. We've looked at that quite a bit when we worked with, uh, a particular applicant who's doing, um, district parking. And so I see that as something perhaps we could look into when we're designing this parking lot, which is perhaps this might be something we need now, but perhaps in the design, we can also look at, you know, potentially repurposing it in the future to something like housing. Um, so I'd like to include that perhaps in the design or maybe that's just in the comment phase. I'll know how deep we're going. And so I'll look to, to staff and the, and the vice mayor customer show alter if we want to include that. Um, but that was another thing that I was I'm thinking about. And then um, in terms of looking at other potential partnerships. I do feel a bit like counselor magic, I feel like it's a little bit like, I'm unclear on what that means. Um, I know that staff has already talked about looking at partnerships with Marwood, a lot 12 developer in Luffy's, our downtown benefit assessment district, um, our parking district revenues. So, you know, it sounds like staff is already heading in that direction. And so I don't know if counselor needs to further provide direction on that or that something staff is already naturally looking at. I don't know, Mr. Anderson, do you, do you need that specific, specificity from counsel at this point or is that something that's naturally already kind of going forward? I know that Miss Cameron's always good about looking for grant opportunities too. So.

[06:06:58] Mr. Anderson: Yeah, we are looking for, uh, you know, confirmation on this question, whether we should issue a call for additional partnerships, that would be an action that staff would take, um, uh, would embark on, you know, after this evening, if that's something that counsel's interested in doing, if counsel's not interested in doing it, then we will, uh, use the resources that we've identified in the staff report. as well as any other potential resources that we identify in the design process.

[06:07:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you for that clarification. So, you know, I feel like we're so close. Vice Mary, I see your hand up. You know, I, I don't know if we want to tie in this exploration more projects to this lot. Um, You, I see your hand raised if you want to go ahead.

[06:07:56] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, thank you. So 1st of, I'm, to the extent it's valuable for staff, I did want to incorporate your suggestion, suggestion that we look at repurposing. Um, I think that has come up in previous discussions, so I think it's, it's, it's important for us to understand the feasibility and the cost implications. So, I would like to incorporate that, and then also, um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think council member Lieber had suggested something about, uh, incorporating a solar component. So I think that's, that's absolutely, absolutely something worth exploring too. Um, so I, I, if it, if it helps to soften a language. I don't want to tie ourselves to any additional developments. I think, you know, we we have. We've, we're, we're, very aggressively working with Marwood to see if that can work, and then we've already committed, you know, um, to replacing the 160 spaces at lot 12. But, uh, I, I don't, I guess what I, what I don't want to say definitively, is we're not going to talk to other developers because they may have very compelling proposals that can help, help us meet that gap, which is pretty significant. Um, without touching other public funding and maybe pay for some of the other, uh, improvements that we've discussed here, which might be pretty expensive, right? I think what the staff recommended, recommendation is a, is a bare bones structure, if, if we want to include some of the other elements, it might make it a little bit more cost prohibitive. So I just, I just wanted to, keep the hope alive, that maybe there's another deal out there, but I don't want to in any way, um, suggest that we are, you know, going to approve another office development or ever going to accept any deal that comes our way.

[06:09:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you for that clarification. So, I see Counselor Matachek, but I also see city manager McCarthy, so I want to recognize a city manager and then I'll go to Council member Matachek.

[06:09:58] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor, council members. I just want to caution council in that, um, the list is getting rather long. And we have the funding gap as it is. So I just want to let counsel know that I think staff can explore everything that's been put on the table now, but just setting expectations that it could create problems and getting to the end result that we are seeking, which is to build the structure. So, all of the, uh, things that we have within this motion, I think just, just to set realistic expectations now, may not be possible within the funding ability that the city's gonna have. So I just wanted to set, set that this evening just so that everyone's on the same page.

[06:10:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Council member made a check.

[06:10:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm kind of wondering, do we have to, um, sort of decide on funding tonight, along with an assessment of the options. I kind of feel like in my mind, I can separate those and say, let's take a look at what the options are. We know how much money we have. If an option is particularly attractive to us and we do want to do it, then we talk about, well, where do we get the additional funding from? Like, do we have to do both of those? Tonight? Because I'm interested in understanding these options. I agree, there's a long list here. I actually would take some of these off, but other people are interested in them. Um, but I don't feel compelled to figure out the funding tonight. Do we have to?

[06:11:45] Unknown Speaker: Um, Council number Mata check, if I may just add, um, we, we wanted to circumscribe the project, so we knew what we were gonna be bringing back to you. I think the options can be priced, you know, with accordingly. But it's, if the council is interested in a partnership, or not, we would like to know, and then we can sort of give you some idea of how we plan to move, go about it. At this point, there's only one partner who was interested, and he has spoken at the public hearing. So we don't anticipate a whole lot of people coming forward. Um, and we can evaluate that and see, you know, um, at least what we can build and whether that actually adds to the cost or creates a bigger gap or not and come back to you. Um, but we were trying to get some definition as to how do we go about getting to the next step of designing the structure? And then I'll let, I'll let Dawn speak because I'm sure she has more to add.

[06:12:49] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Uh, thank you, Don Cameron, public works director. Um, what, what, uh, the community director said is, is pretty much what I was going to say, is that our, our 1st step for any kind of capital project like this is to start with design concepts, and alternative concepts, and we can look at all these various items that you're talking about on a high level to give an idea of cost, order of cost, and come back to you, and you can see what would fit within the amount of money that we expect to have available, what would actually be a higher cost. One of the things I wanted to mention is that if, you know, it sounds like what's built into the motion was a consideration of additional levels, which could, therefore, create additional parking stalls. And if we do do that, we're going to want to look at options that also include some underground levels because, um, we're going to want to, you know, be careful about how high this structure goes in connect in relation to its surrounding land use is. And therefore, I could already see this, you know, set of options coming your way, that is, this 5 level garage, which is really a 4 story building, because the 1st level is on the ground floor, and then an option where we say, okay, we'll go one or 2 levels below, on top of that, or we'll go one more level higher, and show you order magnitude, how that affects the cost. And then we can also look at some of these other features, and we would keep it pretty high level in the 1st go around. But I will say we wouldn't have this information for you. Um, it could be almost a year. Uh, we have to get the staff on board. We have to get the consultant on board and we have to do the initial just concepts planning for you and so on. So the only concern is any available funding partnerships, you know, to keeping the door open to them while we're going through this, um, effort to come up with the different concepts and bring them back to you.

[06:15:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilman Michelle Walter.

[06:15:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, Um, Miss Cameron, how different from a timeline point of view, will the evaluation be if we do a much simpler garage, then, um, then the few things that we brought up. And I personally think doing it at a high level is completely appropriate. I mean, to me, it seems like the decision we're really making tonight is, do we think lot five is the right place? And I think everybody said, Yeah, we think right, lot five is the right place. Um, but the other stuff is, um, uh, yeah, it's my interest is very much at a high level. I mean, I feel like, you know, this is brainstorming might be quite not quite the right word, but we want to just, you know, we want more than one alternative considered. And... It seemed like, in the report, it wasn't quite clear that that was the case. So, what would the timeline difference be between kind of what you just talked about and what you and Eric had talked about previously?

[06:16:12] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I think the timeline difference could be as much as six months. And I'm saying that because to do what we're now talking about, actually adds an extra step, which is really a lot of concept alternatives that vary in terms of the size of the garage. Whereas, what staff had recommended in this report, which was the five level parking garage, obviously, we would look at solar anyhow, that's part of the reach code, and so on, but, and we'd look at bicycle parking, that would be a big deal. It's the idea of trying to go to additional levels, adding more spaces. If we go with what's in the staff report, it's a much more straightforward project for us, because we already have the basic parameters, and what we bring back to you in concepts is more look and feel. And it'd get less into, uh, overall look at, uh, so options that would so vary in costs, that you'd have to make a key decision before we go back and now do a little more design and to look and feel for what would be the kind of final parameters of this.

[06:17:26] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: If I may, if I may add one more piece, um, the partnership strategy would have to be fleshed out a little bit because typically you would put a call out for projects to say, I mean, for interest, to say, the city's building a parking garage, and if you're willing to partner, um, do submit your proposal, so we evaluate them. And then Don might have to base her alternative parking, um, strategy on that. So it does add a level of complexity. And so that's the reason we wanted to get some feedback from the council about whether that's an option they wanted us to follow up on. In which case that would come 1st and then we would work on the, on the options, which could get more complex, which is looking at underground levels, which add, um, more cost for space.

[06:18:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council member Shelter, did you have more, I see your hand up still? You could.

[06:18:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, that's good. Thank you.

[06:18:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, good. So. I feel like We've had a lot of discussion. We have emotion, we have a second. We've included a lot of things. I feel like this, this last, um, these last comments from staff are, if we move forward with looking into additional partnerships and looking into additional levels that will increase the timeline by 6 months. If we remove the additional level and the partnerships, it will continue on the same timeline. Can I see your head's nodding. Okay. All right. So, I, I mean, I, I guess for my part, I, I would be comfortable moving forward without the additional level. And the partnership, if we could can stay on the timeline and look into everything else, which was still a long list, which was by parking, rooftop garden, low carbon concrete, solar on roofs, repurposing a lot to housing, solar component. So we still get a lot. Um, so I'm comfortable with that. Um, but I do know that we have emotion in a 2nd. And so after council member Matachech, um, at, I'll call the question. Council manager.

[06:19:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I'll make a substitute motion here. And that's that we, um, Do the staff recommendation with an evaluation of one more level of parking and all that staff decide if that's one more level above ground, one more level below ground. Steph already said they'd include solar. Um, we don't look for external partners, um, but we do secure bike storage, um, and that's it.

[06:20:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hey, we have a substitute motion by council member Mattachek. Okay. Cosmo reliever.

[06:20:35] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so just to clarify, um, both of the motions are now seeking to grow a potential parking structure. Outside of the envelope that, that was in the staff presentation.

[06:20:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, that's my understanding. Both motions would include additional levels.

[06:21:01] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think I had asked. I had asked if we could maybe keep the original. Um. But I didn't hear any. So I'm not sure how many levels were in Lucas's motion. Right, Mary Ramirez.

[06:21:20] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, so given the feedback from staff. The most important thing in my mind is the additional partnerships. That's the one thing I didn't want to compromise on. But if keeping the envelope, uh, within the staff proposed confines helps things move along more quickly, I'm okay with eliminating consideration and additional levels. I think it sounded like whether it was an additional level, or if it was partnership, it would increase it by 6 months. So it doesn't. The only way to not increase it would to not include an additional level and not include a partners, additional partnerships. Correct?

[06:22:07] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Well, one of the reasons additional partnerships could increase the time is because additional partnerships come along with additional parking capacity needed, and that could lead to another level. So they can go hand in hand. Yeah. So I think, either way, it would be an increased timeline.

[06:22:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. So we have the original motion. I don't know, we have the substitute motion from Counselor amount of check, but I did not hear a 2nd on that. So the original motion is from the vice mayor and council member show Walter. Which was the staff recommendation, I guess, not the starring region anymore. Uh, It was looking into an additional floor. The secure, bike parking, rooftop garden, low carbon concrete, solar on roof. Repurposing of the lot to housing, and additional partnerships. Did I get that correct vice mayor? Yes. Okay, great. All right. Uh, city quick laser, could we take the roll call vote?

[06:23:23] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Nice here, Ramirez. Council member Show Walter?

[06:23:27] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:23:28] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Council member. Uh, labor?

[06:23:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, I'll abstain at this point because I'm not clear if this includes the additional partnerships or not.

[06:23:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: It does.

[06:23:40] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Oh, no. Counselor Matachef? No.

[06:23:47] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: American May.

[06:23:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[06:23:49] Interim City Clerk Silvia Vonderlinden: Motion carries.

[06:23:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um... All right. So we will move that concludes item 7.3. So we'll move on to item 8 counts council staff and committee reports. Does anyone have anything to report? Please, Mayor Ramirez.

[06:24:12] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Very quick. I did want to ask staff about, we received some comments earlier from residents near Latham, who expressed concerns about, um, traffic safety and speeding, and that sounds like a petition will be submitted pretty soon. It wasn't clear if that was the neighborhood, uh, traffic, um, management program, um, but I would want to, uh, ask staff. Do we have any ongoing work related to traffic safety, traffic pony, um, that would impact victim?

[06:24:50] Public Works Director Don Cameron: At this time, no, we do not.

[06:24:53] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I made a note that we are expecting a petition, and whether they consider part of the neighborhood traffic management program or not, that's how we would treat it, and follow up with the community on that basis.

[06:25:07] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, fantastic. Thank you. And if you wouldn't mind sharing with the council, afterwards, what the result of that analysis is would be really helpful.

[06:25:16] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Yes, we will. Thank you.

[06:25:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Council member Lieber.

[06:25:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wanted to, uh, renew my request at this time to have a study session. Um, on the the gamble way, um, projects. I think that there's significant public interest and concern about displacement that, um, it would merit a, um, study session, setting a petition, and whether they,

[06:26:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Not sure what that was, Mayor. Um, but, uh, do we need to take a straw poll or can I just make that request and it will happen?

[06:26:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I'll turn to City Attorney Chopra.

[06:26:14] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I don't know what that noise was either. Yes, there were Council member Hicks was joining in, so maybe there was a delay from her when she was watching us. Yeah, any, any, uh, requests for a future action from item 8 requires, uh, majority council support, but I think for, for this one, I, I, that is still true, but we would also want to talk with, um, public works director, Cameron, and, and perhaps a community development director about what, what that would entail. You know, if there's, uh, if time would allow for that before the September 28th, and if, and if not, uh, what, what it would entail in terms of rescheduling, perhaps the September 28th. So there's some factors to consider, but to answer your immediate question, it requires a majority support for counsel to agendize a future item like that.

[06:27:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so in theory, a study session item could also be on September 28th. Is it a possibility from staff? Um,

[06:27:30] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I could answer that question. Yes, we could hold the study session on the 28th, um, but we did want to understand, um, the goal of the study session to see if we could respond to it. Um, with the current plan and then we could certainly move to a study session required. Um, I think we're going to have to internally look at, um, any changes we need to make because we do have, um, other things that have to happen before we come to council. We have scheduled, for example, a tenant meeting tomorrow, to meet with the tenants and then go over the program that we have worked on with the council's help. We also have a ZA hearing scheduled. that we have to, um, potentially, um, uh, revise, you know, or postpone if we brought a study session. Um, and then I did want to check on the goal is the idea to, um, hear from the public and and sort of reach out to them and let them know about, um, all the deal terms that we've negotiated. Um because we are doing that.

[06:28:41] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, I think from my perspective, um, there's a difference between reaching out to the tenants and allowing an opportunity for the community overall to have the confidence that we're, uh, fully appraised of what the situation is, um, before we move to the next formal step of, Um, vacating the the public street and easements. And for example, um, obviously the tenants that are there are the 1st level of impacts and effects. But then, the public overall, um, if we price everyone of modest means everyone who works in a service occupation, um, out of, out of our town, um, that has an impact on each of us, we might be seeking childcare, seeking home care for elders, um, just trying to get by in normal commerce, and so we have wider concerns than, um, just that people who, that group of, a much smaller number who are so personally impacted, but, I think what I heard from our constituents tonight is that, um, they just see a rising tide of displacements. And there's nothing that's, um, seeming to slow that train. At all, you know, we took a formal step tonight to notice that we're gonna take the step of actually, um, vacating, and, um, so I think what I'm hearing from, from individuals and what I saw reflected in my council email. was, you know, a desire to have it be demonstrated to them that, that council is really taking this, this level of displacement. Um, seriously, and that we're absorbing the message. So, obviously, it's a time for the public to, to have their say and, and make public comments as well. Um, but I, I think that there are a very enormous percentage of the community that are, are really worried about what they see is just kind of an unstoppable train, uh, spread across a lot of different, um, projects over the past several years. So that's what the goal of a study session, and I think that, Um, it could even be done on the, on the same, the same day because, um, You know, it would, maybe that's not how we normally do it, but, it is possible, it can be done.

[06:32:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So I, I, do you have more council member, I think, from what I heard from the city attorney, we need to take a, take a straw pull to see if there's interest. Is that right? Say your show front that I'm did I miss that?

[06:32:20] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, that's correct. And I, I, I, I do want to just be very careful that, uh, there's clarity from, uh, clarity to the community development, director, and public works director, what the, what this study session would, uh, comprise of, because the, the tenants and community have already been notified of this opportunity, this actually will be the public hearing for, Uh, this this item. So, I just want to be clear that that there needs to be, um, you know, direction what the study session would would entail, and I would ask Dawn and RT if there is clarity, uh, on those points. And, and yes, we would need, you know, uh, council majority support for this.

[06:33:17] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, um, City Attorney Chopra.

[06:33:20] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Okay, thank you. We did want to clarify and try to understand the subject. of the study session, whether it was general, um, concerns about displacement, or specifically the gamble way project. Because that would then help us understand, um, the timeline to bring the public hearing back.

[06:33:41] Councilmember Sally Lieber: I think specifically gamble way. That's what's before us. That's the opportunity that we have because we, We can't go back and look at Rock Street. I mean, we could rehash anything. Um, but this is what's before us right now and, and this is what we've heard from the public that, um, that they would like to see.

[06:34:06] Public Works Director Don Cameron: So if I may, um, if it's about gamble way, whether it's about the development proposal itself or the potential vacation and sale of gamble way, when we say a public hearing, it means we will be paying all the necessary information forward, and it will have the same ability for the public to review and comment on it as a study session would. Uh, and for the council to fully deliberate and discuss. So, if it's a gamble way study session that was held the same night as the public hearing, um, it's the same information, you're still gonna be making a decision that night. So, if we're sticking with September 28th, you could achieve what you're after as part of the public hearing itself. If the request is to have a study session in order to have time to take things in and then come back and do a public hearing later. What that would, at least on public works side, that's pretty simple. We just have you adopt a new notice of intent with a new public hearing date. And annull the September 28 date. That's pretty simple. I think on the other side, though, um, the development approval side is the part where the community development director will deep to weigh in because, um, don't know if there's permanent streamlining act or other, um, issues involved in terms of, of timing for the development. Um,

[06:35:44] Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava: in terms of, I think you're right. Um, um, Don did, did, did, um, sort of encapsulate my thoughts. The council, if the council moves sort of the public hearing, they still have the same ability to take an input from the public, but there would be a decision. Um, if you went with the study session, then the council would not be making a decision on the project, they would just provide direction. Um, we would not recommend having a study session and a public hearing on the same project at the same night, because it could cause a lot of confusion. Um, to the public about what exactly was going on with the project. And so we would recommend either, if a study session is to be scheduled, um, to schedule it no earlier than September 28th, to give us time to notice. Um, if the intent is to, um, have more of the public speak, and then we would have to take back any input from the council, whether it was about, you know, the gamble way sale or the project itself. Um, and then come back to you later with a public hearing. So it does change the timeline of the project.

[06:37:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So, council member, do you mind clarifying for your colleagues and staff, what you'd like to do?

[06:37:08] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, I think the difficulty of simply taking public input on the vacation of the street and easements is that it demonstrates that it's a semi-foregone conclusion that, no matter what they say, we are going to move to, um, what we've put on the agenda is, um, As the action. And what we heard from the community tonight was that, um, they would like to see an additional step in between. And, so I think, from what staff has said, a logical way to do it would be to do a study session on the 28th, and then, um, be able to, um, Uh, have the, the vacation of the easement be considered on, uh, October 12th. And, um, I just think that, um, that the community is asking for this additional step.

[06:38:24] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Council member Lieber and council members, uh, I do need to step in and, and just remind council that, that this project and the action that you took tonight, all were the result of direct council action, deciding on this project. And, um, while there is, you know, heightened public interest in this project, uh, we need to remember that council gave staff clear direction on this project and and acted to put it into motion. And also, I need to speak to the limitations of the forum, such as a study session. There's no action that's allowed to be taken at a study session, so the efficacy or the, the result of a study session, it, it wouldn't accomplish, um, anything that would be different than counsel's direction on this project. So, um, I hope that's clear that, that I just need to remind counsel of, of your own direction on this, approving this project and this path that started tonight with the notice of the vacation and the notice of the other actions for September 28th. So I caution counsel, the more I've had a chance to consider this tonight. Uh, that scheduling a study session that could result in some input that's different than, than council's previous, you know, formal direction, uh, you know, I would caution against that. Perhaps there's a opportunity to, uh, in, in furtherance of the, the, or in anticipation of the September 28th hearing to, uh, provide additional outreach or notice on parameters of what is being considered on the 28th, but the more I've had a chance to consider this tonight, you know, it just being brought up tonight, I would caution against the use of a study session for this purpose.

[06:40:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. All right, so, just to circle back. So, um, council member Lieber, how would you like to, um, proceed.

[06:40:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, I, I think that the, um, city attorney summed it up well that a study session would not have a, um, a directed and specific outcome, and I think that's why we should not be um, denying the public, um, the access to a study session. And, um, so, uh, I'd like to, um, encourage other council members to, um, uh, also indicate their support for, uh, giving the community that, um, that opening.

[06:41:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So it sounds like Council member Liever would like a study session on Gamble Way. Um, and so, uh, we just need to take a strong motion on that. So I think we've had robust conversation on this. So just like to close, close this out. Council member Hicks.

[06:41:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I was just gonna express support for that as well. Sorry, I kind of beamed in from somewhere else. halfway through this discussion, so I think I know what's going on. And yeah, I think the community wanted a little more open ended forum and uh, kind of to hear where everyone's coming from and digest it and then have the public hearing. So, I, in my mind, that's what the purpose would be, and that's what I would support.

[06:42:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, um, I'm just gonna ask folks to, um, raise their their hand if they're, um, in support of a study session on gamma way. Okay, so I see 2 hands. So I think that that motion fails. Okay. All right, anything else for item 8 council? Uh, staff committee reports. Council member Matachek.

[06:43:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So since the last time we got together, um, I've participated in 3 board meetings, um, the Santa Clara County airport land use commission. The Silicon Valley, Regional Interoperability Authority, and the Bay Area Waters Fly and Conservation Agency. That one is always interesting because we talk about the state of, uh, our water resources, and we are very fortunate that, um, Mountain View is primarily served by the head Chechi system, because unlike other reservoirs, Um, the Hchechi system is in, um, fairly decent shape. But as I said last time, that doesn't mean go out and waste water. Um, you know, we're all in this together, so we all need to conserve. Um, but, um, you know, it's, it's good, we have the Hitachi system serving Mountain View. Um, I also want to bring up um, a couple items. Well, I'm losing my voice giant. Maybe it's all the smoke of the air. Um, Uh, We've learned that not all of our um, appointees are, um, filing their FPPC, um, forms in a timely fashion. And even though we have a cancel policy on that, I would like us to maybe revisit that to see what it says and maybe talk about, um, you know, um, maybe deadlines or something that you have to do it, not that you just have, you know, I think it just now says you have to do it. But something that is maybe more of a forcing mechanism. And so I'd like to refer that to the CPPC. If folks are in agreement with that.

[06:44:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And I think just to clarify, these are the council appointees to boards and commissions that we would be looking at for CPPC.

[06:45:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, our own boards and commissions.

[06:45:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, yes, not ones in the county or other cities. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to make sure we were clear. So, um,

[06:45:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: per the direction from City Attorney in Shopra, earlier, we'll just do a straw motion to see if there's support of council member Matachek's, um, item. So, um, all those in favor of looking at our, our own city council appointee, um, FPPC filing via the RCPP. C, C. Thank you. All right.

[06:45:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: on the council policy on that.

[06:45:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah. The council policy. Thank you. Yeah. All those in favor of that. Okay, looks like one, two, three, four. Okay, so it's like the motion passes.

[06:45:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: That's it, thanks.

[06:45:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thanks, Councilor Matchchek. All right. Okay, here it's okay. mute you. Okay, there you go.

[06:46:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And then, um, I just wanted to report, um, that I attended our our ETA pack meeting this month from August. We haven't met the last 2 months due to the tragedy, but ETA. Um, we were able to to meet again, um, on August um, 12th. So just wanted to share that update. And I think if I don't see any other hands, we can move on to item 9.

[06:46:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. So, um, item our item 9 is our closed session report. City Attorney of Chopra. Do you have a closed session report?

[06:46:40] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report to nightmare.

[06:46:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Great. Thank you. And then we'll move on to item 10 adjournment. So thank you so much for joining us, everyone, for our 1st meeting back after the summer break. Our next regular city council meeting will be on September 14th, 2021. Until then, stay healthy and our meeting is adjourned at 1216 AM. Everyone have a good day. All right, bye.

[06:47:20] Unknown Speaker: Hi, Heather. Good night. Thanks, guys.

[06:47:27] Unknown Speaker: See, Josh.

• ← Previous
• Next →